|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1158 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1167
... ...
... ... ..... said Form No.5, we find that the Form itself at the end specifically mentions that the provision of Stamp Act is applicable for original share capital and not for increase in the authorized capital. Furthermore, wherever stamp duty is intended to be charged, like in the States of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, separate Articles have been incorporated in the Stamp Acts of their respective States to make provision for the same. 7. Unfortunately, insofar as Delhi is concerned, such an Article is absent which would authorize imposition of stamp duty on increase in the authorized share capital. If the Government of NCT of Delhi wishes to impose stamp duty on the increase in the authorized share capital, it has to do so by amending Schedule IA and by introducing a specific Article in that regard. 8. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned conclusion in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1166
... ...
... ... ..... an be submitted to the learned Magistrate where the petitioner, if aggrieved will have appropriate remedies available to him. 38. The Delhi Medical Council is permitted to act in accordance with their statute and get the report of the medical Board approved and thereafter, place the same before the learned Magistrate for such action in accordance with law, as may be deemed fit. 39. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and in view of the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 28.7.2011 is without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The stay granted on 05.8.2011 is vacated. 40. It is further clarified that expression of opinion made hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case by the learned Magistrate and without being influenced by any observation, the Court must act in accordance with law. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1165
... ...
... ... ..... ation was filed i.e. on 20.9.2005, he could have waited for appearance of the accused in order to afford them an opportunity to give say or contest the application instead of allowing the same hastily or ex parte on the very day when the application was moved. Learned counsel for the complainant cannot be heard to say that since the accused did not object the complainant leading secondary evidence, a clear-cut inference can be drawn that they had no objection for the complainant to do so. Merely because there was no objection raised by the accused in black and white, does not mean that the Court should have lost sight of the elementary principle of natural justice. The Court has to adhere to and give due observance to the principles of law of evidence, fairplay and justice. Be that as it may, the ultimate view taken by the trial Court is found proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and needs no interference. In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1164
... ...
... ... ..... scribed for presumptive tax payment. In such circumstances, the turnover has to be assessed at the rate applicable under Section 6(1). We see that the Tribunal has made such an observation and has also found that the rate applicable to the goods dealt with by the assessee, i.e., ice cream, is 12.5%. However, on going through the assessment order, we find that the tax has been assessed in the concluding portion at the rate of 0.5% on Rs.50 lakhs and at the rate of 12.5% on Rs.31,67,472/-. That is to say, even on finding that the dealer goes out of the presumptive tax net; upto the limit prescribed for being included in the presumptive tax net, the Assessing Officer has imposed only 0.5%; and 12.5% tax under Section 6(1) has been imposed for the turnover exceeding the limit prescribed under Section 6(5). We are definite in our mind that this is not what the Act postulates. On a reading of the provisions of the Act, it would reveal that this is not what the legislature intended.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1163
... ...
... ... ..... s under section 143 of the Act come to an end and the matter becomes final In view of the above, the first question now raised, therefore, stands concluded in favour of the assessee . 5.2. In view of the above admitted facts, as well as ratio laid in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and CIT vs C.Palaniappan (supra), that no notice us 143(2) of the Act was issued in the present case during the proceedings pending u/s 148 of the Act, we are of the considered view that re-assessment framed without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence quashed. Since issue is covered by the aforesaid decision cited supra, we quash the reassessment proceedings. Assessee s CO is allowed. 4. Since we have allowed the Cross Objection of assessee, the revenue s appeal requires no adjudication and is dismissed as infructuous. 5. In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2012
-
2012 (7) TMI 1162
... ...
... ... ..... issibility thereof; it was necessary to refer for determination of the fair market value of the asset to a Valuation Officer? XVIII. Whether by virtue of the provisions of clause (iib) of Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 adopting the definition of electronic record supplied by Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to the data seized from a computer, the threshold determination relating to the admissibility and legitimacy of such data in whatever form has not to be undertaken in accordance with law and in particular, the mandatory prescription of Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 93 and the Second Schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000; before raising the presumption under subsection (4-A) of Section 132 and also before using a statement taken from any person on the basis of such seized data against the assessee under sub-section (4) of Section 132? The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1161
... ...
... ... ..... ys and who does not remain in India beyond the said period. 7(3)Every foreigner presenting a registration report shall furnish to the Registration Officer such information as may be in his possession for the purpose of satisfying the said officer as to the accuracy of t he particulars specified therein and shall, on being required to do sign the registration report in the presence of the said officer and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the said officer a certificate of registration in Part III of Form A 19.Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that whenever he leaves or enters India, he is subjected to questioning by the authorities due to LOC can be said to be a violation of right of the petitioner as per the law made in India and even as per the International Convention referred to by him. Hence there is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1160
... ...
... ... ..... as made, which was turned down. Mr. Gandhi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has few other grounds also including the competence of the person, who initiated the complaint for the purpose of quashing the same, however, I do not consider it to be necessary to deal with the same. 41. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the invocation of Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. by the complainant /respondent in the instant case was a gross abuse of the processes of law. As a matter of fact, the very filing of the complaint and the consequent registration of the FIR against the petitioners was a gross abuse of the processes of law, inasmuch as a civil dispute was sought to be converted into a criminal dispute. I, accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., quash the Complaint No. 507/2001 titled A.S. Rajput vs. Wolfgang Reim as well as the FIR No. 411/ 2004 and the consequent proceedings. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1159
... ...
... ... ..... edabad. He filed a copy of co-ordinate Bench order in ITA No.4280/Ahd/2007 dated 15-10-2010. In ITA No.4280/Ahd/2007 for A.Y. 2001-02. On the other hand the Ld. D.R. relied on the order of A.O. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2001-02, the coordinate Bench vide order dated 15-10-2010 in ITA No.4280/Ahd/2007 relying on the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Mahindra Holding Resorts (India) Ltd.,(2010) 131 TTJ (Chennai) (SB) has held that the assessee was justified in deferring the Revenue for tax for 4 years. We find that there is no change in facts as compared to those of earlier years we therefore following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.4280/Ahd/2007 hold that assessee was justified in deferring the revenue in 4 years. We thus, allow this ground of assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on - - 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1158
... ...
... ... ..... order passed by Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Coming to ITA No.652/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 08-09. 11. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal - 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of interest amounting to 15,36,497/- without appreciating the fact that the A.O had established that the interest bearing fund had been diverted for the purpose of giving interest free advances. 12. The only effective ground is against the deletion of disallowance of interest amount to Rs.15,36,497/-. We find that similar issue was raised in ITA No.651/Ahd/2012 of Revenue s appeal and we have confirmed the order of Ld. CIT(A), hence, this ground of Revenue s appeal is also dismissed. 13. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 14. In combined result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1157
... ...
... ... ..... Heymen (supra) and Kishorilal Gupta (supra). This decision, therefore, has no relevance in the present context. 15. We are, thus, of the view that the learned single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that both the agreements dated 1.4.2007 and 1.4.2010 have been superseded/novated by the Exit Paper, and in view of Exit Paper being a fresh agreement with no arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes, the application of the appellant was rightly rejected. 16. We may add that, even otherwise, suppose there was no dispute about any item relating to the Exit Paper, then can it really be said thereafter a number of years if the trademark is infringed that the respondent will still have to resort to the contract where there was an agreement inter se the parties for mutual business containing the arbitration clause The answer to this obviously would be in the negative. 17. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000.00.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1156
... ...
... ... ..... at the claimants are M/s Splendid Aparna Projects (P) Ltd. Hence, in the present case, the possession of the property already handed over to the developer and right and interest in the property has been transferred in favour of the developers. 16. Being so, in our opinion, the condition laid down in section 2(47)(v) has been complied with and the lower authorities justified in treating the transaction is liable for capital gain. 17. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the lower authorities in the case of all these assessees as the facts in all these appeals are common in nature. 18. The assessee raised one more ground that CIT(A) ought have determined the market value based on the records of the Registrar of Assurance. We have gone through the case records. This ground does not emanates from order of the CIT(A), being so, we decline to entertain the same. 19. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1155
... ...
... ... ..... edicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. 14. If this case is viewed in bifocal manner, this Court is of the opinion that individual right of the petitioner for bail cannot have precedence over larger interests of the society which is stated to have sustained wrongful loss by way of deprivation of public money of larger magnitude for development and welfare of the people of the State. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may not be entitled for bail during pendency of investigation of the entire aspects relating to the case. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1154
... ...
... ... ..... by the Assessing Officer to collect the same directly from the creditor. The other evidences produced by the assessee in the shape of certificate from Canara Bank had not been disputed. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and if the address of the creditor is correct and the assessee is not able to procure the confirmation due to some dispute with the creditor, the Assessing Officer may collect the same directly by issuing the summon or any other mode, and if the identity is proved, the creditor is having creditworthiness and transactions are genuine, than no addition is to be made. Accordingly, the issue related to the addition of Rs. 1 lac on account of deposit from Dr. S.C. Soni is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 16. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16-07-2012).
-
2012 (7) TMI 1153
... ...
... ... ..... e property. 10. Therefore, we find that there is nothing on record to show that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the question as to how the four flats could physically be converted into a single residential unit. Likewise, there are no conclusive evidences available on record to show that the commercial properties have been actually converted into residential properties. Therefore, we find that the order of the Assessing Officer granting exemption under section 54F to the assessee is erroneous, as that error affects even the quantum of taxable income, which is absolutely prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Incometax is fully justified in passing the revision order in the present case, setting aside the issue of exemption under section 54F to the Assessing Officer for his reconsideration. 11. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 13th of July, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1152
... ...
... ... ..... ustoms authorities that since the betel nuts were auctioned sold for Rs.3.64 lakhs only that much amount is payable to the writ petitioner. Instead the Writ Court accepted the valuation of the betel nuts as disclosed in the seizure list Rs.21,33,500/- and on that basis directed for refund of the said amount with the statutory interest (compound) at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 30.8.2001 i.e. for the period after the decision by the CEGAT. We do not find any material to show that the actual market price of the betel nuts was different or it had depreciated on account of any fault on the part of the writ petitioner. In paragraph 14 the Writ Court has noted that although authorities have claimed that the betel nuts were sold by the Customs authorities for Rs.3.64 lakhs but neither any document has been produced nor even the date of such auction has been disclosed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1151
... ...
... ... ..... ngh Chawla, Adv., Ms. Prity Kunwar, Adv., Mr. Y.R. Naik, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Singh, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. After having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out against the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1150
Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - cheque in question was not signed and issued - expert's opinion to ascertain the age of the ink - According to the Petitioner, the cheque in question was not signed and issued by him to the Respondent. It is his further contention that there was neither legally enforceable debt nor liability on the part of the Petitioner impelling him to issue the cheque in question.
HELD THAT:- the defence of the Petitioner/Accused is that the signature in the disputed cheque was not made by him. But, already, RW2-an expert has offered opinion that it would have been made only by him. It is only as an after thought that he has filed the present Petition for forwarding the document to ascertain the age of the ink. This in my considered opinion is only a devise to unnecessarily drag on the proceedings. Thus, the Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) TMI 1294 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. the learned Single Judge had summoned the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to the Court. The said expert informed the Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department to scientifically ascertain the age of any writing and to offer opinion. The learned Judge has further recorded that the said expert informed the Court that there is one institution known as Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government Organisation confined only to atomic research.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... dmitted as no substantial question of law is involved by reason of the fact that the learned Tribunal has followed the decision of the Delhi High Court on the identical issue and point. It is not the case the Delhi High Court’ s judgment is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the appeal is dismissed and also the connected application. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on usual undertakings.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... fficient cause from producing the confirmation letters, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Those confirmation letters were in support of the ground of assessee's appeal, therefore, it was covered under sub-clause (c) also. 6. As a result of foregoing discussion, it is held that the Tribunal committed an error in upholding the order of the CIT(A). Question of law is accordingly answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee. 6.1 In the aforesaid premise, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee shall produce the confirmation letters dated 16.3.2005 and 15.3.2005 by filing an appropriate application under Rule 46A and the same shall be permitted as additional evidence by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall thereafter re-examine the entire matter afresh and shall pass an appropriate order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order . 7. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
........
|
