Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1112 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nce, we do not find any merit on such point, which was tried to be urged before us. Accordingly, we do not accept the same. It appears that the amounts have not been admitted by the respondents, therefore, on the question of admission, if the amount has not yet been admitted that has to be gone into before the appropriate jurisdiction. Further, we have also considered the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the respondents and we find the statement made in paragraph No. 8 of the said counter affidavit, on which admission cannot be constituted by the respondents. Further, we must know that admission must be unequivocal and has to be specifically stated under the provisions of law. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge. Hence, we only affirm the impugned order. For the above reasons, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1111 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error by dismissing the appellants’ application for impleadment as parties? - Held that:- Clandestine nature of the transactions entered into between respondent No.2 and the appellants on the one hand and the appellants and Bhagwati Developers on the other would give rise to strong presumption that if a receiver is not appointed, further attempts would be made to alienate the property in similar fashion. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification to interfere with the impugned order or the one passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
We do not consider it necessary to advert to the documents filed by respondent No.1 before this Court for the first time and the additional affidavit filed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi Lodha on behalf of Bhagwati Developers.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. For their contumacious conduct of suppressing facts from the Calcutta High Court and thereby prolonging the litigation, the appellants and Bhagwati Developers are saddled with cost of ₹ 5 lakhs each. The amount of cost shall be deposited by them with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1110 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ... ... ... ..... ders of respondent No. 5 company and the share was forcefully transferred without my knowledge and now I have ceased to be a shareholder. 5. The second petitioner filed a writ petition in the hon'ble High Court of Kerala and in the synopsis to the affidavit dated May 19, 2010, he has clearly stated that he was one of the original promoters being on the board of directors of the company. There is a dispute regarding the non-payment of the share-value to the original shareholders by Shri K.T. Mathew and a criminal case is pending against him. The above statements also support the case of the applicants herein that the petitioners have transferred their shares. Since I hold that the petitioners are no more shareholders of the company and not entitled to file the petition under section 399 of the Act, the application filed by the applicants being C.A. 208 of 2010 in C.P. No. 89 of 2010 is allowed and C.P. No. 89 of 2010 is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1109 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... gust, 1989 in respect of the first consignment. Whereas in respect of the second consignment, the order of the adjudicating authority was passed on 16-3-1983, which was challenged by the petitioner before a wrong forum, resulting in a delay of more than twenty years, which delay cannot be attributed to the customs authorities. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find any merit in the petition, so as to entitle the petitioner to grant of any of the reliefs prayed for in the petition. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. 26. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of the interim relief which was operating so far, so as to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum. Having regard to the request made on behalf of the petitioner, the interim relief granted earlier is extended for a further period of eight weeks from today.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1108 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... n of India & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 292 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) , the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1107 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... law many appeals have been remanded to grant fair opportunity to the assessees to lead their defence in the light of following four judgements i) 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur; ii) 2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C.) CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd.; iii) 2011 (270) ELT 465 (S.C.) Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi-III; iv) 2011 (271) ELT 360 (Kar.) CCE, Mysore vs. ICL Sugar Ltd. 2. In view of the above, present assessee should also get the same benefit of readjudication in the light of aforesaid decisions. 3. Revenue agrees to the proposal. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for re-adjudication afresh granting fair opportunity of hearing on merit as well as on time bar aspect in the light of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 4. Since the assessees appeal is remanded Revenues appeal is also remanded to the same original authority for afresh decision since the base of the decision itself is disturbed by aforesaid order.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1106 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... uo motu for correcting the assessment order by filing rectification application under section 154 of the Act, as the mistake in claiming excess depreciation on hotel building was not detected by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. Therefore, so far as electric fittings are concerned, the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have recorded findings that they are electrical plants and covered by the decision of the Apex court and therefore CIT(A) and the Tribunal came to the opinion that no penalty was leviable against the appellant. We further find that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee to claim wrong deduction. In absence of mens rea , penalty cannot be levied. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the issue sought to be raised in this appeal stands concluded by findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal. Questions proposed by the appellant do not raise any substantial question of law. This Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1105 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... is to be declared as null and void under Section 13(13) of the said Act. An agreement for sale, is not prohibited by the said provision and if at all entered into that would be subject to the mortgage already created by the borrower in favour of the Bank and therefore cannot curtail the rights of the banks in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, such contention to declare such an agreement of sale as null and void also is not tenable. We further find that the appellate Tribunal has found that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had not considered merits, hence remanded the matter only on merits and found in favour of respondent on the question regarding Section 13(13) as well as Section 17 of the said Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the remand order is justified. In the circumstances, we only direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the matter in question within a period of two months from the date of this order. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1104 - ITAT CHENNAI
Penalty levied u/s 18(1)(c)- monetary limits - maintainability of appeal - Held that:- When it is clearly mentioned in Instruction No.3/2011 that for matters relating to direct tax other than income-tax, relevant provisions of statute and rules will continue to apply, it would by implication means that earlier instructions insofar as it related to matters other than income-tax would continue to apply. By virtue of Instruction No.5/2007 dated 16.7.2007, the monetary limit for filing of appeals before this Tribunal was increased ₹ 1 lakh. By virtue of Instruction No.1979 dated 27.3.2000, the monetary limits mentioned applied also to wealth-tax, gift-tax and Estate Duty matters.
In our opinion, when these instructions are read together, despite the supersession effected by Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 of earlier Instruction No.5/2008 dated 15.5.2008 and supersession of instructions mentioned at para 5 above by us, through Instruction No.5/2008 dated 15.5.2008, the earlier instructions insofar as it applied to wealth-tax, gift-tax and Estate Duty matter would continue in force. For taking the view that the Instruction No.5/2008 as also Instruction No.3/2011 will apply to wealth-tax matter also.
In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to low tax effect.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1103 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ... ... ... ..... same has not been done. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence produced by both the parties and the assessment order in dispute i.e. 2006-07, we find that the ld. first appellate authority has reasonably determined the fair market value in the case of the assessees and given the sufficient relief to the assessees on the basis of evidences produced by the assessees as well as the revenue. 9.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases explained above, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority in the present appeals. Hence, we dismiss both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as by assessee by upholding the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Ld. first appellate authority. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1102 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tax on a payment of rent made to one Sh. Irfan Ahged Narwaroo - Held that:- Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the year previous year without deducting tax at source. AO is not justified in disallowing the expenditure. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1101 - ITAT AGRA
... ... ... ... ..... ch out of telephone and miscellaneous expenses on account of personal element and non-maintenance of log book etc. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 30,690/-. The assessee claimed telephone expenses of ₹ 23,455/- and miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 16,592/-. The A.O. noted that the assessee has failed to establish that the entire telephone expenses and miscellaneous expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Considering the totality of the facts including the income declared in the return of income, expenses claimed and failure on account of assessee to establish that the entire expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, we are of the view that such addition is warranted. Therefore, both these additions of ₹ 5000/- each out of telephone and miscellaneous expenses are confirmed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t, the fact that whether the assessee had invested ₹ 20,00,000/- in the capital gain account within the prescribed time is the fact to be considered and also it is further to be found out that, whether the assessee fulfills all the requirements of Section 54 to claim benefits under the said Section , the said aspect requires further investigation of the f acts by the Assessing Officer. 8. Keeping in view all the submissions made at the bar, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Th e matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessing Officer shall also keep in mind the decision of this Court in Fathima Bai Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 with respect of deposit of ₹ 17,40,000/- in the capital gain account scheme as to whether it is within the stipulated period. The Assessing Officer shall consider the claim of the assessee for deductions under Section 54 as required under law. 9. Accordingly, ITA is allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1099 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of this interlocutory application, it is reflected that by the time this appeal would be disposed of finally, the estate of the deceased might not be in existence. 18. From the aforementioned pronouncements of law, it is discernible that a probate Court has the jurisdiction to pass necessary orders for the protection of the subject mater of the testamentary disposition and it cannot be unresponsive to the imminent threat of material change in the existing condition of the property under the will in question. 19. For these premised reasons, it appears just and proper, in order to protect the estate of the deceased testator from being destroyed, dissipated or frittered away, that both the appellants P13 / 13 and respondents be directed to maintain status quo as existing today with regard to the property of the deceased testator Late Bishun Prakash Narayan Singh during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly it is so ordered. The interlocutory application is, thus disposed of.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1098 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Action sale - Invalid Sale - provisions of the SARFAESI Act - Held that:- In the case on hand, the Authorised Officer conducted the auction proceedings and later issued an order of confirmation, in total violation of the order passed by this Court. As observed by the Supreme Court in All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association [2007 (3) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is the duty of the Court to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetration of the wrong doing. We, therefore, by following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Century Flour Mills v. S. Suppiah [1975 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS]) cancel the auction held on 7 January 2011.
Since the Authorised Officer of the Bank violated the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder and suppressed material particulars and made false statements to take possession of property stating that it was sold to Mr.S.Manisekaran not withstanding the fact that he was not a bidder and obtained an order against a dead person, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on such factual background also must be set aside.
Order on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is set aside. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the property by deputing the very same Commissioner or another Advocate Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. It is open to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take police assistance. The Authorised Officer of the Bank is directed to assist the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and/or the Advocate Commissioner to effect re-delivery to the petitioner or her authorised agent.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1097 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
The averments made in the Note for Speaking to minutes, same stands ALLOWED. Office is directed to carry out necessary amendments, FORTHWITH and to issue certified copies, as prayed for by the learned Advocate for the appellant, accordingly. The note for speaking to minutes stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1096 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Winding up petition - breach of contract - Held that:- What is important in a case of winding up of a company is not the interest of the applicant but the interest of the stakeholders of the company as a whole - Winding up is the last thing the Court would do and not the first thing to do having regard to its impact and consequences
In the light of the order of the CLB, and M/s IL & FS being inducted into the management of the respondent company and, as they are said to have 80% of the share capital and are said to have invested more than ₹ 150 in the respondent company, it might be inappropriate to exercise discretion at this stage to admit the company petitions filed for winding up of the respondent company. On the other hand this Court cannot also ignore the fact that the net worth of the respondent company has completely eroded, and its exercise of discretion not to entertain the company petitions may well result in further increase of the total debt due to banks and financial institutions, and their inability later to recover the debt, even in part.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1095 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... e contention of Ld. DR that the decision of writing off was taken by the LR of the assessee after the conclusion of the financial year because the decision for write back was taken by LR of the assessee only after conclusion of the financial year. The AO while exercising his quasi judicial authority cannot apply different principles and standards while dealing with the similar nature of transactions. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that both the writing off as well as written back amounts should be accepted but at the same time when there is no business the loss returned by the assessee shall be ignored and the income should be treated as ‘nil’. Hence, we allow the claim of write off but the loss returned by the assessee is disallowed and income is to be treated as ‘nil’. 9. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 29th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1094 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ssion with necessary Police help and hand over them vacant possession of the part under their occupation to the authorised representative of the company with utmost expedition. ( 55. ) A . P. O. No. 248 of 2011 succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly without any order as to costs. ( 56. ) Order dated September 20, 2011, so merged in the order dated July 8, 2011, is set aside. ( 57. ) The appeals A. P. O. No. 288 of 2011, A. P. O. No. 289 of 2011 and A. P. O. No. 303 of 2011 succeed and are allowed and disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. ( 58. ) There would be stay of operation of the foregoing judgment and order for a period of eight weeks from date on the condition that Chatterjee Brothers and Pack Tech would continue to pay the occupation charges to the company as per the existing arrangement. ( 59. ) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on their usual undertaking. ( 60. ) Shukla Kabir Sinha J.I agree.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1093 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... parties who have compromised the offence which was compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and the accused (the appellant) can be acquitted. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compounded by compromise between the parties and there is no illegality therein, such compounding can be permitted by the Court... Ordered accordingly.” 6. In view of the above, since the offence had taken place on 27.12.1997, i.e. prior to the amendment, and in view of the fact that the complainant and the accused intends to compound the offence, we grant the request made in the said application for compounding of offence. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as modified by the High Court and allow the appeal. 7. In the result, the accused is acquitted from the charges alleged against him. Ordered accordingly.
............
|