|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 917 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1235 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .O. and confirmed of having received the money from the assessee and having filed their returns of income showing the said receipts as income. After taking into consideration all these findings/observations recorded by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, we find ourselves in agreement with the inference drawn by him that the payments made by the assessee on account of service charges to Mr. Suresh H Mansukhani and others were genuine payments made towards valid contractual obligation and the same being in the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with transfer of capital assets, were deductible in computing the long term capital gains arising from such transfer. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 28th day of Sept., 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 was that the project should have commenced on or after 1st October, 1998, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that in the present case, the conditions set out in section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not fulfilled. 4 The ITAT has recorded a finding of fact that Assessee has purchased the projects in question from M/s Sonal Venture in August, 2001 and that the plan in respect thereof was finally sanctioned by CIDCO vide letter dated 04.01.2002 addressed M/s Sonal Ventures from whom the assessee had purchased the land along with FSI. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that though the original plans were sanctioned prior to 01.10.1998, the plans were revised and the revised plans were sanctioned on 04.01.2002. Thus, the decision of the ITAT that the project commenced after 1st October, 1998 is a decision based on finding of fact. No question of law arises out of the order of ITAT. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1233 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion. Bhumidhari rights are different from ownership rights. Rights of bhumidhar, as tenure holder, have been created and protected by the Reforms Act. A bhumidhar can, however, transfer possession of land unless in contravention to the Reforms Act. Section 31 of the Reforms Act reads 31. Interest of a Bhumidhar to be transferable- The interest of a Bhumidhar shall be transferable subject to the conditions hereinafter contained. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that the provisions of the Reforms Act neither expressly nor impliedly prohibit or bar joint bhumidhars from entering into a family settlement to partition or divide their holdings. In the present proceedings, we are not concerned whether after the said partition there is violation of Sections 33 and 57 of the Reforms Act and the effect thereof. In case the said Sections are or have been violated, the consequences will follow. 18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with No. orders as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ITAT for AY 1990-91 has attained finality. In these circumstances, questions (h) & (l) cannot be entertained. 5. As regards question (i) is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that he is not pressing the said question as the ITAT has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v/s. Mercantile Bank reported in 291 ITR 137 (Mad). 6. As regards question (m) is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Allana & Sons reported in 216 I.T.R. 690 (Bom). Accordingly, question (m) cannot be entertained. 7. As regards question (n) is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. India Cements Co. Ltd. reported in 60 ITR 52 (SC). Accordingly, question (n) cannot be entertained. 8. Thus, the appeal is disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1231 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e above business loss, the dispute is in respect of ₹ 4,45,09,700/- alone. The balance loss also has been permitted to be set off. 9. The dispute regarding the sum of ₹ 4,45,09,700/- arose because the said loss relating to the assessment year 2003-04 has not been determined by the department in any lawful proceedings. The law states that the loss shall be allowed to be carried forward only if the return was filed before the due date. In the present case the return was filed belatedly. Therefore, it means that the said amount of loss for the assessment year 2003-04 has not been recognised under the provisions of Income-tax law. Therefore, the said amount cannot be carried forward, as rightly held by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 19th of September, 2011 at Chennai
-
2011 (9) TMI 1230 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ail during trial. 35. In my opinion, at the time of deciding the second bail application, the changed circumstances before the learned Trial Court was that, Respondent No. 2 remained in jail for 45 days. 36. Further, there is no apprehension of absconding by Respondent No. 2/accused, as he is employed as Section Officer in Ramjas College, University of Delhi. The suicide note was in Hindi; whereas the opinion of the handwriting expert is only given in regard to the signatures, which are in English. The co-accused has already been granted bail. It is noted that Respondent No. 2 had fully co-operated in the investigation, with the investigating agency during the interim relief granted to him. 37. For the reasons stated above I am of the considered view that no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is made out. The said order is a well reasoned order and I conquer with the same. 38. Hence, Criminal M.C. No. 1719/201 is dismissed. 39. No costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1229 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an application before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act, within a period of one month from today. If such an application is filed within a month, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, treating the application as having been filed within the period of limitation. 47. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference as follows The Securitisation Act has no overriding effect over the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. A tenant inducted in the premises before creation of the security interest cannot be summarily evicted under Sections 13 (4) and 14 of the Securitisation Act. We also hold that such a tenant, whose right, title, interest or possession is affected by a measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, would be entitled to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1228 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... o disclose truly and fully all material facts. Various decisions decided by Hon’ble High Courts are reported in case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd., 171 Taxman 379 (Del.), in case of Tanna Builders Pvt. Ltd., 283 ITR 448 (Bom.), in case of K.C.P, Ltd. 146 ITR 284 (AP), in case of Vareli Weavers Pvt. Ltd., 240 ITR 77 (Guj.) etc. therefore, without going into detail further, we hold that reopening of assessment was bad in law as the same was reopened after expiry of four years as the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, that too without bringing any material on record that any income has escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Accordingly we quash the assessment by holding that the same was bad in law. 34. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 35. The order is pronounced in the open court on 09.9.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1227 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... during the pendency of appeal, but while passing the judgment in appeal, the appellate court is not given discretion to exercise the power as provided under Section 389 (3) CrPC, therefore, the appellate court has no option but to take the accused in custody and send him to jail to serve the sentence. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner (accused) was not present before the appellate court at the time of pronouncement of judgment nor did he surrender as per requirement of law, therefore, in absence of his surrender, present revision petition is not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the petitioner had no right to file this revision against the order of Appellate Court. Otherwise also, there being concurrent findings arrived at by two courts below, no interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction is called for. Hence the revision deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The application seeking suspension of sentence, also stands disposed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1226 - RAJSTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgment in appeal, for filing revision petition before the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, the appellate court is not given discretion to exercise the power as provided under Section 389 (3) CrPC, therefore, the appellate court has no option except to take the accused in custody and send him to jail to serve the sentence. Admittedly, in the present case, the accused was not present before the Appellate Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment and he did not surrender as per requirement of law, therefore, in absence of his surrender the present revision petition is not maintainable. As per R.311 of the High Court Rules also, the petitioner, while filing revision has to file a certificate of his being into custody, which in the case in hand, had not been filed. In these circumstances, the revision petition is not maintainable on this ground itself. Hence deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1225 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Koothari (supra) held that where the payment has been made by the loan creditor by account payee cheque and goes through the bank account of the loan creditor, then it can be held that the assessee established the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. In the case before us, identity of M/s. Globe Stocks & Securities Ltd. is beyond doubt. The genuineness of the transaction recorded in the audited books of accounts of both the parties has not been disputed and the capacity of the loan creditor is also proved beyond doubt. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. C.I.T.(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The order of ld. C.I.T.(A) is, therefore, upheld and the ground of appeal of the department is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 06-09-2011
-
2011 (9) TMI 1224 - SUPREME COURT
Misuse of an arrest warrant - Offence punishable u/s 324 IPC - non-bailable warrant issued on failure to attend the court proceedings - urgency or promptness in execution of warrant led to undesirable interference with the liberty of the Appellant - Whether the Appellant is entitled to any compensation for the humiliation and harassment suffered by him on account of the wrong perpetrated by Respondent No. 2, in addition to what has been awarded by the High Court - complaint related to the year 2000, At the relevant time, the offence punishable u/s 324 was a bailable offence - warrant was executed at the behest of the complainant in order to denigrate and humiliate the Appellant at a public place, in public view, during the course of Independence day celebrations at Radio Club - HC held that, It is a clear case of unnecessary interference with the liberty of a citizen.
HELD THAT:- Viewed in this perspective, we regret to note that in the present case, having regard to nature of the complaint against the Appellant and his stature in the community and the fact that admittedly the Appellant was regularly attending the court proceedings, it was not a fit case where non-bailable warrant should have been issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In our opinion, the attendance of the Appellant could have been secured by issuing summons or at best by a bailable warrant. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the High Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of non-bailable warrant was manifestly unjustified.
It is trite principle of law that in matters involving infringement or deprivation of a fundamental right; abuse of process of law, harassment etc., the courts have ample power to award adequate compensation to an aggrieved person not only to remedy the wrong done to him but also to serve as a deterrent for the wrong doer.
Monetary compensation to victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are violated - Having considered the case, we are of the opinion that the Appellant does not deserve further monetary compensation.
Whether the Courts can at all issue a warrant, called a "non-bailable" warrant - Nevertheless, we feel that the endorsement of the expression "non-bailable" on a warrant is to facilitate the executing authority as well as the person against whom the warrant is sought to be executed to make them aware as to the nature of the warrant that has been issued.
In our view, merely because Form No. 2, issued u/s 476 of the Code, and set forth in the Second schedule, nowhere uses the expression bailable or non-bailable warrant, that does not prohibit the Courts from using the said word or expression while issuing the warrant or even to make endorsement to that effect on the warrant so issued. Any endorsement/variation, which is made on such warrant for the benefit of the person against whom the warrant is issued or the persons who are required to execute the warrant, would not render the warrant to be bad in law.
What is material is that there is a power vested in the Court to issue a warrant and that power is to be exercised judiciously depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Being so, merely because the warrant uses the expression like "non-bailable" and that such terminology is not to be found in either Section 70 or Section 71 of the Code that by itself cannot render the warrant bad in law. The argument is devoid of substance and is rejected accordingly.
In view of the aforegoing discussion, No. ground is made out warranting our interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We confirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal accordingly, but with No.
Guidelines while issuing non-bailable warrants - We feel that in order to prevent such a paradoxical situation, we are faced with in the instant case, and to check or obviate the possibility of misuse of an arrest warrant, in addition to the statutory and constitutional requirements to which reference has been made above, it would be appropriate to issue the following guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable warrants are issued by the Courts:
(a) All the High Court shall ensure that the Subordinate Courts use printed and machine numbered Form No. 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for;
(b) Before authenticating, the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant;
(c) The presiding Judge of the court (or responsible officer specially authorized for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon;
(d) The Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein;
(e) Every Court must maintain a register (in the format given below), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process;
(f) No. warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the concerned court shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the concerned case;
(g) A register similar to the one in Clause (e) supra shall be maintained at the concerned police station. The Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the Court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution;
(h) Ordinarily, the Courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long;
(i) On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the Court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station or the Officer In-charge of the concerned agency;
(j) The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse;
(k) In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and
(l) In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the Court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned authority, requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers. A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1223 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... case of Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in ITA No. 1680/Kol/2010 order dt. 7.1.2011 reported in (2011) 11 Taxman 328(Kol) and Revenue’s appeal was allowed by reversing the order of Ld. CIT(A) to hold that employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESIC could not be allowed u/s. 43B by taking it to be employers contribution. 27. In view of the above, decisions of Special Bench ITAT Kolkata (supra) and co-ordinate Benches ITAT Kolkata (supra) and for the reasons stated therein above, we hold that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the sum of ₹ 47,563/- towards Employees’ Provident fund contribution and ₹ 5,764/- towards ESIC contribution as the same was not paid within due date as specified in Explanation to Sec. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. 28. Hence ground No. 4 of the appeal taken by the assessee is allowed in part. 29. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced on this 28th day of September, 2011
-
2011 (9) TMI 1222 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titioners are poor farmers. If they are required to make application before the Income Tax Authorities, they would be required to engage the services of Chartered Accountants/Income Tax Practitioners, which would unnecessarily entail an expenditure for recovering the amount to which they are entitled in law. 8. In that view of the matter and peculiar facts involved in the present case, we allow the Writ Petition. The Respondent No. 3 shall refund the amount deducted from the compensation payable to the petitioners while passing the Award and deposited with it by Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 3 shall refund to the Respondent No. 2 the said amount with the interest accrued thereon in accordance with the provisions of relevant Act and Rules, within a period of six weeks from today. On receipt of the said amount, the Respondent No. 2 shall refund the same to the respective petitioners within a period of four weeks from the receipt thereof. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1221 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ks are exempt under the principle of mutuality.” 9. Having heard both the sides, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has decided the issue following the decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sagar Sanjog CHS ltd., in order (ITA Nos. 1972 to 1974 and 2231 to 2233/M/2005), wherein, it has been held that the interest earned out of the fund money invested went to reduce the maintenance expenditure and had there been surplus left after it being adjusted against the maintenance expenses, it would have been taxable. There is nothing on record that the interest amount would be given to the members of the society on dissolution of the Society. Hence, we approve the stands by the CIT(A) that interest received from other banks as exempt under the principle of mutuality. 10. Ground No.3 is thus dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2011
-
2011 (9) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t prior to 27th March, 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector had received any communication that the stay granted on 12th February, 1999 had been vacated and, therefore, he was absolutely right in not taking any action for proceeding further for making an award till 27th March, 2003. 21. In view of the above circumstances, one can surely believe that the Land Acquisition Collector could have proceeded further for making an award only after 27th March, 2003, when a certified copy of the order dated 23rd July, 2002 was communicated to him. 22. In view of the afore-stated undisputed facts with regard to communication of the said order dated 23rd July, 2002 on 27th March, 2003, and taking notice of all the aforestated facts we are of the view that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. 23. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1219 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ities, modernization and improving their marketing capabilities and those are for the assistance on capital account. This Bench by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1579 held that it was the quality of the payment that is the decisive of the character of the payment and not the method of the payment or its measure, and makes it fall within capital or revenue. Thus, in the case before us, the amount paid was really capital in nature. In view of the aforesaid decision in the case of Rasoi Limited supra , we, following the said decision, hold that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. Therefore, this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and consequently, is summarily dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1218 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssued to pay him Provident Fund, Gratuity and leave salary as might be admissible to him on superannuation. This Court had never directed that the High Court of Patna on its administrative side should consider the claim of the Respondent No. 1 regarding deemed promotions. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court has erred in law in directing the original Respondent No. 2 i.e. present Appellant to consider the case of promotion of Respondent No. 1 as also the consequential benefits in accordance with law by the impugned judgment. Thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds. The judgment dated June 27, 2008 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 6578 of 1990, directing the present Appellant to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for promotion as also consequential benefits, is hereby set aside. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in that event also it is the duty of the Court to verify his version carefully. Conclusion 50. As discussed earlier, the statement of approver (PW-6) inspires confidence including the conspiracy part which gets full support from the narration of the occurrence given by the eye-witnesses, more particularly, as to the deployment of some of the offenders for reporting to others about the movement of the vTMIictim. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, there is nothing wrong in accepting his entire statement and true disclosure of the incident coupled with corroboration of his evidence with the eye witnesses. We fully agree with the discussion and ultimate conclusion arrived at by the High Court and unable to accept any of the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the Appellants. 51. Under these circumstances, we confirm the ultimate decision arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1216 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal also does not warrant any interference. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, in the alternative, has requested for grant of time to pay the find awarded to avoid the default term of imprisonment. Taking note of the facts and circumstances presented and also the submissions made by the counsel, I find time as indicated hereunder can be provided for payment. 7. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Kochi on 21.11.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and to report the payment of the find. Till the date fixed as above, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of his sentence. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is dismissed with the above directions.
........
|
