|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 831 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1218 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case of M/s. Karnataka Golf Association rendered in ITA No. 51/2004 on 22.07.2008 whereby the matter has bees remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case the tribunal has followed the decision in the case of M/s. Karnataka Golf Association and passed the order and in view of this court remanding the matter in ITA No. 175/Bang/2003 before the tribunal similar order may be made in the instant case. In ITA No. 51/2004 this court has remanded the matter back to the tribunal to reconsider the entire issue and accordingly, disposed of the appeal filed by the revenue. since the tribunal in the instant case has followed the decision of M/s. Karnataka Golf Association. All contentions on both sided are kept open. Accordingly, we feel that the substantial questions of law need be answered. The matter is remanded to the tribunal to pass fresh orders by keeping in mind the aforesaid observations.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1217 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e present case, the assessee is operating in the State of M.P. and Kerala State Excise Manual is a general information and, therefore, it is a case of pretence and reasons to suspect only. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly quashed the assessment proceedings. Thus, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on merits as well. However, having considered the submissions made by both the parties before us and after perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we are convinced that there is no case for suppressed production as per the manufacturing process explained to us and the A.O. has not correctly worked out the production even on the basis of Kerala State Excise Manual. In this view of the matter, ground no.2 of the Revenue is also dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 12th April, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1216 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can also monitor the investigation. 9. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The concerned Magistrate is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence Under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the S.S.P./S.P. concerned change of the Investigating Officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). 10. Parties may produce any material they wish before the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court. 11. The Appeals are allowed in the above terms. 12. In view of the aforesaid order, no orders need be passed on the application for intervention and it is disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1215 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and comprehensive without any ambiguities". Even the CVC in its guidelines has emphasised that the conditions for qualification should not be too onerous. However it has been emphasised that tender should be invited from "firms having requisite experience depending upon the size of the contract in a fair and transparent manner." This Court does not find anything in the impugned conditions which are inconsistent with the requirements of the GFR or the CVC guidelines. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds that the impugned conditions in the RPF for visa outsourcing in the Indian Embassy in Moscow cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. No ground is made out for holding that the impugned conditions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent UOI within four weeks. The applications are dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... scellaneous expenditure then the said expenditure would have to be made by way of cash payments keeping in mind the practical aspects of running the said business. Therefore the payments made come within the scope of Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules. 6. Under the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made were the purpose of running the transport business and so as to ensure that the payments was made in time to the drivers and to the other service providers so that the business could be conducted in a beneficial and proper manner. We also note that the persons to whom the payments have been made are brought to the notice of the Department and they are identifiable persons. Therefore we do not see any violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and that the Tribunal was justified in granting the relief to the Assessee. 7. Hence, substantial questions of law raised in the appeal have to be answered against the Revenue and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1213 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 2,32,000/- made by the A.O. It may be pointed out here that the nature of several expenses noted by the AO are such that regular proper voucher and bills are not expected and are not practicable as the same do not appertain to organized sector and hence the absence of proper regular vouchers in support of incurring expenses under those heads could not be viewed adversely. The appellant thus gets a relief of ₹ 1,82,000/- on grounds no.3” 9. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of the authorities below. 10. Ld. D.R. although vehemently relied on the order of the A.O. but did not deny that the disallowance has been made merely on adhoc basis. Under these facts and circumstances, in our opinion, it is not a fit case which warrants our interference. We, accordingly, dismiss this ground also. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.04.2010).
-
2010 (4) TMI 1212 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... and hold that the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before it and any subsequent order passed in the said proceedings are liable to be quashed for want of authority of the Tribunal to enter into the merit on condonation of delay. 38. The writ-application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 39. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Later After this order is passed Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents prays for stay of operation of our aforesaid order. After hearing the parties we stay the operation of our aforesaid order for a period of four weeks from date to enable the writ petitioners/respondents to move before the higher forum against our order. Let Photostat certified copy of this judgment and order be given to the parties by Tuesday next, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1211 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and which was earmarked for agriculture, and is shown as such in the revenue records, can be put to non-agricultural use. In case the land was already put to residential or other use, much before the said Act came into force, a permission under it cannot be insisted. This, however, is a matter, which needs to be verified by the concerned authority. If the petitioners are able to prove that the land has been put to non-agricultural use much before the Act came into force, they cannot be required to obtain the permission under that Act. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of, holding that, (a) it shall be competent for the Urban Development Authorities, or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts; and (b) the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1210 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n road would fetch a higher value as compared to a property in an interior location. Apart from that, the location of the property in question would have to be considered when the same is compared with any other property. Further, the valuation given by the Sub Registrar's office is always the minimum that any property would fetch and is only a guidance value as the same is relevant for the purpose of paying the stamp duty and it. would not reflect the true market value. It is also to be noted that the market value of a property is always higher than the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation as given by the Assessee has to be accepted as opposed to the valuation assessed by the Assessing Officer. 6. For the aforesaid reasons and on the facts of the present case, we find that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal have to be answered against the Revenue and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1209 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... O. it comes to ₹ 17.77 lakhs. CIT(A) further observed that A.O. has further given a discount of ₹ 5 lakhs which was invested in financial year 2004-05 & 2005-06 from the total cost of construction and if it is allowed then the final cost of construction estimated by the D.V.O. comes to ₹ 12.77 lakhs which is less than the investment admitted by the assessee itself. In these circumstances we are of the view that claim of the assessee was not properly examined. If the rebate on account of self-supervision and the rate difference and also investment in further years are allowed to the assessee no addition is called for on account of unexplained investment in the construction of the property. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additions made u/s 69 of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. C.O. of the assessee is also allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 13.4.2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1208 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ysical share scripts and not in case of dematerialised share scripts. As the impugned shares have been transferred in assessee's D-mat A/c only in July'04 and as the same were entered in Nawal Kishore Kejriwal(HUF) D-mat A/c in May'04, we are of the considered opinion that there is no evidence on record to sustain the claim of the assessee that the same were indeed delivered to him prior to May'04. The date of acquisition of the impugned shares by the assessee should, therefore, be 22-5-04 as has been taken by the AO. Thus, we hold that Board's Circular No.704 dated 28 t h April,1995 is not applicable to dematerialised share scripts and date of acquisition of the shares would be the date only when dematerialised shares are entered in assessee's D-mat account with depository. Thus, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. Order Pronounced on 23.04.2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the following questions to a Division Bench (1) Whether the Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. S/4118-1/70 Public (S.C.) dated 03.08.1970 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 is valid? and 2. Whether the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC is non-bailable insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned? In the mean time, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioners in these petitions are ordered to be released on interim bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the respective learned jurisdictional Magistrates concerned on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the respective police.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1206 - SUPREME COURT
National waste of seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences - Insurance on vehicles - seeking directions so that national waste with regard to the seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences may not become junk and their road worthiness be maintained - Facts of the present case, the report of 2005 of NCRB, 84,675 vehicles were reported lost, out of which 24,918 vehicles were recovered by the police and out of these, only 4,676 vehicles were finally co-ordinated. As a result, several hundred crores worth of assets were lost. Further, by the time the recovered vehicles are released, the same are reduced to junk at the respective police stations.
HELD THAT:- Petitioners have submitted that information with regard to all insured vehicles in the country is available with the Insurance Information Bureau created by IRDA. This information could be utilised to assist the police to identify the insurer of the vehicle. Upon recovery of the vehicle in police station, insurer/ complainant can call an All India Toll Free No. to be provided by Insurance Information Bureau to give the information of the recovered vehicle. Thereafter, the insured vehicle database would be searched to identify the respective insurer. Upon such identification, this information can be communicated to the respective insurer and concerned police stations for necessary coordination.
In our considered opinion, the information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer.
We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai [2002 (10) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT] considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given, like insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court, The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with and Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer.
It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road.
We direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.
In case any non-compliance is reported either by the Petitioners or by any of the aggrieved party, then needless to say, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter against an erring officer who would be dealt with iron hands. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1205 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... esulting into ‘royalty’ because items for self-consumption for use in intermediate process are also acquired on principal to principal basis by way of purchase. It is also to be noted that in the hands of non-parent company, such transactions have been accepted by the revenue authorities of that country as of the nature of business profits resulting from the sale of such drawings. Hence, when the same provisions of DTAA are applicable then this action of such revenue authorities also supports the claims of the assessee. To sum up, even at the cost of repetition, we state that it is a case of purchase of a copy-righted article on principal to principal basis and not a case of payment for transfer of right in the copy right of such designs. In this view of the matter, we confirm the findings of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). 10. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue fail and are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 30th April, 2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1204 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee had extended full co-operation in the enquiry relating to assessment and also in the process of recovering the amount from the book debt. The Petitioner also would have faced genuine hardship if he had been directed to pay the entire amount demanded under the block assessment period, as there was no amount lying with the Petitioner and the amounts were due from book debtors. 14. In view of the above, the court finds that the third Respondent should have exercised his discretion in waiving the amount of interest payable on the tax demanded for the block assessment period of 1987-88 to 1997-98. 15. In the above circumstances the impugned order passed under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the third Respondent is quashed and consequently the third Respondent is directed to waive the interest levied under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98. The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1203 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... assessee had offered income from house property namely, flats received by him from the developer and the same has been accepted by the department. Therefore, the assessee cannot now take a stand that the assessment made in the status of an HUF and hence, this ground fails". 7. The revenue being aggrieved is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. We find from the quantum assessment, the addition made on account of long term capital gains has been deleted for the concerned asst. year by Tribunal in its order dated 7.12.2007. The penalty amounting to ₹ 9,54,080/- has been imposed based on the addition made in the quantum assessment, since the addition in the quantum assessment are deleted. We find the order of CIT(A) is correct in canceling penalty u/s 271(1)(c), and hence, no interference is called for. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced on 13th April, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide Income Tax Appeal No. 1825 of 2009. Similarly, we find the Tribunal in the case of Milan Sharad Ruparel (supra), as relied on by the learned DR, has held that it is not necessary that the same funds must be used for purchase of the new residential house but the funds should be available with the assessee for its investment in the residential house. The various other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee also support his case. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on account of capital gain arising on sale/transfer of shares for the house purchased by him one year prior to sale of such shares. The CIT(A)’s order is accordingly set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th April, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1201 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. The Civil appeal is admitted. Hearing expedited.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1200 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. D5147 of 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1199 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition towards Unexplained investment and interest - No opportunity of cross-examination - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the investment in question reflected in parcha No. 56 could not be brought to assessment in the hands of assessee in the manner in which the Department had brought them to assessee in their hands? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the parcha was found from the possession of Sri D.P. Kanodia and, therefore, at the most a presumption can be raised against him. Sri D.P. Kanodia, at no stage, in the statement admitted that these entries relate to the unexplained investment made by the assessees and the interest mentioned therein had been accrued to them. No opportunity of cross-examination to Sri D.P. Kanodia was given to the assessees. The entries in the parcha, therefore, remained uncorroborated. Moreover, the entries against Sri S.P.Kanodia and Smt. Premlata Kanodia were found scored out. What is the reason for scoring out such entries is not explained and, therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that no adverse inference can be drawn from the entries of parcha No. 56 against the assessees. The finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact based on the material on record, which cannot be said to be perverse, which requires any interference.
Thus, the questions referred hereinabove are answered in affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees.
........
|
