|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1043 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 1040 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n even after the transactions were brought on record is suspicious, even if that there was a complete silence about any such transaction in the complain, is ignored. 19. The conclusion of the magistrate that the defence of the accused was probable, is proper, legal and correct. 20. Even otherwise, it is well settled that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, this court ought not to interfere in the matter, even if two views of the evidence adduced before the trial court are possible and the trial court has taken one of them. It is impossible to hold that the view taken by the magistrate is not a 'possible view' of the matter. It is not that the magistrate has ignored relevant and admissible evidence, or has based his conclusion on inadmissible evidence. 21. Since the view taken by the magistrate is undoubtedly a possible view of the matter, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1039 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ness of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section 141. In the present matter, since the petitioner was not the Director on the date of commission of offence, the statutory notice, as given to other accused persons was not given to the petitioner and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint, therefore, continuation of the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of complaint in question would be an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, it is found to be a fit case for exercising of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quashed. The M.Cr.C. is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1038 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n exception for deduction allowable u/s 28 to 43B of the Act and such an exception is not applicable to the computation of taxable income of an insurance company computed under a special provision u/s 44 of the Act? (c) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT justified while confirming the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the interest u/s 234D of the Act for Rs.2,90,568/.” 2 To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.1138 of 2010.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1037 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... 00% EOU nor received their sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and is accordingly reversed. Resultantly, the order of the Assessing Officer in this behalf is restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed.´ 13. The aforesaid judgment squarely covers the issue against the assessee. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the Department for assessment 2003-04 is allowed while Ground No.1 taken by the assessee in its appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. 14. Remaining grounds of appeal i.e. ground Nos.2 to 5 in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 were neither pressed nor argued at the time of hearing. They are therefore dismissed for want of any argument to rebut the findings recorded by the CIT(A) for deciding the issues against the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1036 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Act of 1956, the petitioner must establish that the debt alleged against the company is a debt which is legally recoverable. It was further held that if the remedy of the creditor was barred under any law it would render the debt unrecoverable and the same could not be considered a 'debt' for the purpose of a company petition for winding up under Section 434 of the Act of 1956. 12. Viewed thus, the very foundation of this company petition stands demolished as the debt claimed by the petitioner firm as due and payable by the respondent company is rendered illegal owing to contravention of the proviso to Section 297(1) of the Act of 1956. The company petition filed for winding up of the respondent company on the basis of such a debt therefore does not warrant consideration by this Court. The Company Petition is accordingly dismissed. Company Application No. 724 of 2012 shall stand dismissed in consequence. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1035 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-Parishad disputes the submissions and contends that the calculation has rightly been made. and the 24% penal interest has not been included in the defaulted installments. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter for admission. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner may deposit an amount of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crore) in every quarterly. 1st deposit be made by 31st March, 2013 and thereafter within every three months. The question of payment of interest liability shall be decided after the counter affidavit is filed. List the matter after eight weeks. Subject to payment as directed above, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the citation dated 17.1.2013. The payment of the aforesaid shall be without prejudice to any right of the parties with regard to calculation of the interest.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1034 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on or before 7.2.2013 before the respondent no.6 for which an amount according to the petitioner bank draft is ready, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of ₹ 4.5crores quarterly. The next deposit be made by 30th April, 2013 and thereafter within every three month. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks' thereafter. List thereafter for admission. Subject to deposit as above, recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery citation dated 17.1.2013 shall remain stayed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1033 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncome Tax Act, 1961?” 2 The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this court in the matter of ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210. Further, the revenue has not been able to show any distinguishing features in this case from that of ACE Builders (Supra). In the above circumstances, we find no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1032 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt lodged the claim belatedly by filing form No.67. Cause for delay has been explained in the application which deserves to be accepted. 3. Learned counsel for official liquidator has no objection for condoning the delay and submits claim would be examined on merits. His submission is placed on record. Accordingly delay is condoned. C.A.172/2013 is allowed. Official Liquidator is permitted to adjudicate the claim on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 02-07 passed in the case of Rajpath Club Ltd. in ITA No.2830/Ahd/2006 relating to A.Y. 03-04 allowed the appeal of the appellant for deleting such additions. It is, therefore, respectfully following such decision, the addition so made is directed to be deleted. The appellant gets a relief of ₹ 52,95,900/-.” 3. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. The C.O. has been filed in support of ld. CIT(A)’s order which has become infructuous in view of our decision in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, the C.O. of the assessee is also dismissed. 6. In the combined result, Revenue’s appeal and C.O. of the assessee, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 11.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1030 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract executed by the assessee itself. In the event, the assessee itself carried on the development of infrastructure facilities/ contract along with design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period, then such contract to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility executed by the assessee and thereby eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. We also make it clear that if the assessee has not carried on the activities as an independent developer who designed, executed and operated infrastructural facilities, in that event the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue in accordance with the above direction. 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1029 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ng out of actual activities. The scope of enquiry with respect to the activities is limited as to whether the objects are genuinely charitable or not as has also been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic and Optometry Research Education Centre (2012) 79 DTR 178 (Del.). We, therefore, set aside the orders of Ld. CIT, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in this regard and remit the matter back so that the necessary enquiry into the objects of the Trust and genuineness of the activities as are stated therein is examined afresh in the light of aforesaid judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and issue of registration under section 12AA as well as approval under section 80G are adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes as announced in the open court immediately after conclusion of the hearing on18.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oyees. The materials on record are also sufficient to arrive at a finding that the default was not one without reasonable excuse. The observation made by the learned Single Judge with respect to the failure on the part of the Official Liquidator to prove the case itself is sufficient to acquit the appellant. Conclusion 37. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the failure on the part of the appellant to submit the statement of affairs of the Company was not wilful and the Official Liquidator miserably failed to prove that the default was without reasonable excuse. 38. In the result, the order dated 6 February 2009 in C.A. No. 1081 of 2004 in C.P. No. 101 of 1994 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence. The Official Liquidator is directed to refund the fine amount paid by the appellant forthwith. In the upshot, we allow the intra-court appeal. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1027 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il at the present juncture, when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it is not proper to order the release of the petitioners on bail. In the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, we hereby decline the prayer for bail made by the petitioners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are accordingly affirmed. 16. Having disposed of the matter in the manner expressed hereinabove, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the prosecution to first examine the material witnesses. It shall be open to the petitioner(s) to move a fresh application for bail, after the examination of all the material witnesses. Observations made in the instant order, on the merits of the controversy, shall not prejudice any of the parties during the course of the trial or thereafter. 17. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the co-accused and planned a strategy to abduct the children and demand ransom. His case stands on a different footing from that of the other accused. The case of the other accused will have to be dealt with on its own merit. The High Court was carried away by the heinous nature of the crime and, in that, it lost sight of the basic principle underlying criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. If a criminal court allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of the offence and proceeds to hand out punishment on that basis, in the absence of any credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. We hope and trust that this is just an aberration. 12. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Appellant - Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 13. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHENNAI
Eligibility to claim depreciation as an application of income for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11 & 12 - Held that:- Hon’ble P&H High Court in the decisions of Market Committee, Pipli(2010 (7) TMI 374 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ) and of M/s.Tiny Tots Education Society (2010 (7) TMI 377 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ) had held clearly in favour of the assessee that depreciation was allowable as utilization for the purpose of computing exempt income under sections 11 & 12 of the Act. Thus Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O. to consider the claim of depreciation as a part of utilization of the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement. 12. The instant case is required to be considered in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. The requisite record reveals the factual matrix as under 13. The aforesaid chart clearly establishes that the insured failed to comply with the requirement of Clause 8(b) of the agreement informing the insurer about the non-payment of outstanding dues by the foreign importer within the stipulated time except in two cases. 14. Thus, we are of the view that only two claims which are subject-matters in Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 and 1557 of 2004 deserve to be allowed. The others are disallowed. With these observations, all 17 appeals stand disposed of.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1023 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ke fresh prayers for bail before the High Court and if advised, the respondents may file such bail applications before the High Court within four weeks from today. If such bail applications are filed by the respondents, the High Court will consider the same on their own merits in accordance with law. 9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of these cases and any observations made by us in this order will not influence the High Court in deciding the appeals afresh in accordance with law. We, however, request the High Court to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeals within six months from today. 10. We further make it clear that if any appeal has abated on account of death of any accused, the State will bring that fact to the notice of the High Court and the High Court will pass appropriate orders. 11. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to send back the original records to the High Court at the earliest.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1022 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... notice u/s 156, and orders u/s 200A /201(1) /201(1A) after getting instructions from higher authorities. The appellant can file correction statement any number of times is this process in NSDL site. When his all alternatives are exhausted, he should give his calculation of 201 (1) tax deducted from payments to deductee and interest u/s201(1A) to Assessing Officer (TDS) and pay the final tax and interest accordingly. Then he can recover the tax from deductee as per law. Finally, the interest u/s 201 (1A) is a burden on appellant which is compensatory in nature, if proper TDS is not deducted and paid to Government account.” 6. Since no contrary material has been placed on record, therefore while following the said order, we conclude to adopt the same finding, while accepting the appeals of the Revenue for statistical purposes. 7. As a result, all the three appeals filed by the department are accepted for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 31.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1021 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... fulfil any of the two conditions i.e. either the assessee has specified the amount of remuneration payable to each working partner or laid down the manner of quantifying such remuneration. It is also not under dispute that the assessee has not claimed the remuneration more than as allowed income tax under section 40(b(v) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. have mis-interpreted the Circular No.739 dated 25.03.1996 referred to hereinabove and are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee, since the assessee has laid down the manner of quantifying such remuneration amounting to ₹ 2,04,000/- as per clause 6 of the partnership deed available at PB 6 to 11. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the addition so made. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.261(Asr)/2012 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2013.
........
|
