|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 928 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 858 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Tarun Gulati, Adv. Mr.Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. Mr.Shankey Agrawal, Adv. Mr.Rohan Batra, Adv. for Mr. Praveen Kumar,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 857 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suit property on the basis of Collaboration Agreement. Suit is, thus, without any cause of action. In T. Arivanandam vs. T. Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421, Supreme Court held thus, "if on a meaningful - not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly found to be vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a right to sue, the judge should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle in I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 SC 634, in the following terms - "Question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with the view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clever drafting creating illusions are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint." 15. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
-
2013 (2) TMI 855 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... Vs. DCIT, 12 SOT 438, whereby it was held that mobile cranes registered as heavy motor vehicle are eligible for depreciation at the rate of 40 , allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Similar facts are involved here in the present facts of the case. Learned CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the concrete mixers cannot be used separately without motor lorry as the same is being fitted on the chassis of motor lorry. The concrete mixer cannot be used independently without motor lorry as goods stored in concrete mixer have to be transported while storing in the concrete mixer, therefore, it was treated that this is a part of motor lorry and higher depreciation is allowable. This finding of the learned CIT(A), in our considered view, are reasonable finding. Accordingly, we confirm the decision of the learned CIT(A) for both of the years. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed. Order pronounced in the E-Court on this 6th day of Feb,2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 854 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the other hand, learned DR fairly stated that though the earlier order of learned CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal, however, he placed reliance on the order of learned CIT(A). 4. After considering the submission of the assessee and perusing the material on record, we found no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A). On identical facts, similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee in the assessment year 2006-07 and the order of the learned CIT(A) has been confirmed which is placed on record. Since the facts are similar, therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A), who has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee for the year under consideration following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) for the year under consideration. 5. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the E-Court on this 1st day of Feb,2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he facts of the present case. 22. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of the impugned orders for a period of eight weeks from today. As a matter of fact, while this Court granted rule, leave aside there being an order of stay, the learned single Judge who was exercising present jurisdiction at the relevant time, vide order dated 3rd March 2008, had issued certain directions to the petitioner society directing to admit respondent No. 2 as member subject to respondent No. 2 complying with all formalities. No doubt, those directions have not been complied with for some or other reasons and, as such, I am not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter. In that view of the matter, I do not see any case is made out for stay of the impugned orders. The prayer is, thus, rejected.
-
2013 (2) TMI 852 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee in the year under appeal? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of provision for doubtful loans debited to the P & L Account without appreciating that such disallowance called for under the amended provision of Section 36(1)(vii) is covered in rule 5 of the first Schedule read with Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
-
2013 (2) TMI 851 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law - (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is a trader and not an investor in shares ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the membership card of BSE ?
-
2013 (2) TMI 850 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onalised bank having a branch within the vicinity of this Court. In default of the security being furnished within the time permitted, the petition will stand admitted for the sum of ₹ 4.50 lakh and the petitioning creditor will have leave to advertise the petition in “The Statesman” and “Bartaman”, indicating that the matter will be returnable 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. In case of the company depositing the security and the petitioner not instituting a suit within four weeks from furnishing the security with the Registrar, Original Side, it will be open to the company to mention the matter for the immediate release of the security. Upon furnishing the security, advocate for the company will immediately notify advocate for the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs at this stage.
-
2013 (2) TMI 849 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4, 2013 is modified by providing that the company will pay off the agreed amount in the agreed manner, whereupon the petition will permanently stayed. In default of payment of any installment, 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. There will be no order as to costs at this stage. Urgent certified photocopies of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (2) TMI 848 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10.2011 issued by the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur, will be subject to the result of this writ petition." The other Benches of this Court have not stayed the recovery of the service tax and it would not be appropriate for this Bench to depart therefrom. We therefore do not find any merit in the stay application. The stay application is rejected. However, looking to the heavy demand of service tax in dispute, it would be appropriate that the stay application may be considered and decided by the Tribunal expeditiously. If the petitioner files an application for expeditious disposal of the stay application within a week, the Tribunal shall make an endevour to hear and decide the stay application, preferably within three weeks thereafter. In case it is not possible for the Tribunal to decide the stay application, the Tribunal may grant relief so far as coercive action is concerned to the petitioner, till the disposal of the stay application.
-
2013 (2) TMI 847 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment. (emphasis supplied) 11. Again, in Raja Khan v. U.P.Sunni Central Waqf Board (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as below “11.It is well settled that by an interim order the final relief should not be granted, vide U.P.Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr.B. Sheetal Nandwani (SCC para 8), State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (SCC para 6), etc. 12. As the prayers made in the application are substantially the same as those made in the petition, which is pending final adjudication and grant of those prayers would definitely amount to adjudication of the issue raised in the petition itself, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted judgments, the prayers made by the applicant in the present application cannot be granted. 13. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
-
2013 (2) TMI 846 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... apital loss of ₹ 35,58,718/on account of redemption of preference shares?” 3 Since the Tribunal in the impugned order has allowed the claim of the Respondent-Assessee by following the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Anarkali Sarabhai v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 224 ITR 422, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act restricts the scope of judicial intervention only in respect of those matters which are specifically provided for and in respect of no other matters. In a judgment of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court construing the provisions of Section 11 in Manish Engineering Enterprises vs. Managing Director, IFFCO, N. Delhi AIR 2008 All. 56, it has been held that there is a distinction between a procedural review and a review on merits and that a substantive review on merits is unavailable in respect of an order passed under Section 11. 8. Finally, it may be noted that proceedings have already commenced before the Sole Arbitrator. Parties have lodged their claim and the counter claim. These proceedings have been initiated only after the interim order of the Sole Arbitrator requiring the Applicant to hand over possession, subject, however, to conditions which have been spelt out therein. No case for interference is made out. The Chamber Summons is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 844 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from carrying on business in the name of Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. or in any other name identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the trademark "SATYA" of the plaintiffs and / or from offering, selling or offering for sale any goods or services under the trade name or mark "SATYA" or any other trade name or mark deceptively similar to the trademark / label/ logo "SATYA" of the plaintiffs. 15. Decree sheet be drawn up. 16. The defendant however having not contested the suit. No order as to costs. 17. The plaintiffs are given liberty to serve a copy of this judgment and decree upon the Registrar of Companies with which the defendant is registered to enable the said Registrar of Companies to, upon failure of the defendant, undertake steps for rectification of defendant‟s name and coercively change the name of the defendant in compliance with this judgment and/or strike off the defendant from the Register of the Companies.
-
2013 (2) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hough such products were developed on behalf of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA and not on its own account ? 2. So, far as Question 'A' is concerned, the Counsel for the parties states that the issue raised in the above question stand covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, by the decision of this Court in I.T. A.No.2170/2009 in the respondent-assessee's own case rendered on 8th January, 2013. Inview of the above, we see no reason to entertain the Question 'A'. 3. So far as Question 'B' is concerned, the Counsel for the parties states that issue raised in the above question was raised in Income Tax Appeal No.3548 of 2010 in respondent assessee's own case. By an order dated 20th September, 2011, this court refused to entertain Income tax Appeal No.3548 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 20th September, 2011, we do not entertain the Question 'B'. 4. Appeal is admitted on Question 'C' above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 842 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... raising bona fide dispute. Once the bona fide dispute is raised it would weaken the chance to have admission of the winding up petition, otherwise admission is an obvious consequence. 32. Even if we accept the view of his Lordship on the interpretation of section 434(1)(a) we would not be in a position to agree with the ultimate finding as we find enough material to hold, the petition was maintainable in terms of section 433(e) and (f) read with section 439(1)(b) and (2). 33. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order1 of his Lordship to the extent it declined to admit the winding up petition, is set aside. Winding up petition is remanded back to his Lordship for necessary direction with regard to admission and advertisement. 34. A.P.O. Nos. 469 and 470 of 2012 is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. 35. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on their usual undertaking. Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J. I agree.
-
2013 (2) TMI 841 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. - Judgement of acquittal in a complaint case can only be assailed by way of filing an application for Leave to Appeal
-
2013 (2) TMI 840 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... connected issue is regarding disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 94,56,000/- on the reasoning that this advance is out of borrowed funds. The facts apropos this issue are that during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2006-07 on examination of the copy of the accounts of assessee-company's main director Shri Gaj Singh it was noticed that a debit balance of Rs. 3,01,30,422/- (Rs. 2,22,86,764/- Rs. 77,43,658/-) has been shown but on that amount no interest has been charged. The reasons for not charging interest on this amount given by the assessee and the reasons for disallowance of deemed interest exactly identical to the preceding, issue regarding advance of Rs. 5 crores to its sister concern. Accordingly, with similar reasons, which apply mutatis mutandis this ground also, we order to delete the impugned addition and decide this issue. 58. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 15th February 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 839 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ur weeks from today, failing which; (b) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as Receiver in respect of the properties described in Exhibit-G to the petition with a direction to appoint respondent as his agent on usual terms and conditions and on payment of royalty and or furnishing security. (c) Till the Court Receiver takes possession of the properties, the respondents, their agents, servants are restrained by an order and injunction in any manner parting with the possession, creating third party rights, alienating or encumbering the properties described in Exhibit-D and Exhibit-G to the petition. (d) The respondents are directed to disclose unencumbered property on oath by filing affidavit within two weeks from the date of this order. (e) Liberty is granted to the petitioner after such disclosure on oath is made by the respondent as directed to apply for further reliefs. (f) Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 838 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - Applicability of section 50C on leasehold properties - Held that:- It is a case of deemed ownership, itself creates a doubt that whether there has to be an application of section 50C or not. This doubt, in our considered opinion is fatal to invocation of provisions of section 263, because provision of section 263 cannot be invoked where the issue becomes debatable, because if the issue is debatable it goes out of the scope of administration provisions but would fall in the realm of judicial provisions, which is not the purpose and context of section 263, which, in our opinion is to deal only on two realms simultaneously, i.e. whether the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
In the instant case, the CIT, by invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 stepped on the correctness and questioned the applicability of section 50C on leased property in the SCN, he, therefore transgressed into the judicial territory, which he cannot.
CIT could not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 without his own independent application of mind; on otherwise debatable issues and by merely disagreeing on the view taken by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
