|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1173 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... y of the activity carried on by the assessees in a systematic manner, it would partake the character of business activities carried on by the assessee in shares, and it cannot be said that the assessees have merely made investments in shares. In our opinion the findings of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as he has not considered relevant facts to decide the issue. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed.” 9. Since the issue under consideration is materially identical to the one decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Jain & Rupendar Kumar Jain (supra), respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the said case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance the depreciation on motor car registered in the name of the director - Held that:- The assessee is entitled to depreciation on the cars as though they are named in the name of director were to be used for the business of the assessee and not for personal use. Accordingly, we, while deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. and enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, allow the claim of the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1171 - ITAT CHENNAI
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- It is not the case of change of opinion which has resulted in initiation of proceedings under section 147 and 148. Therefore, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... possible steps to revive the company and the same would intern satisfactorily make out that purchase of shares by the applicant is with bona fide intention and transfer of shares is not sham and nominal and with any ulterior motive, but is made only for the benefit of the company. Neither the Official Liquidator nor the second respondent is able to make out any ground much less valid ground to doubt such bona fide of the applicant in involving himself in the affairs of the company. On the failure of the respondents to do so, this court finds no reason to invalidate the impugned transaction, but this Court is of the firm view that it warrants equitable consideration and statutory protection in the interest and benefit of the company. This court is hence inclined to reject both the legal and factual objections raised by the respondents against the impugned transaction and to grant the reliefs as sought for herein. In the result, both the applications are ordered as prayed for.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1169 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ;ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court had declined to grant them any extension of time for depositing the balance amount. 2. In the absence of any compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court to deposit the amount, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal for non compliance of pre-deposit as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (10) TMI 1168 - SUPREME COURT
Agreement of Hire Purchase - On Default of Loan Instalments Forcibly taken away the Vehicle from Lawful Possession - HC power in quashing of criminal proceeding - The respondent financers had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession and thus, committed a crime.
HELD THAT:- In an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is repossessing the goods owned by him. Therefore, The HC has rightly quashed the proceedings and no interference is required.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1167 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or any appeal, is tenable, normally Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not granted. 6. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the victim and the complainant are the same person and their complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, they should first exhaust the remedy available to them under the provision of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by preferring an appeal, before the learned Sessions Judge/ Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby refuse to give Special Leave to Appeal, the present petitioners, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ubi jus ibi remedium. Petitioners are not remedyless under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let the remedy by way of statutory appeal be exhausted first. Thus, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1166 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... omplainant, is required to take leave as there is no consequential amendment of Sec. 378 of the Code. 34. We, thus, find that the decisions cited are of no avail to support the contentions of Mr. Mehta. 35. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, answer the Reference as under Question No. 1 Appeal by the victim is maintainable. Question No. 2 Appeal by the State is maintainable. Question No. 3 If the victim also happens to be the complainant and the appeal is against acquittal, he is required to take leave as provided in Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code but if he is not the complainant, he is not required to apply for or obtain any leave. For the appeal against inadequacy of compensation or punishment on a lesser offence, no leave is necessary at the instance of a victim, whether he is the complainant or not. The Reference is, thus, disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to list the appeals and the application before the appropriate Court.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1165 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case would rule as to whether liquidated damages as prescribed in the contract are to be awarded or not. Even if there is a stipulation by way of liquidated damages, a party complaining of breach of contract can recover only reasonable compensation for the injury sustained by him and what is stipulated in the contract is the outer limit beyond which he cannot claim. Unless this kind of determination is done by the Court, it does not result into "debt". 15. What follows from the aforesaid is, merely by imposing penalty/liquidated damages, the respondents cannot be allowed to recover the same from other contracts being executed. Matter would have been different, if adjustment of this amount was made from the same contract. Impugned communication dated 11.06.2012 addressed to the respondents No. 04 to 42, therefore, does not stand the judicial scrutiny. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. The communication dated 11.06.2012 is hereby quashed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they are entitled to claim the Equity Stake in Continuum Managed Services amounting to ₹ 39.86 crores and/or ₹ 32.27 crores held in joint escrow account. (vi) The undertaking given on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 that in the event of its subsidiaries returning any loans aggregating to ₹ 50 crores, the same shall not be utilised by Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 and in any event they shall make their subsidiaries return an amount of ₹ 25 crores within a period of six months from the date of this order, which amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank and not utilize the same, is accepted. 19. The Application for further adinterim reliefs is accordingly disposed of. 20. The hearing of the suit is expedited and the Chamber Summons taken out by Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 seeking revocation of leave granted to the Plaintiff under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act is kept for hearing and final disposal on 30th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1163 - SUPREME COURT
Offence nder the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act - huge quantity of Schedule ‘H’ drug containing narcotic substance was being transported - Held that:- Since the appellants had no documents in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule ‘H’ drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and that too stealthily, it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practice as mentioned in the Notifications dated 14.11.1985 and 29.1.1993. Therefore, if the said requirement meant for therapeutic practice is not satisfied then in the event of the entire 100 ml. content of the cough syrup containing the prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellants’ failure to establish the specific conditions required to be satisfied under the above referred to notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said notifications in order to consider the appellants’ application for bail by the Courts below does not arise.
As far as the grievance raised on the ground that the appellants were illegally detained beyond 24 hours by the police is concerned, the conclusion of the High Court having been based on the satisfaction reached by it, we do not find any scope to interfere with the same.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1162 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... second situation, incurring of expenditure is never in dispute. The only dispute is how to treat that expenditure-revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. In our opinion in such a cases, penalty cannot be imposed u/s. 271(1)( c ) of the Act, as stated earlier. In the recent case, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd (322 ITR 158),the issue of claims made by the assessee with regard to imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been dealt in length. As, in case under consideration, details of expenditure incurred were furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, so, penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the FAA needs to be deleted. It is neither a case of filing of inaccurate particulars nor of concealing the particulars. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are decided in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dition is required. The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra before the Tribunal, which appeal was dismissed. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra , learned Senior Standing Counsel. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT 2010 328 ITR 513 has held that unless the books of account of Assessee are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer. In the present case we find that the books of account of the respondent-assessee has not been rejected and only certain expenditure has been disallowed and enhancement has been made in the cost of construction of the building on the basis of the Valuation Officer report. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion, that addition made on account of the report of the Valuation Officer was not at all warranted. The order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gain under Section 45 - Consideration received under the family settlement on transfer of right, title and interest in the family property - transfer under Section 2(47) - Held that:- ITAT following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi Narasinham and ors. [1966 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT] held that there is no transfer of assets in the family arrangement and the amount received by the assessee is part of the family arrangement and not towards the transfer of any capital assets and hence no Capital Gains Tax liability arises. In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of facts, hence no question of law arises.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dated 21-7-2010 and 22-7-2010 (Annexures 1 and 1A) as well as the Notice No. 3011, dated 30-7-2010 (Annexure-2) and seizure order dated 23-8-2010 (Annexure-3) with all consequential benefits. Cost is quantified to ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Let the cost be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month. In case the cost is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector concerned and shall be remitted to this Court. Out of the amount of ₹ 50,000/- an amount of ₹ 25,000/- may be drawn by the petitioner and the rest ₹ 25,000/- shall be remitted to the Mediation Centre of this Court at Lucknow. It shall be open for the State Government to recover the cost of ₹ 50,000/- from the pensionary benefit of the officer or officers concerned who are responsible for the impugned order of seizure. 25. Registry to take follow up action. 26. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1158 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a device to retain the illegally collected taxes by the State. This is equally true of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.” 18. It is true that some of the refund claims were made in the year 2010 and 2011. They must therefore have been processed after this Court rendered the judgment in case of Sal Steel Ltd. (supra). However, we have no details provided by the petitioners regarding the rejection of such claims. The dates of the orders passed by the authorities, the reason of rejection of the claims etc. In absence of such details, it is not possible for us to examine such cases also. 19. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to grant the prayers made by the petitioners in these petitions. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed. Notice is discharged in each petition. This will be without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to appeal against any of the orders rejecting their refund claims if such right is otherwise available.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1157 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the light of the allegations made and materials placed by the prosecution, the High Court was justified in granting bail, particularly, in the light of restriction imposed u/s 21(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) - HELD THAT:- the Respondent is having an association with the overseas base wanted accused. It also indicates that the Respondent knowingly handled the funds of the syndicate. The statement of one of the witnesses indicates that the Respondent had asked the said witness to collect a sum from the co-accused, however, the same was not materialized. In addition to the same, there is a statement of co-accused that he collected ₹ 15 lakhs from co-accused - Dattatray Bhakare and delivered it to the Respondent. The confessional statement further indicates that the wanted accused used to make calls using cell phone to the Respondent. The confessional statement also reveals that Accused No. 6 received ₹ 6 lakhs from the man of the Respondent - prima facie the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 4 of MCOCA attracts against the Respondent - accused. Considering the facts, particularly, in the light of the bar u/s 21(4) of MCOCA, the Special Court rightly rejected the application for bail filed by the Respondent herein.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court in Criminal Bail Application granting bail to the Respondent is set aside and the order of the special Judge is restored. In view of the same, the Respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the special Court is directed to take appropriate steps for his arrest.
The appeal of State of Maharashtra is allowed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1156 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... i, JJ. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1155 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 13. ) The Petitioner failed to perform their part as alleged. The parties, therefore, in view of change of circumstances, agreed to settle the matter and, therefore, the lump sum amount was paid as alleged. No amount was paid after March 2009. Though the Petitioner is denying the oral settlement, yet considering the facts and circumstances read with the documents on which strong reliance has been placed, I am inclined to observe that there is a bonafide dispute raised by the Respondent/company. The dispute, unless settled, through the Arbitration proceedings, as there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, I am not inclined to accept the case of the Petitioner that the amount is crystallized and, therefore, due and payable and the Company neglected to pay. The disputed facts are not speculative and illusory, unless adjudicated finally, there is no question of passing the order of winding up as prayed. ( 14. ) Resultantly , the Company Petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1154 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 010 conducted by the Group-I of Central Excise Audit-Delhi-IV, Faridabad was also made. 9. Essentially. a perusal of the order dated 14/06/2012 shows that the Petitioner No.2 (and not Petitioner No. 1) and his Chartered Accountant were mandatorily ordered to maintain strict confidentiality in relation to the information derived during inspection of the statutory records and only these two were injuncted from disclosure or using such information in any proceedings or forum except in CP No.34(ND)/2012 It cannot be ruled out that taking benefit of such a situation the application CA Noe420/20i2 has been filed only by P-2 at the behest of P-I Dr-Jang Bahadur Singh to facilitate copies of documents to JBS for using the same against the company- Thus the purpose of the application CA No.420/2012 does not appear to be bonafide, 10. I accordingly decline the prayers in CA No.420/2012 which is dismissed. The matter is already listed for final hearing on 15th October 2012 at 2.30 P.M.
............
|
