|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1585 Records
-
2015 (8) TMI 1434
Appointment of Respondent to the post of Associate Professor - case of respondent is that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that the Respondent No. 1-writ Petitioner having fulfilled all the requirements ought to have been selected to one of the three vacancies of Associate Professor - Held that: - From a reading of the necessary qualifications mentioned in the Rules and the advertisement, it is manifest that a candidate must have a good academic record with a doctoral degree with 5 years experience in research/teaching at University or National level research Institute.
Held that: - The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra - In Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors. [1976 (7) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT], a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the Petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. It was held in the case that the failure of the Appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him.
The Division Bench has committed grave error in law by passing the impugned judgment reversing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Appeal allowed - respondent has no case on merit - decided against respondent.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1433
Order of winding-up recalled - Held that:- Since the company has already been wound up, and such position is confirmed on behalf of the official liquidator is permanently stayed with liberty to the petitioning creditor to carry the claim in accordance with law before the Official Liquidator.
In the unlikely event that the order of winding-up passed on June 25, 2014 is recalled or set aside or permanently stayed, the petitioner will be at liberty to revive this petition.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1432
Cleaning Activity Services - application to Settlement Commission - the applicant appears to have suppressed the facts of providing services to their clients and collection of service tax from them. It also appears that the applicant have willfully suppressed the facts of non-payment of service tax despite having collected the same from their clients, which they were duty bound to deposit with the Central Government - proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - maintainability of application.
Held that: - the applicants have already been penalized in the past for concealment of their tax particulars, the present application filed on 19-1-2015 is clearly not admissible under the provisions of Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
It is seen that in the present application the taxability of services provided to units in the SEZ is an 'issue whereas it was not an issue' in the earlier 2 applications already settled by the Mumbai and Delhi Benches of the Settlement Commission - In the present case they have been penalized by the Settlement Commission Benches of Mumbai and Delhi in their Final Orders dated 25-8-2014 and 22-7-2014, respectively, and since the present application, relating to the Pune Unit, has been filed on 19-1-2015, the same is clearly not admissible under Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax.
The Settlement application filed by the applicant, M/s. CLR Services Pvt. Ltd. in respect of their Pune Unit is rejected as inadmissible under Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1431
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Maximum disallowance in this case cannot exceed the amount of exempt income received by the assessee i.e. ₹ 34,445/-. Hence, restrict the disallowance to ₹ 34,445/- and allow the balance in favour of the assessee. See CIT Versus Holcim India P. Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2015 (8) TMI 1430
Application for early hearing of the appeal - Held that: - the CHA licence was suspended on 10.10.2011. Subsequently, licence was revoked on 3.11.2014 and the appellant is out of business since 2011 - keeping this in mind, early hearing application is allowed the appeal is fixed for hearing on 6.10.2015.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1429
CENVAT credit - input services - advertisement and sponsorship service - Held that: - the said service has been used by the assessee for display of hoardings at places like Airports, Express Highways, Flyovers, Article in Newspapers, Magazines, TV Channels etc - the issue is decided in appellant own case M/s HCL Technologies Ltd Versus C.C.E. Noida [2015 (8) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein cenvat benefit has been extended to the disputed service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1428
Revision u/s 263 - Claim of exemption u/s 10A - Held that:- Admittedly the facts remain that the AO has passed the original assessment order u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2012 allowing the claim of exemption u/s 10A of the Act. The circular of CBDT is of 16.7.2013. The decision of the jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 845 - Karnataka High Court].
Following the decision of the jurisdiction High Court cannot be held to make the order of assessment erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, on identical grounds the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Safran Aerospace India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 773 - ITAT BANGALORE] has also held the issue in favour of the Assessee upholding the principles applied by the AO in the course of the original assessment in his order u/s 143(3) dt. 30.11.2012. Therefore, the order passed by the AO is by following one of the two possible views and same cannot be held to be erroneous which calls for invocation of the powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act. In the circumstances, the order passed u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax stands set aside.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1427
Public Auction - quantum of reserve price - the two Respondents/Writ Petitioners had deposited the Earnest Money together with twenty five per cent of the auction bids which, admittedly, were only marginally above the reserve price fixed by the Competent Authority - Held that: - There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action.
In the circumstances of the present case, we hold that if the Respondents tender the price of the land equivalent to the prevailing Circle Rate minus the sums already paid by them to the Appellant within ninety days from today, the Appellant shall take all necessary steps to convey the land to the Respondents within sixty days thereafter.
Decided partly in favor of respondents.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1426
Unexplained expenditure u/s.69C - AO made addition in the hands of the assessee by observing that assessee has purchased the land as per MOU dated 18-8-2007 during the year under consideration where Part-B payment is unaccounted payments - Held that:- As carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal and found that exactly similar addition was made in case of other group companies, which has been deleted by the Tribunal. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition made u/s.69C of the IT Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue for A.Y.2008-09. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1425
Proceedings under PMLA - non-reporting of integrally connected transactions cannot be condoned and the proceedings initiated cannot be dropped - Held that:- Admittedly the appellant has not filed Cash Transaction Report in respect of 31 integrally connected cash transactions which took place in the month of August, 2009 which was required to be filed in the month of September, 2009 as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8. The appellant has also admitted that initially automated systems were not in place and upon implementation, data for past transactions was captured to view violations and consequently violations were voluntarily reported vide letter dated 11-3-2010. The appellant except pleading that details of transactions were communicated to respondent voluntarily, Suspicious Transaction Report was filed, appellant was in its initial phase of business commencement, remedial steps have been taken by appellant and IRDA has condoned the non-compliance, has not been able to show any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. All these points were also pleaded by the appellant during proceedings before the respondent who had after due consideration of the same took a lenient view and imposed a nominal fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- for failing to have an internal mechanism in place for not reporting 31 integrally connected cash transactions in the month of August, 2009. The act of filing Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) will not absolve the appellant of its compliance liability of filing Cash Transaction Report (CTR).
-
2015 (8) TMI 1424
Bogus transactions - loan was converted into OCPS - Held that:- The court finds that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons why in the facts and circumstances the transaction in question cannot be held to be bogus as Tribunal pointed out that with no significant event having taken place, except redemption of the 2 per cent. RCPS, there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to have concluded that the entire transaction to be bogus. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal further noted that the Assessing Officer called for information from JPL under section 133(6) of the Act but was unable to find any material to conclude that the transaction between the respondent-assessee and the JPL was bogus. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1423
Offence under PMLA - Provisional Attachment orders - Adjudicating Authority jurisdiction - Held that:- In this case, the provisional attachment order was passed on 31st March, 2014 on the basis of material in the possession of appellant on that day. If, in compliance to the directions of the Adjudicating Authority in terms of order dated 19th September, 2014, further investigation is carried out by the appellant and fresh material is collected and a fresh complaint is filed to confirm the provisional attachment order dated 31st March, 2014, which was passed on the basis of material in the possession of appellant on that day i.e. 31-3-2014, the same would be completely illegal and against the provisions of section 5 of PMLA.
In the facts and circumstances and considering the provisions of Section 5 and 8 of PMLA and the scheme of the Act, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter to the appellant with the direction to carry out fresh investigation and file fresh complaint. The directions given by the Adjudicating Authority are beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 8(2) and 8(3) of PMLA. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19-9-2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Adjudicating Authority to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of this order. During the pendency of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, the provisional Attachment order shall continue to be in force and in the mean time, all the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of properties attached vide provisional Attachment Order
-
2015 (8) TMI 1422
Scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation - Held that:- Upon reading of the affidavit dated 27.7.2015 filed in support of the Judge’s Summons for directions, and other relevant annexures attached in support of the contents of the affidavit filed by the deponent, (Exh. 'F’, being a copy of the proposed scheme of arrangement), it is hereby ordered. Necessary procedures for meetings notices and quorum need to be adhered.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1421
Scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation - dispensation sought from convening the meetings of the equity shareholders of the applicant company - Held that:- As submitted that all the applicant transferor company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company and all the equity shareholders of the applicant company viz. The holding company and its nominees have approved the scheme in the form of written consent letters. All these consent letters are annexed with this application respectively as Exhibit-'D’. There are no secured or unsecured creditors of the applicant company as on date. The certificates confirming the status of the shareholders and creditors as well as the receipt of consent letters from all the shareholders are annexed collectively as Exhibit-'E’. In view of the same, dispensation is sought from convening the meetings of the equity shareholders of the applicant company, and considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions, the same is hereby granted.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1420
100% EOU - cement plant with units both in India and Bangladesh - doctrine of promissory estoppel - revenue appeal - initially board has given LOP in favor of assessee - assessee made investment in crores with regard to long conveyor belt - the decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus LAFARGE UMIAM MINING PVT. LTD. [2014 (9) TMI 327 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that the ground on which this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed is that the learned single Judge has rightly applied doctrine of promissory estoppel against the appellants, particularly when there was no misrepresentation made by the writ petitioner - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - Appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1419
Constitutional vires of Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the decision in the case of M/s Sturdy Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India and others [2015 (5) TMI 1084 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that The liberty, therefore, to approach the appropriate forum was obviously to file an appeal against the order of the CESTAT and not another writ petition to challenge the same order - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1418
Classification of goods - Reishi Gano (RG) and Ganocelium (GL) - the decision in the case of DXN HERBAL MFG. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY [2005 (12) TMI 411 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] contested - Held that: - The submission is that the said material has not been taken into consideration either by the Commissioner or the CESTAT - this was the precise reason because of which while issuing show cause notice, this Court indicated that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration - appeal placed on remand.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1417
Natural Justice - non-examination of full records - Board’s Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007 - Held that: - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine relevant evidence in the light of the Board’s Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.8.2007. Mere citing of the circular or law does not ipso facto grant relief. Therefore, appellate Commissioner should be careful in future not to grant relief mechanically but only upon satisfaction of the conditions of the circular - appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to examine relevant evidence called for by the circular and pass appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2015 (8) TMI 1415
Considering the averments made in the speaking to minutes and upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner, this speaking to minutes is allowed. The last line of paragraph no.8 of order dated 9.7.2015 passed in Company Petition Nos.144 and 145 of 2015 is replaced with the following line:
“Prayers in terms of paragraph 15(a) of the company petition no.144 of 2015 and 16(a) of the company petition no.145 of 2015 are hereby granted.”
-
2015 (8) TMI 1414
Disallowance of payment made made to M/s. Alishan Estates (P) Ltd - as per AO transaction is a sham transaction - AO treated the said amount as an expenditure by holding that the assessee should have deducted the tax at source - Held that:- As regards the sham transaction, at the outset, we do not support the order of the AO for the reasons that the transactions were made by a valid written contract/agreement on various terms and conditions with the two said parties, which are essential for such a joint venture project. This has not been denied by the AO. The AO has not pointed out any defect in the said agreement entered between the assessee and Alishan Estates Pvt. Ltd.
In lieu of the said agreement dtd. 10/07/2005 M/s. Alishan Estates Pvt. Ltd was to procure pre-specified land for purchase, to make all the necessary legal arrangements for such land and to find out suitable buyer for the said land and profit was to be shared between the assessee and M/s. Alishan Estates P.Ltd in ratio 25 : 75. The profit includes loss as well. Had there been a loss whether the AO would have treated the said transaction as a sham transaction, obviously the answer is No.
Since joint venture has earned a profit and same was shared between the said two parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the transaction is completely in lieu of joint venture agreement. The AO is not justified in treating the said payment made by the assessee to the joint venture partner, M/s. Alishan as an expenditure and no TDS is required to be deducted on the profit so shared between the said two joint venture partners. In the circumstances and facts of the present case the addition so made by the AO is without any basis and is purely on surmises and conjectures. - Decided against revenue
............
|
9911796707
