|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 901 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld (page 240) "The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, binding on the Income-tax Officer and he cannot, in the circumstances of the case, reopen the assessment and initiate proceedings over again. If that was not the legal position, we would be placing an unrestricted power of review in the hands of an Income-tax Officer to go behind the findings given by a hierarchy of tribunals and even those of the High Court and the Supreme Court with his changing moods." 11. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law and since in the instant case, the Department did not take steps to revise the order passed under section 144A by invoking the provisions of section 263, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2006, issued by respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. Accordingly, all consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 12. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 900 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s thus held entitled to interest with effect from 02.06.2009 only. Considering that the transaction between the parties is a commercial one, it is deemed appropriate to award interest 10 per annum from 02.06.2009 till the date of institution of the suit, pendente lite and from the date of decree and till three months thereafter. If the defendant does not pay the decretal amount within the said period of three months, there is no reason to not award interest 18 per annum thereafter. 17. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of ₹ 1,49,21,015/- together with interest 10 per annum thereon w.e.f 02.06.2009 till the date of institution of the suit, pendente lite and till three months after this date. Thereafter, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the principal amount of ₹ 1,49,21,015/- 18 per annum till realization. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs as per schedule. The decree sheet be drawn.
-
2013 (4) TMI 899 - ITAT DELHI
AMP expenses addition - MAP application - TPA - bank guarantee furnished by the assessee - default in making the payment or on non-furnishing of the bank guarantee covering the amounts involved in MAP proceedings
-
2013 (4) TMI 898 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to the last year and the GP rate has increased to 13.99 as compared to 10.89 in the preceding year. The Tribunal has examined the case from this angle also and found that even account books are rejected the past history of the assesee is the best guide and even if past history of the assessee is adopted, it cannot be said that the assessee had suppressed the income. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are essentially the findings of fact and are based on relevant material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity therein. We are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in the the appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily. However, otherwise also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 216 CTR 195, the law is in favour of the assessee respondents wherein it has been held that the share application money cannot be added in the income of the assesee company. Dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 897 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption for Trusts - Statutory Accumulation of Income u/s 11 (1)(a) - To be computed on Gross inocme or net income - Assessee was a religious and charitable trust and had total income of ₹ 35,60,82,101/- against which it had applied income amounting to ₹ 58,09,87,048/-. A.O. computed the assessment at nil income as application of income including the capital expenditure was more than the income earned. Assessee contended before CIT (A) that AO had not allowed the statutory accumulation of 25% of the gross income which was required to be carried forward for application in the subsequent year u/s 11(1)(a). - HELD THAT:- Under the provisions of section 11(1) (a), the assessee is entitled to accumulate 25% of the income and therefore even if the assessee had spent only 75% of the income, the entire income would be exempted. But in this case, there was no income left that could be accumulated. In fact, there was deficit, therefore, the claim of the assessee is rejected.
-
2013 (4) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT
Advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education as published in the newspaper “Amar Ujala” - recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist - Held that:- Having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.
We are also prima facie of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error by holding that despite the non obstante clause contained in Rule 2 of the General Rules, the Special Rules would govern recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist. However, we do not consider it necessary to express any conclusive opinion on this issue and leave the question to be decided in an appropriate case.
-
2013 (4) TMI 895 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... main permanently stayed. In default of payment of any instalment, the petition will be advertised once in The Statesman and once in Bartaman. The advertisements should indicate that the matter will appear before Court on the first available working day after the expiry of four weeks from the date of the publications being made. Publication in the Official Gazette will stand dispensed with. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (4) TMI 894 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim denied on the premise that appellants have filed co-relate the input credit availed by them on export goods
-
2013 (4) TMI 893 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e conduct of the auction. In fact, the prayer of the applicant for ratification of the transfer of leasehold rights executed by the deed dated January 30, 1997, by the company in liquidation is rejected. The applicant is held to be not a bona fide transferee. The auction in favour of the fourth respondent is liable to be set aside by the Debts Recovery Tribunal due to the admitted failure on the part of the highest bidder to comply with rules 57 and 58. But, the mortgage in favour of the bank is upheld as there are no records to show that the original documents were not deposited by the company in liquidation with the bank. On the contrary, the memorandum of deposit of title deeds as well as the security registered with the Registrar of Companies under section 125 confirm that there was a mortgage. Therefore, it will be open to the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to bring the property to sale once again. With these observations, this application is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 892 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... had made any income in excess of normal profit that it would have made out of such extra work. As pointed out by learned A.R., there is no seized record which would show any income arising to the assessee out of such extra work. In fact, details with regard to such extra work as also service charges and reimbursement were given by the assessee itself before the ADIT, Trichy, during the course of post-search proceeding. 26. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was justified in scaling down the addition in respect of extra work to 8 of such amounts received. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals) for impugned assessment years in this regard. 27. In the result, appeals of the Revenue for all the years stand dismissed. 28. To summarize the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, whereas, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 891 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI
... ...
... ... ..... risdiction of the SEBI and S.E.BI is entitled to take any action which are permissible in law under the Act of 1992 for ensuring the protection of the investors money and also for winding up operation of the business of such a company which is apparently operating in breach of the SEBI direction. He also submits that the SEBI in such circumstance after examining the petitioners' case may permit it to return investors money by opening its business premises, if so necessary or may also take any other steps in accordance with law. In these circumstances and the facts recorded hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the present cases. The petitioners are directed to appear and cooperate before the S.E.B.I in respect of any proceedings which are to be undertaken by the SEBI under the Act of 1992 in compliance of the final orders passed by the SEBI earlier. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
-
2013 (4) TMI 890 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he plaintiff as it is nothing but a spate of vague assertions devoid of any pith or substance, indefensible by any material which does not fulfill the requirement of law.” 18. In addition to the above factual matrix, it is also pertinent to note that a suit for groundless threats and for declaration and infringement of trademark has been filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad which the plaintiff is contesting. It is noted above that the plaintiff itself filed Criminal Complaint against the defendant at Ahmedabad. Without commenting on the merits of the case at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, regarding whether the trademarks NYCIL and NEHACIL are deceptively similar, I find that the plaint does not bring about a cause of action that confers jurisdiction on this Court. 19. The application under Order VII Rule 11 is hereby allowed and the plaint is rejected. Consequentially, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1and 2 is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 889 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this appeal and therefore, we are not inclined to grant special leave to prefer an appeal to this appellant under Subsection 4 of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has statutory right to prefer an appeal hence this application / appeal is hereby dismissed. 6. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has submitted that they are ready to prefer an appeal, but, delay condonation will come in their way and let this Court observe that nothing on merit is decided. In view of this submission delay will be condoned by the Lower Appellate Court in accordance with law because of the time consumed in this acquittal appeal. So far as merit is concerned the learned Lower Appellate Court will decide the statutory appeal, if preferred by this appellant, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence on record and on its merit. We have not decided this appeal on the merits. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious, alternative remedy.
-
2013 (4) TMI 888 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vidence produced by the parties in the second round was rightly treated as sufficient by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority for recording a finding that the appellant had ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for six months without any reasonable cause.” (Underlining ours) In view of what we have observed earlier, the orders passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court are vulnerable and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. Mr. Divan prays that direction may be issued to the trial court to hear all the suits together. We restrain ourselves from issuing such direction but give liberty to the parties if they so choose to make such a prayer before the trial court. Needless to state that in case such a prayer is made, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court is set aside but without any order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 887 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... copy of order dated 28th January 2013 of the Division Bench in Company Appeal No. 5 of 2013 which was filed by the Respondent against the order dated 21st November 2012. While dismissing the said appeal the Division Bench gave liberty to the Respondent to apply to this Court for clarification or modification of the order dated 21st November 2012. Till date the Respondent has not filed such an application for modification or clarification of the said order. 7. In the circumstances, the Court sees no reason why further indulgence should be granted to the Respondent. Consequently, for necessitating today s adjournment, the Respondent will pay to the Petitioner a sum of ₹ 25,000 as costs by the next date. The Managing Director of the Respondent is directed to remain present in Court on the next date, i.e., 22nd April 2013 at 10.30 am. 8. List on 22nd April 2013 at 10.30 am. 9. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (4) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sentative. Neither the appellant nor his representative have acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal before the CIT(A) and as observed above, even they remained reluctant to attend or answer the reasonable queries in the assessment proceedings before the AO. The appellant has to suffer for not filing appeal within the period of limitation when he was not prevented from any sufficient cause as the courts of law cannot be taken for granted. In our view, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay and thereby appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. The finding of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the matter is hereby upheld. Since we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) on limitation point, it is not necessary to adjudicate on other issues on merit as the same are rendered academic. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of April 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 885 - ITAT, LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings and during the penalty proceedings some independent enquiry should have been made to establish either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on behalf of the assessee but no additional enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. He has simply placed reliance upon the assessment order. It is also undisputed fact that section 68 is deeming provision and when the assessee has failed to explain the unexplained credit, the addition can be made. The failure of explanation cannot be held to be the explanation furnished by the assessee to be false for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied. The onus in this regard is always on the Assessing Officer. We have also examined the order of CIT(A) and we find that the CIT(A) has examined all aspects before deleting the penalty. Since we do not find any infirmity in his order, we confirm the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2013)
-
2013 (4) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are found to be totally unsubstantiated and to have no basis in reason or logic. 24. Notice may also be taken of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1, though with respect to misleading advertisements, but in the context of Unfair Trade Practice under the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The MRTP Commission in that case had granted an interim injunction against the advertisement which was stated to be making misleading and false claims to gain unfair advantage in the market place. The Supreme Court however vacated the said interim injunction and held that the claims in that advertisement could be dislodged only after evidence has been recorded and not at the interim stage. I am therefore unable to find the plaintiff to have made a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The applications are accordingly dismissed. However nothing contained herein shall come in the way of final adjudication of the suit.
-
2013 (4) TMI 883 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on-consideration of the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government. It was held that initial order of detention was not rendered void ab initio. It may be noted that even the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, held that any unexplained delay in disposal of representation of the detenu would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal and set aside the continued detention of the detenu. 18. In view of this clear legal position, we hold that the order of detention dated 16/4/2012 is valid. However, on account of delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu by the State Government, the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenu - Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail be released from detention forthwith if he is not already released from detention and he is not required in any other case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 882 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... increase in turnover by ₹ 18.50 crore and slight change in the work undertaken as main contractor and subcontractor. Increase in turnover can be achieved by the assessee only on sacrifice of marginal rate of net profit. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis order of the Tribunal in the immediately preceding assessment year 2007-08 dated 15/02/2012, having similar facts, and giving due benefit to the assessee for increase in turnover and the quantum of work undertaken by the assessee as main contractor and as sub-contractor, we modify the net profit rate to 6.25 as against profit rate of 5.75 estimated by CIT(A). Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to compute the profit by applying net profit rate of 6.25 on the gross contract receipts. We direct accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2013)
............
|
