|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 871 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 796
The Delhi High Court allowed exemption subject to exceptions in the case of ITA 297/2012. The court referred to a previous decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. regarding the computation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice was issued to the respondent for the second issue concerning interest under Section 244A of the Act.
-
2012 (5) TMI 795
The Allahabad High Court ordered the petitioners to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 following a previous writ petition. The appellate tribunal rejected the petitioners' application for non-compliance but advised seeking an extension of time from the court. The petition was listed for July 2012 for further action.
-
2012 (5) TMI 794
The Supreme Court of India issued an order granting permission to the Petitioners to implead the State Bank of India as a newly added Respondent. The Petitioners were directed to restore the Importer-Exporter Code in favor of Respondent No.1, allowing them to re-export goods subject to conditions imposed by the High Court. Proceedings in the contempt matter against the Petitioners and officials were to be kept in abeyance until further notice. The case was listed for further proceedings after service is complete.
-
2012 (5) TMI 793
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80IA/80IB.
2. Addition on account of duty drawback.
3. Addition on account of prior period expenses.
4. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB).
Summary:
1. Deduction u/s 80IA/80IB:
The issue of eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA/80IB has been consistently decided in favor of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y. 1998-99 to 2004-05. The ITAT held that the eligibility for deduction should be determined in the initial assessment year, and once the conditions are fulfilled, the deduction is allowable for the entire tax holiday period of ten years. The CIT(A) followed these precedents and allowed the deduction. The revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
2. Addition on account of duty drawback:
The AO added Rs. 7,54,058/- as income accrued from excise duty rebate on exports, arguing that the benefit accrued the moment the exports were effected. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the income could only be said to have accrued when the claim was approved by the authorities. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decisions in Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd.
3. Addition on account of prior period expenses:
The AO disallowed prior period expenses, arguing that the liability did not crystallize in the relevant year. The CIT(A) allowed part of the expenses, disallowing only Rs. 2,10,806/- for want of details. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed both the revenue's and the assessee's appeals on this issue.
4. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB):
The AO restricted the deduction u/s 35(2AB) to the period from 21-9-2004 to 31-3-2005, while the assessee claimed it for the entire period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction for the entire period, following the Gujarat High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences, which held that once the R&D facility is approved, the entire expenditure incurred for its establishment is allowable. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
Conclusion:
The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, allowing the deductions and deletions as claimed by the assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 792
Issues involved: Appeal against order in original, confirmation of duty demand, retraction of statement, clandestine removal, evidentiary value of documents, principles of natural justice.
Confirmation of duty demand: The case involved a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 24,70,054/- and penalty based on alleged illicit removal of fabrics from the appellant's factory premises. The appellant contested the show cause notice, but the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, which was challenged by the Revenue in the High Court. The High Court found the Tribunal's order devoid of reasons and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for decision.
Retraction of statement and evidentiary value: The appellant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority erred in relying on the retracted statement of the partner of the appellant. The counsel pointed out discrepancies in the investigation, including contradictions in the quantity of fabrics cleared and lack of corroboration in statements of merchant manufacturers. The counsel contended that the case lacked proper investigation and evidentiary value, especially regarding clandestine removal allegations based on private records.
Adjudicating authority's reasoning: The adjudicating authority concluded there was clandestine removal based on recovered documents, partner's statement, and lack of acceptance of retraction. However, the Tribunal found the authority's reasoning flawed. The authority dismissed the retraction as an afterthought without proper consideration. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies in the quantity of fabrics cleared and lack of correlation between recorded and unrecorded statements of merchant manufacturers.
Decision and remand: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper reasoning addressing all raised issues and adherence to principles of natural justice in the reconsideration process.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in light of the highlighted discrepancies and lack of evidentiary value in the case.
-
2012 (5) TMI 791
Issues involved: Estimation of profit in retail liquor trade, treatment of cash gift as unexplained income u/s 68 of IT Act, disallowance of expenditure on carry bags.
Estimation of profit in retail liquor trade:
The assessee, engaged in the business of running a wine shop, faced an issue regarding the estimation of profit from retail trade in liquor. The assessing officer rejected the book results due to lack of proper evidence and estimated sales, resulting in an addition to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the addition. The ITAT Hyderabad, considering previous decisions, directed the assessing officer to estimate the net profit at 3% of purchases or stock put for sale, ensuring it does not fall below the returned income. Consequently, the first ground of the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Treatment of cash gift as unexplained income u/s 68 of IT Act:
The assessing officer and CIT(A) treated a cash gift received from the assessee's father as unexplained income taxable u/s 68 of the IT Act. The assessee contended that the gift was from a known source and challenged the addition. The ITAT noted that the business income had already been estimated, and the person giving the gift was identifiable with a definite source of income. Despite doubts raised by the Revenue, the ITAT found the explanation plausible and deleted the addition, allowing the ground of the assessee on this issue.
Disallowance of expenditure on carry bags:
The assessing officer disallowed an expenditure incurred in purchasing carry bags, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT, following legal precedents, held that once the business income is determined by estimation, there is no scope for separate additions. Therefore, the disallowance of the expenditure was unjustified, and the addition was deleted. Consequently, this ground of the assessee was allowed.
In conclusion, the ITAT Hyderabad partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the assessing officer to estimate profit in retail liquor trade at 3% of purchases, deleting the addition related to the cash gift, and allowing the disallowance of expenditure on carry bags.
-
2012 (5) TMI 790
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Rs. 10,80,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Acceptance of the assessee's submission without supporting evidence.
3. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to examine findings relied upon by CIT (A).
4. Applicability of VDIS immunity to third parties.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Rs. 10,80,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act
The assessee received a gift of Rs. 10,80,000/- from his mother, Smt. Mohinder Wati, who had declared the source as the sale of jewelry under VDIS, 1997. The A.O. added this amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, doubting the genuineness of the sale and the creditworthiness of the donor. However, CIT (A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged his onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donor. CIT (A) noted that the A.O. failed to establish any nexus to contradict the source of the gift and did not conduct further investigations. The reassessment of Smt. Mohinder Wati confirmed the sale of jewelry and the validity of the gift.
Issue 2: Acceptance of the assessee's submission without supporting evidence
The revenue argued that the A.O. found the jewellers non-existent at the provided addresses, raising doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. The A.O. suspected that the assessee's own unaccounted money was being converted into accounted money. The DR highlighted the impossibility of the donor, an 88-90-year-old lady suffering from senile dementia, remembering and conducting such detailed transactions. The assessee countered that the donor's reassessment confirmed the sale of jewelry and the gift, and that the A.O. did not provide evidence to contradict this.
Issue 3: Opportunity for the A.O. to examine findings relied upon by CIT (A)
The revenue contended that the A.O. was not given an opportunity to examine the findings relied upon by CIT (A). The CIT (A) held that the A.O. had not made further investigations to establish any nexus contradicting the source of the gift.
Issue 4: Applicability of VDIS immunity to third parties
The revenue argued that VDIS immunity applies only to the declarant and cannot benefit third parties. The CIT (A) held that the source of the gift was explained and assessed in the hands of the donor, thus it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 10,80,000/- u/s 68. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the gift, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The donor's reassessment confirmed the sale of jewelry and the gift, supporting the assessee's claim.
-
2012 (5) TMI 789
The Supreme Court of India adjourned the hearing of a case based on a written request by counsel for respondent No.3. The case is to be listed in September 2012. (2012 (5) TMI 789 - SC Order)
-
2012 (5) TMI 788
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of expenditure, admission of additional evidences, remand to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Disallowance of Expenditure:
The assessee appealed against the order confirming the disallowance of Rs. 25 lakhs as per the assessment order and interest u/s 234B & 234 D of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer found the expenditure not genuine due to lack of supporting documents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The assessee submitted various documents to support the genuineness of the expenditure, including notesheets and orders. The Tribunal considered these documents, which were part of government records, crucial for determining the genuineness of the expenditure. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidences and remanded the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to substantiate its claim.
Admission of Additional Evidences:
During the appeal hearing, the assessee requested the admission of additional evidences, explaining that these documents were crucial for the case and had not been presented before the Assessing Officer previously. The documents included minutes of a Board Meeting, notesheets of discussions with the Chief Minister, and an order of the Collector. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, decided to admit the additional evidences in the interest of justice. However, since these documents were not available to the Assessing Officer earlier, the appeal was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessee granted the opportunity to provide further evidence if needed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes only, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and substantiate its claim. The order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 22.5.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 787
Difference between "No Enquiry" and "Inadequate Enquiry" - Revision by Commissioner u/s 263 - CIT(A) had issued show-cause notice u/s 263, wherein the CIT(A) had asked the assessee to show- cause as to why the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was not liable to be set aside as the AO had not conducted enquiry adequately which had led the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was the submission by the ld. A.R. that the assessee had provided all the details, which were the foundation for the show-cause notice u/s 263 in the course of original assessment. AO conducted the enquiries and then the order was passed. It was the submission that the order passed by ld. CIT u/s 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
HELD THAT:- AO is not just a tax collector. He has to do the duty as an Officer, who is responsible for assessing the correct income. To prove an enquiry "inadequate" enquiry, CIT has to show that the enquiry and the opinion formed on the basis of such enquiry is fallacious. In the present case, the inquiry was made, documents were called for examination and opinion had been formed by the AO while passing the original assessment order. This has not been shown to be fallacious. Thus the order passed u/s 263 is unsustainable in law in so far as inquiry has been done by the AO when passing the original assessment order.
Decision in the case of GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI I, AND OTHERS [1974 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT], relied upon.
The impugned revision order stands quashed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 786
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the case of VIPIN SANGHI. The petitioner sought consideration and disposal of their representation pending before the respondents, which was directed to be done within two weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 785
Penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) - Undisclosed Income/ Concealed Income - meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ - Receipts from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy - as contended that assessee received receipt from representing Indian Cricket Team, thus not taxable - HELD THAT:- Assessee was under a bonafide belief that this income is exempted on the basis of CBDT Instruction no. 1432. Assessee’s case draws supports from the CIT., AHMEDABAD VERSUS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT], thus it is held that the penalty on this account is not leviable.
Receipts from Badiham Cricket Club, UK - Assessee contended that amount paid by the Club was for reimbursement of travel, boarding and lodging etc. but he was not able to submit the evidence for the same - Assessee has not been able to submit the evidence that the entire amount was reimbursement on travel, boarding expenses. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted estimated relief of 50% also - the issue is not a fit for levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2).
Receipts from Sanspareils Green - Assessee was outside India and hence, he was not in a position to file the return in due time. This has lead to delay in filing of return and consequently, additions and penalty was levied - Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the return on due time and hence, levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not justified.
Income from Quiz Programme - Assessee received some amount for participating in TV Sports Quiz. This addition was made only on the statement of the assessee and no document was seized on this account - Assessee was under a bonafide belief that receipt was not taxable. Hence, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable.
Income from salary and interest treated as undisclosed return - CIT (A) has deleted the penalty on the salary part of the income. However, the interest income was directed to be assessed as undisclosed income - Assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80L. Hence, penalty on this issue is not leviable.
Addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper - Some documents were seized. On the basis of handwriting of assessee on that paper, addition was made and penalty was levied - The addition has been made on the basis of loose document, which did not conclusively prove any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Hence, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable.
-
2012 (5) TMI 784
Issues Involved:
1. Sustenance of addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/-.
2. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C.
3. Correction of license fees amount due to clerical error.
Summary:
1. Sustenance of Addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/-:
The assessee, engaged in the business as a contractor cum developer, declared a total income of Rs. 2,13,32,028/-. However, the assessment was completed at Rs. 4,28,37,608/- including the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 10,000/- and an addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/- as sale consideration of flats shown as advance. The assessee contended that the advances were received for flats whose possession was not given during the year and followed a consistent method of accounting. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) and CIT(A) held that the sale consideration should be recognized in the year of receipt as all significant risks and rewards had been transferred to the buyers. The Tribunal, however, found that the possession of the flats was given on 1-4-2007, and the assessee consistently followed the same accounting method accepted by the Revenue in past and subsequent years. Thus, the addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/- was deleted.
2. Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C:
The assessee sought consequential relief from the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow consequential relief in light of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/-.
3. Correction of License Fees Amount Due to Clerical Error:
The assessee claimed a clerical error in the license fees amount, showing Rs. 1,99,53,314/- in the audited accounts but Rs. 1,83,53,314/- in the return of income. The A.O. rejected the claim based on the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a mistake and directed the A.O. to rectify the error and ensure legitimate taxes are collected, setting aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities on this account.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/- deleted, consequential relief directed for interest u/s 234B and 234C, and the correction of the license fees amount remanded to the A.O. for rectification.
-
2012 (5) TMI 783
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding payment for press mud, marketability of press mud post-amendment to Section 2(d), applicability of Tribunal's decision on bagasse to press mud.
Issue 1 - Payment for Press Mud:
The issue revolved around whether the appellant was liable to pay 10% of the value of press mud, an exempted excisable product, as per Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The demand was confirmed against the appellant based on this provision.
Issue 2 - Marketability of Press Mud:
The question arose on the marketability of press mud following the amendment to Section 2(d). While press mud had been considered non-excisable in previous decisions, the Revenue argued that post-amendment, press mud should be deemed marketable and hence excisable due to being sold for a consideration by the appellants.
Issue 3 - Applicability of Tribunal's Decision on Bagasse:
Referring to a Tribunal's Division Bench decision on bagasse, it was argued that the same rationale should apply to press mud as both are waste products from sugar manufacture. The decision highlighted the impossibility of maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in the production of sugar/molasses and bagasse/press mud, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by setting aside the demand for payment related to press mud and allowing the appeal based on the applicability of the Tribunal's decision on bagasse to press mud, emphasizing the waste nature of both products in the sugar manufacturing process.
-
2012 (5) TMI 782
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Arbitrator's Award due to delay in pronouncement.
2. Applicability of waiver principles u/s 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Interpretation of arbitration agreement clauses regarding time limits.
4. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator post stipulated time.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Arbitrator's Award due to delay in pronouncement:
The appeal challenges the order dated 2nd September 2011, where the learned single Judge set aside the Arbitrator's Award dated 17th August 2006 on the grounds that it was not made within the stipulated time allowed by the arbitration agreement. The agreement between the appellant and the respondent contained a clause that the award should be made within two years or an extended period not exceeding twelve months. The Arbitrator declared the award after the conclusion of arguments on 21st April 2004, but the award was published on 17th August 2006, which was beyond the stipulated time.
2. Applicability of waiver principles u/s 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
Mr. Bharucha, representing the appellant, argued that the respondent had participated in the arbitration proceedings without objecting to the delay, thus waiving their right to challenge the award u/s 4 of the Act. He contended that the respondent's conduct implied consent to extend the time limit. However, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Seervai, argued that the Arbitrator's mandate terminates automatically when the time limit expires, and jurisdiction is governed by statute, not by the conduct of the parties.
3. Interpretation of arbitration agreement clauses regarding time limits:
The arbitration clause in the agreement specified that the award should be published within two years or an extended period of twelve months. The court examined whether the time limit could be extended by the conduct of the parties. The Division Bench in the case of Snehdeep held that conduct implying consent could extend the time limit. However, the Supreme Court's judgment in NBCC Ltd. vs. J.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. emphasized that the Arbitrator's mandate terminates if the award is not made within the agreed time unless both parties consent to an extension.
4. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator post stipulated time:
The court concluded that the Arbitrator's jurisdiction depends on the arbitration agreement. If the agreement provides a specific time limit that is not extendable, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio after that period. The court held that the Arbitrator had no authority to proceed after the stipulated time without a new agreement in writing by both parties. The respondent's participation after the conclusion of arguments did not constitute a waiver, as there was no effective participation required post-arguments. The award was set aside due to undue delay and lack of jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the learned single Judge's decision to set aside the Arbitrator's Award due to undue delay and lack of jurisdiction post the stipulated time. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the arbitration proceedings should adhere to the agreed terms and time limits in the arbitration agreement.
-
2012 (5) TMI 781
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issues of entertainment duty levied on a company organizing exhibitions under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, and the violation of principles of natural justice by the Additional Collector in passing an order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Entertainment Duty Issue:
The Petitioner, a company promoting gem and jewelry exports, organized exhibitions on a business to business basis, excluding general public entry, and paid entertainment duty for past events. Despite seeking an NOC for a 2012 exhibition, the second respondent demanded additional entertainment duty of Rs. 1.32 Crores for the 2011 event without allowing the petitioner a hearing. The petitioner contended that their events did not fall under the Act's definition of "entertainment." The High Court set aside the impugned order due to the lack of a hearing and instructed the Additional Collector to reconsider after giving the petitioner a chance to be heard, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order within a month.
Natural Justice Violation:
The impugned order of 17 March 2012, demanding Rs. 1.32 Crores in entertainment duty, was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The High Court, noting the breach of natural justice principles, decided not to mandate an appeal process and directed the Additional Collector to reevaluate the matter after granting the petitioner a fair hearing. The court highlighted exceptions to the exhaustion of alternate remedies, particularly in cases of natural justice violations, and emphasized the importance of a speaking order with reasons provided in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to attend a hearing for further directions on 28 May 2012 to facilitate a prompt decision by the Additional Collector.
-
2012 (5) TMI 780
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Summary:
Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court
The primary issue addressed was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement of "Shyam Surti."
The plaintiff argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction u/s 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and u/s 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, claiming both parties were carrying on business in Delhi and that the defendant had applied for trademark registration in Delhi. The plaintiff also contended that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence.
The defendant countered that mere application for trademark registration in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction and that no documentary evidence was provided to show business operations in Delhi. The defendant emphasized that both parties were primarily operating in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and no cause of action arose in Delhi.
The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act, alongside Section 20 of the CPC, which allows suits to be filed where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. The Court referred to precedents, including *Dhodha House vs. S.K. Maingi* and *Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr.*, to clarify that the plaintiff must show substantial business operations or cause of action in the jurisdiction claimed.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of business operations or cause of action in Delhi. The plaintiff's claims were deemed vague and unsupported by material evidence. The application for trademark registration in Delhi by the defendant was found irrelevant to establishing jurisdiction.
The Court also addressed the procedural aspect, noting that the issue of jurisdiction was agreed to be treated as a preliminary issue by both parties and could be decided without requiring additional evidence.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court ruled that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction without addressing the merits of the case.
-
2012 (5) TMI 779
Issues involved: Securities trading violations, self-trades, violation of regulations, penalty imposition.
The judgment by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, involved two appeals arising from identical facts regarding securities trading violations. The appellant, a stock broker, traded in the scrip of a company leading to investigations by regulatory bodies for potential violations of regulations. The investigations revealed that the appellant and two other brokers executed self-trades, constituting a significant portion of the total trades on the day of listing. The appellant defended the trades as being carried out by jobbers in its pro-account through different terminals, permitted by the stock exchange. The appellant argued that there was no malicious intent and that the trades were within permissible limits.
The appellant's defense was countered by the respondent Board, stating that the appellant misused the facility of using own account through trading terminals by engaging independent day traders. The Board highlighted that the relationship between the appellant and the operators was not in line with pro-account trading regulations. The Board contended that such practices could manipulate the market and mislead investors, breaching the regulatory framework. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal agreed with the Board's view, emphasizing that the appellant's trading method resulted in fictitious trades, creating artificial volume and misleading signals to investors.
Regarding the penalties imposed under sections 15 HA and 15 HB of the Act, the appellant argued that the penalties were unreasonably high. However, the Tribunal found the penalties imposed by the Board to be just and reasonable considering the gravity of the violations. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, upholding the penalties imposed by the Board.
-
2012 (5) TMI 778
Winding up petition - Held that:- It is apparent that the defence set up by the respondent is a sham and moonshine. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Accordingly, present petition is admitted and respondent company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent company and is directed to forthwith take over the assets and records of the respondent company. For this purpose, Provisional Liquidator would be entitled to obtain police aid and the local police is directed to render all assistance to the Provisional Liquidator.
Respondent-company, its Directors, officers, employers, authorised representatives are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering and parting with the possession of any movable and immovable assets and funds of the respondent company. They are also restrained from withdrawing any money from the accounts of the respondent company.
The Directors of the respondent company are directed to forthwith hand over all the records of the respondent company to the Provisional Liquidator including its books of account. The Directors of respondent company are also directed to provide the statement of affairs and file their statements under Rule 130 within a period of twenty one days as provided for in the Act.
Citations are directed to be published in the newspapers, namely, 'The Statesman (English edition) and 'Veer Arjun' (Hindi edition) as well as in 'Delhi Gazette'.
-
2012 (5) TMI 777
Maintainability of appeal - offence under NI Act - Held that:- In the case of conviction by the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the appeal would lie to the court of Sessions and, therefore, in the present case keeping in view the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., it is of the view that the appellants/applicants should have preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the court of Sessions.
In that view of the matter, the appellants/ applicants need not have preferred the leave to appeal applications which have been filed before this court directly without filing the appeals before the court of Sessions.
These leave to appeal-applications accordingly stand dismissed as not maintainable.
........
|
9911796707
