|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 731 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 1011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonour of Cheque - assessee is into money lending business without licence - discharge of legally enforceable debt or not? - whether carrying on money lending business without licence debars a person from doing money lending and recovering the amount through court? - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of present applicant complainant that he has any money lending licence. Section 10 of the Act lays down that no court shall pass a decree in favour of a moneylender in any suit to which said Act applies unless the court is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was advanced, the moneylender held a valid licence, and if the court is satisfied that the moneylender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit.
As per explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. So, a loan advanced by a money lender who is doing business of money lending without licence is not a debt or other liability and provisions of Section 138 of the Act will not apply to such transaction.
In the light of above, it cannot be said that in the present case, that the cheque issued by the Respondent in favour of the applicant was for the liability enforceable in law.
Section 32B(b) of the said Act, which lays down that whoever carries on the business of money lending at any place without holding a valid licence authorising him to carry on such business at such place, shall, on conviction, be punished for the first offence with imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees one thousand and five hundred or with both and for the second or subsequent offence, in addition to, or in lieu of, the penalty specified in Clause (i) with imprisonment which shall not be less than two years, where such person is not a company, and with fine which shall not be less than rupees five thousand, where such person is a company.
Hence, this is not a case wherein application for leave to file appeal can be granted. Hence, application rejected.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1010 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Alia Mubarak Ali's case are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the said case, the convict was undergoing imprisonment in two cases in which he had been convicted and he claimed that he was entitled to set-off in respect of both the cases. This Court drawing inspiration from Section 427 on the concurrent running of sentences, held that the petitioner was entitled to set-off in both cases in view of the doctrine of merger of sentences when directed to run concurrently in a particular case where conviction is on many counts. 14. The application filed by Atul Manubhai Parekh, being Criminal Misc. Petition No.13384 of 2009, in the disposed of Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2004, and the connected applications being Criminal Misc. Petition No.13382 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2005, Criminal Misc. Petition No.13381 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2005 and Criminal Misc. Petition No.17357 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2004, are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1009 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ecords before us and in view of the various provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that remittances into the NRE account of Shri R.P. Modani are proceeds of crime and properties acquired out of these funds which were transferred in the accounts of the appellants in the guise of gifts/share application money, are tainted properties. We are, thus, satisfied that the properties held in the names of appellants are proceeds of crime and involved in money laundering and thus warranted attachment under the Act. In our opinion, there was sufficient material before the Adjudicating Authority which formed basis for having reasons to believe that remittances in NRE a/c of Shri R.P. Modani were prima facie proceeds of crime and properties provisionally attached were involved in money laundering. Thus, we have no hesitation in upholding the orders of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of properties. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1008 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e a statement denying any commission having been received by him. Since books of accounts were found to be unacceptable, the assessing officer estimated that the net profit from business is ₹ 75,000/-. On appeal, the Tribunal reduced this income estimated to ₹ 50,000/-. Even though assessee's counsel contended that income escaping assessment completed under Section 147 is time barred, we do not find any such contention raised before the Tribunal while deciding the issue. An appeal is maintainable before this Court only on substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. Since the issue does not arise from the orders of the Tribunal, we decline to consider the same. So far as refixation of income is concerned, we do not find any question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Consequently appeal is dismissed leaving freedom to the appellant to move the Tribunal in accordance with law if he has a case that the assessment is time barred.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1007 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndants are benami holdings. Apart from merely mentioning "fiduciary" capacity, no attempt is made to show that Kailash Berry, during his lifetime, ever claimed that such property belonged to him, or asserted as such. The date of acquisition of such investments and properties, by the deceased, is not shown. In these circumstances, the plaintiff's right to claim it - when the alleged real owner never appears to have asserted any proprietary right over such assets and investments - is not shown. The court is therefore of the opinion that the mere incantation of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 owning such assets in a "fiduciary" capacity is insufficient to escape the bar under Sections 3 and 4, and also to secure the benefit of Section 4 (3) (b). 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the suit is not maintainable; it has to be rejected. The plaint in the civil suit is, therefore, rejected; all pending applications too are therefore disposed of.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1006 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... .....
-
2009 (11) TMI 1005 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Circular, CIT(A) found that provisions of Section 40A(3) are not applicable for the payments made for procurement of food grains. Since the assessee was procuring the food grains directly from the farmers/cultivators by making payment in cash, even if it is found that assessee is not kachha arhatia, no disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3). The CIT(A) has also referred to the enquiries made by the Inspector and the AO in case of other traders engaged in the similar trade, wherein on spot enquiries it was found that agricultural produce was brought to the grain market at Lawrence Road by farmers for sale. The detailed finding recorded by the CIT(A) at paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6 has not been controverted by the learned DR, we therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made on account of Section 40A(3). 12. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 27th November, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1004 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... licable to the facts of assessee’s case. Therefore, we inclined to uphold the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and reject this ground of appeal of Revenue. 15. Now we come to the Cross Objection being No. 68/AHD/2007 arising out of the ITA No. 478/AHD/2007 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. The only ground of C.O. is that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition of ₹ 35,16,506/-. This ground of C.O. clearly indicates that the A.O. filed by the assessee is merely in support of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 16. In view of our decision above in Revenue’s appeal, i.e. ITA No. 478/AHD/2007 (supra), the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is rendered infructuous, therefore, the same is dismissed. 17. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 27.11.2009
-
2009 (11) TMI 1003 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... so, whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the goods seized stood sold in breach of the terms and conditions mentioned in DEEC? 3. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. The High Court has dismissed the Tax Appeal only on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration on merits in accordance with law. We once again reiterate that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. 4. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1002 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv., Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1001 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , Adv., Ms. Anjani Aiyagari, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1000 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ra, Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Issue notice. Mr.Sandeep S.Karhail, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. To be listed for final hearing along with S.L.P.(C) No.20791/2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 999 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... in default under ss. 201 and 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee gets relief accordingly. 6. Now we take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 753/Mum/2009. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal, however, the sole grievance is against the learned CIT(A) has confirming the action of the AO in levying penalty of ₹ 4,41,618 under s. 271C(1) of the Act. The impugned penalty is levied for assessee's alleged failure of deducting tax at source under s. 195 from payment made to Shri Paramjit Singh towards purchase of land. 8. Since we have quashed the impugned tax withholding demand and held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under ss. 201 and 201(1A) r/w s. 195 of the Act, levying of penalty under s. 271C(1) of the Act must also be deleted. The very cause of action of this penalty does not survive any longer. The appeal is thus allowed. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above.
-
2009 (11) TMI 998 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order of termination passed against the appellant is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. However, it would be open to the authorities, if so desire, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for her termination from service and if such disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the authorities shall give proper opportunity of hearing and permit the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands and after giving such opportunity, the disciplinary authorities thereafter shall give hearing to the appellant and then pass a final order on the question of termination of service of the appellant in compliance with the concerned statutory rules applicable to the appellant. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the order of termination passed against the appellant is quashed. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 997 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here has been a complete violation of the provisions of Section 560 of the Act. 8. In the said circumstances, the notice dated 17.9.2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 6.10.2007 cannot stand, being contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 560 of the companies Act and it is, accordingly, quashed to the extent it concerns the petitioner Company. 9. Consequentially the name of the Petitioner Company shall stand restored to the register of Companies as though it had never been so struck off. It is, however, made clear, as undertaken by learned Counsel for the petitioner Company, that all the statutory returns shall be filed by it within a period of six weeks from today. It is also made clear that any right action which may have been in existence against may the company on the day the day its name was struck off from the register of companies, i.e., 6.10.2007 shall not be barred by the law of limitation which shall not run for the period from 6.10.2007 till today.
-
2009 (11) TMI 996 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... e stated therein, the CPIO should be free to examine the merit of such contention and decide whether third-party's submissions be disclosed to the RTI-petitioner. (g) Should the CPIO find that third-party's reply (written or oral) would cause injury to the third-party if disclosed to the RTI-petitioner, he should so state this fact in his order. 12. In sum, disclosure of third-party's submission to a CPIO under Section 11 is the norm except when CPIO is persuaded that such disclosure would jeopardize the third-party's interest or inflict on him harm or injury. 13. That being the position regarding disclosure of third-party averments, in the present case, however, I find no reason why these should not be disclosed to the appellant. It is, therefore, directed that the requested information be disclosed to the appellant within 1 week of the receipt of this order. 14. Appeal disposed of with the above directions. 15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
-
2009 (11) TMI 995 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Accrual of receipts - Undeclared sale price of machinery - Correct assessment year - ITAT has affirmed the order of the CIT(A) that as per the terms of the contract, only 85% of the amount was to be received by the Assessee till the supply of machinery in the assessment year under consideration and the remaining 15% amount was payable to the Assessee, after issuance of provisional acceptance certificate and other requirements, therefore, the Assessee had not acquired the right to receive 15 per cent of the price till the conditions of contract were fulfilled - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessee had not received right only on 85 per cent of amount which can be enforced in court of law. No debt came into existence in respect of balance amount of 15 per cent in respect of which the Assessee must have acquired a right to receive the payment. The balance amount will accrue to Assessee on completion of contract as per its terms and conditions.
The contention of the Revenue that on matching principle the amount of expenditure incurred in respect of the machinery work has been debited in the Profit & Loss Account will not be of much help on the ground that in the subsequent year the entire amount has been subject to tax without any debiting of the expenditure in profit and loss account. Thus the amount in respect of the machinery work is not assessable in the year under consideration. Assessee's case is also covered by the decision of Ignifluid Boilers (India) Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition.
Excess depreciation claimed on office equipment and electric installation - allowing of depreciation on office equipment and electric installation like transformer or control panels at the rate of 25 per cent as against 15 per cent as allowed by the AO - HELD THAT:- No ground to interfere in the aforesaid findings, as a finding of fact has been recorded by the learned ITAT. The transformer and control panels cannot be taken as part of office furniture. The Fax machine and CCTV systems, which are being used in the business of the Assessee, have rightly been given depreciation at the rate of 25 percent, by treating them as part and parcel of plant and machinery and these items cannot be treated as part of office furniture.
No merit in the instant appeal and in our opinion no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT.
-
2009 (11) TMI 994 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erformance in the written test and interview. 52. There will be a declaration that the amendment to the Rule in question is prospective and does not affect the selection process initiated under the Notification issued in 2007 and the exclusion of the petitioners as per the said amendment is illegal. Consequently, we issue a writ of mandamus directing the High Court of Kerala and the State of Kerala to consider the claim of the petitioners also in accordance with law, for appointment as District Judge as against the six vacancies for which the Notification was issued. The appointments which have already been made being subject to the final decision in these Writ Petitions, will depend upon the decision to be taken in regard to the petitioners pursuant to this Judgment. The select list will be recast on the basis of the decision. A decision as aforesaid shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petitions are allowed as above.
-
2009 (11) TMI 993 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts have also confirmed the factum of such payment. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for awarding compensation in certain cases. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the amount with appropriate interest. There was nothing indicated in the written statement filed by the defendants as to whether interest claimed was excessive. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for refund of ₹ 1,60,000/- with interest 18 from the date of plaint till the date of realization. Disposal - 67. In the result, the judgment and decree dated 05.04.1995 in O.S.No.116/1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is set aside. The prayer for granting a decree of specific performance is rejected. The plaintiff is granted the alternative decree for refund of the advance amount with simple interest 18 p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realization. 68. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 992 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Lok Adalat on such an application, after its registration, following the procedural requirements applicable. Withdrawal of the complaint referred to the Lok Adalat could also have been included as one of the terms of the settlement of that independent application when such an award is passed. An award passed on such an independent application irrespective of the reference of the complaint from the criminal court could have been executed as a decree as if the same had been passed by a civil court. An award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference of a criminal case by the criminal court, as already indicated, can only be construed as an order by the criminal court and it is not a decree passed by a civil court. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the petitioner to execute the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference of a complaint by the criminal court. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
........
|
