|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 984 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Act would apply only for expenditure payable on 31st March and not regarding the amount which stands already paid. In this backdrop of the facts, we are of the view that the Revenue appeal's on legality aspect deserves to be accepted on the basis of decision of the hon'ble High Court (supra). 7. Coming to X-Objections of the assessee on merits, we deem it proper that since its claim may need factual verification, it would be appropriate if the issue is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Hence, we direct him to decide it afresh on merits after hearing the assessee. It would be appreciated if the ld. Assessing Officer passes the order within a period of four months of getting certified copy of the order. 8. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 18th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 983 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... complaint of maltreatment, neglect or misbehaviour, if made by respondent No. 2 to the police authorities, shall be taken cognizance of within 24 hours and appropriate action shall be taken with prior intimation to the District & Sessions Judge, Jind. vi. Respondent No. 2 shall always be at liberty to approach this Court and seek recall of this order, if there is any breach of the compromise by the petitioner(s) or of the directions given hereinabove. 23. A copy of this order be sent to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jind as well as Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG Haryana for onward transmission to (i) the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Jind; (ii) the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Narwana; and (iii) the Tehsildar, concerned for information and necessary compliance. 24. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae and the State counsel in the matter. 25. The amicus curiae shall be paid his fee by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Dasti.
-
2013 (4) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rther, we set aside the telefax communication dated 04.05.2009. The result of this is clearly understood by the parties to mean that the position as existing on 03.05.2009 would revive as regards the contents of the said telefax communication dated 04.05.2009. We have consciously not said anything about the merits of the matter because that had potential for confounding the situation even more. We are happy to note that the learned counsels on both the sides have agreed that the said telefax communication be set aside and/or ignored. It is, of course, clear that the setting aside of the said telefax communication message dated 04.05.2009 is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on both sides. If there is any grievance which the parties have, they are at liberty to agitate the same before the appropriate forum, including the BIFR. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. The record of the BIFR be returned forthwith.
-
2013 (4) TMI 981 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of proforma invoice or not. 7. We do agree with the observations of the adjudicating authority that proforma invoice has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and same cannot be basis for the demand of differential duty. It is also an admitted fact that these proforma invoices were not accepted by the buyers and no payment was made by the buyers to the respondent as per these proforma invoice. Therefore, the question of demand of differential duty does not arise. Accordingly, Revenue’s appeals deserves no merit, hence it is dismissed. 8. The next issue comes before us whether unjust enrichment is applicable to the facts of the case or not. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have not received any amount over and above transaction value. Therefore, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. Accordingly, Revenue appeals deserves no merit. Hence it is dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 980 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pment Bank of Singapore Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow interest on interest in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra). 10. Respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.E.G. Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that all the decisions relied on by the Revenue are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This being so we direct the A.O. to allow the interest u/s 244A in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. (supra). The common grounds taken by the assessee in all these three appeals are, therefore, allowed”. Respectfully following the same, we direct AO to calculate the interest accordingly and allow the same. In the result, the ground 3 raised by assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th April, 2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 979 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice. The rule of the Aclams case (People v. Adams2) strikes a balance between opposing interests. We must hold it to be the law until those organs of government by which a change of public policy is normally effected shall give notice to the courts that change has come to pass." 35. In this case the applicant and his family seem to have enriched themselves to such an extent, and without much claim to any specialised knowledge or expertise in a short time that it raises many questions, particularly the hefty consultancy fee paid to the applicant's enterprise for a housing development in the background of the applicant's being Personal Secretary to the Housing Minister. The Enforcement Directorate must, therefore, be given adequate opportunity to investigate. Therefore, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The application is rejected.
-
2013 (4) TMI 978 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... g CBDT’s Instruction No.1916, wherein 500 grams per married lady and 100 grams per man are allowed as normal jewellery received on marriages and other occasions. 3. Now, the Revenue is before us. Ld. CIT D.R. opposed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and requested to restore back the order of the A.O. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and requested to confirm the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. As per CBDT’s Instruction No.1916, the jewellery to the extent 500 grams for a married lady and 100 grams per male person is considered reasonable for not seizing at the time of search. The various High Courts had interpreted this limitation of seizure as explained as jewellery received by them on marriage and other occasions. Thus, we confirm the order of CIT(A). 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 19.04.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 977 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been further submitted that the consequential reduction of Equity share capital of the Applicant Company is proposed as an integral part of the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. Further, the proposed reduction does not involve either diminution of liability in respect of unpaid share capital or payment to any shareholder of any paid-up share capital and the order of the Court sanctioning the Scheme shall be deemed to be an order under Section 102 of the Companies Act confirming the reduction. The written consents given by the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company approving the scheme, shall be treated as the approval by the Special Resolution as required under Sec. 100 of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of this, considering the said submission, the procedure prescribed under Section 100 and 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as prescribed under rule 48 to 65 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959, are hereby dispensed with. 3. The application is hereby disposed off.
-
2013 (4) TMI 976 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any title over the land, he has no right to receive compensation to the tune of ₹ 29,47,112/-. However, he withdrew the said amount by giving an undertaking to return the said amount to Res. No. 1 in case any such order was passed by the court in this regard. 16. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside, and the same passed by the trial court is restored. As a consequence, the Appellant is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered, with respect to all the suit land available now (minus the land acquired and the land purchased by the Respondent No. 6). 17. The Appellant is directed to refund the amount of compensation received by him to Res. No. 1 within a period of three months, alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt till the date of payment. Civil Appeal Nos. 2888 and 4459 of 2005 In view of the judgment and order in Civil Appeal Nos. 2885-2887 of 2005, these appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 975 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... d by the assessment order passed in consequence to the revision order. The assessing officer would have given to the assessee necessary opportunity of being heard, before passing the assessment order and at that point of time, the impugned revision orders should have definitely come to the notice of the assessee. The assessee, however, has not given details of time period during which the consequential assessment order was passed by the assessing officer. Hence, the claim of the assessee that she could notice the omission upon receiving pressure from the department lacks substance, meaning thereby that there was failure on the part of the assessee to explain the delay day by day. Accordingly, in our view, the assessee has failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for the delay in filing these two appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals in limine, as unadmitted. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 26-04-2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 974 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... onths which further indicate that the flats were already completed and the possession was handed over to the buyers immediately after receiving the entire amount. The contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is acting as a contractor is merely on the basis of execution of sale deed at a lower price than the agreed price. There is no merit in Assessing Officer’s contention in so far as the buyers having incurred any expenditure on construction of said flats during the year under consideration and the assessee is a developer and builder since inception, which has not only been accepted by the Department but also by the Tribunal in its order dated 19/12/2006. 8. In view of the above, the orders passed by lower authorities are de void of any merits. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2013)
-
2013 (4) TMI 973 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade by the learned counsel for the appellant, we hold that the third question of law is also answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.” In view of the above discussion, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) on the issue and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.” 7. In view of the fact that the issue has already been decided against the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd., (supra) and CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 are dismissed. The expenditure incurred by assessee on replacement of machinery is held to be capital in nature. 8. In the result, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced on Tuesday , the 30th April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 972 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at it is not permitted to do directly. 26. Thus, the decisions cited by Mr. Champaneri do not help his client. 27. We, therefore, allow this Public Interest Litigation by declaring that the Constitution 97th amendment Act, 2011 inserting part IXB containing Articles 243ZH to 243ZT is ultra vires the Constitution of India for not taking recourse to Article 368(2) of the Constitution providing for ratification by the majority of the State Legislatures. This order, however, will not affect other parts of the Constitution 97th amendment Act, 2011. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. FURTHER ORDER After this judgment was pronounced, Mr. Champaneri, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India prays for stay of operation of our judgment. In view of what has been stated above, we find no reason to stay our judgment. The prayer is refused. However, certified copy be given by 24th April 2013, if applied for.
-
2013 (4) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Pictet in violation of this Court's orders. 43. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the Respondent cannot be held guilty of contempt. 44. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court held that the Respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet by flouting the orders of this Court, it is to be noted that that order is founded on the premise that the Respondent had not denied the allegation made by the Petitioner against him. It is, however, to be noted that the Respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 45. The order dated April 1, 2010, was, thus, clearly based on an erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled. 46. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the contempt petition. It is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 970 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... onic contra entries appearing in all the three bank accounts vis-à-vis assessee’s cash flow statement. 7) The learned First Appellate Authority has also held that the assessee has not produced any fresh evidence in the appellate proceeding and all the evidences stand already furnished before the Assessing Officer which the Assessing Officer has not deeply examined and arrived at a wrongful conclusion. After going through the order passed by the Revenue Authority along with the documentary evidence appreciated by learned First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that learned First Appellate Authority has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of evidence filed by the assessee in the first appellate proceeding. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order and we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8) In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th April, 2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 969 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... der an impression that it was an allowable expenditure, however, the AO has arrived at a conclusion that the said expenditure was not related to the business of the assessee. We therefore hold that because of change of opinion the impugned addition was made but that action of the AO should not lead to levy of concealment penalty. Rather, we have noted that the assessee had offered an explanation which was not found false or untrue by the AO and the expenditure was found to be genuine, hence we hold that the penalty has wrongly been levied. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct to delete the penalty for the years under consideration. 25. Finally, the result is that the assessee’s appeals for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 are partly allowed, the Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed and the penalty appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 968 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... led under Section 34 of the Said Act is three months plus an additional 30 days under Section 34(3) of the said Act. Thus, if the delay in refilling exceeds this period, then the scrutiny becomes more rigorous and there has to be a satisfactory and credible explanation for the delay otherwise, the legislative object of not permitting delayed objections from being filed gets defeated. We are conscious of the fact that in the present case we are dealing with the appeal as per provisions of Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. However this does not mean that what is not permissible at the first stage and seeks to bring an earlier conclusion of the dispute would imply that a liberal approach can be adopted at the second stage while considering an application for condonation of delay. In view of aforesaid, we find there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay either in filing or re-filing.
-
2013 (4) TMI 967 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... holding that profit on sale of units amounting to ₹ 91.43lakhs held by the assessee as bonus units in Chola Freedom STF units is to be treated as long term capital gains. We find that the bonus units were allotted to the assessee on 26.02.2004 and sold on 01.03.2005, since holding period is more than 12 months, the same is to be treated as long term capital gains. The Ld. D.R could not point out any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A), therefore, this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 15. To conclude, ITA No.1685/Mds./12 of assessee and ITA No.1755/Mds./12 of Revenue for A.Y.2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.1686/12 & ITA Nos.1687/Mds./12 for A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.1756/Mds./12 & ITA No.1918/Mds./12 for A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced on Tuesday , the 30th April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 966 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ed that this is not a fit case for invocation of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Civil Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 965 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n Act, with its serious consequence of lapsing of entire acquisition proceedings, are bodily lifted and read into the provisions of the MRTP Act, it is bound to frustrate the entire scheme and render it ineffective and uncertain. Keeping in view the consequence of Section 11-A of the Central Act, every development plan could stand frustrated only for the reason that period of two years has lapsed and it will tantamount to putting an end to the entire development process. (Emphasis supplied) 24. In our view, the observations contained in paragraph 133 of Girnar Traders (III) unequivocally support the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II). 25. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II) lays down correct law and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. We further hold that the orders impugned in these appeals are legally correct and do not call for interference by this Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
........
|
