|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 587 Records
-
2011 (10) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 13. Mr Tandale did not assail the judgment of the High Court with regard to other claims upset by the High Court, namely, Claims 8 and 11. With regard to Claim 6, the High Court has already directed the respondents to calculate the amount under this head at the time of settling the final bill and also directed the respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.a on the due amount, if not paid. Obviously, in view of the directions given by the High Court in para 26 of its judgment, the respondents will have to calculate the amount as regards the contractor's Claim 6 at the time of settling the final bill. If the final bill has not been settled so far, we direct the respondents to settle the final bill expeditiously and, in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall have to pay interest as directed by the High Court on the due amount, if not paid so far. 14. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (10) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lding that T. Thomas Educational Trust is a secular public charitable trust and not a minority institution. The High Court was accordingly justified in framing the scheme under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure to see to it that the trust is administered in a better way. We find the scheme to be in the interest of the trust. We have perused the common order of the Division Bench dated 21.9.2007 in CMP Nos. 5673 of 2003, 5560 of 2005, 9402 of 2006 and CMP No. 10340 and 10341 of 2005. The High Court has held on merits that the Appellant had failed to make out any case of mis-management against the Chairman or the corRespondent, and we do not find any error in the High Court order in that behalf. We do not find any merit in the Contempt Petition No. 435 of 2004 either. In the circumstances, Civil Appeal No. 6786 of 2003, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22590-22591 of 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 435 of 2004 are all dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (10) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n view of Section 155(2) of the Code as explained in Bhajan Lal. We are of the opinion that the statutory safeguard which is given under Section 155(2) of the Code must be strictly followed, since they are conceived in public interest and as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious investigation. The order of the Magistrate dated 21.06.2010 does not disclose that he has taken cognizance. However power under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even before he takes cognizance provided the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence. Since in the instant case the complaint does not do so, the order of Magistrate stated above cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. 14. We do not make any observation on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint. However, we make it clear that the complaint which has been filed against Respondent No. 2 may be treated in accordance with law. 15. With these directions, this appeal is disposed of.
-
2011 (10) TMI 738 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee is only ₹ 83.69 lakhs. Thus, approximately 90% of the demand is already paid by the assessee. In A.Y.2009-2010 against the demand of ₹ 9.04 crores, the outstanding demand is only ₹ 2.41 crores. Thus, approximately 75% demand is already paid by the assessee in A.Y.2009-2010 also. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that assessee deserves stay of Stay Petition Nos.71 and 72 /Ahd/2011 demand if any demands remains after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). We therefore direct the AO to stay the demand if any remains against the assessee after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). This stay order would be effective for the period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal by the ITAT, whichever expires earlier. We also direct that these appeals be heard on 14th December, 2011. 5. In the result, assessee's Stay Petitions are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (10) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the facts and circumstances of the case reduced the sentence as undergone, directing the appellants therein to pay a sum of ₹ 50,000/- of fine to be paid to the victim and prayed for some relief. 23. The High Court after taking into consideration all the circumstances including that the incident took place in 1989; the appeal before it was pending for more than 10 years; the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellants to Meerut and stayed with them in the hotel; and she was more than 15 years of age when she eloped with the appellants and the appellants were young boys, reduced the sentence to 5 years which was less than the minimum prescribed sentence for the offence. As the High Court itself has awarded the sentence less than the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence recording special reasons, we do not think it to be a fit case to reduce the sentence further in a proved case of rape of a minor. The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 735 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Arbitration Application and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 8. Having considered the aforesaid judgment cited supra, Clause No. 18 of the agreement, it has been agreed by both the parties that "The agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the Courts at Kolkata." Therefore, an intention to exclude jurisdiction of all other Courts may in such cases be inferred, therefore, I am of the view that the present case is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163 titled as A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies and I leave another objection of validity of the agreement open for the competent Court. 9. Accordingly, I am of the view that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. This application was filed on 2.5.2008, the applicant is at liberty to file the Arbitration Application at Kolkata High Court. The arbitration application is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
-
2011 (10) TMI 734 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... isted and unlisted companies. 42. Before concluding, we may mention that in view of our findings that OFCDs issued by the company are securities and that the issue was a public issue requiring mandatory listing and that Sebi has the jurisdiction under the Sebi Act to deal with all kinds of securities and companies, whether listed or not, the appeals could be disposed of on those findings and the impugned order upheld. It was not necessary for us to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. Since detailed arguments were addressed by all the parties on the other issues raised in both the appeals, we thought it appropriate to record our findings thereon. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned order upheld. The appellants in both the appeals shall now repay within six weeks from today the amount collected from the investors on the terms as set out by the whole time member in the impugned order. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2011 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State Bar Council under Section 15(3) of the Act will not validate Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules. In Bar Council of Delhi and Ors. v. Surjeet Singh and Others (supra), this Court has observed o p /o p 8-A...But the approval of the Bar Council of India can make the rule made by the State Bar Council valid and effective only if the rule made is within the competence of the State Bar Council, otherwise not. Mere approval by the Bar Council of India to a rule ultra vires the State Bar Council cannot make the rule valid. Nor has it the effect of a rule made by the Bar Council of India. Making a rule by the Bar Council of India and giving approval to a rule made by the State Bar Council are two distinct and different things. One cannot take the place of the other. o p /o p 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs. -- endif -- o p /o p
-
2011 (10) TMI 732 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ing heard. The AO shall give specific finding on the explanation of the assessee supported by documents. In the result, grounds No. 4 and 5 in all the appeals of the Assessee Society are allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground No.6 in all the appeals of the assessee are general and prayer for granting relief on the grounds of appeals considered above and require no further adjudication. 19. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue in the case of the Assessee Society are dismissed whereas all appeals of the Assessee Society are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 20. No other point is argued or pressed. 21. In the result, all the departmental appeals in cases of both the assessees are dismissed. All the appeals of the Assessee Company - M/s. Neptune Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. are allowed. All the appeals of the Assessee Society - M/s. Mahalaxmi Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. are allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court.
-
2011 (10) TMI 731 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... maximum penalty imposed by the Intelligence Officer, the Appellate Tribunal was lenient in reducing the penalty at equal amount of tax. Even if the second appellate authority was erred, in our opinion, it is only towards leniency. This is a case in which there is deliberate attempt to evade tax. Despite the mandate of Section 40 read with Rule 58 and Section 20 read with Rules 22 and 24, the revision petitioner, who was doing voluminous business, had not cared to maintain accounts or to file monthly, quarterly or annual returns or to remit the tax though a registration was obtained after an year of starting business. Sufficient materials are there to conclude that the tax evasion was deliberate. Assessee is not at all entitled to any further leniency. Therefore, the penalty imposed as modified in second appeal requires no interference. Point found accordingly. In the result, both the Revision Petitions are devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 730 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... A(3) of the Act. In case of the assessee the total of such payments made during the year was ₹ 2,30,600/-. As per the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, the total addition on this account was worked out to ₹ 46,120/-. The assessee is not aggrieved by the said addition but, however, is aggrieved by non-allowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Admittedly, once the addition is made in the hands of the assessee the business income of the assessee is enhanced and consequently the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on such enhanced income as the said disallowance of deduction results in enhancement of business income which in turn is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer is thus directed to allow deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19th day of October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT
Plot of land - reserved for a public purpose - primary school - development permission - cancel the commencement and occupation certificates - illegal development - a particular plot was initially reserved for a public purpose and subsequently for a primary school. The petitioners contended that only because of the instructions from the Urban Development Department (UDD), that in spite of the reservation for a primary school, the plot was permitted to be developed for private residences flouting all norms and mandatory legal provisions. They sought to challenge the building permission which was issued by the PMC under the instructions of the State Government, by submitting that these instructions amounted to interference into the lawful exercise of the powers of the Municipal Corporation, and the same was mala fide. After hearing all concerned, the petitions were allowed, and an order has been passed to cancel the Commencement (of construction) certificates, and Occupation Certificate, and to pull down the concerned building which has been constructed in the meanwhile. The State Government has been directed to initiate criminal investigation against Shri Manohar Joshi, Shri Ravindra Murlidhar Mane, the then Minister of State for UDD, and the then Pune Municipal Commissioner Shri Ram Nath Jha. Being aggrieved by this order, the present group of appeals have been filed. The tenants, however, contend that if the plot of land is taken over by PMC, they will remain mere tenants as against the ownership rights which were assured to them by the developer and the landlord, and are, therefore, continuing to maintain their appeals.
HELD THAT:- Present case is not one where permission was sought for the construction under erstwhile T.P. scheme, or u/s 50 of the MRTP Act. This is a case where the personal relationship of the developer with the Chief Minister was apparently used to obtain permission for construction without following any due process of law. This is a case of rules and procedures being circumvented to benefit a close relative of the Chief Minister. It is a clear case of mala fide exercise of the powers and, therefore, the High Court was perfectly justified in canceling the development permission which was granted by the State Government. The development permission could not be defended either under Rule 6.6.2.2 or u/s 50. The MRTP Act requires a valid development permission under chapter IV of the act, and in the instant case there is none. Consequently, the construction put up on the basis of such permission had to be held to be illegal. In the circumstances, we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench as fully justified in law and in the facts of the case.
As far as the building meant for the tenants is concerned, the developer as well as PMC have indicated that they have no objection to the building being retained. The illegal development carried out by the developer has resulted into a legitimate primary school not coming up on the disputed plot of land. Thousands of children would have attended the school on this plot during last 15 years. The loss suffered by the children and the cause of education is difficult to assess in terms of money, and in a way could be considered to be far more than the cost of construction of this building.
All the appeals stand disposed of
-
2011 (10) TMI 728 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... mpany. In section 2(22)(e) of the Act, HUF category is separately dealt with, therefore, it is not the intention of the legislature to club the holdings of individual with the HUF. The HUF shares are 6.73% whereas individual shares are 5.40% of the total issued capital. Even in JCIT v. Kunal Organics Private Limited; 164 Taxman 169 (Ahd) it was held that individual and HUF are two different entities and, therefore, their share holdings cannot be clubbed for applying provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Identical ratio was laid down in Appeal No. 4 (Mum)/2006 order dated June 25, 2008. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar; 300 ITR 462 (Del) clearly supports our view. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the revenue. So far as the cross objection is concerned, it was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 727 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t be remitted to the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in terms of the order of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Parisar SSK Limited, reported in 326 ITR 42. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay.
-
2011 (10) TMI 726 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the period from 1st October, 2004 upto 31st March, 2005, the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended with effect from 1st October, 2004 have been applied. We, therefore, find no Substantial Question of Law arising in the matter. Appeal is rejected.
-
2011 (10) TMI 725 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... see has raised the following effective ground in this appeal i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 7,52,279/- calculated u/s 14A of the IT Act calculated by applying provision of Rule 8D of the I T Rules 1962. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding and confirming the disallowance of brokerage paid to ₹ 32,12,410/- to M/s Panjak Polymers Ltd for services rendered for arranging third party exports and sale of DEPB License.” 24 Both these grounds are common in appeal ITA No.5438/Mum/2010. Since we have already given our finding on these issues while deciding the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06; therefore, ground no.1 is allowed for statistical purpose whereas ground no.2 is allowed. 25 In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the 14th, day of Oct 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 724 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ccount of disallowance u/s 14A and disallowance on account of provision for post retirement medical benefits, there is no question of adding these amounts in terms of provision of section 115JB of the Act. It may be pointed out that similar addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the AYs 2002-03,2003-04 and 2007-08 , deleted by the ld. CIT(A) , have not been disputed in further appeal by the Revenue. Accordingly, this ground in the AY 2004-05 is dismissed. 17. No additional grounds having been in terms of residuary ground no.iv) in the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2002-03; ground no.4 in the appeal for the AY 2003-04,ground no.5 in the appeal for the AY 2004-05 & ground no.2 in the appeal for the AY 2007-08, therefore, all these grounds are dismissed. 18. In result, appeals for the AY 2002-03 & 2007-08 are dismissed while those for the AYs 2003-04 & 2004-05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2011 (10) TMI 723 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... und No.11 & 12 are general in nature requires no finding. 17. Grounds No.13 & 14 are also not pressed by Ld. AR hence both are dismissed as not pressed. 18. Ground No.15 is related to disallowance of ₹ 12.40,050/- being part of the share debentures issue expenses. 19. After hearing Ld. Representatives we find that identical ground has been decided in A.Y 1998-99 in ITA No.3297/Ahd/2003 order even dated in para No.14 to 16 of that order. The discussion is also made while deciding Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 1999-00 in ITA No.240/Ahd/2008 in para 2 to 4 of this order. The AO is directed according. 20. Ground No.16, 17 & 18 are consequential in nature hence require no adjudication, therefore do not require any finding. 21. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In the combine result, appeal of Revenue and that of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/10/2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 722 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... occasion to consider the said question in a batch of cases in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. , in ITA 70/2009 and other connected matters, wherein it has been held that it have to be excluded from the total turnover. Following the aforesaid judgement, these appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed as no substantial question of law do arise for consideration in these appeals.
-
2011 (10) TMI 721 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner to serve the notice of hearing of the Petition on the concerned Registrar of Companies. 6) At least 28 clear days before the date fixed for hearing, the notice of the hearing of the Petition be directly served on the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay pursuant to section 394 (1) of the Companies Act,1956. 7) At least 14 clear days before the date fixed for hearing, notice of hearing of the Petition be served by R.P.A.D. upon all its Secured and Unsecured Creditors. 8) At least 10 clear days before the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner to publish the notice of hearing of Petition in two newspapers, viz; ‘Free Press Journal’ in English language and ‘Maharashtra Times’ in Marathi language both circulated in Mumbai. 9) Publication of notice in the Maharashtra Government Gazette is dispensed with. 10) Petitioner to file in the Registry an Affidavit of Service as per Rule 30 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959
........
|
