|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 547 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 715
... ...
... ... ..... on which interest had been paid. The interest has been paid on delayed payments of installments payable by the assessee to MCGM for office premises. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had made the payment of interest on the delayed payment of installments payable by the assessee to MCGM for the office premises. The assessee had not raised any borrowings on which interest is payable. Therefore, there is no question of diversion of interest bearing funds to interest free advances. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we find no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by reversing the order of Assessing Officer on the issue. Thus, ground No.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/02/2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 714
... ...
... ... ..... pecific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power....” We need not examine the said issue, as we have found that the levy of conversion fee is not claimed in exercise of the powers under Section 7, but is in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act read with Building Rules and 1960 Rules framed in exercise of the rule making power conferred under Section 22 of the Act. In view of the findings recorded above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act.
-
2012 (2) TMI 713
... ...
... ... ..... tion is genuine, none of these persons are coming within the provisions of S.40A(2) as such heavy reliance was placed on the impugned order. The evidences relied upon by the assessee it was submitted filed in the paper book have not been assailed. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a careful consideration of the same we find ourselves unable to come to any other finding than the one arrived at by the CIT(A). The evidences taken into consideration have not been faulted with by the department looking at the nature of work and the manner in which the business is conducted by the assessee from the evidences taken into consideration no contrary view can be taken. Accordingly being satisfied with the reasoning and finding of the CIT(A), the departmental ground is dismissed. 10. In the result the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 3rd February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 712
... ...
... ... ..... sed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the Appellant may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the Appellant to negotiate with the Respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have built the houses may not suffer. At the same time, we make it clear that the Appellant must return the vacant land to the Respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have carved out the sites and allotted the same to its members. This must be done within a period of three months from today and during that period the Appellant shall not change the present status of the vacant area/sites. The members of the Appellant who may have been allotted the sites shall also not change the present status/character of the land. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 711
... ...
... ... ..... d circumstances and materials are seen examined on wrong interpretation of criminal breach of trust, and after entering a perverse finding thereof, the learned magistrate has proceeded to examine the offences under Section 420 and 468 of the IPC, it is necessary that the findings thereof also have to be examined afresh. The order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused is liable to be interfered with, and I do so. In the result, setting aside the order of acquittal, the case is remitted for fresh disposal. The learned magistrate shall take note of the observations made above, and, after hearing the prosecution and also the counsel appearing for the accused, dispose the case afresh, in accordance with law, on the materials on record, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the records. The accused is directed to appear before the court below on 28.03.2012. Revision is allowed. Send back the records forthwith.
-
2012 (2) TMI 710
... ...
... ... ..... 0 by Justice G.P. Singh). The Apex Court also opined that when language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute arises, the Act speaks for itself. In the light of this legal position, I have no hesitation to hold that Rule 48 makes it mandatory for the accused to give declaration about his surrender after the conviction or about the fact regarding his remaining in custody. 9. Since Rule 48, in specific, was not brought to the notice of this Court in Kishore (supra), the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on this aspect. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is held that a revision petition against conviction is tenable only when it contains a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below. The matter be posted before the regular bench on Thursday (9.2.2012) for further consideration.
-
2012 (2) TMI 708
... ...
... ... ..... some cost should have been imposed. For that purpose, though Annexure2 was found to be illegal and without jurisdiction, issued by the State Government, this Court has not passed any interim order in favour of the writ petitioner and as such we do not propose to impose any cost upon the writ petitioner. However, we may observe here that in any Public Interest Litigation, it is always desirable that a thorough research be done by the writ petitioner so as to assist the Court and particularly when it is a matter of State revenue. At this juncture, we further like to point out that the State of Jharkhand is a mineral rich State and the State itself without stay order passed by this Court prohibited itself from realising a huge amount of royalty and, therefore, more caution should have been taken by the writ petitioner before filing the writ petition and he should have tried to find out what was the interest of the public. 21. This writ petition is , accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 707
... ...
... ... ..... ot passed a speaking order in regard to the objections raised by the assessee, it would not mean that the re-opening would be invalid. However, in the present case as the facts are clearly available and as it is noticed that all the facts necessary for adjudicating the issue were available before the Assessing Officer when the original assessment order itself was passed u/s 143(3) on 17-03-2005, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., referred to supra, the re-opening is liable to be held to be invalid as the same is beyond the period of 4 years and the re-opening is only on the basis of change of opinion. In the circumstances, the re-opening of the assessment stands quashed by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., referred to supra. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 10/02/2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 706
... ...
... ... ..... by placing reliance on the precedent of ITAT Chennai ‘C; Bench decision against which the Revenue has preferred further appeal in the High Court of Madras, but could not be able to place on record any evidence or material to show that the order of the Tribunal, on the basis of which the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order, has been reversed or set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, in view of the facts, circumstances and material on record we do not find any valid reason to interfere in the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) for all the four years in this case and while confirming the impugned orders, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue being devoid of any merits.” In view of the above decision of this Tribunal, we are of opinion that Revenue has no case for over ruling the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 20th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 705
... ...
... ... ..... uishing in jail since 04.07.2011 as averred in para 28 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Let accused-applicant (Radhey Shyam Dubey) involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the conditions - (1) That the accused-applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating or terrorising the witnesses. (2) That he will co-operate with speedy trial. In case the accused-applicant flouts any of the aforesaid conditions the matter shall be reported to this Court by the Trial Judge for cancellation of bail.
-
2012 (2) TMI 704
... ...
... ... ..... hasis to state that there was no impediment or disability in the way of the Respondents to execute the decree but the same was not done. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the initiation of execution proceedings was indubitably barred by limitation. Thus analyzed, the reasons ascribed by the learned single Judge are absolutely unsustainable. The period of limitation stipulated under Article 136 of the Act could not have been condoned as has been so presumed by the learned single Judge. The reliance placed on the decision in Bharti Devi (supra) is totally misconceived inasmuch as in the said case, the execution proceeding was initiated for permanent injunction. No exception can be taken to the same and, therefore, reliance placed on the said decision is misconceived. 36. Ex. consequenti, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision is set aside and that of the executing court is restored. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 703
... ...
... ... ..... pplication by the same party, with the prayer that the election to Central Council, held from the State of Uttarakhand be set aside and that fresh selection process be ordered. I.A. No. 9 is dismissed, with the liberty to that Petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction, seeking appropriate relief and in accordance with law. 28. In view of the order of I.A. No. 9, I.A. No. 8 does not survive and is dismissed as such. 29. Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 736 of 2011 is also dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy, if the cause of action survives, before the concerned High Court. 30. All Transfer Petitions and Interlocutory Applications for impleadment are hereby dismissed. Other applications do not survive for consideration. 31. Before we part with this judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable and able assistance rendered by the learned ASG and all counsel and assisting counsel appearing in the present PIL.
-
2012 (2) TMI 702
... ...
... ... ..... dend namely the shareholder. Consequently, the effect of clause (e) of section 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression “dividend” by including certain payments which the company has made by way of a loan or advance or payments made on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder. The definition does not alter the legal position that dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder.” 9. Thus respectfully following the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition of ₹ 1,58,14,061/- on account of deemed dividend is thus upheld and accordingly the departmental appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 29th day of February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 701
... ...
... ... ..... ss box, he was not confronted as per the defence taken by the petitioner, as argued, before the revisional Court as well as before this Court. It was never put to the complainant that the cheque in question was meant for Sunil Kumar and he has misused the same. The revisional court has also noticed that the case is fixed for evidence of the petitioner since May 2011 and after availing five adjournments, the instant application was moved. Even there was no suggestion to the complainant that the name and cheque had been filled up by him. On the other hand, the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner. It is well settled that even if the amount, date, and other particulars are filled up by some other person with different ink accused) cannot escape his liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if he has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. 8. Thus, no case is made out for quashing of the impugned orders. 9. Dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 700
... ...
... ... ..... of the opinion that no question of law arises for consideration. 4. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 6. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in their aforesaid decision in All India Oriental Bank of Commerce Welfare Society(supra) followed in Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (supra), and other decisions mentioned above, we have no alternative but to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A),concluding that the principle of mutuality applies to interest income derived by the assessee from deposits made out of contributions made by members of the society. Therefore, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in relation to applicability of principle of mutuality to interest income is dismissed. 7. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 8. No other plea or argument was made before us. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (2) TMI 699
... ...
... ... ..... and in respect of the very same project. Today by a detailed order in ITA No. 355/2009, we have answered the substantial questions of law which were framed in the said case which are identical in this appeal. Therefore, adopting the reasoning in ITA No. 355/2009, all the substantial questions of law framed in this case are answered in favour of the assesssee and against the revenue and accordingly, they are dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 697
... ...
... ... ..... ings is bad in law. The same is accordingly liable to be cancelled.” Recording a satisfaction is a must for initiating proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act and it does not matter whether the Assessing Officer is the same or not. Here, admittedly, the recording of satisfaction was much after the statutory time period allowed for making an assessment in the case of searched person. We are, therefore, of the opinion that ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in applying the exposition of law by the Special Bench in the case of Manoj Aggarwal (supra). We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Since appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, cross-objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and such cross-objection is dismissed as infructuous. 9. To summarise the result, both the appeal and cross-objection are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 2nd March, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 696
... ...
... ... ..... The question which the High Court will answer is whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the amount s paid by the appellant’s t0 the foreign software suppliers was not 'royalty and that the same did not give rise to any 'income' taxable in India and. therefore, the appellants was not liable to deduct any tax at source?" 4. In both the cases, it was held that consideration paid by the Indian customers end users to the assessee a foreign supplier, for transfer of the right to use the software/computer programme in respect of the copyrights falls within the mischief of ‘royalty' as defined under sub-clause V to Explanation 2 to Clause vi of section 9 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In view of the aforesaid law declared by this court, the substantial questions of law framed in this ease are also answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. Appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 695
... ...
... ... ..... 31-08-2001 and in fact the assessment order was passed on 31-10-2001, which is clearly barred by time. In fact in the connected appeal preferred by the revenue against the order allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, this court has upheld the order of the Tribunal by is order dated 28-09-2011 in ITA No. 1254/2006. 2. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed for the very same reason.
-
2012 (2) TMI 694
... ...
... ... ..... ood, does convey a positive reputation built by a person/company/business concern over a period of time.. 5.9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue as deliberated upon in the fore-going paragraphs and also in conformity with the ruling of various judiciaries, chiefly, the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala referred supra, we are of the considered view that the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation on intangible assets acquired by it. It is ordered accordingly. We make it very clear that we have arrived at this above conclusion from the facts of this case as the valuation report submitted by the appellant has not been successfully challenged by the Revenue to establish the transaction to be sham. Therefore, we consider the payment made on account of goodwill is genuine and reasonable since it is arrived based on a reasonable valuation and computation. 6. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
........
|
