|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 769 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 810 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the respondent/accused as regards her signatures on the cheque. Further, admittedly, the Magistrate had also compared the signature of the accused as appearing on the cheque with her admitted signatures as per his power under section 73 of the Evidence Act and did not find variation in the signatures. The plea regarding the cheques not bearing her signature was taken by the respondent/accused only at the stage of defence evidence. 11. It is also noted that this Court on 19.03.2011 had directed the MM to dispose of the case expeditiously and vide order dated 10.08.2011 a specific direction was given for disposal of the case within a period of 8 months. From the above discussion I am of the view that since there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of the MM dated 11.07.2011, the learned ASJ erred in entertaining the revision petition and setting aside the said order of the MM. In view of all this the impugned order is set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 809 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 000/- whereas the non filing of the evidence same was relatable to the reasoning of not locatable in the office. “ 19. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. Both the authorities below have categorically stated that no Certificate / evidence of payment to Red Cross qualifying for 100% deduction was brought on record. At this stage also, the assessee has not submitted any application under Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 for production of additional evidence of payment of Rs. 30,000/- to Red Cross qualifying for 100% deduction. In fact, the assessee failed to discharge the burden that lay on it under the Law. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the claim made by the assessee cannot be allowed. Consequently, we reject the ground of the assessee. 20. In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 11th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 808 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ption to answer the same, is for the reasons given hereinbefore, misplaced and mistaken. 24. The Trial Judge is the best Judge to decide the relevancy of the questions put up by the defense counsel during cross-examination of a witness and this Court cannot in its extraordinary powers under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interfere in exercise of such discretion by the Trial Judge unless the same was manifestly illegal or perverse or has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 25. In view of the above observations, I am satisfied that the order of the learned Special Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and I find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Special Judge in disallowing certain questions put up by the petitioner's counsel during cross-examination of PW12. 26. Petition stands dismissed. A copy of this order, preferably soft copy, be circulated amongst all the Judges of subordinate judiciary.
-
2012 (4) TMI 807 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 2 that the date of issuance of certificate has not been mentioned in paragraph 17 as the certificate has not been issued. He, however, undertakes to issue the aforesaid certificate within a week. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the submissions made by them in paragraphs 16 and 17 of their additional parawise reply and in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that a certificate of deduction of a sum of Rs.4,42,99.095 shall be issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 within a week on the basis of which the petitioner would be at liberty to take up further proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law, including filing of an application for refund of the excess amount withheld by the respondent No. 2. With the aforesaid directions/liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
-
2012 (4) TMI 806 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsent Terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The Consent Terms are signed by the Partner of the Plaintiff, Partner of the Defendant and also by the Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Advocate for the Defendant. The undertakings recorded in the Consent Terms are accepted. The suit is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms.
-
2012 (4) TMI 805 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ny good and justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 7. The only other ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is directed against the deletion of Rs. 1,04,85,088/- which was disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) deleted this disallowance by observing that interest in question was payable to an institution which is not covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The ld.CIT/DR could not bring any material before us to show that interest in question was payable to an institution which was covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Moreover, as we have already found that reopening of assessment in the instant case was bad in law, we do not find any force in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-04-2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 804 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the passing of the original assessment order. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had suppressed certain material facts, due to which the original assessment order, passed by the respondent is liable to be re-assessed. In such circumstances, in the absence of the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction, by the respondent, under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, is illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the proceedings, under section 147 of the Act, which had been initiated by the issuance of the impugned notice, under section 148 of the Act, cannot be sustained. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 803 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. According to us, the operative words which require interpretation are “income which does not form part of the total income.” Having considered this matter, we are of the view that the provision speaks of positive exclusion of the income from the total income and not theoretical exclusion of the income from the total income by deeming that gross total income is a positive figure. In this case, gross total income results into loss and therefore, the dividend income does not get excluded from the total income, which has to be computed after allowing deductions under chapter VI A from the gross total income. In the light of this discussion, Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on right lines and therefore we do not find any necessity to interfere with his order. 4.4 Thus ground No. 3 is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 802 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC). Therefore, while “attributable to” as used in some other sections of the Act, may cover sources of income beyond the first degree, “derived from” as used in section 80-IB of the Act is not intended to cover sources beyond the first degree. It is keeping this distinction in mind that it must be held that transport subsidy and interest subsidy cannot be said to be “derived from” the industrial undertaking of the assessee. At best, it can only be ancillary to the profits and gains relatable to or “attributable to” the business of the industrial undertaking and not in the category of profits and gains “derived from” its industrial activity.” Respectfully following the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 13. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 801 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Corporation, 182 ITR 216 held that the liability to pay damages on account of breach of contract is an allowable deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble apex Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantilal P. Ltd.,144 ITR 57, wherein, it was held that any amount incurred by the assessee on account of non-fulfillment of business contract for reasons beyond his control is incidental to business and is an allowable deduction. 20. Since the said amount has been made by the assessee on account of breach of contractual obligation, we agree with the CIT(A) that it is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act as business expenditure. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we uphold the same. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 21. In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 800 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ”. Since the assessee produced sufficient evidence before the AO to prove the genuineness of the loans in the matter and the AO did not enforce attendance of the creditors for their examination on the request of the assessee, therefore, the AO cannot treat the credits as non-genuine in the matter. The ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of same assessee in the identical facts in assessment year 1997-98 and 1999-2000 dismissed the departmental appeals vide orders referred to above. No changes in the facts and circumstances of the case have been brought to our notice. Considering the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue with regard to giving of loans to the assessee. The interest paid on the loans have, therefore, been rightly allowed as deduction by the ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in the departmental appeal on any of the grounds. Same is accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, The order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 799 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and well aware of the issue of the dishonoured cheques which can be construed to show that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company at the relevant time. 17. As held in the case of Rajesh Agarwal v. State & Anr 171 (Supra)and Rallis India Ltd (Supra) , this court ought not to interfere at the summoning stage in a case under 138 of the Act. However, this court may interfere under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if there is any apparent gross irregularity in the order of the Ld. MM which has caused miscarriage of justice or has caused undue harassment to the person. This power is however used cautiously and sparingly. 18. In view of the above observations, the summoning order qua petitioner no. 1 is quashed. Petitioner no. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to lead their defence evidence before the Ld. MM and raise all such contentions there. 19. With the above observations, the petition is party allowed and disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... h was not paid for 57 months after that amount became payable. The assessee was entitled to interest for 57 months on ₹ 45,73,528/-.” 9. In the Development Bank of Singapore Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow interest on interest in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra). 10. Respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.E.G. Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that all the decisions relied on by the Revenue are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This being so we direct the A.O. to allow the interest u/s 244A in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. (supra). The common grounds taken by the assessee in all these three appeals are, therefore, allowed. 11. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 797 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry of accused in the absence of the Company as a party, there is no impediment to prosecute the accused in the absence of the Company. 22. The cheque-Ex. P1 has been issued in favour of the complainant by name Ranga Karkera. It is not in the name of either the proprietorship concern or a firm. The evidence reveals that the complainant is doing the business in his own capacity and though the records disclose that YFT is either a partnership firm or a proprietorship concern, as the cheque has been issued in the name of the complainant and it is admitted by the accused that the complainant is doing business in his personal capacity, Hence, I do not find any impediment to hold the complaint is maintainable. So, in view of the material facts and the law laid down, this Court is of the view that the conviction ordered by the Courts below and the sentence has to be upheld. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 796 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... construction of houses. It has received advance money. The booking advance as per No.2 books have already been treated as “Deemed Sales” and considered as Income. The booking money received by assessee has been treated as receipts forming part of sales. This fact is also not disputed by Assessing Officer. We agree with the contention of the assessee, that once the booking advance has been assessed as undisclosed income by invoking provisions of section 68, the same cannot be considered as deposit/loan in violation of section 269SS/269T. We are therefore, of the view that once the amount has been considered as income, the same cannot be considered as deposit for levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s 271D & 271E. We accordingly direct the deletion of penalty. 12. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13-4-2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 795 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ust during the years. To a specific query by the Bench about the Remarks of the CA that the advances were given to three trusts without permission of the Charity Commissioner as to under what provisions of law, this permission is required, both the parties failed to assist the Bench. Since non-approval of the Charity Commissioner has weighed heavily against the assessee-trust with Ld. DIT (Exemption) while rejecting the application for renewal, it is imperative to ascertain whether in fact such approval is of such a vital importance or not. Unless the relevant material is on record, it will not be proper on our part to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad for fresh adjudication after bringing all the material relevant for granting of exemption including those mentioned above. 4 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the court today on 20-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 794 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . That would mean that when a petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, orders that may be passed therein may have much wider ramifications and reach whereof may not just be confined to territory of the State. When Rule 315(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules has required the criminal writ petitions to be registered separately, there is no reason that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner should not be registered as criminal writ petitions, particularly when Rule 375 refers to the civil writ petitions of the other kind presented before this Court. The Registry therefore on its own could not have registered these writ petition as criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the petitioner presented them as criminal writ petitions. The objection in this behalf raised by the registry is overruled. The registry is directed to register these petitions separately as S.B. Criminal Writ Petitions and list them before the appropriate bench.
-
2012 (4) TMI 793 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clude, that a person who had preferred his evidence on affidavit, need not make an oral deposition in court, before the accused is summoned or is required to cross-examine him. This is not the issue in the present controversy. We are therefore satisfied, that the reliance placed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Mandvi Coop. Bank's case (supra) is wholly misconceived. 8. In view of the above, we are of the view, that the Petitioner has grossly abused the jurisdiction of this Court by approaching this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The instant writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. For the abuse of the process of this Court, the Petitioner is directed to deposit costs quantified at ₹ 20,000/- with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority, within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the instant order, failing which the matter be placed before the Court for appropriate direction for recovery of the costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 792 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Report dated 18th April, 2012, is accepted with a specific clarification that individual Reclamation and Rehabilitation report for each mining lease(s) would specify unbroken forest area. Mining which is to be resumed in appropriate cases falling in Category ‘A’, however, shall not extend to unbroken forest areas. Further, we direct Ministry of Environment and Forests to re-visit the statutory clearances earlier granted by it in the light of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan. Sale of iron ore lying at various cancelled stockyards is permitted through E-auction by Monitoring Committee with the condition that saleproceeds not found to be involved in any illegality will be reimbursed to the respective stockyards. Report of Central Empowered Committee dated 13th March, 2012, is accepted in respect of ML 2581 of M/s. SMIORE. Learned counsel appearing in I.A. Nos.47 and 48 submits that these interlocutory applications be dismissed as not pressed. We order accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 791 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... est of the Ld. AR for remitting all these appeals to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to again call a remand report from the Assessing Officer with a direction to Assessing Officer to give the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee the Assessing Officer will re-submit the remand report which will be submitted to CIT (A) on the basis of which Ld. CIT (A) will re-adjudicate all these appeals filed by the assessee as per provisions of law. We direct accordingly. Since we are restoring these appeals to the file of CIT (A), we do not express any opinion regarding the merits of additions which have been upheld by Ld. CIT (A) as those will be re-considered by Ld. CIT (A) in pursuance of our above directions. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are considered to be allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2012.
........
|
