|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1630 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ises Ltd. (sura), Reena Sarogi (supra) and Kavita Parsramka (supra) and Kolkata Tribunal decision in appellant s own case for A.Y. 20QSOpnd the ratio laid down by the courts including Supreme Court in the above cited cases, I hold the gains on account of sale of shares and securities shall be treated as capital gains as against business income assessed by the A.O. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to accept the LTCG and STCG as shown by the appellant. The appellant s ground is upheld on this count. 4.1 Keeping in view of the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the Tribunal s order in assessee s own case in ITA Nos. 552 1060/Kol/2009 AY 2005-06 dated 4-9-2009 we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in directing the AO to accept the LTCG and STCG as shown/claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open court on 11-02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1629 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 7 of Schedule I-B of the Act, as amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The judgment in Tejveer Singh's case was followed by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Naresh Agarwal. These two judgments have no bearing on the issue raised in the writ petition filed by the Respondent. Therefore, it must be held that the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by disposing of the writ petition of the Respondent by relying upon the judgments in Tejveer Singh's case and Naresh Agarwal's case, and that too, without even adverting to the lease agreement executed between Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The Appellants shall now be free to recover stamp duty from the Respondent in terms of Notice No. 775 dated 25.2.2006. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent, the costs are made easy.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1628 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... See Bhagwant Rai and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 440 and I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards and Anr. v. Mandal Revenue Officer A.P. and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 634. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the RCA dated 25-6-2010 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. The Applicants/tenants are directed to appear before the RCA on 1-3-2011 along an application under Section 23-C(1) of the Act as also an application for condonation of delay. The RCA shall consider and decide the application within a period of one week thereafter. Learned Counsel for the Applicants assures this Court that the Applicants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will cooperate for the early proceedings before the RCA. In view of aforesaid statement made by learned Counsel for the Applicants, it is directed that the RCA shall conclude the proceedings positively by 31-5-2011. With the aforesaid direction, the civil revision stands disposed of.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1627 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imilar to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. 16. In our opinion, Section 3(5) cannot be read literally otherwise it will violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has to be read in the light of our observations made above. Hence, mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. 17. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 3(5) of the TADA is also not sustainable. 18. The impugned judgment of the Designated Court, Assam at Guwahati dated 28.03.2007 passed in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991 is set aside and the Appeal stands allowed. 19. By Order dated 29.10.2007 this Court had directed that the Appellant be released on bail on his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial court. Security furnished by the Appellant in pursuance of Order dated 29.10.2007 shall stand discharged.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1626 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e never rejected. Decision of the Uttaranchal High Court reversed. We may further note here that the AO has noted that cost of the construction worked out by the DVO for assessment year under appeal comes to Rs.7,08,02,769/- against the cost of construction declared by the assessee in a sum of Rs.6,71,31,237/-. The assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that the said difference is negligible because it is hardly 5.46% of the total cost incurred. Since no defects have been pointed out in the maintenance of the books of accounts before making reference to the DVO and the difference is negligible as against the cost of construction declared by the assessee, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition, We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25-02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rocesses before they can be called finished product. Once raw materials undergo various process they takes a definite shape and physical and chemical properties of the said raw materials change forever and they cannot be restored back to their original position. The raw materials lose their original identity and individuality and the end-product is known by a new identity. End products is used, sold and bought in the market by new name and it is physically and chemically different from the original raw materials. In other words the end-products are result of various processes that change their basic structures. 2 Thus, the raw materials are subject to a process to obtain NC Lacquer which is a distinct marketable commodity. Even under the Central Excise Law NC Lacquer is a distinct product classified under different heading than the raw materials . 3 In this view of the matter no fault can be found in the decision of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1624 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be seen that whether the amounts have been written off/discount is on account of Revenue head, then to that extent the profit already got reduced and, therefore, same has to be increased. Similarly, if the amounts written off/discount are on account of capital, then they would not form part of the profits for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB. 10. In view of the above detailed discussion, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT A and restore the issue raised before us to the file of the AO with the following directions 1. Deduction u/s. 80IB should be allowed in respect of interest received on delayed payments from customers after verification of such amounts; and 2. Issues regarding deduction in respect of empty barrels discount/amounts written back etc., are concerned, same should be re-examined after obtaining the necessary details. 11. In the result, Revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 11th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1623 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns in the past before the recognition by NCTE. There was nothing erroneous in constitution of such a committee. At all events, after recognition by NCTE and affiliation with the Board in 2009, this issue is academic. Consequently, CA Nos. 1232-1233/2011 are liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Conclusion 23. We accordingly dispose of the appeals as follows (i) CA No. 1228/2011 and 1229/2011 are dismissed (ii) CA No. 1227/2011 and 1230-1231/2011 are disposed of in terms of paras 18 and 19 above. (iii)CA Nos. 1232-1233/2001 are dismissed as having become infructuous. (iv) As the students admitted in 1999 have been prosecuting the litigation from 2003, we direct that if these students seek fresh admission to the Institute in 2011, they shall be permitted to join the course, if they meet the eligibility criteria, by relaxing only the age requirement. As they have paid the fees for the course in 1999-2001, they shall not be charged any further fee by the Institute.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1622 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... equently followed in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2010 (9) SCC 1. 17. The killings by the Appellant Surendra Koli are horrifying and barbaric. He used a definite methodology in committing these murders. He would see small girls passing by the house, and taking advantage of their weakness lure them inside the house No. D-5, Sector 31, Nithari Village, Noida and there he would strangulate them and after killing them he tried to have sex with the body and would then cut off their body parts and eat them. Some parts of the body were disposed off by throwing them in the passage gallery and drain (nala) beside the house. House No. D-5, Sector 31 had become a virtual slaughter house, where innocent children were regularly butchered. 18. In our opinion, this case clearly falls within the category of rarest of rare case and no mercy can be shown to the Appellant Surendra Koli. 19. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 608 of 2010. 20. Leave granted.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pellant succeeds in the appeals, there is no scope to revive the order of Assessment. Stay petitions, therefore, stand dismissed
-
2011 (2) TMI 1620 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es, 1944 now Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 when confiscation of goods is not alleged in the show cause notice? 2. For interim relief, adjourned after 4 weeks. 3. Mr. Jetly waives service for the respondent.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1619 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n accordance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. From the result of such departmental proceeding it is crystal clear that the company was not involved in any transaction which allegedly culminated in the violation of Sections 8(1) and 9(1a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and as such further continuation of the proceeding against the present petitioner will be merely an abuse of the process of law as there is no chance of success of the prosecution in this case to prove the charges under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Therefore, I hold that there is sufficient merit in this revisional application which is allowed to prevent the abuse the process of law and as such the instant proceeding is quashed and the petitioner is discharged. 4. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1618 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the Assessing Officer is fair and reasonable. We, therefore, decline to interfere. Hence, this ground of the assessee s appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is rejected. 31. Apropos the ground no.3. In respect of disallowance of interest, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to consequential relief. In the assessment year 2004-05, part of the addition made under section 68 has been upheld. Part is deleted and partly it is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest paid to cash creditors which are treated as genuine, after giving appeal effect to this order. To sum up, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee. 32. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2004-05 are partly allowed and the Revenue s appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is dismissed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 28.02.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1617 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sought for by the assessee before the CIT(A), and an unduly long one at that, still if the CIT(A) had in fact adjourned the matter, a question may arise as to whether it can be said that the delay is attributable to the assessee in the light of the fact that the CIT(A) himself adjourned the matter and did not consider the request of the assessee as unreasonable or for an unduly long period. These are all matters on which more than one view is possible and it is only after a long drawn process of argument or debate that the rival view-points can be established. Such a matter cannot obviously fall within the purview of rectification proceedings as a mistake apparent from the record in view of the legal position adumbrated by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra. 9. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the orders of the income tax authorities and allow the appeal filed by the assessee with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1616 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lowed and the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopichettypalayam in Crl.R.C. No. 37/2008 dated 10.11.2009 and learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam in CMP No. 3579 of 2007 in C.C. No. 595 of 2004 dated 2.5.2008 are set aside. 15. The revision Petitioner is directed to submit his admitted signature as stated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the lower court. The lower court is directed to send both the documents to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science as stated above. The lower court is directed to fix the remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner and also for the expenses for comparison. If the revision Petitioner fails to produce the admitted signature for comparison as stated above within the stipulated period, the revision Petitioner is not entitled to ask for sending the documents for comparison. Consequently, the connected M Ps are closed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1615 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ny amount received from a director or a shareholder of a private limited company. Therefore, the transaction between the Appellant and the director cum shareholder is not a loan or deposit and it is only a current account in nature and no interest is being charged for the above transaction. In the foregoing conclusions, we are of the view that since the said transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance, there is no violation of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the above tax case. 13.5 In the light of the above reasoning, we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 14. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. The order pronounced on Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011 at Bangalore.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1614 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act with regard to the fact that cheque had been issued by the signatory after filling it properly. In this case, the learned JMFC has rightly observed that since signature on the disputed Cheque is admitted by the respondent/accused himself, hence there is no need for sending the disputed Cheque for examination by handwriting expert concerning other part of cheque concerning date, amount etc. alleged to be filled by somebody else. Whether disputed cheque was lost or not, it will be decided after evidence. Respondent can very well adduce evidence on that point. 9. Considering the overall aspects of the matter so also the impugned orders and the documents on record, according to me, the order of learned Revisional Court allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is illegal and improper and not sustainable. Therefore, order dated 26-4-2010 passed by learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 170/2010 is set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1613 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court, while delivering the judgment, has not taken into consideration the presumption in respect of an official Act as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 14. In Paragraph 8 of (C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another) (Supra) it was held that the onus of the sendee to prove that the envelop was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. The Petitioner in the present case being the sendee did not prove that the envelop was not served and he was not responsible for such non-service and therefore, there is no rebuttal to the presumption of service. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, the word 'Not Claimed' tantamount to good service and accordingly the award was served upon the Petitioner on 8th August, 2008 and, therefore, the petition is barred by limitation under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and as such the same is dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1612 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... assessee. Hence we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition of ₹ .4,50,000/- made under section.68 of the Act and allow this ground of the assessee. 6. Ground No.2 of the appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. As no submissions were made by the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee at the time of the hearing, this ground of appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. Ground No.4 of the appeal is directed against the initiation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. As no submissions were made by the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee at the time of the hearing, this ground of appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 15th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1611 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s plain that as far as the present case is concerned, with the decree of mutual divorce having been passed by the competent civil court in 2007 itself, the case of the Petitioner would be covered under Clause 3.2(a) of the above instructions dated 21st April 1999. 6. The Petitioner’s mother should now produce before the Regional Passport Officer ( RPO?) an affidavit sworn by her before the Magistrate in terms of Clause 3.2(a) within a period of two weeks. The said affidavit will also incorporate the necessary assertion that the Petitioner’s mother will inform the RPO in the event she proposes to remarry. If such an affidavit is furnished, then the RPO will ensure that the name of the father in the passport of the Petitioner is left blank. The necessary correction in the passport be made within a further period of two weeks after the said affidavit is furnished. 7. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. 8. Order dasti to the counsel for the parties.
........
|
