|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 706 Records
-
2008 (3) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... ound that during the course of search in the case of Manoj Aggarwal, no incriminating material was found relating to the assessee. Further, the transactions of the assessee were duly recorded in the books of account. The AO of Shri Manoj Aggarwal did not handover any material found during the course of search to the AO of the assessee. 40. The learned CIT(A) has considered the entire material in detail. He has also taken into account the assessment order in the case of Manoj Aggarwal. On examining the bank account of the assessee being a/c No. 1303, Vijaya Bank, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi, the learned CIT(A) observed that the AO had proceeded on the basis of assumption and conjectures and made the addition to make technical compliance. On going through the order of the learned CIT(A) we do not find any scope to interfere in his order which is upheld by us. Ground fails. 41. In the result cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2008 (3) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... me would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which the reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. By the statute the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to ascertain whether on the allegations a cause of action is shown and as long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some question fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak or not likely to succeed is no ground for rejecting it. 15. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge, who has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the application should be dismissed, was justified in holding that the suit has cause of action and that the averments made therein required trial. We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
-
2008 (3) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... sioner of Labour, the Registrar and the State Government as provided under Section 10-I. The Registrar shall enter it in the register kept for the purpose and the State Government shall publish the award under Section 17 of the Act without any delay. IV. JUL/GDCL shall pay to Mr. Justice N.N.Mathur within one month from to day a sum of ₹ 2 lakh as his honorarium and an additional sum of ₹ 1.5 lakh to meet the salary of the staff and other incidental expenses, including traveling expenses. V. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries (GR-I) Department, the Labour Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, the Labour Commissioner Government of U.P. and the Collector(s) of the district(s) where the cement factory and Phallodi Quarry are situate and the Collector, Kanpur shall extend all help and assistance to Mr. Justice Mathur as may be required by him in connection with the proceedings. 37. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No Costs.
-
2008 (3) TMI 763
... ...
... ... ..... of that cheque for such liability." Learned counsel has also invited my attention to a decision of the Madras High Court in Angu Parameshwari Textiles v. Sri.Rajam & Co. (2001 DCR 648) wherein it has been held that "if the cheque is more than the amount of the debt due, ..... Section 138 cannot be attracted." Learned counsel has raised a further contention that the decision of the learned single Judge in Gopikuttan Pillai's case may not have been correctly decided in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Suman Seth v. Ajay K. Churinal (2000 Criminal 172). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials placed before me I am of the view that there is an apparent conflict in the views taken by this Court in the two decisions referred to above. Therefore it may be appropriate that the appeal is heard by a Division Bench . Registry shall place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
-
2008 (3) TMI 762
... ...
... ... ..... Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sasisri Extraction Ltd. (supra), any subsidy that was granted to offset the cost of an asset, would fall within the expression "met directly or indirectly" in the said Explanation, whereas the subsidy received merely to accelerate the industrial development of the State cannot be considered as payments made specifically to meet a portion of the cost of the assets. 9.7. In the light of the aforesaid view we are of the opinion that sales-tax subsidy which was received by the assessee cannot be treated as a subsidy in respect the asset employed by the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to reduce the said subsidy from the actual cost of the subsidy u/s 43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 28-8-2009.
-
2008 (3) TMI 761
... ...
... ... ..... of the view that the statements made in the said application for condonation of delay of 63 days do constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and we request the High Court to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from this date. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (3) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... minary stage. The main petition cannot, therefore, be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable in terms of Section 399. In the circumstances, it is directed that the parties shall complete the pleadings in C.A. No. 220 of 2007 and other connected applications by filing counter on or before 09.04.2008 and rejoinder to be filed by 25.04.2008. The applicant will take notice to the proposed parties in the connected applications, since prima facie I am of the opinion that the proposed parties must be afforded an opportunity of hearing on account of the involvement of their interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. The decisions in Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Supra) and T.N.K. Govindaruju Chetty v. Kadri Mills (CBE) Limited (Supra) would be relevant only when the validity of the further issue of shares is examined in the main proceedings. The parties shall ensure compliance in completing the pleadings, in terms of this order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2008 (3) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. Bhargava V. Desai,Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta,Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (3) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... ent/transferred otherwise then by way of inter State sale. The contention of the State is that by doing so, the petitioner has also evaded payment of Central Sales Tax . We are not impressed with this argument. The case of the petitioner always has been that he is an agent of M/s Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. and, therefore, obviously the declaration has been issued in this behalf. It was for the Central Sales Tax Authority to decide whether the declaration is proper or not. The State, however, cannot levy tax on the maize purchased by the petitioner on behalf of M/s Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. directly from the farmer. In view of the fact that we are of the opinion that the petitioner has purchased the maize on behalf of M/s Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd., we had not decided the other contentions of the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the assessment order, Annexure P-2, dated 31.3.1997 is quashed and set aside.
-
2008 (3) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... terfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts. The appeals are dismissed. We, however, reduce the rate of interest to that of simple interest @ 1 8% per annum. The payment shall be made within three months from today. The Bank Guarantee is discharged.
-
2008 (3) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... ng brought back to New Delhi. Since the duration of these calls are not expected to be very long the entire exercise should be completed on or before 25th March 2008. (v) As regards the 19 CDs containing 768 calls this need not to be played at the stage from the hard disc. There will be no need to provide to the accused access to the entire 768 calls as recorded in the hard disc other than the 100 listed calls which the CBI is relying on. If the accused in the Shameet Mukherjee case want to refer to any of the 768 calls in the course of their arguments on charge before the learned Special Judge, they can play such calls straight from the CD itself before the learned Special Judge. (vi) The arguments on charge thereafter be positively concluded in all the four cases on or before 30th April, 2008 and orders on charge be passed on or before 31st May, 2008 Each of the learned Counsel will cooperate in this entire exercise. 15. The petitions and the applications stand disposed of.
-
2008 (3) TMI 755
... ...
... ... ..... account no.10975 of M/s. Bountiful Ltd., of Geneva and documents which reveals that several air tickets were also billed in these Bountiful invoices and payments of these tickets have been directed to be credited to the aforesaid Geneva account. The Appellate Tribunal has also placed reliance upon an enquiry report dated 15.1.1997 given by an officer of the Indian High Commission at London reporting on enquiry that Mr. Livinston, Managing Director of Clyde Travels Limited did not know Mr. Shirish Shah. 4. Considering all the aforesaid material, we feel that there is no question of law involved in these appeals. On the facts, the case has been decided on the basis of voluminous material available and it is not possible to draw an inference that the findings are perverse. We find that a substantial deduction of penalties has been effected by the Appellate Tribunal. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for interference and hence the aforesaid appeals are summarily dismissed.
-
2008 (3) TMI 754
TDS certificates can be treated as an acknowledgement in writing of the debt due? - Suit for recovery framed under Order 37 would be maintainable or not - Liability to pay interest on the loan - HELD THAT:- The claim was raised in the notice for claiming the interest at the rate of 15 per cent upto 31st March, 2003 (minus TDS paid) and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Objection in regard to maintainability of the suit has been taken by the appellant and argued before the learned single Judge with some emphasis. This contention has been noticed in the impugned judgment. We are unable to find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the appellant cannot be permitted to argue this issue because specific objection in that regard was not taken in the application for leave to defend.
Firstly, the application for leave to defend does show averment that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and should be dismissed. Secondly, this is a question of law and it is obligatory upon the respondent to show that on the bare reading of the plaint, the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code would be maintainable. The issuance of TDS certificates does not amount to an acknowledgement of defendant within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jyotsna [2007 (4) TMI 748 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] puts the matter beyond doubt.
A suit based upon bill of exchange, hundi, promissory note to recover a debt or liquidated demand payable by the plaintiff to the defendant with or without interest but arising from a written contract, or an enactment, or a guarantee where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. We are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent that issuance of certificate for tax deduction at source would be a document which will fall in any of the clauses stated under Order 37 Rule 2. Admittedly, the loan was advanced as a friendly loan to which serious dispute has been raised. The dispute raised by the defendant relates to questions of law as well as facts.
It is a settled principle of law that before a plaintiff can bring a suit to be tried under the special summary procedure provided under Order 37 of the Code, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that the suit as framed is not only maintainable under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code but no relief whatsoever have been claimed in the suit that are falling outside the ambit and scope of the said provision. Wherever such an objection is taken, which in fact has been taken in the present case, the law requires the plaintiff in a suit to show that taking the averments made in the plaint to be correct, the suit satisfies the ingredients of the special provisions. If the ingredients of Order 37 on the plain reading of the plaint are not satisfied, then plaintiff cannot claim any benefit of the summary procedure. Even on the plea of demur, the appellant is unable to demonstrate in the present case that suit squarely falls within the ambit of Order 37 and the reliefs claimed therein including the interest claim falls within the ambit and scope of the said provision.
Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order under appeal. We further direct that the suit shall proceed as an ordinary suit and not as a summary suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code.
-
2008 (3) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... laiming his right through the judgment-debtor. In our judgment, the High Court was also right in observing that if the appellant succeeds in the suit and decree is passed in her favour, she can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and apply for restitution. That, however, does not preclude the decree holder from executing the decree obtained by him. Since the appellant is a purchaser pendente lite and as she has no right to offer resistance or cause obstruction and as her rights have not been crystallized in a decree, Rule 102 of Order 21 of the Code comes into operation. Hence, she cannot resist execution during the pendency of the suit instituted by her. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal, unlawful or otherwise contrary to law. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (3) TMI 752
... ...
... ... ..... e accepts notice and seeks some time to take instructions. To come up on 29th August, 2008. File of ITA No.249/2003 and ITA No.58/2002 be sent to the Court on the next date of hearing.
-
2008 (3) TMI 751
... ...
... ... ..... seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. Hence, appeal dismissed as withdrawn. The issue of law, if any, is kept open for consideration in appropriat case. Refund of court fees as per rules.
-
2008 (3) TMI 750
... ...
... ... ..... the shareholders holding the requisite percentage can maintain an action under Section 397/398 in order to bring to an end the matters complained of held that the requirement of tiling consent letters of members as well as documents required, to be annexed to petitions relating to the exercise of powers in connection with prevention of oppression or mismanagement is not mandatory, but merely directory. Thus, a right to apply under Section 397/398 arises to the petitioners, only if the consent of not less than one-fifth of the total number of members, as contemplated in Section 399, is obtained. Therefore the decision of the Supreme Court will be of little assistance to the petitioners. 4. In view of my foregoing conclusions, I am of the considered view that the company petition must fail at the threshold, for not meeting the requirements of Section 399 of the Act, Ordered accordingly. All the interim orders are vacated and the connected company application stand disposed of.
-
2008 (3) TMI 749
... ...
... ... ..... nal found that it is only a post-dated cheque and it cannot be said to be an amount which was made available for the use of the drawer of the cheque and, therefore, the provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. Similarly, no service of the Assessee was available to the drawer of cheque and, therefore, the provisions of Section 13(2)(d) also did not apply. With regard to Section 13(2)(h) of the Act, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that the amount can be said to be an investment made by the Assessee with the drawer of the cheque for which the Assessee did not receive any compensation. We are of the view that this is too broad a proposition to be accepted. If the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is accepted, then any post-dated cheque will amount to an investment. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not err either on facts or in law in rejecting the contention of the Revenue. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2008 (3) TMI 748
... ...
... ... ..... ed to have concealed particulars of income even in the course of search. Obviously there is concealment of income by the assessee by virtue of operation of Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act because assessee not only did not disclose income in the course of search, but even offered explanation that it belonged to another person which the assessee could not establish or prove. In the circumstances, concealment stands proved beyond any doubt by operation of presumption available under Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently the assessee is liable for penalty under the said section. Therefore the order of the Tribunal to the contrary is liable to be reversed. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, the officer has levied only minimum penalty and therefore there is no scope for interference with the quantum of penalty levied. In the circumstances we dispose of the reference by answering the question referred in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2008 (3) TMI 747
... ...
... ... ..... anager to file the complaint. The Regional Manager is the delegate of the Board of Directors and he is nothing but a delegate and as per the maxim referred to earlier, he cannot delegate his power or duty in favour of the Assistant Area Manager. 15.In the light of the discussion made earlier, it is very clear that the present complaint has not been properly filed and the first appellate Court after considering the above legal aspect, has clearly held that the present complaint is not legally maintainable and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant is sans merit and whereas the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is really having attractive force. 16.In fine, this criminal appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed. The judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 1998 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai is confirmed.
........
|
