|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 524 Records
-
2007 (12) TMI 470 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontinued to exist. The penalty imposed was in ‘addition to any tax’. If there was no tax, no penalty could be levied. The return filed declaring loss and assessment made at a reduced loss did not warrant any levy of penalty within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) with or without Expln. 4’." 10. Having regard to the findings by the ultimate fact finding authority that the assessee company has bona fide belief that the services rendered by it would constitute technical services and such a bona fide belief is also supported by the above clarification (Circular No. 3 of 2004, dt. 12th Feb., 2004) issued by the CBDT, and in the light of the categorical exposition of law as to the scope and ambit of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Revenue has not made out any case. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 469 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ecord could not be written off in the year under appeal against cost of bills, sales and services. The sales, the bills and services have not been credited which is the case of the revenue. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee as the assessee has not met its own consistent system of accounting to be followed for rightfully becoming the claimant of loss of three years in one year without incorporating the corresponding receivables to become entitle for write off under the provisions of section 36(i)(vii) and not u/s 37(1) as per the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case enumerated by the AO and the learned CIT(A). 9. In the light of the above, the issue with respect to the loss of project written off as agitated by the assessee is dismissed and the issue relating to the contribution of PF and ESI is allowed as covered by the jurisdictional High Court decision. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 468 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n which he was put in possession of the property. As a matter of fact in a similar circumstances this court in ITA 328/03 dt. 13.1.2.2007 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAROJA B.K. we have held that when a party is put in possession of the property under the part performance of the agreement as contemplated under Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the person who is in possession in such capacity has to be treated as a owner from the date on which he was put in possession. If the same is taken into account, When the B.D.A. has allotted the site and out the possession of the property, if the property is sold on 8.5.1997 it has to be treated as a long term capital gains as he was enjoying for more than 36 months as contemplated under Sec.2(42) of the Income tax Act. 8. Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly we answer the question against the revenue. 10. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 467 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quo;immovable property” as defined under section 269UA(d) of the Income tax Act the assessee was justified in offering the capital gains for the assessment year 1992-93. Against this judgment the present appeal is filed. (3) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are not in a position to take a different view than the one taken by the appellate Tribunal for the following reasons. (4) The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the legal position that the capital gain has to be computed in view of the provisions of section 2(47) read with section 269UA(d) of the Income Tax Act. If the Tribunal, following the aforesaid two provisions of law, given the relief to the assessee, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question of law against the Revenue. (5) Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Therefore, in view of the dismissal of the appeal it is for the revenue to complete the assessment for the year 1992-93.
-
2007 (12) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT
What shall be the standard of originality in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court which is a derivative work and what would be required in a derivative work to treat it the original work of an author and thereby giving a protected right under the Copyright Act, 1957 to the author of the derivative work ?
Whether the entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments published in the appellants law report SCC would be entitled for a copyright as an original literary work, the copy-edited judgments having been claimed as a result of inextricable and inseparable admixture of the copy-editing inputs and the raw text, taken together, as a result of insertion of all SCC copy-editing inputs into the raw text, or whether the appellants would be entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs which have been put in the raw text ?
-
2007 (12) TMI 465 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made up or a false case, the IO might have used more accurate balance and weighed the samples with accuracy. One may have doubt on the genuineness of the case if the each sample weight is the same on accurate balance used in CRCL but one cannot doubt if the weight difference is found as in these cases. Such difference in weight is natural. No malafide can be drawn by the appellant by this difference of weight. 14. The argument has been raised by the appellant regarding his statement under Section 67. Conviction of the appellant is not based on his statement recorded under Section 67 neither any or reliance is placed by the Trial Court for convicting the accused on his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act. However, it is to be noted that the appellant had not retracted, at any stage during trial, his statement under Section 67 made before the PW2. 15. As a result of my above discussion, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 464 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nvestigation in this case has been completed because of long detention of his co accused, therefore, sending the petitioner to jail shall serve no useful purpose. This court would have imposed the condition by directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount towards alleged evasion of duty but prima facie as indicated in Form 32, this petitioner is said to have resigned from the company in 2005 whereas evasion relates to the year 2006-07, therefore, it is not appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit certain amount which is usually ordered at the time of grant of bails in such like cases. In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/SHO. However he shall join investigation as and when summoned by the enforcement officers. Dasti.
-
2007 (12) TMI 463 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... giving hearing to the petitioners order will be passed within three weeks on the petitioners furnishing the information as called for by the respondents herein. The respondents to call for the information within one week from today. With the above directions, petition is disposed of.
-
2007 (12) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ele Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. nor in M/s Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd., nor investigators collected any material that this petitioner was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company which is a pre-requisite for invoking the provision of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even otherwise, this petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity rather his case stands on better footing as this petitioner was never a Director of the company. For all these reasons, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the some of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/SHO. However, he shall join investigation as and when desired by the enforcement officials. However, any observation made herein shall not tantamount to an expression of opinion in this case. Dasti.
-
2007 (12) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ravi Ram Singh, Conductor by the employers from 31.07.1999 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, to which benefit/compensation the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?"
-
2007 (12) TMI 460 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rranging such gifts. The commission so paid is an outgoing and is not represented by any assets or valuable article or thing. If the assessee has earned undisclosed income and has spent the same in meeting household expenses or marriage expenses then Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) may not be applicable as the outgoings have not resulted into any assets. Hence, in respect of the amount surrendered as commission in the revised return, penalty is clearly leviable as Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) will not provide immunity to the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Since facts in all the cases are identical, therefore, penalty in respect of all the amounts surrendered in respect of gifts stands deleted, while penalty in respect of the amounts surrendered as commission paid for arranging the gifts is confirmed. It is noted that all the assessees against whom revenue has filed appeals have been covered under section 153A. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the office of Chairperson or Members of the Walf Board is an office of profit so as to disqualify a person from being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi?
-
2007 (12) TMI 458 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 50 of the demand. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Super Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 49 held that the second time pre-deposit is not required when the assessee earlier pre-deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penalties is waived. Stay petition is allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 457 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the action of the Development Authority in levying 20% surcharge from the registrants of the South Delhi is justified ?
Whether demand for payment of current cost as calculated by the Delhi Development Authority from the defaulter registrants could be said to be justified?
-
2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court is justified in allowing Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.?
-
2007 (12) TMI 455 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the recommendations of the Selection Committee to fill up 8 vacancies belonging to the non-State Civil Service Officers of Government of Karnataka to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of Karnataka cadre are mala fides, arbitrary and also the Selection Committee without application of mind had awarded marks to the selected candidates in a discriminatory manner?
-
2007 (12) TMI 454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has held that the State does not have priority for its dues over secured creditors and its priority is qua non secured creditors only. Defendant No.2 having taken action in terms of Section 29 of the said Act was certainly entitled to sell the said two plots mortgaged to them towards the recovery of its dues towards the loan advanced by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 and in such a situation, in my view, the Department of Customs and Central Excise would certainly have no case to obtain a relief of temporary injunction against defendant no.2. In fact, learned Counsel on behalf of defendant no.2 submits that no relief in the plaint was sought against defendant no.2 at all. In view of the above, the appeal is bound to succeed and the impugned Order dated 30-6-2007 is hereby set aside. Defendant No.2 would be entitled to deal with the said two plots including factory premises, plant and machinery according with the provisions of the said Act. Appeal allowed on the above terms.
-
2007 (12) TMI 453 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Superior Courts' have jurisdiction to dismiss a writ petition for alleged suppression of material fact?
-
2007 (12) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... improper order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside, no objection can be taken." In view of the above said principle, even assuming the Government acted without jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for this Court to interfere with the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that if the punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed on her, she can draw pension from the Kerala State Co-operative Pension Fund. It is a contributory pension fund, to which she has already paid her contribution and the society has also remitted its share. I heard the learned counsel for the Bank also on this point. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, the 5th respondent is directed to consider whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner could be converted as a punishment of compulsory retirement from service, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
-
2007 (12) TMI 451 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - lipsticks of 10 gms or less - valued under Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
........
|
