|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 917 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1215 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... High-Powered Committee would be binding on all concerned and would be implemented forthwith. 6. We request the High-Powered Committee to decide this issue as expeditiously as possible and we direct the parties to appear before the High-Powered Committee on 20-9-2011. In case the Chief Secretaries of various States do not respond within two weeks, as directed above, it would be presumed that, that particular State does not require additional foodgrains at AAY or BPL rates. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Planning Commission submits that the affidavit to be filed in pursuance of the directions of this Court, has gone to the office of the Prime Minister for vetting and the same would be filed within a week. Reply to that affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. 8. All those States who have not filed their affidavits may file the same within two weeks from today. 9. List this matter for further directions on 11-10-2011. Court Masters Copy Textarea
-
2011 (9) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... - per cottah on 8.1.1999 and ₹ 80,000/- per cottah on 25.6.1999. We may therefore, take ₹ 90,000/- per cottah as the market value of small developed plots by providing a 12% appreciation per year with reference to the sale price on 25.6.1999. By deducting 33.33% therefrom, the market value of undeveloped plots in 2000 would be ₹ 60,000/- per cottah. 28. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in part and reduce the compensation to ₹ 67,000/- per cottah for plot Nos. 62 and 42 and maintain the compensation at the rate of ₹ 60,000/- per cottah in regard to plot No. 272. The first Respondent will be entitled to the statutory benefits, that is, solatium, additional amount and interest in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants will be entitled to adjust the advance payment made with interest thereon at 15% PA from the date of such payments to 13.9.2000 towards the compensation payable. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g matters falling within the scope of Section 173 of the Code. Thus, generally, this Court may not require further monitoring of the case/investigation. However, we make it clear that if any of the parties including CBI require any further direction, they are free to approach this Court by way of an application. 13. Deferentially concurring with the dictum of this Court in the aforenoted decisions, we are of the opinion that in the instant case we have reached a stage where the process of monitoring of the case must come to an end. It would neither be desirable nor advisable to retain further seisin over this case. We dispose of this appeal accordingly. 14. Before parting, we direct the State of Gujarat to reimburse to Shri Raju Ramachandran, all the expenses borne by him for travel from Delhi to Ahmedabad and back. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered to us by Shri Raju Ramachandran and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, the learned Amicus Curiae.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1212 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... a Chandigarh Diocese Society 318 ITR 96 , 227 CTR 630 (P&H) , modified Form 10 may be furnished in the course of assessment proceedings and there is no specific bar prohibiting the appellant from modifying the figure of application. In the circumstances, the appellant prayed that the modified Form 10 may be accepted and allow them to accumulate the surplus for subsequent years. 19. The Modified Form 10 furnished by the appellant is in order based on the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant succeeds.” 6. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) and no contrary decision has been cited or filed before us from any higher forum, therefore, while following such precedent, we uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) on this score also. 7. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 09.09.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1211 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... genuine and there was a reasonable cause of payment in cash. In such a situation, the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Bhagwati Pd. Bajoriya (HUF) comes to the rescue of the assessee, because President of the Society is a person, who is part and partial of the society and at the time of need, it is expected that the society is helped, especially when the transaction was not ingenuine. A harmonious construction of section 269SS, 271D and 273B is that a construction, which preserve the exercise of power in favour of assessee Under the circumstances, which warrant it is to be preferred to a construction, which would result to non-denial of relief and vice versa is not the intention of the legislature, otherwise there was no need to bring section 273B on the statute, consequently, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tly the assessee drew the support from the exclusion clause under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. 22. Going by the object clause introduced by way of amendment under Finance Act, 1992, while respectfully disagreeing with the decision reported in 2010 325 ITR 223 CWT v. GIRIDHAR G.YADALAM, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 2010 325 ITR 528 APOLLO TYRES LTD., v. ASST. CIT, that the assessee is justified in its contention that the asset in question would stand excluded from the chargeability of the provisions of the Act. 23. In the circumstances, disagreeing with the view of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2010 325 ITR 223 CWT v. GIRIDHAR G.YADALAM and agreeing with the view of the Kerala High Court reported in 2010 325 ITR 528 APOLLO TYRES LTD., v. ASST. CIT, we confirm the order of the Tribunal, thereby rejected the Tax Case (Appeals) filed by the Revenue. 24. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are dismissed. No costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1209 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... establishes genuineness of the transaction and sufficiency of the Bank balance before issue of cheques establishes creditworthiness of the loan creditors. If the lower authorities have any doubt regarding credit balance, they can call the loan creditor by issuing summons Under Section 131. It is also well settled that source of source cannot be inquired into. Without calling the loan creditor, the ld. CIT(A) jumped to the conclusion that source of cash deposit in the Bank account was not explained by the Assessee. In the case of Bank statement pertaining to the loan creditor, only loan creditor can show the source and not the Assessee. In view of the documents placed on record, we are satisfied that the Assessee has discharged primary onus cast on it with regard to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. Accordingly, no addition was warranted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1208 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have hold that such 'bill of entry' cannot be termed to be an order of delivery in absence of 'bill of lading' or order of delivery; the finding at paras 13.4 and 14 of the judgment to that extent being erroneous we set aside such portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 84. Rest of the part of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, otherwise, having been based on correct appreciation of law requires No. interference. However, we make it clear that the order passed by learned Single Judge or this order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority to pass any order in accordance with law in case of any infirmity in the 'bill of entry'. 85. We find No. merits in the appeals, but in view of our finding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be No. order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Applications stand disposed of.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1207 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... und is due and payable, and the authority concerned, on being satisfied, shall grant appropriate relief.” Thus it is clear that a relief of the nature sought by the assessee has to be granted by the A.O., if it brings such issue to the notice of the assessing authority and if assessing authority finds that relief sought is justifiable. As for the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DPF Textiles Ltd. (supra), it has nothing to do with the scope of power of this Tribunal in a rectification sought invoking its powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. We do not find any mistake in the order of this Tribunal warranting rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act much less any mistake apparent from the record. Assessee’s appeal having been allowed, this Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 9th September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... le and at the most, the Tribunal can remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue as 154 order is passed recently. 12. We have heard both the sides on this point and find that as per order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 154 on 26.07.2010, the status of the assessee has been converted to HUF in place of individual, but this issue was not raised before the ld. CIT(A) and in view of the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Officer, in our considered view, the matter should go back to the Assessing Office for reconsideration of the status. As such, the orders of authorities below in this regard is set aside and restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh this issue after giving due opportunity to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed/statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 09.09.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1205 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sessee trust have been used for the benefit of any trustees or related persons, there is no reason to reject the application filed by the assessee. Earning of surplus by the trust by itself cannot be a reason to undo all other entitlements of the assessee. Generating surplus is not by that way against the provisions of law. Law intervenes only when the surplus is applied for purposes other than charitable purposes or when the authorities establish a case of profit motive in the activities carried on by the assessee. No such hazards are reflected in the present case. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax is not justified in rejecting the application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to grant registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. In result this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 19th of September, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1204 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were initiated and the assessment order came to be passed on 31.10.2001 where as the notice for assessment was issued on 26.10.1999. 3. Even though the Tribunal has set aside the order, the case of the revenue was it is a proceeding under Section 158 BD and not 158BC and therefore, the period of 2 years for passing the assessment order would not arise. The Tribunal has held that the premises of the assessee was searched on 13.07.1999. Again, it was searched for the second time on 02.08.1999. 2 year is the time premorbid for passing the assessment order from the date of last panchanams. Even though 02.08.1999 is taken as the date of last panchanams, the assessment order ought to have been passed on or before 31.08.2001. Therefore, it was of the view, it is overlay barred by time. These dated are not disputed. If that is so, the order of the Tribunal is legal and valid and do not call for interference. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1203 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e directed the A.O. to add back the sum of ₹ 13,82,541/- to the assessee's total income. We observe that the ld. C.I.T.(A) himself has upheld the disallowance of ₹ 99,46,758/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of transportation charges. We are of the view that the addition cannot be made simultaneously by applying provisions of sec. 40A(3) as well as sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which the ld. C.I.T.(A) has done in this case. Such action of the ld. C.I.T.(A) is not in accordance with law. Since we have already set aside the issue on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the file of the ld. A.O. and the ld. A.O. has already discussed the applicability of sec. 40A(3) of the Act in his order and dropped the proceedings thereof, we consider it to set aside this issue also to the file of ld. A.O. to decide afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1202 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r without associating the Assessing Officer with such proceedings or seeking remand report while considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision without giving appropriate basis and reasoning in order to bring the case of the assessee to be covered by such decision. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to have a fair play in the matter, we find it just and appropriate to set aside the orders of authorities below in this regard and restore the matter back on the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to redecide the issue afresh after obtaining necessary further details from the assessee and considering relevant provisions, case law, etc. by passing a speaking order in relation to depreciation claimed on digital content imported by the assessee after giving due opportunity to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 09.09.2011
-
2011 (9) TMI 1201 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d competent officer to man a particular post and for particular exigency is also a part of administrative management and good governance. The role of judiciary in such matters is very limited. The legal principles in this regard have already been discussed in this judgment. In the case at hand, although the record does not reveal any special proficiency of the Respondent No. 4 to bring him in the place of the writ Petitioner, but as noted earlier the executive is more proper authority to make the assessment as to which officer is suitable for which post and more particularly at given point of time. Hence, the doctrine of "two views" will be applicable in favour of the State authorities and not in favour of the transferee and the transferred officers. 23. For the reasons, stated herein above, we are reluctant to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Consequently, the writ appeal stands allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. The stay order stands vacated.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the assessee had given complete tally of quantity of stock purchased and sold. The same tallied with the original return and tax audit report also. The Tribunal further observed and provided as under “9. Since only reason for rejection of book account is that the sales are not recorded, but since we find that the sales are duly recorded in the regular books of account, the AO is directed to compute the profit on the basis of books of accounts. Since the addition to GP is not because of rejection of account and since the book results are acceptable even addition made on account of low GP is required to be deleted for all the years. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are allowed.” 5. From the above, it emerges that the reason for rejection of books of accounts itself was not found valid. Tribunal consequently, directed to compute the profit on the basis of books accounts. We do not find any substantial question of law arises. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1199 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4. In the present case, out of a share capital issue of ₹ 20 lacs, only ₹ 4,58,000/- was received during the year under consideration. Larger portion of ₹ 14,85,000/- was received in the earlier years and such credits had been accepted. The Tribunal, therefore, opined that it is thus stand proved that in the previous year, cash credit had been accepted and the identity and the credit worthiness of the creditors is established. Thereupon relying on the decision in case of Lovely Exports (supra.), the Tribunal was of the opinion that addition was not justified. The Apex Court was of the opinion that, if the share application money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department would be free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments. 5. We do not find any infirmity in the view of the Tribunal, the reasons given calls for no interference. Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1198 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o indicates the requisite intention to have revenge of the murder of their brother. They in furtherance of their common intention had fired one shot each. Though, fire shot by Narinder Singh missed, yet, he had physically participated in the commission of the crime. As such, it cannot be said that he had no common intention in the joint act which is the result of their combined activity. The common intention as well as mens rea in the case are well established, therefore, the trial court appears to have rightly convicted Narinder Singh with the aid of Section 34 IPC. No other argument has been raised. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the offence under Section 307/34 IPC. Since the offence under Section 307 IPC is a graver offence, therefore, conviction need not be recorded under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1197 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and file a statement in this Court within six months from today stating the amounts due to the Plaintiff-State from Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. (iv) On the amount found to be due to the Plaintiff- State for the period from 01.11.1966 in the case of Bhakra-Nangal Project and the amount found due to the Plaintiff-State for the period from the dates of production in the case of Beas Project, the Plaintiff-State would be entitled to 6% interest from Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 till date of payment. (v) With effect from November 2011, the Plaintiff- State would be given its share of 7.19% as decreed in this judgment. (vi) The Plaintiff-State will be entitled to a cost of ₹ 5 lakhs from Defendant No. 2 and a cost of ₹ 5 lakhs from Defendant No. 3. The matter will be listed after six months along with the statements to be prepared and filed by the Defendant No. 1 as ordered for verification of the statements and for making the final decree
-
2011 (9) TMI 1196 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of bail 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.
........
|
