-
2008 (5) TMI 734
... ... ... ... ..... lateral and stale challenge without any explanation for the delay is not maintainable. In any event, the appropriate authority of the Government has not taken any final decision after the matter has been remanded by the revisional authority for hearing by the State. Hearing is continuing. It is open to the Petitioner to appear before the Secretary in connection with his application for hearing. No final decision has been taken by the Secretary, So going by these facts. it cannot be said that the Petitioner's case at th....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 733
... ... ... ... ..... unt books no discrepancy was found other than the seizure, which also included the transaction in question. The imposition of penalty by rejecting the explanation that the entry had been made in the account books subsequently does not appear to be correct. It is not the case where the dealer after making entries submitted its explanation after a week or ten days but in the present case it had done so on the same day the seizure had been made. Further looking into the past and previous conduct of the dealer, in my opinion, ....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 732
... ... ... ... ..... covered by the decision rendered by this Court in D.B.I.T.A.No.118/2005 decided on 17.3.2008 in the case of this very assessee. For the same reasons, this appeal is also dismissed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 731
... ... ... ... ..... is erroneous. Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 9. So far as the question on merit is concerned, perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the issue has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding that whether on the facts and circumstances there was any default under section 269T of the Act and the penalty under section 271E of the Act was leviable. The Tribunal has also not considered that there was any reasonable cause in com....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 730
... ... ... ... ..... t businessman. (P. 82) 5. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that it was not possible for the Assessing Officer to substitute his opinion of the amount that should have been spent towards entertainment and promotion of exports. 6. We do not see any substantial question of law arising in this appeal and there is no doubt about the correctness of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 7. The second issue is with regard to prior period expenses of ₹ 5,51,337. Insofar as this is concerned, the Tribunal has foun....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 729
Offence under SEBI ACT - Insider trading - Possession of unpublished price sensitive information - violation of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - HELD THAT:- In view of the interpretation of regulation 3 and on the admitted facts of this case, there would be a presumption that the appellants being insiders, traded on the basis of the unpublished price sensitive information in possession of Gandhi and the onus to rebut that presumption was on them. They have not only fa....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 728
... ... ... ... ..... de in the case of M/s.Vijay Proteins Ltd. From these facts it is evident that the CIT(A) has sustained the addition at 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases considering the facts of the assessee's case. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. The same is sustained. After considering the facts and the arguments of both the sides, we are of the opinion that it would meet ends of justice, if the disallowance is sustained at 12.5% of the purchase from these two pa....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 727
... ... ... ... ..... made U/S. 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest relatable to diversion of interest bearing funds to interest free advances? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow depreciation on Butchlor Plant, which was ready for use but was not actually put to use by assessee? IV. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt by way of gain on cancellation of foreign exchange contract....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 726
... ... ... ... ..... st. Mukri Gopalan (supra) was distinguished stating 53. Mr Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker. Therein this Court was concerned with extension of the period of limitation in a case wherein an appeal was to be preferred before an Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. As for preferring an appeal a period of limitation is prescribed, it was held that Section 5 of....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 725
... ... ... ... ..... para 1471 In this view of the matter, it may safely be stated that the appellant, through his conduct, has waived his right to an equitable remedy in the instant case. Such conduct precludes and operates as estoppel against him with respect to asserting a right over a portion of the acquired land in a situation where the scheme in question has attained finality following as a result of the appellant's inaction. 36. Mr. Lalit submits that his client is ready and willing to pay some reasonable amount to the respondent No....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 724
... ... ... ... ..... eedings or there is some other clear indication that pending actions are affected. In view of the aforesaid law laid own by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that all cases pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class as on 22.2.2008 are not affected by the Amendment and will be continued to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class because there is no provision in the Amendment or no clear indication in the Amendment that pending cases before the Judicial Magistrate First Class are to be....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 723
Doctrine of promissory Estoppel - discontinuation of old concessations - Investment subsidy - `Tourism' was declared to be an `Industry' - concession on electricity tariff limited to five years - whether the said Government Order dated 26.9.2000 is reasonable having been given retrospective effect and retroactive operation? HELD THAT:- The wide range of concessions as noticed hereinbefore, inter alia, covered electricity and water charges. It is not a case where some exemptions or concessions were to be given for a specific period or a....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 722
... ... ... ... ..... the State of Punjab by the Central Government, it exercises a statutory power. It would, therefore, not a case where the functions of the State Government must be held to be confined to its territorial jurisdiction. 68. Articles 245 or 246 or for that matter, Articles 73 and 172 of the Constitution of India will have no application. 69. Even such questions have not been raised before the High Court. In issuing the notification, the Central Government was merely exercising its statutory functions. It has not exercised a pow....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 721
... ... ... ... ..... Works v. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 171 (S.C.), this appeal is also dismissed in the same terms.
-
2008 (5) TMI 720
... ... ... ... ..... the High Courts appears to be that the power of the Magistrate should not be fettered either under Section 244 or under Sub-section (6) of Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. and full latitude should be given to the Magistrate to exercise the discretion to entertain a supplementary list. But as we have already added a word of caution that while accepting the supplementary list the Magistrate shall exercise its discretion judiciously for the advancement of the cause of justice and not to give a handle to the complainant to harass th....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 719
... ... ... ... ..... follows The allegation contained in para 5 of the Plaint are frivolous and denied. Likewise, the 2nd Respondent also has not specifically denied the above said averment in the Plaint. Therefore, from this finding it is more than apparent that the plaintiff while filed the suit for specific performance of the contract was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. This argument was though not specifically argued before the Division Bench, the only question which was argued was whether the principle of lis penden....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 718
... ... ... ... ..... not been raised before the High Court. No substantial question of law, as propounded before us, had been formulated in the Memo of Appeal. Even no substantial question of law in precise terms has been taken in the Special Leave Petition. 19. In view of the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Court of First Appeal which has been affirmed by the High Court, we see no reason to take a different view. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at ₹ 25,000/- ....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 717
... ... ... ... ..... re by itself should not be made the basis for denial to the benefit of the Notification. It has to be kept in mind that Chapter X procedure is required to be followed to establish the receipt of the goods by the recipient unit and their utilization for the purpose of mentioned in the notifications. If the said purpose can be achieved otherwise, the procedure and technical ground of non-following the chapter X procedure should not result in denial of substantive benefit otherwise available to the assessee. Reference in this....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 716
Ingenuine preferential allotment of shares - Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains - whether any finding has been recorded at any stage of the proceedings that the appellant has made no illegal gains? - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the enquiry officer has not undertaken any exercise to find out the ill-gotten gains, if any, made by the appellant and the enquiry was only to find out the wrongful acts allegedly committed by the appellant. It is true that the enquiry report has been accepted by the Board as contended on behalf of ....... + More
-
2008 (5) TMI 715
... ... ... ... ..... een explained. Hence, the demand of Service Tax for the relevant period holding that they are not computer system, in our view, is not correct. On going through the write-up, we are of the considered view that the entire MICR Cheque Processing Solution consists of a computer system and it cannot be equated or compared with an ATM machine. Even if the classification of the Document Processor whatever it be by this Tribunal in the said final order, cannot justify the demand of service tax on the entire computer system especi....... + More
