|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1232 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1185 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h work was done by solicitor it would require payment of another 85,000/- on that score. A total sum of approximately 1.70 lacs would be due and payable since 1996 and left unpaid. This computation is only upon seeing the admitted amounts unpaid and not upon what the firm has claimed. The firm would be entitled to atleast some more amount for the work done prior to December, 1996 which is not challenged. 29. Hence considering this fact along with aforesaid law leave may be granted to defendant No.1 for discharge of the firm upon the condition that defendant No.1 pays a sum of ₹ 2 lacs to his firm of solicitors. Hence the following order. 1. Upon defendant No.1 paying ₹ 2 lacs to his present firm of solicitors, the firm of solicitors shall stand discharged. 2. Defendant No.1 shall thereafter be entitled to be represented by any other firm of advocates. 3. The order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court dated 25st July, 2012 is modified to that extent.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1184 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Respondent(s) Mr. R.K. Patel, Ms. Manisha T.Karia,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1183 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as a factor in favour of the assessee. The conclusions of the Tribunal were, therefore, clearly erroneous, contrary to the materials on record and had been arrived at without taking into consideration relevant material and by placing reliance on irrelevant materials. Where the Tribunal acted partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant materials, and it was not possible to say to what extent the latter had influenced its mind, the finding was vitiated because of the use of irrelevant material. The Tribunal had no material to come to the conclusion that the sum of ₹ 3,82,750/- could not be treated as the assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. 10. We find that facts in the present case are also similar to La Medica’s case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A). 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT
|
Appeal challenging grant of bail to accused (history-sheeter) - the nature of crime it is perceivable that two persons came on a motorcycle and kidnapped Bihari Lal and kept him in confinement for eight days. The role of the accused is clearly stated. the fact that the accused is a history-sheeter and involved in number of cases, rejected the application for bail. Being unsuccessful to secure bail from the court of Session, the accused preferred a Bail Application before the High Court under Section 439 of the Code. The High Court only mentioned the fact that the accused has a criminal history and is involved in number of cases but considering the factum that he has been in custody since 30.09.2011 directed his enlargement on bail on certain conditions.
HELD THAT:- the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the bail bonds of the accused are cancelled. The accused is directed to surrender to custody forthwith failing which it shall be the duty of the investigating agency to take him to custody immediately. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.
|
-
2012 (9) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 03-04 and the order passed by the Tribunal in AY 2003-04 may be followed in deciding the same in AY 2008-09 also. On perusal of records, we find that the issue is similar and the facts of the case in the year under consideration are also identical with that of AY 2003- 04. Therefore, considering the submissions of the parties and in view of our decision in the revenue’s appeal for AY 2003-04, we hereby dismiss ground No.1 of the appeal of the revenue for AY 2008-09. 28. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.3037/Ahd/20101 for AY 2008-09 is dismissed. 29. In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1186/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04 and in ITA No.1261/Ahd/2011 for AY 2004-05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The other appeals of the revenue in ITA No.165/2012 for AY 2005-06, ITA No.930/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006- 07, ITA No.2393/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-08 and ITA No.3037/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-09 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21-09-2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1180 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... (Entertainers and Athletes), 19 (Government service), 20. (Non-Govt. pensions and Annuities), 21. (Students and trainees) and 22. (Professors and Teachers), salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment shall be taxable only in that State unless the employment is exercised in ;the other Contracting State. If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as is derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State”. 9. As per the above Article, the salary income derived by the appellant, who is a tax resident of Philippines, from exercising employment in Philippines shall be taxable only in Philippines. Therefore, salary received by him through KJS India for the employment exercised in Philippines is not taxable in India. Applying this Article, we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1179 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 32 ITR 608 held that revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised only when the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As stated, the present assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in the case of Blowell Auto (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) is clearly distinguishable because in that case, in the affidavits, no specific source of income was mentioned whereas in the case before us, the creditor had clearly stated that they are deriving income from agricultural sources. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the same could not have been stated to be revisionary order. Accordingly, we quash the order u/s 263 of the Act. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 24th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1178 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 12 lakhs are concerned we find the same was received by the assessee from Mr. Sharma for unauthorised and illegal occupation of the property at Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi as per direction of the court. We find the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) wherein it has been held that "mesne profits awarded under decree by way of compensation for wrongful possession of property after termination of leave and licence agreement is capital receipt not chargeable to tax". Ground of Appeal Nos. 7 and 8 are accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 20. So far as the ground relating to award of costs we do not find any merit in the above ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1177 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inabove, the plaintiffs are not F.A. No.334/1996 entitled for a decree of specific performance of contract and is only entitled to a decree of refund of earnest money ₹ 3000/-. Since before filing of the suit the defendant was insisting plaintiffs to correct the description of the suit property so that land of correct description of his own could be sold and the plaintiffs avoided to correct the document of agreement of sale, the defendant/appellant cannot be blamed and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for the interest upon the refund of earnest money ₹ 3000/-. 29. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds in part and is hereby allowed. The suit of the plaintiffs of specific performance of contract is hereby dismissed. However, a decree is passed against defendant/ appellant to refund the earnest money ₹ 3000/- to plaintiffs without any interest. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs throughout.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1176 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rdquo; to be fresh and the possibility of demolition of erstwhile building for construction/ renovation of new building cannot be ruled out. Thus, we find that it is only a doubt and not a conclusive proof of construction. We agree with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that no evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer that assessee has constructed/ renovated the house property during the year under consideration. The Municipal Committee and Electricity Department records showed that the house property was constructed by the year 1998. We further note that Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the DVO. Hence, reliance on doubtful statement given by the LIC Valuer cannot be the basis of addition made in this regard. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 8. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1175 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rstwhile Section 32(1 A) was put on the Statute. For the above reasons, we therefore, are of the view that Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) does not come in the way of allowing the present assessee's claim for deduction of the impugned expenditure as a revenue expenditure.” 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that in this case assessee has not incurred capital expenditure. The expenditure incurred cannot be said to be adding to the space or the capacity of hotel. The expenditure was only to preserve and maintain existing assets. The Assessing Officer has himself found that the expenditure was for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the hotel. Such expenditure in our considered opinion cannot be said to be capital in nature. Hence, we set aside the orders of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1174 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction for Co-operative Society u/s80P(2)(a)(i). - Assessee, a cooperative society derives income from providing credit facilities to its members only. They claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Referring to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the AO held that the assessee fulfils all the criteria laid down in s. 5(ccv) and is consequently a primary cooperative bank, thus is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). - HELD THAT:- Cooperative society is distinct and separate from the cooperative bank and is not a primary cooperative bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the assessee cooperative credit society is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Decision in the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) VERSUS JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. [2012 (9) TMI 288 - ITAT, PUNE], relied upon
Decision in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1173 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ght by learned counsel to do the needful. The prayer is allowed. The process fee as well as spare copy be deposited with the Registry within four weeks from today, subject to payment of ₹ 2,000/- as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d CIT (A) and reject ground of appeal taken by the department.” 4. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal in deciding this issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Regarding Ground No.2, at the time of hearing the learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that this issue of addition u/s 41(1) as raised in the ground no.2 by the Revenue does not arise from the impugned order. He has further pointed out that this issue was in fact involved in the assessment year 2006-2007 and not in this year. He has referred the assessment year 2006-2007 and submitted that the AO disallowed this amount of ₹ 19.60 lakhs u/s 41(1) for the assessment year 2006- 2007. The learned DR has not disputed this factual position. Accordingly, we dismiss ground no.2 being not emanating from the impugned order. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1171 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... (1994) (SC) 2393), 7. New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram (1976) 3 SCC 407, and 8. Order of Hyderbad B Bench of this Tribunal dt.16.7.2010 in ITA No.1081/Hyd/09 in the case of M/s.Parnika Construction Pvt. Ltd. 13.2. On careful analysis of the decision of the learned CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the decision given by the learned CIT(A) is well reasoned one and is in accordance with the various judicial pronouncements relied on by the learned CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the said order of the learned CIT(A) requiring interference. Therefore, we uphold the same by finding the issue raised by the assessee as devoid of merit. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is also relating to the issue considered supra in the immediate paragraph. Hence, for the reasons stated therein, we find that this issue is devoid of merit and as such, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1170 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... held the Hon’ble High Court. Applying the ratio laid down in these decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that if the donor has already paid tax on the amount gifted, the same is required consideration while deciding the assessability of the same in the hands of the donee i.e. the present assessees. We thus in the interest of the justice set aside the matter to the file of the AO to afford opportunity to the assessees to cross-examine Shri Harish Kumar by securing his present before him and to examine this aspect of the case regarding payment of tax on the gifted amount by the donor in view of the above stated decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and decide the issue accordingly as per the law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds involving the issue no. 2 are thus allowed for statistical purpose. 12. In result appeals are partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on the day 28 /09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1169 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ell explained before the assessing authority by the taxpayer himself. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is no more. Therefore, the legal representatives of the taxpayer were practically handicapped in explaining the real situation which resulted in credit of the amount in the bank account. In such a circumstance, we may not be able to blame the legal heirs in not furnishing a satisfactory explanation. By taking into consideration the death of the taxpayer and the practical difficulty faced by the legal heirs in furnishing the reasons for not offering the amount found in the bank account, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly the same is confirmed. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Anita Sahani,Adv., Ms. Bhakti Pasrija,Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the Department to proceed to make assessment(s) in accordance with law, pending hearing and disposal of these appeals. Parties shall complete pleadings within eight weeks.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1167 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... for reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Mesco Airlines Ltd.(Supra). The Ld. D.R. has no objection. We, accordingly, restore the issue of levy of interest u/s. 158BFA(1) to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. So far as Ground No. 1 is concerned, the Ld Counsel fairly conceded same as against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh N. Gupta, 297 ITR 322. As ground No. 1 is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), same is dismissed. The assessee has filed application for admission of the additional grounds but as the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the Ld Counsel did not press same. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s Cross Objection is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 28th September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1166 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv., Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv., Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv, Mr. Debjyoti Basu, Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Tag with ............. ( )
........
|
