Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1059 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 965 - SUPREME COURT
Whether ‘Jugaad’ is a vehicle under the Act, and in case, it is a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act, whether such ‘Jugaad’ is required to be insured and registered before it is permitted to ply on the road and whether the driver of ‘Jugaad’ must compulsorily have a driving licence - Originally this petition had been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court. wherein the complete liability of providing compensation in a vehicular accident had been fixed upon the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RSRTC’), while unfastening the liability of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, known as ‘Jugaad’, under the provisions of Act.
HELD THAT:- The `Jugaad’ is covered in the definition of the motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act, the statutory authorities cannot escape from their duty to enforce the law and restrain the plying of `Jugaad’. The statutory authorities must ensure that `Jugaad’ can be plied only after meeting the requirements of the Act. The same has become a menace to public safety as they are causing a very large number of accidents. ‘Jugaads’ are not insured and the owners of the `Jugaad’ generally do not have the financial capacity to pay compensation to persons who suffer disablement and to dependents of those, who lose life. Thus, considering the gravity of the circumstances, the statutory authorities must give strict adherence to the circular by the Central Government. court clarify that it is open to the statutory authorities to make exemptions by issuing a notification/circular specifically if such a vehicle is exclusively used for agricultural purposes but for that sufficient specifications have to be provided so that it cannot be used for commercial purposes.
-
2013 (5) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT
Application u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants/petitioners rejected by the Trial Court, as well as of the High Court - Seeking permission to examine key witness - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) against the Appellant and other accused persons - HELD THAT:- An application filed u/s 311 Crpc must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision, however, in the instant case, the learned Trial Court prejudged the evidence of the witness sought to be examined by the Appellant, and thereby cause grave and material prejudice to the Appellant as regards her defence, which tantamounts to a flagrant violation of the principles of law governing the production of such evidence in keeping with the provisions of Sec. 311 Code of Crpc By doing so, the Trial Court reached the conclusion that the production of such evidence by the defence was not essential to facilitate a just decision of the case. Such an assumption is wholly misconceived, and is not tenable in law as the accused has every right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
The court must examine whether such additional evidence is necessary to facilitate a just and proper decision of the case. Furthermore, the same is not a case where if the application filed by the Appellant had been allowed, the process would have taken much time. In fact, disallowing the said application, has caused delay. No prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine said three witnesses.
Hence, The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court, as well as of the High Court impugned before us, are set aside. The application Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellant is allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 963 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... n the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has been found to be indulging in inviting investment in collective investment scheme in violation of the specific provisions of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, does not consider it proper to direct unsealing of the premises of the petitioner, at this stage. However, the respondent SEBI is directed to conclude the inquiry and pass order in respect of the same which is said to be at the final stage, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, however without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by such orders passed by SEBI or any other regulatory authority, it would be open for it to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
-
2013 (5) TMI 962 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
... ... ... ... ..... ) FIH should also modify the guidelines and remove the penalty clause for players who participate in unsanctioned events. 148. As far as monetary penalty is concerned, a penalty at the rate of 10 cannot be levied because the contravention is not excessive or repetitive. Considering this fact and the fact that the provision was introduced by HI and FIH for the first time penalty at the rate of 5 of the average turnover for the last three years would be sufficient. The turnover for the three financial years of Hockey India are as under The average turnover comes to ₹ 5.34 Cr. A penalty of ₹ 25 Lacs is imposed on Hockey India for the contravention of the Act. As far as FIH is concerned the turnover figures are not available but a penalty of 5 of its turnover is therefore levied. The Secretary is directed to issue copy of the order to the concerned parties and ensure that the directions given are followed by Hockey India and FIH within 60 days of issue of this order.
-
2013 (5) TMI 961 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ... ... ... ..... he case Param Hans Swami Uma Bharti Mission vs. ACIT (Supra). Thus, in case where the A.O. has taken a particular view and CIT wants a different view, under that circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the A.O. is erroneous. When the order of the A.O. is not erroneous, the CIT is not empowered to invoke section 263 of the Act. In the case under consideration, the basic condition to hold that order of A.O. is erroneous, is missing. In the light of the fact, we are of the considered view that the order of CIT is not in accordance with law. As regards the decision cited by the ld. Departmental Representative, these decisions are distinguishable on facts as those decisions have been decided by the respective Courts considering the facts of each case which is not similar to the facts of the case under consideration. In the light of above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 960 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... hat under section 115JB which is a special provision ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Act’, the other provisions of the Income Tax Act are not applicable and only the book profit/loss has to be taken into account. 3) The change in shareholding as contemplated u/s 79 of the I.T. Act has no impact on determination of book profits/loss u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.” 16. Ground no. 1 is in support of the findings of ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, do not require any adjudication. 17. Apropos ground no. 2 & 3, we have already observed in the Department’s appeal that the disallowance by AO is not on account of the provisions of sec. 79 and, therefore, these grounds do not arise out of the order of lower revenue authorities. 18. In the result, both the grounds are dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal by the Department as well as cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court 31/05/2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 959 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... counsel for the appellant that the admisison of liability is not unqualified, does not hold much water inasmuch as the amount is shown as payable in the Balance Sheet to the respondents and a qualifying note would not in any manner dilute the acknowledgment of liability of at least that amount. 19. The numerous orders extracted by the Company Judge clearly demonstrate that the appellant had sought and availed all numerous opportunities to comply with the requirement of the OTS offered by the respondents but instead of complying with the same, had been on one pretext or the other trying to wriggle out the same and seek extension of time. 20. The Company Court has, thus, rightly concluded that the appellant has no bona fide defence in the winding up petition and is unwilling and, therefore, unable to pay the admitted liability. 21. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2013 (5) TMI 958 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... der of the learned Single Judge, as set out below. We issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 DGCA to exercise its enabling power and take a decision on the request of Respondent No. 1 for de-registration of the Aircraft, in accordance with law. Keeping in view the observations made above, the DGCA would take its decision and pass a reasoned order. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are permitted to make written submissions to DGCA within four weeks from today in support of their application for de-registration. Based on the said submissions and other material on record, DGCA-Respondent No. 3 shall take a reasoned decision within four weeks thereafter on the request for de-registration filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 25. We may also clarify that irrespective of whatever decision is taken by DGCA, the appellant-DRI is free to take appropriate steps if so advised, on the allegations of evasion of Customs duty as elaborated before this Court, in accordance with law.
-
2013 (5) TMI 957 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit-earning source, not in the ordinary course of their business, was a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court was confirmed. 12. The ratio of this decision is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case as in this case also the compensation was given to the assessee as per agreement on account of delay of possession of the flat. Neither it was the business of the assessee nor there was any other activity for earning any profit. The flat was a capital asset and on account of delay of possession of the flat, the compensation of ₹ 2,10,000/- was given to the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view, the receipt is capital in nature and not liable to tax. Accordingly, I delete the addition made and confirmed by the lower authorities. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of May.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 956 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... roduct comes into existence.” For giving the above finding this Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.9455 of 2011 in the matter of M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors and also a decision dated 6 May 2010 of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors holding that bottling LPG Gas is manufacturing activity. 3. We may also note that the learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the questions raised in these appeals are covered by the decision dated 7 March 2013. 3. Following the aforesaid decisions, we allow these appeals and answer the questions as under - Question No.1 in each appeal is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No.2 in each appeal following the aforesaid answer is also answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2013 (5) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... matter to the notice of the administration of the State of Haryana that in spite of the fact that certain serious findings have been recorded by the Trial Court, as well as by the High Court regarding the unfair investigation conducted by Shri Rajesh Kumar, who was the SHO of the Police Station, Sadar Dadri on 7.1.2005, but for the reasons best known to the administration, no action was taken against him. We have no words to express our anguish, and fail to understand under what circumstances the State authorities have adopted such an indifferent attitude where a helpless divorcee has been murdered, and her widowed mother has been crying and running from pillar to post to secure justice, but the administration did not feel it necessary to wake up from its deep slumber. We request the learned Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to examine the case, and proceed in accordance with law. A copy of the judgment be sent by the registry directly to the Chief Secretary, Haryana.
-
2013 (5) TMI 954 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... of interest charged by private financiers. Private financiers unlike the bank and private financial institutions generally do not lay down stringent conditions for advancing loans. Further the processing of the loan and advanced by private financier’s are less cumbersome and less time consuming. As a result the risks suffered by the private financier’s are multifold. Therefore, the rates of interests charged by the private financier’s are higher compared to banks and financial institutions. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the interest rate of 15.5 per cent paid by the assess to its related parties is quite reasonable and therefore we hereby direct the ld. A.O. to delete the addition of ₹ 11,03,207/- made on account of excess payment of interest u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus, this ground is also decided in favour of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-05-2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 953 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ade on the basis of material found during the course of search. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Shreeji Traders Vs. DCIT, decided in ITA Nos.281 to 285/Mum/2010, vide order dated 13-1-2012 for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07, has held that on estimated turnover the penalty cannot be levied. Copy of the order was also filed. Therefore, following the order of the Tribunal and taking into consideration that we have also disapproved the action of the AO, no turnover can be estimated without any material, we cancel the levy of penalty. 26. In result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 (i.e. ITA No.3502/M/10) and Cross Objection No.189/M/2011 are allowed in part and appeal in respect of penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Act (i.e. ITA No.1875/M/2012) is allowed, whereas appeals of the department for assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 (i.e. ITA Nos.5743&5744/M/2010) are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of May.2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 952 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t the petitioner as well. Since no other factors like responsibility, duties have been taken into consideration by the authorities while imposing the penalty against the petitioner we see that the penalty imposed against the petitioner is discriminatory and the petitioner is entitled to parity qua Mr.S.C.Saxena. For these reasons we hold that, on facts, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Pal Singh‟s case (supra) is applicable and as such the penalty order dated August 12, 2009 is liable to be set aside. We do so. We set aside the order of the Tribunal dated February 18, 2011 passed in OA No.242/2010. The petitioner shall be paid full pension on superannuation. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. If the arrears are not paid within two months then the payment thereafter would entail interest at the rate of 9 per annum. 15. The writ petition is allowed. 16. No costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Vicarious liability - not involve in day to day conduct of the business - Quashing the summon orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in the complaint u/s 138 r/w sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Company Secretary of the accused Company - HELD THAT:- The prime objective of this Court is to remind all the Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi to carefully scrutinize all the complaint cases being filed under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Act, against the accused companies at the pre-summoning stage and make sure that notice be directed only to those directors or employees of the company who satisfy the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Summons must be issued only after giving due consideration to the allegations and the materials placed on record by the complainant. Undeniably, as per the aforesaid legal pronouncements, Managing Director and the Joint Managing Director are deemed to be vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company because of the position they hold in the company. Problem arises in cases where all the persons holding office in the company are sought to be prosecuted by the complainant, irrespective of whether they played any specific role in the incriminating act. One can also not lose sight of the fact that once such innocent persons are summoned, they have no choice but to seek bail and face the ordeal of trial. Many of such persons also approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the summoning order and the complaint filed against them and this further increases the burden on the already overburdened Courts.
Therefore, With a view to ensure that the Metropolitan Magistrates dealing with the complaint cases filed under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have a clear and complete picture of the persons arrayed by the complainant so as to hold them vicariously liable for the commission of the offence by the accused company, court is inclined to direct that the Magistrates must seek copies of Form-32 from the complainant to prima facie satisfy the Court as to who were the directors of the accused company at the time of commission of the alleged offence and on the date of filing of the complaint case. In addition to the above, the Magistrates must also seek information as given which is to be annexed by the Complainant on a separate sheet accompanying the complaint.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all the Metropolitan Magistrates posted in various district courts of Delhi for necessary compliance. Registry is further directed to send a copy of this order to all the Bar Associations of various district courts of Delhi, so that they can apprise the members of the Bar about the aforesaid directions.
-
2013 (5) TMI 950 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... A is to be issued for making assessment/reassessment under that Section. Thus, initiation of a valid search as contemplated u/s 132 in case of a person is a prerequisite to issue notice for making assessment/reassessment under Section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of such person. In view of this settled position of law, in the absence of warrant of authorization issued in the name of the assessee and considering the admitted fact by the Revenue that there has been no search as contemplated u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A in respect of the assessee, we are of the opinion that the entire assessment proceedings by the lower authority is bad in law and the same needs to be quashed. Accordingly, we allow the additional grounds raised in both the appeals. Consequently, other grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals become infructuous. 4. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 949 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ... ... ... ..... e at the end of the year and has to be disallowed. 29. As discussed above, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate, decided on 3rd April, 2013, has over-ruled the decision of I.T.A.T.(SB), Vishakhapatnam, in the case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transporters and another passed in I.T.A. No. 477/viz/2008, dated 29.03.2012. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned CIT(A), Jammu, deserves to be canceled. Thus, we cancel the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 by accepting the appeal filed by the Revenue and upholding the assessment order dated 28.11.2011 on the issue in dispute as discussed above for the assessment year 2009-10. 22) In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee i.e. I.T.A. No. 358(Asr)/2012 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue i.e. 417(Asr)/2012 is allowed as discussed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 948 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ... ... ... ..... ided this issue elsewhere in this order that the amount surrendered by Dr. S.S. Tantia has to be taxed in his hands. Therefore, we order to delete the addition of ₹ 2,45,374, sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover, by considering the legal position that this amount cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee firm at all as the CIT(A) declared the action itself as illegal. Further, the order of the AO is not reasoned order in respect of assessing the substantive income in the hands of the assessee. It will be worth pointing out that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) even on merits has deleted the other addition and should not have made the addition on substantive basis. Therefore, this addition, even otherwise, cannot be sustained. The appeal is therefore, allowed on this issue. 40. In the result, the appeal is allowed to that extent. 41. Stay applications having become infructuous are dismissed as having become infructuous. In the result, to sum up
-
2013 (5) TMI 947 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... r. Invoking the provisions of Sec. 158A of the Act, the assessee was asked to file a declaration that if the AO agrees to apply in the relevant case the final decision on the question of law in the other case, he shall not raise such question of law in the relevant case in appeal before any appellate authority. The assessee filed the necessary declaration in Form No. 8. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative stated that Revenue has no objection for admitting the declaration filed by the assessee. 9. Considering the above facts in the light of the provisions of Sec. 158A and following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we direct the AO to allow the expenditure on account of VSAT charges and Leaseline charges. Expenditure on account of transaction charge is accordingly to be disallowed subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.5.2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 946 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ... ... ... ..... fore, have erred in bringing to tax the income from capital gains in his hand though the same may be a subject matter of taxation in the hands of the real owners. In this view of the matter, the addition so made being unjust and uncalled for, the same is directed to be deleted. 14. In so far as in ground No. 2 in appeal, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of disallowance of expenses of ₹ 74,923/- against his business income as the same is not shown to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 15. Having heard parties, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned decision of Ld. CIT(A) in sustenance of such disallowance as the assessee has not laid any evidence to show that such expenses were laid for the purpose of his business. For lack of evidence, the disallowance so made, does not call for any interference. 16. In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2013.
............
|