|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1293
... ...
... ... ..... g in the instant appeal. Hence, the ground of appeal No. 10 of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 12.1 The 7th ground of appeal filed by the revenue is general as there is no specific issue of allowing set off of suppressed sale consideration as against availability of unaccounted money. 12.2 Before parting this appeal, it is mentioned that the assessee in assessee in his written submission has stated that no addition can be made because there has been no incriminating documents found during the course of search. This issue is academic because the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 is a regular assessment after the search as search took place in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. Hence, it is a case of regular assessment made u/s 153A and it is not case of re-assessment. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1292
... ...
... ... ..... lied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant is concerned, it is required to be noted that the facts of the above cited decision are materially different from that of the present case. In the above cited case, the case before the High Court was that the other directors were not made a party to the FIR, which is not so in the present case. Hence, the above cited decision will not be of any help to the present applicant. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in light of the allegations levelled against the applicant, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. For the foregoing reasons, present application fails and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1291
... ...
... ... ..... parties - 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP 2. Whether defendant No. 1 is passing off its product as that of the plaintiff by using the trademark „NIFTAS‟? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction claimed by it? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts, claimed by it? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery up of the infringing packaging material, etc.? OPP 6. Relief. No other issue arises or is claimed Affidavit by way of evidence be filed within two weeks. Shri Brajesh Kumar, former Additional District & Sessions Judge is appointed as Local Commissioner to record the evidence of the parties. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at ₹ 50,000/-, which shall be paid by defendant No.1. The parties are directed to appear before the Local Commissioner on 19 th September, 2011 for fixing the dates for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1290
... ...
... ... ..... lied on by the ld. DR are distinguishable on facts. In the case of - Akbar Travels of India (P) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Settlement (2010) 236 CTR (Bom) 37, (ii) Sahitya Mudranalaya & Ors. Vs. Incometax Settlement Commission & Ors. (2009) 312 ITR 115, and (iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 259 ITR 449/475 (SC) relied on by him the issue before the courts was chargeability and computation of interest u/s 234 consequent upon settlement of case by the Settlement Commission. In the case -the South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, the issue before the court was charging of interest u/s 234B(3) of the Act. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in holding that in this case interest u/s 234B should be charged for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000 i.e the date of the regular assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore the order passed by him is hereby upheld. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 5/8/11.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1289
... ...
... ... ..... terial on the record to show that any such offer had been made by these appellants as referred to by the adjudicating officer. This being so, in the case of these appellants as well, the penalty for executing manipulative trades should be ₹ 3 lacs each. However, Astrols Dealcom Private Limited the appellant in Appeal no. 119 of 2011 has also been found guilty of not responding to the summonses issued to it by the investigating officer during the course of the investigations. For this non compliance, a sum of ₹ 1 lac has been imposed as penalty. The learned counsel for the appellant could not seriously challenge the findings of the adjudicating officer in this regard. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these appeals and dismiss the same. However, the penalty on each of the appellants shall be ₹ 3 lacs and in the case of Astrols Dealcom Private Limited it shall be ₹ 4 lacs. The impugned orders shall stand modified accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1288
... ...
... ... ..... d Arbitrator. It is clarified that the parties are at liberty to raise all the issues including existence of arbitration clause. Application is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1287
... ...
... ... ..... 2011 for admission/denial of the documents. IA No.6793/2011 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC by plaintiff) and IA No.9431/2011 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC by D-4) Both the applications are disposed with the following directions The interim order granted on 29.04.2011 in IA No.6793/2011 is made absolute. IA No.9431/2011 is also disposed of in terms of order dated 01.06.2011 wherein the statement was made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has no intention to assign the trade mark INDANA to any third party. The said statement shall continue during the pendency of the suit.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1286
... ...
... ... ..... part of a trade or corporate name, as a metetag or otherwise on the internet or the world wide web, or in any other manner whatsoever so as to infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs or pass of f their goods or business as and for the goods or business of the plaintiffs. (ii) The defendant shall also stand restrained from transferring, disposing off or in any other manner alienating the domain name coke studio.in to the first plaintiff. (iii) A direction is issued to the National Internet exchange of India C/o ISPAI (Internet Services Provider Association of India) 612-A, Chiranjit Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 to block the said domain name so that the defendant is unable to use or transfer the same to a third party. In case the defendant seeks to transfer the domain name to the first plaintiff, it is made clear that this order shall not come in its way. The plaintiff shall comply with the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC within ten days from today.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1285
Waiver of redemption Fine - stay petition - Held that: - In view of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, there is no requirement to pre-deposit the amount of redemption fine for filing appeal before the Tribunal - the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... to other aspects which have been touched by the learned Authorised Representative, then also it has to be held that the addition could not be made in the case of the assessee simply on the basis of report obtained from DVO particularly in the circumstances when the assessee has produced on record the comparable instance which is more appropriate than the instance applied by the DVO and also on the ground that no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the Revenue to suggest that the assessee had in fact invested more amount than the amount stated in the title deed. The case law relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative duly support such proposition. The addition being unwarranted in law requires deletion. Accordingly, it is held that the addition has wrongly been sustained by learned CIT(A) and the same is deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1283
... ...
... ... ..... y crept in and the said direction/observation would not be required in the application filed by the Transferee Company. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocate for the applicant and the said order dated 28.07.2011, the request is granted. It is directed that the words “and the creditors” in sub para (e) on page 14 of the said order shall stand deleted. 7. The office is directed to make necessary correction and if certified copy of the order is already issued, fresh certified copy with appropriate correction may now be issued after giving effect to the aforesaid direction. 8. It is further clarified that the second word in third line (from the top) on page 14 i.e. the word “scheme” shall stand substituted by the word “proceedings” so that the third line (from the top) on page 14 shall read thus “the proceedings and inviting objections if any and” 9. The speaking to minutes note stands dispose of accordingly.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1282
... ...
... ... ..... ndant. There is no explanation why the plaintiff has not filed any proceedings against Mysore Scents Company for infringement of the mark/logo. This does not indicate a concern for the company. 43. The contention that the defendants' action is not bona fide as defendant No.2 was constituted on 30th May, 2007 i.e. prior to the family settlement is of no relevance. The family settlement may well have been entered into on 30th July, 2008. It can hardly be suggested that the disputes started, the negotiations ensued and the family settlement was arrived at all in a single day. In all probability, these disputes were going on for some time and the broad parameters thereof were settled or were likely to be settled. It is not unnatural that in anticipation thereof, parties took steps, including the formation of the second defendant. 44. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs fixed at ₹ 15,000/- which shall be paid within eight weeks from today.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... overnment of Assam and having members from the representatives of the Gauhati municipality and other authorities, and also representatives of the associations of wholesellers of fruits and vegetables and grains etc., as well as representatives from the electricity department, water department, telephone department, police etc. This Committee shall form a rational plan for allotment of the existing wholesale markets inside the Gauhati city to the new wholesale market (which will be constructed, if has not already been constructed). 21. All wholesellers inside Gauhati city shall be allowed to apply for allotment for adequate land for the wholesale market at the outskirts of or beyond Gauhati city. If such applications are made the same will be decided in a fair and non-arbitrary manner without any pick and choose. The entire exercise including allotments must be completed within one year from today. 22. With the observations made above, the appeals stand disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1280
... ...
... ... ..... at a connected matter (Civil Appeal No. 5642 of 2009 Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Nashik) is also pending consideration in this Court. Appeal has been admitted in those matters and an order was passed for expeditious hearing of the matters. Let these matters be tagged with C.A. no. 5642 of 2009.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1279
... ...
... ... ..... carried out. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the said orders, a refund order dated 15th September, 2008 has also been issued. In light of the said order, we are of the view that the present appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1278
... ...
... ... ..... the actual expenditure incurred for earning of tax free income then the application of sec. 14A is ruled out. She has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Yatish Trading Co P Ltd vs ACIT reported in 129 ITD 237. 3.1 On the other hand, the ld DR accepted the proposition that in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd (supra) Rule 8D is not applicable for the Assessment Year under consideration; therefore, this issue required to be adjudicated afresh. 4 In view of the above, we remit this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law and in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd (supra) as well as the decision relied upon by the ld AR in the case of Yatish Trading Co P Ltd (supra). 5 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the 5th day of Aug 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1277
... ...
... ... ..... rokerage to the sub-brokers for mobilizing business in securities was not required to deduct the tax. In this view of the matter the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of NSE charges is also not justified. 5. Thus both the disallowances are deleted and the first ground is allowed. 6. The second ground relates to the disallowance of travelling expenses of ₹ 34,690/- and miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 27,062/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce all the vouchers. The Assessing Officer has estimated the disallowance at 10 of the expenditure. After hearing both the sides and after going through the records we find that the disallowance is somewhat on the higher side and therefore the same is reduced to 5 of the total expenditure. The ground is partly allowed. 7. Ground Nos (3) and (4) are general and require no decision. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1276
... ...
... ... ..... t are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed since the final assessment order and the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued in gross violation of the interim order of this court. The same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be enforced. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost. 41. Before parting, the court records and cautions the petitioner that it is always appropriate to bring on record subsequent proceedings initiated by an authority after the filing of the writ petition, and if an order has been passed by an authority which is pre-judicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same should be brought on record with a specific prayer for its quashing. In the present case, subsequent proceedings have not been brought on record, which was however not fatal to the result of the case, but, nonetheless it has an impact on the ultimate result of the case.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1275
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation even when their forest land is acquired by the government, merely because the appellants had not derived any income from the said forest - HELD THAT:- The present case is a case of payment of `no compensation' at all. In the case at hand, the forest land which was vested on the State by operation of law cannot be said to be non-productive or unproductive by any stretch of imagination. The property in question was definitely a productive asset. That being so, the criteria to determine possible income on the date of vesting would be to ascertain such compensation paid to similarly situated owners of neighboring forests on the date of vesting. Even otherwise, revenue authority can always make an estimation of possible income on the date of vesting if the property in question had been exploited by the appellants and then calculate compensation on the basis thereof in terms of Sections 18(1) (cc) and 19(1) (b) of KUZALR Act. We therefore find sufficient force in the argument of the counsel for the appellants that awarding no compensation attracts the vice of illegal deprivation of property even in the light of the provisions of the Act and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction. That being so, the omission of the Section 39(1) (e) (ii) of the UPZALR Act 1950 as amended in 1978 is of no consequence since the UPZALR Act leaves no choice to the State other than to pay compensation for the private forests acquired by it in accordance with the mandate of the law.
In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed while upholding the validity of the Act and particularly Sections 4A, 18(1) (cc) and 19 (1) (b) of the KUZALR Act, we direct the second respondent, i.e. Assistant Collector to determine and award compensation to the appellants by following a reasonable and intelligible criterion evolved on the aforesaid guidelines provided and in light of the aforesaid law enunciated by this Court hereinabove. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ six percent per annum on the compensation amount from the date of dispossession till the date of payment provided possession of the forest was handed and taken over formally by the Respondent physically and provided the appellant was totally deprived of physical possession of the forest. However, we would like to clarify that in case the physical/actual possession has not been handed over by the appellants to the State government or has been handed over at some subsequent date i.e. after the date of vesting, the interest on the compensation amount would be payable only from the date of actual handover/physical possession of the property in question and not from the date of vesting. In terms of the aforesaid findings, the present appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1274
... ...
... ... ..... grounds of detention and the detention order. Petitioners have not chosen to file the same. The Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, in case, in future any detention order is passed, petitioners shall have liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.
........
|
