|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 822 Records
-
2009 (1) TMI 906
... ...
... ... ..... red the rival submissions and perused the material on record along with the order of the tax authorities below. In our opinion, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assessee has incurred the expenditure. No doubt, there had been flood during the year but that does not absolve the assessee from adducing the evidence. There is a finding that the assessee did not file even the copy of FIR, insurance claim if any made. Even the assessee could have taken duplicate bills from the respective parties. The assessee although told the names of the parties from whom the assessee bought the capital assets, but when the addresses were asked for, the assessee did not furnish the same. Even no such evidence brought to our knowledge. Under these facts, in our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this ground. Thus, this ground stands dismissed. In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2009 (1) TMI 905
... ...
... ... ..... and pleas of the respondent regarding the nature and the way the crime is alleged to have been committed are not relevant. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for bail merely because she is a woman under proviso to Section 437(4) of Criminal Procedure Code. 26. Consequently, in the entirety of facts and circumstances and considering the nature, gravity and the heinous manner in which the offence has been alleged to be committed and other facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The trial is pending for a considerable period and consequently the Sessions Court is directed to make every endeavor to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and if possible to take up the matter for hearing on day-to-day basis. The application of the petitioner for bail is, therefore, dismissed with directions as stipulated hereinabove to the trial Court. The trial Court record be also sent back forthwith. January 13, 2009
-
2009 (1) TMI 904
... ...
... ... ..... te delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its trail new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. 12. In view of the aforesaid position we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
-
2009 (1) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... 3 SCC 259 and Uptron India Ltd., -vs-. Shammi Bhan 1998-(6)-SCC -538 to say that show cause notice and principles of natural justice have to be followed, even where the authority or agency prescribes "automatic" application of a norm, as a consequence for the occurrence of some event. Therefore, IRCTC has to perforce issue a show cause notice, in such cases, and, after granting opportunity to the contractor, exercise its discretion whether to blacklist the concern and if so to what extent. This procedure is part of the non-derogable principle of fairness, mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it debars the petitioner for a period of two years from participating in future projects, is hereby quashed. All rights and contentions of the parties are hereby reserved including the petitioner's right to challenge the correctness of the impugned order cancelling the contract before the Civil Court.
-
2009 (1) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 2443 of 2007.
-
2009 (1) TMI 900
... ...
... ... ..... the tax laws. The company revised its accounts and filed the copy of the same before the AO. In these circumstances, Tribunal has given finding that CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of assessee as it had fulfilled both the conditions of s. 32A(4)(i) of the Act. 6. According to us the aforesaid finding given by the Tribunal is the finding of fact and so far as the Tribunal is concerned, it is last finding of facts authority and in this appeal no question of law much less the substantial question of law has arisen out which requires to be answered by this Court. The question of law which is formulated by the learned counsel for the appellant is not a question of law but a question of fact. 7. Seen in the above context, instant appeal lacks merit as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2009 (1) TMI 899
... ...
... ... ..... ed in the advertisement. o p /o p It is not a case where the word ‘unemployed’ should be given a literal or even the dictionary meaning. In our view, it is required to be given a purposive meaning; a meaning which is capable of being translated in the action, a meaning which would not lead to an anomaly or absurdity; a meaning which satisfies the text and context in which the word has been used. o p /o p 23. Furthermore, the appellant No. 1 applied for and was granted the similar certificate. It is, therefore, too late in the day for him to contend now that the provisions relating to grant of certificate being devoid of any guideline or objective criteria should be declared ultra vires. o p /o p In any event, even otherwise, the validity and/or legality of the said Order has not been challenged. o p /o p 24. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2009 (1) TMI 898
... ...
... ... ..... f exemption under Section 80G during the earlier years, we are of the view that imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. Therefore, Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. However, on the question of burden, the matter is kept open.
-
2009 (1) TMI 897
... ...
... ... ..... Realtors Private Ltd. In fact the Resolution earlier related to the present appellant. 6. It is clarified by learned counsel for the appellant that he is a Director of the Pvt. Ltd. Co. and therefore, the reasons indicated have no relevance. 7. We find that this is a case which could have been decided by the High Court and therefore we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition shall be restored for disposal on merit. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court on 9.2.2009. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to direct listing of the petition before an appropriate bench. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till 9.2.2009 no third parties' interest shall be created by the Corporation. It is open to the High Court to pass such interim orders during the pendency of the writ petition as the circumstances warrant. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2009 (1) TMI 896
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee by directing to delete the addition of ₹ 91.54 lac disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the liability was not ascertained and is in the nature of contingent liability? 2. Respondent waives service. 3. To be heard along with ITR No.320 of 1998.
-
2009 (1) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... Act, the Petitioners may apply afresh after compliance is made under section 11 (5) and that application shall be deemed to have been filed on 22.5.2007 when the application for according exemption was filed in the first instance. For all intents and purposes, this application will be treated as a substitute for the earlier application. The fresh application shall not prejudice, in any manner, the position which obtained in the financial year 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. The fresh application shall be made not later than eight weeks from today whereupon the Revenue shall pass an appropriate order. In view of the above, it is a logical corollary that the impugned order is set aside. It is so ordered. The Petition is disposed of.
-
2009 (1) TMI 894
... ...
... ... ..... on of law raised in the Appeal. Hence, the Appeal deserves admission on the following substantial question of law. "Once an Authorised Dealer duly complies with the instructions laid down in the Memorandum of Instructions to Full Fledged Money Changer (FLM), issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 73(3) of FERA, while undertaking money changing transactions with another Authorised Dealer, can such Authorised Dealer then be held liable for violation of provisions of Section 6(4) and (5) of FERA ? 3. Mr.Rao, the learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service.
-
2009 (1) TMI 893
... ...
... ... ..... it. 3. On an appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Original Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sarala Polyester Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 376 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it was held that once duty has been discharged on the finished products, there is no need to demand duty on the inputs. 4. The learned Advocate Shri P.M. Dave appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that Commissioner (Appeals) order relies upon the decision of the Tribunal and the issue is squarely covered by the decisions. I have considered the submissions. There is no doubt that the issue is squarely covered by the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) and there are several decisions of the Tribunal on the same lines. In view of the above appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and accordingly is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (1) TMI 892
... ...
... ... ..... irculars issued by the RBI on buy-back transactions. As we are of the opinion that the assessee is a non-banking company, the Banking Regulation Act 1949 is not applicable to the assessee. However, the assessee is governed by the directions for non-banking finance companies issued by the RBI of India. All these details have been meticulously considered by the learned CIT(A) in his order. The learned CIT(A) also considered the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BOI vs. Custodian, reported in 10 SCC 488 (1997). The relevant part of the observations made by the learned CIT(A) are found in para.10 of his order, extracted above. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) is perfectly justified in granting relief to the assessee. Hence, the order of the learned CIT(A) is confirmed. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2009.
-
2009 (1) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... light of the submission made by learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases without expressing any opinion on merits of this case it would suffice for this Court to issue appropriate direction to respondents to meet the ends of justice. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement issued by fourth respondent darted 26th 2008 bearing TIN No 29870043038/2008-09 vide annexure T on the file of the fourth respondent is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back third respondent/competent authority to consider the representation submitted by petitioner dated 14th March 2007 vide Annexure N and the reminder dated 28th August 2008 vide Annexure S and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2009 (1) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... the Act. The said constitution shall be notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Articles, the Act, Listing Agreement or any other law/regulations relating to the constitution of the board of a listed company. The said Board will continue till further orders. o p /o p (iii) The newly constituted Board shall meet within seven days of its constitution and take necessary immediate action to put the company back on the road. o p /o p (iv) It shall submit periodical reports to the Central Government, with a copy to this Board on the state of affairs to the company. o p /o p (v) The petitioner is permitted to file additional affidavits that may become necessary after further investigations/enquiries into the affairs of the company. o p /o p (vi) The petitioner will serve a copy of the petition along with a copy of this order on all the respondents immediately, who shall file their replies to the petition by 20-2-2009. o p /o p (vii) Liberty is granted to apply. o p /o p
-
2009 (1) TMI 889
Right to speedy trail - callous and inordinate delay of 17 years in investigations and the trial - Demand of illegal gratification - offence punishable under Sections 161 (before its omission by Act 30/2001), 109 and 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against him - High Court dismissed the petition u/s 482 - Whether appellant's constitutional right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution are violated? - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated hereafter, it is a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Time and again this Court has emphasized the need for speedy investigations and trial as both are mandated by the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. (In particular, Sections 197, 173, 309, 437 (6) and 468 etc.) and the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Inspired by the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr.[1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT], in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT], this Court had observed that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law; that such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but the procedure should be 'reasonable, fair and just'; and therefrom flows, without doubt, the right to speedy trial.
It was also observed that no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. The Court clarified that speedy trial means (reasonably expeditious trial which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.
It is pertinent to note that even till date, learned counsel for the State is not sure whether a sanction for prosecuting the appellant is required and if so, whether it has been granted or not. We have no hesitation in holding that at least for the period from 7th December, 1990 till 28th February, 2007 there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in investigation. Even the direction issued by the High Court seems to have had no effect on the prosecution and they slept over the matter for almost seventeen years. Nothing could be pointed out by the State, far from being established to show that the delay in investigation or trial was in any way attributable to the appellant. The prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning a callous and inordinate delay of more than two decades in investigations and the trial. The said delay cannot, in any way, be said to be arising from any default on the part of the appellant.
Thus, on facts in hand, in our opinion, the stated delay clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. We feel that under these circumstances, further continuance of criminal proceedings, pending against the appellant in the court of Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, is unwarranted and despite the fact that allegations against him are quite serious, they deserve to be quashed.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the proceedings pending against the appellant in Special Case are hereby quashed.
-
2009 (1) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... one could only say that it is not possible to assume that they were dealing with any commercial quantity of contraband articles, which offence by itself is of a very serious nature. The prosecution should have produced better evidence to sustain such conviction. Under the above circumstances, we hold that the accused could only be convicted under Section 18(b) of the Act. We are told that the appellants have already undergone a fairly long period of sentence. There is no evidence that they were dealing with any commercial quantity of these contraband articles. Therefore, we confirm the conviction. In our opinion, the sentence already undergone by the appellants is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We direct the appellants to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the fine imposed is also not paid so far. The fine so imposed upon the appellants is also waived off. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (1) TMI 887
... ...
... ... ..... ew petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. 2007 (11) SCC 374 cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences. In these circumstances, we recall the directions in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment. However, if anybody has a grievance against the grant of licences or in the policy of the State Government, he will be at liberty to challenge it in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. The writ petitions are disposed of with these directions.
-
2009 (1) TMI 886
Reference u/s 256 (2) - gift of copyright of a book by the father - received royalty income and claimed expenses - AO allowed the expenses to the extent of 50% of the royalty income - Whether ITAT, was justified in quashing the order of CIT u/s 263 specially when the assessee has not maintained any account and there is no material on record to show that enquiry was made regarding the genuineness of expenditure incurred? - HELD THAT:- On going through the statement of the case and other relevant materials this court finds that ITAT set aside the order of the CIT u/s 263 on appreciation of a pure question of fact that AO had undertaken and held reasonable enquiry by calling for explanations from the assessee and in view of such finding it interfered with the order of CIT who had erroneously come to a finding that no enquiry was held by AO. Thus, there being materials on record to show that enquiry was made regarding the expenditure claimed, this court is of the view that ITAT was justified in quashing the order of the CIT.
The reference is answered accordingly.
........
|
