|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 864 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 789
... ...
... ... ..... earing counsel the Court made the following ORDER In view of the written request circulated by learned counsel for respondent No.3, hearing of the case is adjourned. To be listed in the month of September, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 788
... ...
... ... ..... view, these documents require examination at the part of the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to mention that all these documents are part of govt. records and they are very relevant and material for deciding the genuineness of expenditure so incurred by the assessee. 3.1 In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidences, filed by the assessee, but since these documents were not available with the ld. Assessing Officer, the appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 22.5.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 787
Difference between "No Enquiry" and "Inadequate Enquiry" - Revision by Commissioner u/s 263 - CIT(A) had issued show-cause notice u/s 263, wherein the CIT(A) had asked the assessee to show- cause as to why the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was not liable to be set aside as the AO had not conducted enquiry adequately which had led the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was the submission by the ld. A.R. that the assessee had provided all the details, which were the foundation for the show-cause notice u/s 263 in the course of original assessment. AO conducted the enquiries and then the order was passed. It was the submission that the order passed by ld. CIT u/s 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
HELD THAT:- AO is not just a tax collector. He has to do the duty as an Officer, who is responsible for assessing the correct income. To prove an enquiry "inadequate" enquiry, CIT has to show that the enquiry and the opinion formed on the basis of such enquiry is fallacious. In the present case, the inquiry was made, documents were called for examination and opinion had been formed by the AO while passing the original assessment order. This has not been shown to be fallacious. Thus the order passed u/s 263 is unsustainable in law in so far as inquiry has been done by the AO when passing the original assessment order.
Decision in the case of GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI I, AND OTHERS [1974 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT], relied upon.
The impugned revision order stands quashed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 786
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief that the petitioner is pressing for is that the petitioner?s representation, which is pending before the respondents, should be considered and disposed of. Let the same be done within two weeks. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2012 (5) TMI 785
Penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) - Undisclosed Income/ Concealed Income - meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ - Receipts from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy - as contended that assessee received receipt from representing Indian Cricket Team, thus not taxable - HELD THAT:- Assessee was under a bonafide belief that this income is exempted on the basis of CBDT Instruction no. 1432. Assessee’s case draws supports from the CIT., AHMEDABAD VERSUS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT], thus it is held that the penalty on this account is not leviable.
Receipts from Badiham Cricket Club, UK - Assessee contended that amount paid by the Club was for reimbursement of travel, boarding and lodging etc. but he was not able to submit the evidence for the same - Assessee has not been able to submit the evidence that the entire amount was reimbursement on travel, boarding expenses. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted estimated relief of 50% also - the issue is not a fit for levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2).
Receipts from Sanspareils Green - Assessee was outside India and hence, he was not in a position to file the return in due time. This has lead to delay in filing of return and consequently, additions and penalty was levied - Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the return on due time and hence, levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not justified.
Income from Quiz Programme - Assessee received some amount for participating in TV Sports Quiz. This addition was made only on the statement of the assessee and no document was seized on this account - Assessee was under a bonafide belief that receipt was not taxable. Hence, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable.
Income from salary and interest treated as undisclosed return - CIT (A) has deleted the penalty on the salary part of the income. However, the interest income was directed to be assessed as undisclosed income - Assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80L. Hence, penalty on this issue is not leviable.
Addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper - Some documents were seized. On the basis of handwriting of assessee on that paper, addition was made and penalty was levied - The addition has been made on the basis of loose document, which did not conclusively prove any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Hence, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable.
-
2012 (5) TMI 784
... ...
... ... ..... the matter should go back to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the order passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of our observation hereinabove and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 28. Grounds of appeal No. 6,7 & 8 taken by the assessee are general in nature and at the time of hearing the same were not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee which was also not objected to by the ld. D.R. 29. That being so and in the absence of any supporting material placed on record by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, grounds of appeal No. 6,7 & 8 taken by the assessee are therefore rejected being not pressed. 30. In the result, assessee's appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16-5-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 783
... ...
... ... ..... ircular would not make any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, neither the SCN nor the impugned order in appeal mentions as to which common Cenvat credit availed inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final product) and bagasse (exempted final product). Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any inputs-chemicals etc. having been used at that stage. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal and stay applications are allowed. 4. Though the above decision relates to bagasse, the ratio of the same is equally applicable to the press mud inasmuch as bagasse as also pressmud came into existence as a waste product during the course of manufacture of sugar. As such, by following the above decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2012 (5) TMI 782
... ...
... ... ..... aw in view of clear distinguishable facts. The law is binding if facts are similar and not when facts are different. In the present case such objection was raised and the Court had decided the same. Even the challenge about mandate of Arbitration was not raised in Section 34 Petition. The fact based decision cannot be treated as precedents, specially when those are distinct and distinguishable. 27. The doctrine of "waiver" or "deemed waiver" or "estoppel" is always based on facts and circumstances of each case, conduct of the parties in each case and as per the agreement entered into between the parties. The Apex Court Judgment in NBCC Ltd. (Supra) in fact recognized the importance of imposition of time limit for the conclusion of the Arbitration proceedings. The parties have to stand by the terms of the contract including the Arbitrator. Considering the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 781
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner is that the events which are conducted by it are on business to business basis and that these are purely trade shows and not "entertainment" within the meaning of section 2(a). Since, the Additional Collector has passed the impugned order dated 17 March 2012 without hearing the petitioner and without considering the basic issue of jurisdiction, we set aside the impugned order without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. The Additional Collector shall pass fresh orders after furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. A speaking order indicating reasons shall be passed in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Additional Collector for directions on 28 May, 2012 so as to facilitate the passing of a direction as to hearing. The Additional Collector shall pass a reasoned order within a period of one month thereafter. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 780
... ...
... ... ..... cing any evidence as they are nothing but hollow assertions. 15. The plaintiff in the present case has joined two causes of action; infringement of his trademark and infringement of his copyright. However, it would be suffice to say that in the present case, none of the causes of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and hence this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in respect of both the causes of action. 16. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Having decided the issue no.1 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff, this court can dispose of the present suit on the said ground alone without giving a finding on the merits of the case. 17. The suit is accordingly dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court. 18. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 779
... ...
... ... ..... in change of beneficial ownership are fictitious in nature and they create artificial volume in the scrip sending wrong signal to the lay investor about trading in the scrip. A person found to be guilty of violating FUTP regulations can be imposed a penalty of 25 crore or three times the amount of profit made, whichever is higher, under Section 15 HA of the Act. However, the Board has imposed a penalty of 3 lacs only. Similarly for violation of code of conduct for stock brokers, a penalty which may extend to 1 crore can be imposed under section 15 HB of the Act. However, the Board has imposed a penalty of 50,000 only. Similarly, in Appeal no. 81 of 2012, the Board has imposed a penalty of 1 lac and 50,000 under section 15 HA and 15 HB of the Act on the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the penalty imposed by the Board on the two appellants to be just and reasonable. In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 778
Winding up petition - Held that:- It is apparent that the defence set up by the respondent is a sham and moonshine. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Accordingly, present petition is admitted and respondent company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company and is directed to forthwith take over the assets and records of the respondent company. For this purpose, Provisional Liquidator would be entitled to obtain police aid and the local police is directed to render all assistance to the Provisional Liquidator.
Respondent-company, its Directors, officers, employers, authorised representatives are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering and parting with the possession of any movable and immovable assets and funds of the respondent company. They are also restrained from withdrawing any money from the accounts of the respondent company.
The Directors of the respondent company are directed to forthwith hand over all the records of the respondent company to the Provisional Liquidator including its books of account. The Directors of respondent company are also directed to provide the statement of affairs and file their statements under Rule 130 within a period of twenty one days as provided for in the Act.
Citations are directed to be published in the newspapers, namely, 'The Statesman (English edition) and 'Veer Arjun' (Hindi edition) as well as in 'Delhi Gazette'.
-
2012 (5) TMI 777
Maintainability of appeal - offence under NI Act - Held that:- In the case of conviction by the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the appeal would lie to the court of Sessions and, therefore, in the present case keeping in view the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., it is of the view that the appellants/applicants should have preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the court of Sessions.
In that view of the matter, the appellants/ applicants need not have preferred the leave to appeal applications which have been filed before this court directly without filing the appeals before the court of Sessions.
These leave to appeal-applications accordingly stand dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2012 (5) TMI 776
Relief and Rehabilitation Programmes - Held that:-a) The issues specified at point 1(a) and 1(b) of the CEC Report dated 20th April, 2012 are hereby referred for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
b) All the proceedings in relation to these items, if pending before any Court, shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court. The CBI shall complete its investigation and submit a Report to the Court of competent jurisdiction with a copy of the Report to be placed on the file of this Court within three months.
c) The Report submitted by the CEC and the documents annexed thereto shall be treated as 'informant's information to the investigating agency' by the CBI.
d) The CBI shall undertake investigation in a most fair, proper and unbiased manner uninfluenced by the stature of the persons and the political or corporate clout, involved in the present case. It will be open to the CBI to examine and inspect the records of any connected matter pending before any investigating agency or any court.
e) The competent authority shall constitute the special investigating team, headed by an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police/Additional Commissioner forthwith.
f) Any investigation being conducted by any agency other than CBI shall also not progress any further, restricted to the items stated in Clause (a) above, except with the leave of the Court. The CBI shall complete its investigation uninfluenced by any order, inquiry or investigation that is pending on the date of passing of this order.
g) This order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of any of the parties to the lis, as well as in any other proceedings pending before courts of competent jurisdiction and the investigating agencies.
h) All pleas raised on merits are kept open.
i) We direct all the parties, the Government of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and all other government departments of that and/or any other State, to fully cooperate and provide required information to CBI.
-
2012 (5) TMI 775
Label mark registered - whether it cannot be said that the word mark contained therein is not registered - Held that:- In the present case, IPAB as well as the learned Single Judge has applied correct test in arriving at the conclusion that the two marks are deceptively similar and are likely to cause confusion in the mind of an average customer with imperfect recollection. The manner of comparison done by the IPAB can be found in Para 16 which we have already extracted above. The learned Single Judge contains detailed discussion on this aspect. With reference to Section 9(2)(a) of the Act, it is pointed out that the mark if it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion. It clearly follows that if a mark is deceptively similar to an earlier mark, it is not to be registered. As a fortiori, if it is registered, such a registration can be cancelled.
Section 11 (1)(b) of the Act also provides that a trademark shall not be registered if because of its similarity to an earlier mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which included the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. It is only honest concurrent use or other special circumstances shown by the applicant that which may provide exception to the aforesaid Rule as for the provisions of Section 12 of the Act permits the Registrar to register such a mark.
-
2012 (5) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... that the appellant was not a party to the reversal/circular trades. There is considerable merit in the argument of the appellant that the allegation of reversal could be levelled by the Board only after perusing the trade and order logs i.e. in hindsight. The adjudicating officer has held the appellant non compliant with the standards of integrity and fairness considering the fact that alleged fraudulent transactions took place repeatedly over a period of time. But this has been considered by us above and found to be not established in the facts of the case. So the appellant cannot be hauled up in this case alleging that he has failed to exercise due diligence. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd. vs. The Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Appeal no.176 of 2011 dated 25.11.2011) also supports the stand of the appellant. In the result, the order of the adjudicating officer is set aside. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 773
Entitlement to interest till the filing of the winding up petition - Held that:- Though the amount of ₹ 50 Lakhs was advanced by the appellant to the respondent company in the Year 1994 but the same was demanded from the respondent company only in the year 2002 and the winding up petition was filed only in the year 2006. Therefore we find ourselves unable to find the appellant entitled to any interest till the filing of the winding up petition.
Rate of interest - Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that direction for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition for winding up and till deposit of the principal amount of ₹ 50 lakhs by the respondent company in the Court would sub-serve the interest of justice and restitution.
-
2012 (5) TMI 772
... ...
... ... ..... conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose. The High Court was right in refusing to state a case.” 5. In fact, the facts of the assessee’s case are better than the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P.Ltd. (supra) because in the said case, in response to summons issued under Section 131, the creditor was not found at the address. In the case under appeal before us, in response to the notice under Section 133(6) issued by the Assessing Officer, the creditor was found at the address and affirmed the transaction by sending a letter to the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we find no justification to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A). The same is sustained. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 771
... ...
... ... ..... e a shadow witness in the trap party but mere absence of such a witness would not vitiate the whole trap proceedings. 15. In the instant case, there is no contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses. The witnesses have truthfully deposed that they did not hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, their version is without any embellishment and improvement. There could be no reason/motive for Rafiq (PW.1) to falsely enrope the appellants in the case. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, considering the fact that the incident occurred about two decades ago and the appellants suffer from severe ailments, they have lost their service long ago and suffered the agony of protracted litigation, the appellant no.1 has been suffering from acute pancreatitis and both the appellants have served the sentence for more than six months, in the facts and circumstances of the case, their sentence is reduced to one year.
-
2012 (5) TMI 770
... ...
... ... ..... out for our interference. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
........
|
