|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... ated 06-02-2012 for 1 crores, and 398936 dated 06-02-2012 for 50 lakhs drawn in favor of the petitioner on IOB bank towards full and final settlement of the claims of the petitioner. Which the petitioner have agreed and accepted. Therefore, in View of the above the present petition may kindly permitted to be withdrawn and disposed off accordingly in the best interest of justice. In terms of the memo, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1141
... ...
... ... ..... ond defendants would have to institute an appropriate proceeding to claim transfer and registration of the above shares, subject to all questions regarding its maintainability, its merits, including the point of limitation. Now, I come to the application made by the third defendant (G.A. 1598 of 2012 and the application made by the fourth defendant (G.A. 1603 of 2012) for deletion of their names from the cause title. The ground is that no cause of action is disclosed against them. I agree. The suit is for adjudging the 12th January, 2002 agreement as void, inoperative and incapable of being performed and for ancillary reliefs. Neither of the defendants is a party to this agreement. Nothing is pleaded against them. Each of these applications is allowed by ordering the deletion of the names of these defendants from the cause title. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1140
Legal heir - offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. - Held that:- Parties are Hindus and the law of heritance applicable to them is the Hindu Succession Act. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act sets out the general rules of succession in case of a male Hindu dying intestate, the property would devolve first up on the heirs specified in Class-I of the schedule and secondly, if there is no heir of Class-I, then up on the heirs specified in Class-II of the schedule; thirdly if there is no heir of any of the classes, then up on the agnates of the deceased and lastly if there are no agnates, then up on the cognates of the deceased. Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act provides the order of succession amongst heirs in the schedule. Those in Class-I take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs, there in the first entry in Class-II are preferred to those in the second entry. Section 12 prescribes the order of succession amongst agnates and cognates.
In view of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, the appellant being a Class-II heir would not inherit anything from his deceased brother, as he is survived by his wife. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the property of the victim under the applicable law of inheritance. Though the appellant falls in one of the category of heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, but the Legislature deliberately used the word "legal heir", which strictly means a person who is entitled to the property of the victim under the applicable law of inheritance i.e. Hindu Succession Act. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that when it is the intention of the Legislature to give right of appeal to the legal heir, the appellant will not fall within the definition of "legal heir" and he is not entitled to prefer an appeal to this Court under Section 372 Cr. P.C. against acquittal of the accused.
Incident has taken place on 07.12.2007 and the amendment to Section 372 Cr. P.C. has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009, where the victim can prefer an appeal against acquittal. The appellant fails, and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... of the requirement of convening meeting of Unsecured Creditors as been made in view of the no objections. 13. In view of the fact that the entire share capital of the Transferor Company is held by the Transferee Company and in view of written consents/NOC given by unsecured creditors, the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders of the Transferor Company and unsecured creditors of the Transferor company is sought to be dispensed with. 14. Since the aforementioned submissions point to the fact that convening or ordering a meeting of the shareholders of the transferor company and of the unsecured creditors of the company will be a futile exercise as it would be a mere procedural formality involving substantial expenses and while the purpose of convening these meetings stands fulfilled. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the dispensation of the requirement of convening the said meetings may be granted. 16. The applications stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Dasti.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... either course to be adopted, we issue no specific direction inasmuch as keeping in view the Board of the Court and time available, either course may be chartered by the learned Single Judge. 7. If the appellant was to file an application in OMP No.1127/2012 enclosing therewith a copy of this order, the Registry would ensure that the application is listed before the learned Single Judge on December 7, 2012; subject to the application being in order. 8. We take on record the assurance of the learned counsel for the respondents that they would not seek adjournment before the learned Single Judge when the application envisaged to be filed as per the instant order is listed before the learned Single Judge. 9. As desired by counsel, we make it clear, which even otherwise it is,that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. 10. Copy of this order be supplied DASTI to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master today itself.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1137
Addition relying on the 26AS statement - Held that:- The reconciliation was to be given effect to by the Assessing Officer in view of the fact that it was not purely not undisclosed income in the impugned Assessment Year insofar as the same income cannot be taxed twice and further more expenditure incurred on behalf of the tax deductors not billed to the tax deductors cannot form part of the income of the assessee being a statutory liability could at best be disallowed u/s.43B has not been established by the Assessing Officer which issue leans in favour of the assessee at the time of verification of reconciliation by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh
Addition u/s 43B - delay in EPF & ESI contributions - Held that:- There is no dispute of the fact that the amount in question has been deposited before the due date of filing of return and that too within the grace period allowed by the respective statutes, therefore, cannot be disallowed
-
2012 (12) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... k the matter to the Commissioner. 2. Before we part, it is our duty to point out that the Tribunal has recorded in Paragraph 9 of its order that there is evidence on record to show that the appellant has received payment against the clearances shown in those registers. While, however, doing so, the Tribunal has not discussed the evidence. The fact, however, remains that the seized registers recorded genuine transactions, in respect whereof there is no dispute that payments were received and the same also reflected alleged clandestine transactions. There must be some evidence to show that in respect of all or any of those clandestine transactions, appellant had, in fact, received payments. We remind the Commissioner to apply his mind in that regard too. We make it clear that the observations made above will not stand in the way of the Commissioner and he will independently apply his mind and take his judicious decision without being influenced with the views expressed herein.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... of the transaction in the matter and whatever confirmations were filed were contradictory to the explanation of the assessee. The silver is not a rare commodity for which advance should be given to the assessee for purchase and particularly when the assessee did not deal in silver because the assessee deals only in silver jewellery. Everything is afterthought story made up to cover the unaccounted money. Therefore, it would lead to irresistible conclusion that the assessee has fabricated all the confirmations and it was the unaccounted money of the assessee only which is entered into the books of account under the garb of cash credits given by 20 persons. Thus, the assessee miserably failed to prove his case. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. The orders of the authorities below are, therefore, confirmed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... ght to be projected by the ld. AR during hearing), but at best contentious, and which would require to be deliberated upon. This is as though our purview in the appeal challenging revision order does not extend to the merits of the case where the assessment stands set aside, as in the instant case, with a direction to redo the same, yet if the matter is well settled in favor of the assessee, with the material facts on record, which have been brought to the notice of the revisionary authority, there is little to gain by requiring the matter to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. In the present case, it would though be a case of first consideration, as the same had not been subject to consideration by the assessing authority in the first instance. We decide accordingly. 7. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the impugned order. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... hen such petition is filed, the High Court may consider the same in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We may make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case of the petitioners as well as the respondent. Ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... ame being delayed, would, in that case, ensue or arise. Subject to the foregoing we confirm the impugned order. 3.4 We may, before parting with the order, further clarify that in deciding in the manner afore-stated, we have presumed that the matter/issue/s subject to adjudication, i.e., on merits, by both the ld. CIT(A) and the revisionary authority, is the same, so that the assumption of jurisdiction in its respect by only either authority is maintainable in law. The basis of our said understanding; the revisionary order being not on record, is the order by the tribunal in the case of Dilip Shah v. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee, as well as the arguments advanced by the parties before us during the hearing, with the assessee also not raising any issue in this regard before the first appellate authority. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, all the seven appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... ars, the assessee having earned business income in terms of arbitration award. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, concluded that cars having been used for the purpose of business, are entitled to depreciation. We find from the computation of income on the last page of the assessment order that the AO determined income under the head Business besides rental income. Since the Revenue have not placed before us any material, controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no.ii) in the appeal of the Revenue for the AY 1998-99 is dismissed. 14. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly this ground is dismissed. 15.. No other argument or plea have been raised before us. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the AY 1997-98 is allowed while that for the AY 1998-99 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1130
Whether in exercise of its powers under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’), the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where there are two reports by the same or different investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court? If so, to what effect?
Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘the CBI’) is empowered to conduct ‘fresh’/’re-investigation’ when the cognizance has already been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of a police report under Section 173 of the Code?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1129
Whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence? - Held that:- It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any straight jacket formula, but this question has to be answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [2001 (3) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT], held that the expression ‘same transaction’ from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one transaction.
It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. Such things are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial.
Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences “committed in the course of the same transaction”.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... ondent No.1, which has taken over the debts of the Respondent No.1 vide Assignment Deed dated 26th July, 2012 are allowed. Furthermore, the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Company Judge of the Gujarat High Court to consider sanctioning of the Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement proposed by the appellant under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Civil Appeals and I.A. Nos.2 and 5 of 2012 are disposed of accordingly.” In view of the aforesaid therefore, the present application is filed. (8) Learned advocate for the parties have expressed no objection if the prayer prayed for in this summons is granted and the application is allowed. (9) Considering the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court, the present application deserves to be allowed. Applicant is permitted to substitute Mishapar Investments Limited in place of Sicom Limited in Company Petition No.34 of 2009. Disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1127
Business income OR income from other sources - Held that:- Such activities and the agreements entered which ensured that effective management of M/s Ma Foi remained with them would show that these were part of an organized and well thought out plan to get more value for their investments. There was no loss of source of income for the assessee by virtue of 1 Million Euro received from M/s Randstad. In such a situation, in our opinion, A.O. was justified in considering the receipt to be from an adventure in the nature of business. View taken by the ld. CIT(A) that if not business income it will be ‘income from other sources’ is also, in our view, justified. Once it is not a capital receipt, then the income has to be taxed under one or other head of income provided under Section 14 of the Act.
Money received was not for any breach of agreement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the amount was rightly taxed as revenue receipts. No interference with the orders of the lower authorities are called for.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... ntained in Section 139(5) of the Act, in view of the facts and circumstances and the devisions of various courts of law relied upon by the assessee hereinabove. We accordingly reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Thus the ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed." 7. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting the law or applying the law to the facts of the case of the respondent herein. The Government of Gujarat had withdrawn scheme by Resolution dated 17th September 2005 and therefore, on discovering that income had accrued, the respondent had chosen to revise its return. Assessee was within its right and nothing contrary could be pointed out by the Revenue before us from the record to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that either on the facts, or on law any error is committed warranting interference. 8. Tax Appeal resultantly is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... ssee back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. We also make it clear that this direction will not bind the Assessing Officer from considering any other case law applicable to the facts of the case. Though the assessee has also submitted that the disallowance in question under section 14A could not exceed the actual expenditure involved in view of the case law by Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd (supra), but in view of the fact that we are only remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, we clarify that the assessee would be at liberty to refer the said case law before the Assessing Officer which would be considered in accordance with law. 12. To sum up, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is accepted for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Monday, the 17th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1124
Deletion of Penalty u/s 8-D(6) of U. P. Trade Tax Act - for the month of November 2000 and March 2001, the TDS was not deducted by the petitioner - Held that:- From the record, it appears that the petitioner had deposited the TDS alongwith interest for the delay. Thus, there was no loss to the revenue. When the TDS was deposited alongwith interest and there was no loss to the revenue, then there was no justification for levy of the penalty - There was no malafide intention on the part of the assesee.
There was no justification for levy of the penalty - deletion of penalty upheld - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1123
Grant of deduction u/s 80 IB(10) - Held that:- Thus issue is now fully covered in favor of the assessee for grant of deduction u/s 80 IB(10) of the IT Act because the assessee has acquired dominant right over the land and has developed the housing project by incurring all the expenses and taking all risks involved thereof. The crux of the matter would be that assessee has acquired the land in question and has developed the housing project at its own cost as per the requirement of section 80 IB (10) of the IT Act
............
|
