|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 939 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t able to garner sufficient sponsorship for the event. This is another ground why the Petitioner cannot be granted any interim relief as prayed for in this petition. The interpretation to Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the sanction agreement advanced by the Petitioner cannot be accepted as that, prima facie, would render the said agreement void on the ground of it being opposed to public policy and without consideration. 63. For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss this petition with costs quantified at Rs. One lakh. Needless to state that I have examined the issues raised before me only at a prima facie stage and my discussion is limited for the purpose of considering the present petition under Section 9 of the Act. My observations shall not be binding on the arbitral tribunal which may be constituted to determine the inter se disputes between the parties, and the Tribunal shall arrive at its own findings on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led before it.
-
2011 (6) TMI 938 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... n this account ld. CIT (A) has sustained an addition of ₹ 50,000/-. The finding of ld. CIT (A) which is reproduced somewhere above in this order is, in our considered view, are finding of fact which does not require any interference. Accordingly without going further in detail, we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) in this case. 11. Similar facts are involved in case of other assessee i.e. M/s. Dhandia Exports. The ld. CIT (A) has decided this appeal also in similar fashion and, therefore, for the same reason, we hold that ld. CIT (A) was justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 50,000/- as certain purchases remained unverifiable. Accordingly, the orders of the ld. CIT (A) are confirmed in both the cases. 12. Cross objections filed by assesses were not pressed, therefore, they are dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the result, appeals of the department and the cross objections of the assesses are dismissed. 14. The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 937 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the statute. Common law rights are left wholly unaffected. Priority in adoption and use of a trade mark is superior to priority in registration.? The above said decision referred has been upheld by the Supreme Court which held that the suit for passing off on the basis of prior user against the registered proprietor is maintainable. 20. Thus, it is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur (where the things speak for themselves). In case one examines the two marks of the parties and the packing material used by the Defendants, the conclusion is very simple that the same is stolen property and stolen property can not become rightful property in any manner. 21. In view of the abovesaid facts, No. case is made out by the Defendants for vacation of the interim order. The ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 30.11.2009 is confirmed. 22. The present application is accordingly disposed of. 23. List the matter before Joint Registrar on 22.9.2011 for admission/denial of the documents.
-
2011 (6) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
|
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 - rejected the proposed sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) - sale of TDR which is moveable property - permission of the Charity Commissioner is not required u/s 036(1)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench has held that since TDR is a benefit arising from the land, the same would be immoveable property and therefore, an agreement for use of TDR can be specifically enforced. The said dictum of the Division Bench is later on followed by a learned single Judge of this court in the matter of Jitendra Bhimshi Shah ..vs.. Mulji Narpar Dedhia HUF and Pranay Investment and ors [2009 (3) TMI 1072 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The learned judge relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Chheda Housing Development Corporation [2007 (2) TMI 664 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the TDR being an immovable property, all the incidents of immovable property would be attached to such an agreement to use TDR. In view of the judgments of this court, in my view, the order of the Charity Commissioner that no permission under Section 36 is required as TDR is a movable property cannot be sustained and therefore, the application filed by the respondent no.2 - Trust u/s 036 of the said Act would have to be considered on the touch stone of the said Section 036 and also on the touch stone of the principles applicable to such a sale by a Trust.
In my view, therefore, the order dated 3/8/2009 is also required to be set aside and the objections of the petitioners would have to be considered de novo, in the context of the fact that the permission is now required and that the said applications would have to be considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner on the touch-stone of Section 036 of the Act. Hence, both the impugned orders dated 3/8/2009 and 12/7/2010 would have to be set aside and the directions are issued.
|
-
2011 (6) TMI 935 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eathed under the will. GA No. 778 of 2011 is dismissed with costs of 1000 GM to be paid to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within a fortnight from date and further costs of 5000 GM to be paid to the first and second defendants if the suit fails. This is a matter where the court should reserve its authority to deal with the parties for filing false affidavits, after the trial is concluded. Whether it is the plaintiffs’ or it is the contesting defendants’, one version is utterly dishonest and the court should not allow such a dishonest stand to be taken before it without taking the recalcitrant party to task after the trial is concluded. A copy of this order should be appended to the original plaint that will be placed before the trial court for appropriate action to be taken upon the culmination of the suit. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (6) TMI 934 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lai, this Court has held that under Sec.20, a person who was given a blank promissory note with signature can fill the same and file the suit. 34. Hence, the common judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants that the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, will enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs as the defendants have miserably failed to prove that they gave only blank promissory notes with signatures and section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, will not be applicable to the facts of the case, as it was not proved that the plaintiffs filled their name in blank promissory notes and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits under section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 35. In the result, the common judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is set aide and the suits are decreed and these second appeals are allowed. No costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 933 - ITAT, PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... charge of failure of disclosure /furnishing of relevant information. Accordingly, we set aside this part of the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter to the files of the AO for fresh on the matter. AO is directed to examine the note of the auditor left in the Auditor report to decipher the twin aspects of the intention and the disclosure of the particulars, which are the two eyes of the penalty proceedings, examine the reasons for delay up 3.3.1999 and also the delay from 3.3.1999 upto the date of filing of invalid revised returns, examine the sufficiency of the reasons for not compiling with the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act despite the availability of the order of the Commissioner of Sugar on 3.3.1999 etc and pass a speaking order in the matter. He shall also attend to the said legal arguments raised by the Counsel before us. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 22nd June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 932 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hile inspecting the goods in question, the petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantage. In the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that there was substantial compliance of the conditions laid down under the relevant notification and the circulars and that non-endorsement of triplicate copy of ARE-1 by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Vadodara under whose jurisdiction the manufacturing unit is located does not appear to be a substantive condition. The revisional authority was, therefore, not justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) stands restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 931 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. 27. We, thus, set aside the demand and allow the writ application. Let there be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (d) of the writ application and whatever amount has been received by the Revenue pursuant to the demand which we have quashed, be refunded to the writ petitioners/respondents within two months from today. The Revenue is also directed to refund the amount that has been paid by the respondents pursuant to our order dated 9th June, 2011 in this appeal within the aforesaid period; in default of payment of the amount within the aforesaid period, the same will carry interest at the same rate fixed by the Revenue for recovery of interest under the Act. 28. In view of our aforesaid order, the writ application itself is also disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 29. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties within a week from the date of filing of the application.
-
2011 (6) TMI 930 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here was absolutely no error on the part of the CIT (Appeals) in examining the papers produced before the Assessing Officer as necessary papers were already the part of the record. Again, it held that as no error was committed by the CIT (Appeals) as alleged and there was no question of holding that it had not followed be dictum prescribed under Rule 46A. 14. This Court after perusal of the record is of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no mistake either on the facts as on law while appreciating contention raised by the department with regard to the consideration of fresh evidence by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal in the opinion of this Court has given sound reasons to arrive at the conclusion which are challenged in this appeal. Not only there is no error in the findings, but the Tribunal had taken a pragmatic view of the situation to conclude in favour of the assessee and thus the appeal warrants no interference from this Court. Resultantly, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 929 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... finding recorded by both the authorities below that the loss to stock caused by fire would be considered in the year in which the insurance company has settled the claim is vacated. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the claim of the assessee in this behalf in the year under appeal. 9. We find that both the authorities below have decided the issue on the short ground that the loss claimed by the assessee was not liable to be allowed in the year under appeal but in the year in which its claim is settled by the insurance company. They have however not adjudicated upon the correctness of the computation of loss/claim as submitted by the assessee before them. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to consider and adjudicate upon the claim of the assessee on merits in the year under appeal, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the directions given above. Order pronounced on June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 928 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ted during the investigations. Not having done this, the principles of natural justice have been violated. While allowing the appeals and in addition to the directions proposed by the learned Members, I direct the Board to allow to the appellants full inspection of the material collected by it during the course of the investigations. Order of the Tribunal The appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. The prayers made in paragraphs 7(b) and 7(c) of the memorandum of appeals are allowed. The Board is directed to allow the appellants to cross examine the persons whose names are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application dated November 22, 2010 and also furnish copies of their statements to the appellants, if not already furnished. The Board is further directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously preferably within four months from the date of the order. The appellants should cooperate in concluding the enquiry in a time bound manner. There is no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 927 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e heard the rival submissions. We are of the view that in the light of the undisputed fact that both the flats were combined and used as one flat they are to be considered as self occupied. The fact that there were two separate agreement for purchase of flats would not mean that they were two separate properties. The CIT(A) was not justified in distinguishing the case of Suresh Sadarangani (supra) on the ground that the flats were situated one above the other, whereas in assessee’s case they were located adjacent to each on the same floor. The main aspect which should have weighed is the fact that though they are two flats, they were used as one flat and occupied by the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the annual value of Flat No.10 has to be taken as Nil. In view of the above Ground No.2 raised by the assessee does not require any consideration. 6. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 926 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y consultation as well as arbitration clause, although belated, does not defeat the respondent nos.1 & 2 to get a restraint order as an interim measure. Moreover, the balance of convenience and inconvenience stands in favour of respondent nos.1 &2. In case the application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is refused, the respondent no.3 will get ample scope to use of the proceed of right issue in discharging their obligation in the security of loan and, therefore, the financial condition of company will be at a stake. If the application is allowed, the company will survive. It is, therefore, quite justified to allow the application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and impose restraint order as a temporary measure for the protection of property. Therefore, the judgement and order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Alipore calls for no interference and are affirmed. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed but without any cost.
-
2011 (6) TMI 924 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Act itself on computer software, hence allowing such a depreciation which is in accordance with the law can not make the AO’s order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. We further find S.263 deals with AO’s order which is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the present case it is noted that the assessee undertaking is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act, hence even for arguments sake it is found that depreciation has been provided in excess there would not be any tax accruing on the same as the profits relating to it are exempt u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. 7. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that AO’s order can not be said to e erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence we set aside the order of Ld.CIT and decide the issue in favour of assessee. 8. In the result the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ew of the above discussion, we allow the appeals of the assessee and direct the A.O. to assess the rental income from leasing activity under the head business income. Consistently, we also allow the depreciation on the building as well as equipment provided by the assessee. Since we upheld the leasing activity of the assessee as a business activity, therefore, the AO is directed to allow the other incidental expenses such as electricity charges, security charges and repairs of the building.” As the issues involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of assessment year 1997-98 and 2001-02, we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 & 2001-02 and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on the said issues. 3. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 922 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against “ an order imposing a penalty under Chapter XXI” 6.2. In view of the clear provisions of section 246A(1)(q) of the Act, an appeal against the order passed under Chapter XXI can be preferred before the CIT(A). The provisions of section 271FA falls under the Chapter XXI of the Act. Thus, in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Act, these appeals cannot be admitted by us, particularly, when we have no jurisdiction under the law to entertain such appeals. Consequently, we dismiss all the appeals, for want of jurisdiction. 7. However, it is made clear that the assessee is free to prefer appeals against the order of the Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh, in right forum, if so advised. 8 In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 921 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ing Officer analyzed the same at particular stage. The statement of the assessee was recorded and detailed investigation was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings and no addition was made as referred in pages 513 to 517 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer had written a letter to the Chief CIT in this regard and requested to issue necessary directness for reopening the cases of the other persons as referred in pages 300-300A of the paper book. We have decided similar issue in favour of assessee in the case of Ramanlal shah vide para 4 of this order. Facts are also mostly similar. So, following same reasoning, we hold that the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer and hence the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 on this issue. Accordingly this appeal is also allowed. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th Day of June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 920 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... rest attributable to such advance of ₹ 257,699/-. 10. Now coming to the advances made to two parties i.e. Shri Bhushan Kumar and Dr.Tarsem Monga. The assessee claims that the said advances were made for the purchase of plot and as the deal did not go through, the amount was refunded in the succeeding year. However, the assessee neither before the authorities below nor before us has produced any evidence in respect of its claim of commercial expediency. In the absence of the same, we are in conformity with the orders of the authorities below, in applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of advance of ₹ 3,00,000/- is upheld. Ground of Appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 919 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ad and doubtful debts. Hence the provision for bad and doubtful debts are to be added back in computing the Book profits u/s 115JA in view of Explanation (g) to Sec 115JA introduced by Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998. 45. In this view of the matter having regard to the amendment to Section 115JA by way of introduction of explanation (g), we uphold the claim of the revenue and set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the assessing officer holding that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should not be deducted in computing book profit under Section 115JA. The appeal of the revenue on this issue is allowed. The Appeal of the revenue in ITA No 1646/M/06 for A.Y 1999-00 is partly allowed. 46. In the result the appeals by the revenue in ITA No. 1645/M/06 for A.Y 1997-98, ITA No 2394/M/07 for the A.Y 1998-99 and ITA No 1646/M/06 for the A.Y 1999-2000 are all partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2011.
............
|
