|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1228 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... kers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at Paragraph 25 above. The Appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefit w.e.f. 29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the Appellant-State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1227 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... layed by the petitioner director in the matter of issuance of cheque in question. It is true that the case was pending for long for absconsion of other accused persons but for that the petitioner accused should not be blamed. 9. In view of the discussions as made above I am of the opinion that further continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner accused will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Accordingly, this application is hereby allowed on contest. The criminal proceeding being C/2012 of 1997 under Section 138/141, N.I. Act pending in the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court at Calcutta is hereby quashed so far as the present petitioner D.M. Kulkarni alias Dilip M. Kulkarni is concerned. The petitioner is released from his bail bond, if any. However, the pending case may proceed against other accused persons as per law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsels of the parties, if applied for.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1226 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... sidering the contract document as a whole and all other evidence that may be submitted by the assessee to demonstrate the fact that the assessee has actually developed the infrastructure facilities by undertaking the activities of design, development, engineering, construction, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period. If the assessee will be able to establish such facts by supporting evidence, then, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. With the aforesaid observations, we set aside the Order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh by keeping in view of our observations made hereinabove. Needless to mention, that the Assessing Officer shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ring for the Department could not point out any distinguishing feature but rather accepted that the judgment of the Division Bench in C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College Shikshan Society (supra) will have full application to the facts of the instant case. 14. Respectively following such judgment, the impugned order dt. 31st Aug., 2010 passed by the Chief CIT, Ghaziabad is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the prescribed authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations made above. It is desirable that the said decision may be taken by the prescribed authority within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. 15. Since the matter is being remitted to the prescribed authority and, therefore, this Court is not going into the other questions which may also be pressed and decided by the concerned authority afresh strictly in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. 63. Applying the above ratio in Pala Singh to the case on hand, while pointing out the delay in the forwarding of the FIR to the Magistrate, no prejudice was said to have been caused to the Appellants by virtue of the said delay. As far as the commencement of the investigation is concerned, our earlier detailed discussion discloses that there was no dearth in that aspect. In such circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the case of the prosecution on that score. In fact the above decision was subsequently followed in Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and Aqeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. 31. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed. 32. The Appellants are on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of sentence, if any.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1223 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the appellant are treated as allowed. 4. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the present order of learned CIT(A). He simply followed the order of ITAT in assessee s own case for the earlier two years. That the only dispute is with regard to method of accounting followed by the assessee. The assessee is consistently following the method of accounting of recognizing the revenue on project completion method while the Assessing Officer rejected the same and computed the income on the basis of percentage completion method. The ITAT in assessee s own case in the earlier years has upheld the project completion method being followed by the assessee. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). The same is sustained and the Revenue s appeals are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1222 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , who never moved before any court of law and had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in view of Regulation 31 they will deem to have continued in service up to the age of 60 years. In their case, the Appellants shall treat the age of superannuation at 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. On such calculation, they shall be entitled for arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. (c) The arrears of salary and arrears of retirement benefits should be paid to such employees within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 39. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dated 29th July, 2010 and other impugned judgments stand modified to the extent above. The appeals are disposed of with aforesaid observation and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1221 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... urposes for retaining fund for such a long time also is an area which requires consideration the mandate of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maneesh Buildwell revenue case necessitates that the fresh evidences relied upon by the assessee be enquired into. The finding in impugned order, it is seen is not based on a correct judicious understanding of facts and evidences as such has no merits. Accordingly on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, we consider it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The said order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the parties at the time of hearing. 8. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 19th of July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1220 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mount alleged to have been siphoned away is stated to be public money of more than Rs. 28 crores. 5.9 The Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India also has registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for investigation into misappropriation of the alleged fraud, in question. 6. The above are the factors, to reasonably conclude, inter alia that, the offence is grave in nature, and further that, in the event the applicant is enlarged on bail, the likelihood of his being available at the time of trial are less. 7. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice, to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. Rule is discharged. 8. Liberty is granted to the applicant to move this Court again, after three months. The application, if any, that may be moved by the applicant, shall be considered at the relevant time, on its own merits.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1219 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... eals are to be restored to the file of the AO for reconsideration in the light of the finding that may be recorded in the case of V N Radhakrishnan. In other words, the finding that may be recorded in the case of Dr V N Radhakrishnan and Smt Remani Radhakrishnan may be relevant for completing the assessment in the case of the present assesses. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the issue needs reconsideration along with the assessment of V N Radkakrishnan and Smt Ramani Radhakrishnan. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the AO for reconsideration. The AO shall consider the issue afresh on the basis of the material that may be produced by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5 In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronouncement in the open court on 10th day of July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1218 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id not look into all these aspects and mandated the appellate authority to pass orders imposing a specific penalty only. This direction of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to take a decision imposing appropriate penalty on the Respondents herein. We are confident that the mitigating circumstances pointed out by the Respondents herein would be given due consideration by the appellate authority, keeping in view the ratio of Rajendra Yadav's case as well. It would be open to the Respondents herein to make representation in this behalf to the appellate authority on the basis of which the Respondents want to contend that they should be given same treatment as meted out to other three employees. Such a representation will be given 15 days from today. Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders deciding the appeals afresh within 2 months from today. 19. Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Division Bench in relying upon Balbir Singh s case for enhancing the value, we only modify the rate fixed by the Division Bench to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.42,000/- per bigha. With the modification only in respect to the rate per bigha, in all other respects the Division Bench decision deserves to be confirmed. We however, do not find any merit in the claim of the appellants for claiming any further enhancement beyond the sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in as much as there was absolutely no legally acceptable material in support of any such claim. 16. The appeals stand partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the Division Bench of the High Court to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in respect of both categories of land. With the above modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly allowed. Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for consequential benefits as per the law, if any.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1216 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee are in the nature of charitable activities. It has been further held on appreciation of fact that micro finance activity in the instant case is a charitable activity. Learned Tribunal has also relied on the judgment of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal on identical fact that the micro financing to the poor people is a charitable activity. Under such circumstances, the assessee was granted exemption under Sec.11 of the Income Tax Act. The learned Tribunal further found that in order to achieve the main purpose of the charitable activity, the assessee has joined hands with some other financial organizations and banks. Such steps to collect money for micro financing, does not defeat the real object in order to deprive it of the exemption. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, which is based on fact-finding and such facts attract the provision of exemption. Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1215 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax returns. It is further held that By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is legally enforceable liability within meaning of explanation to section 138 of the said Act. Alleged debt cannot be said to be legally recoverable debt. If such liability is held to be legally recoverable debt, it will render the extension to section 138 of the said act nugatory. It will defeat very object of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of ensuring that the commercial and mercantile activities are conducted in a healthy manner. The provision of section 138 cannot be resorted to for recovery of any unaccounted amount. Reasons assigned by learned Magistrate are justifiable reasons. It is rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove that disputed cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt. Hence Findings recorded by Magistrate do not call for interference. ORDER i) Application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t, where a sum of Rs. 9,968.49/- was available. Both put together a sum of Rs. 20,887.93/- was available and therefore, even after the purchase of the third item of the suit schedule property, the first Respondent had a further sum available with him. The trial Court has also noted that except the ipse dixit of D.W.2 and 3 that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the first Respondent by way of gift at the time of marriage of the first Respondent with his daughter, there was no other evidence to support and provide credence to the said version. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court completely omitted to examine the above material piece of evidence, which was considered in detail by the trial Court, while decreeing the suit. 41. In the light of our above conclusions, the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. The appeal stands allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court shall stand restored.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ution failed to explain the grievous injuries found on the person of Gobardhan and Munshi - Accused herein. 10. This Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the Accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 11. We have considered and examined the matter most minutely. Applying the parameters of interference against the order of acquittal, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. This appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lable warrants having been withdrawn, the Petitioner shall personally escort Respondent No. 7 and Anand from India to the USA. 32. With these observations, the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the Criminal Appeals No. 934-936 of 2013 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10606-10608 of 2010 are hereby dismissed. 33. Before parting with this order, we may also notice here that the Respondent (husband) filed a Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 3335 of 2012, challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed earlier, the aforesaid order was passed in the criminal petition filed by the Respondent husband, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the Appellant/wife against the Respondent himself and his parents under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since no arguments were advanced in the aforesaid matter, let this appeal be listed for arguments separately.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1211 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er relief claimed, is of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in the properties mentioned in the plaint. As far as the properties with respect to which the three agreements-cum-bayana rasid are stated to have been executed, the plaintiffs in the plaint itself admit the said properties to have since changed hands; the subsequent purchasers have not been impleaded; the claim for injunction against the defendants with respect to such properties is therefore utterly misconceived. As far as the property subject matter of Sale Deed, cancellation whereof is sought is concerned, once the plaintiffs have been held to be not entitled to the relief of cancellation, the question of the plaintiffs being entitled to the relief of injunction with respect to the said property does not arise. 16. The suit thus, in so far as against the defendants no. 1&2 also, is found to be not maintainable and is dismissed; however in the facts no costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1210 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgement. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the ground raised by the AR is rejected. 13. In the result, all the MAs by different assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th July, 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1209 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 4 would be available. Section 24 itself allows deduction of 30% of rental income. Hence, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee. Ld. DR has not pointed out any decision or made submissions contrary to the observation made by Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, reject the grounds of appeal taken by department and uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).” 15. Facts being identical, respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, ground No. 1 is dismissed. 16. Ground No. 2 relates to allowability of depreciation on fixed assets. 17. This ground has already been discussed in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 4965/M/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 at para 2 to 5. Therefore, on similar lines, similar reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 6642/M/2011 for assessment year 2008-2009 is dismissed. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.7.2013
........
|
