|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 917 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1255
... ...
... ... ..... uch proceeding/action is shown to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. The court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the action of the Corporation and substitute its decision for the one taken by the Corporation. 10. In the present case, it is not clear as to how the Petitioner has locus standi to challenge either the cancellation order or the eviction notice. Even if it is taken that the original allottee's company was amalgamated with the present petitioner, they have no right to challenge the same. Such amalgamation came long after the cancellation. Even now, there is no explanation for not proceeding with the construction. There is clear violation of Clause 18 of the condition of allotment. This court do not find any unreasonableness in the action taken by the Respondents. Hence there is no case made out. 11. The writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1254
... ...
... ... ..... ting unfairly or unreasonably mean? Does it mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can sit as an appellate authority over the acts and deeds of the corporation and seek to correct them? Surely, it cannot be. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226. Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints - self-imposed undoubtedly - of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless. Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. This will not prevent the Petitioner from filing his explanation and the time for filing explanation is extended by another fifteen days from today. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1253
... ...
... ... ..... ide letter dt. 18.1.2010 before the learned CIT(A) justifying its claim for travelling expenses has not been considered by the learned CIT(A) while deciding this issue vide his impugned order as the said order was passed on 14.1.2010. A copy of the said letter dt. 18.1.2010 filed before the learned CIT(A) is placed on record before us and a perusal of the same shows that the learned CIT(A) had no occasion to consider the submission made therein in support of the assessee s case while deciding the issue under consideration vide his impugned order which was passed on 14.1.2010. We, therefore, deem it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter back to him for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Sept., 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1252
... ...
... ... ..... upheld. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.P.Talati, Sr.D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee. 6. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance of Rs. 8,26,856/- under section 40A(2)(b), following his order for the assessment year 2005-06. The view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in the assessment year 2005-06 has been upheld by the ITAT A Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.2055 2056/Ahd/2008 (supra). We, therefore, following the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,26,856/-, which was made by the AO under section 40A(2)(b) in the assessment year under appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30/09/2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1251
... ...
... ... ..... uestion raised by the revenue in the assessee s own case being Income Tax appeal No. 4924 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 21/2/2011. For the reasons state therein, the present appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1250
... ...
... ... ..... s, payment of the service charges towards the e-auction service and payment to the lessees as per para 2 (x) above. The CEC may for the present be permitted to release funds to the Monitoring Committee for meeting the expenditure towards monitoring, online linking of weigh bridges with e-permit system and related activities. The amount paid by the CEC may be reimbursed to it in due course of time and as per directions of this Hon ble Court. 5. The above modalities for sale and keeping the account of the sale proceeds of the existing stock of the iron ore may also be made applicable in respect of the manganese ore available in the respective mining leases. This Hon ble Court may please consider the above Report and may please pass appropriate orders in the matter. Thus, Order passed by this Court on 2 nd September, 2011, be read with this Order so as to provide more clarity on the aspect of recommendations made by CEC on 1st September, 2011, and their acceptance by this Court.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1249
... ...
... ... ..... treated as capital expenditure. The licence fee paid by the assessee is not a one-time fee giving the assessee licence to use the software for prescribed number of years. The fee, which the assessee has to pay each month depending upon the number of IDs taken by it, is in the nature of revenue expenditure and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same. The ground of appeal No. 8 is allowed. We have already followed few decisions, however, the issue is covered 60 further by these decisions 1. Joint CIT v. Citicrop Overseas Softwares Ltd. 2004 85 TTJ (Mum) 87; 2. IBM India Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) 2007 290 ITR (AT) 183 (Bang); 105 ITD 1; 3. GE Capital Services India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 2007 106 TTJ (Del) 65; and 4. CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. 2008 304 ITR 84 (Mad); 220 CTR 298. 60. Therefore, ground No. IV of the Revenues appeal is dismissed. 61. In the result, both appeals are partly allowed. 62 The order signed, dated and pronounced in the court on September 30, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1248
... ...
... ... ..... ational features, that the assessee has been granted registration under sec.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot deny the benefit of sec.11 to the assessee only on the basis of status claimed by the assessee. The exemption can be denied for violation of other conditions laid down in sec.11, 12 and 13. The assessing authority has no such case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of sec.11 to the assessee. 8. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9. The three cross objections filed by the assessee in fact, support the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the cross objections are also liable to be dismissed. 10. In result, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday, the 7th of September, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1247
... ...
... ... ..... hat the assessee had withdrawn the amount for purchase of property and since the same did not materialize and the cash was deposited in the bank account, deserves to be accepted, particularly when the assessee s source of income is only the income from house property i.e. rental income. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that the assessee has satisfactorily proved the source of deposits made in the bank account and, therefore, there is no justification in making the impugned addition. We may also add here that both the authorities below had treated the amount in question as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In fact, they have not given any cogent reason regarding the addition. We, therefore, delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 21 st day of September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1246
... ...
... ... ..... the DRP has summarily sustained the order of the TPO and the AO. The DRP is entrusted with the duty of dealing with the objections of the assessee judicially. There is no speaking order of the DRP on the objections of the assessee. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the assessing authority with a direction to refer the matter to the DRP who in turn shall dispose off the assessee s objections judicially and by a speaking order. The DRP shall also take into consideration the judicial precedents on the issue and also order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1231 of 2010 dated 5/8/2011 in the case of M/s Genisys Integrating Systems India Pvt. Ltd., where similar issues have been considered. The copy of the order in the case of M/s Genisys Integrating Systems India Pvt. Ltd., shall be appended to this order. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Sept, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1245
... ...
... ... ..... ar,Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ashok Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Rajender Pd. Saxena,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv. Ms. Vishnu B.Saharya,Adv. ORDER UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following The special leave petitions are dismissed. 25% OPD and 10% IPD patients have to be given treatment free of cost. The said patients should not be charged anything. But that will not come in the way of the concerned hospital making its own arrangements for meeting the treatment/medicines cost, either by meeting the cost from its funds or resources, or by way of sponsorships or endowments or donations.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1244
... ...
... ... ..... ner challenged the order on the ground that once the award is made, the same is to be executed by the Executing Court and the said Court should have heard and decided the objection under Section 47 of CPC on merit 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order 7. Section 34 of the Act provides for setting aside the arbitral award. A detail procedure is provided giving opportunity to the aggrieved party to challenge the award. The said Act is a special Act and learned counsel below has rightly held that in view of the said provision in the Special Act and the previsions for setting aside the Award under Section 34 of the said Act, an objection under Section 47 of CPC on the ground covered by the provisions under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable 8. I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the order of learned Court below. There is no merit in this revision application. The same is accordingly, dismissed
-
2011 (9) TMI 1243
... ...
... ... ..... ve indicated broadly the scope of investigations to be carried out by CBI. There are number of other instances of illegal mining which are referred to in the Report of the Lokayukta. To begin with, we have focussed on the alleged illegalities undertaken by these two companies. As and when reports are submitted by CEC alleging similar illegal mining activities and other illegalities committed by other companies, we shall look into those reports separately. Thus, further directions will be given from time to time by this Court. (iv) CEC as well as the Joint Team have received a number of representations from the respective lease holders against the findings of the Joint Team. We hereby permit CEC to consider these representations after hearing the parties. The findings of CEC in this regard thereafter should be placed before this Court for appropriate directions. Place the matter on 30th September, 2011 for consideration of the application to be filed by the State of Karnataka.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... and the case laws as relied upon by the assessee's representative, I hereby confirm the addition of Rs. 50,000/- to cover any leakage of profit and which according to me would meet the ends of justice and the same balance addition of Rs. 5,08,821/- is deleted. 25. The AO substituted his own version in place of book version disclosed by the assessee, without rejection of books of account. The AO failed to bring any credible material on record to justify such addition made by him. On the other hand, the findings of the CIT(A) are well-reasoned and based on the proper appreciation of the legal and factual position, in the matter. In view of this, we don t find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the same are upheld. This Ground of Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 26. Ground Nos. 3 4 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th Sept., 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... pletion of the project has offered the income received on sale of TDR in the subsequent year AY 2008-09 and the same has been duly assessed. In these circumstances, sustaining the addition in the assessment year in question does not arise. Consequently, deleting addition of amount received by the assessee on transfer of TDR in the year 2002-03 by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1240
... ...
... ... ..... er the warranty provision. It is held by this Court in its decision dated 24th January, 2011 in ITA 1154/2009 in Commissioner of Income Tas Vs. Whirpool India Ltd. that such a warranty provision created in the aforesaid manner is allowable as deduction. While taking the aforesaid view, this Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. L td. Vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62. We may also note that for subsequent years this claim has been allowed by the Revenue itself. On the ground of consistency also such claim was allowable. We are, therefore of the opinion that no question of law arises on this aspect. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1239
... ...
... ... ..... ed. Therefore, any officer indulging into such acts could no longer be retained in the services of the Army, and the order passed by the General Court Martial could not be faulted. 19. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in passing the order whereby he declined to interfere into the decision rendered by the General Court Martial. There was no reason for the Division Bench to interfere in that order in an intra-Court appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge in no way could be said to be contrary to law or perverse. On the other hand, we would say that the Division Bench has clearly erred in exercising its appellate power when there was no occasion or reason to exercise the same. 20. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Division Bench, and confirm the one passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent stands dismissed, though we do not order any cost against the Respondent.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1238
... ...
... ... ..... y extend our Order dated 5th August, 2011, to the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga, by which we had directed ICFRE to undertake macro level EIA study in respect of district Bellary and to submit reclamation and rehabilitation plan. Consequently, the said order shall equally apply to the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga." The above-quoted paragraph of the Order dated 26th August, 2011, needs to be slightly modified as regards the period within which the Report is to be submitted in respect of Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga. We hereby extend the period for carrying out macro level EIA study and to submit reclamation and rehabilitation plan in respect of Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga by three months from the date of Order, i.e., 26th August, 2011. Since the exercise of carrying out macro level EIA study will be highly expensive, we direct that the said expenses shall be incurred under the ad-hoc CAMPA Scheme as per the decision of the adhoc CAMPA Committee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... service. 29. We accordingly dispose of the appeals as under (i) We allow Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2003 and set aside the order of the High Court quashing the order dated 22.12.1995. (ii) We allow Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2003 filed by the first Respondent and set aside the order of punishment dated 30.7.1993 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and substitute the same with the punishment of forfeiture of eight years of service for purposes of pension and severe reprimand. (iii) As a consequence of the punishment of dismissal being set aside and substituted by a lesser punishment necessarily, the order dated 22.12.1995 forfeiting the pension, passed under Pension Regulation 16(a), is set aside. The Respondents are directed to process and settle his pension claim within six months. (iv) The first Respondent will not be entitled to any back-wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his superannuation, as a consequence of his dismissal being set aside.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... out that the sum of Rs.24,000/- was paid to two persons at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per head. Similarly, the sum of Rs.1,75,702/- was paid to the 9 different persons at the rate of Rs.910/- per head and consequently, there was no necessity of deducting TDS as required under Section 194C and 194J of the Act. We find that once it is established that the sum of Rs.1,75,702/- was paid to 9 different persons under the head Security Service Charges, no question of deduction of TDS arose. Similarly, payment of the sum of Rs.24,000/- on the face of it did not require any deduction for TDS. We, therefore, find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are quite justified from the materials submitted before it and consequently, no substantial question of law is involved justifying the admission of this appeal. We, accordingly, summarily dismiss this appeal. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is also disposed of.
........
|
