|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 709 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ant not produced the said agreement before the Court though, it is available with him. On that ground also Court had inferred that complainant not disclose true fact before the Court and conceal the real transaction between complainant and accused by not producing agreement and entering between complainant and accused. Hence, I answer points NO.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 28) Point NO.3 In view of my findings on the above said points, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence U/s 138 of N.I.Act sentencing to pay fine of ₹ 11,35,000/- is hereby set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled and appellants are directed to execute self bond for ₹ 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum as per section 437-A of Cr.p.c. for their appearance before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of appeal. Send the records along with copy of this judgment to the lower court forthwith.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... riate Forum and in appropriate proceedings. 92. If such a proceeding is initiated by the petitioner, the same will be dealt with without being impeded by any observation made or finding reached in any of the judgments arising out of the concerned criminal case against the petitioner, by any Court, including this Court. 93. For the reasons discussed above and considering the aforesaid legal issues, this Court concludes as follows (i) The judgment of this Court dated 8.5.2009 on Article 32 petition and which is under Review is set aside. (ii) The order of the Governor dated 28.1.2002 passed under Article 161 of the Constitution is restored and the order of commutation of death sentence awarded to the petitioner to one of life imprisonment stands. (iii) This Court holds that in the facts of this case, NHRC had the jurisdiction to make the relevant recommendation. 94. The review petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 95. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1111
... ...
... ... ..... e business income was computed at ₹ 9,79,50,881/-. The AO while assessing the income started with the total income computed by the assessee in the return at ₹ 9,79,50,881/- in which interest under section 14A had already been disallowed but to the said income returned, AO again added a sum of ₹ 35,68,280/- on account of interest disallowance under section 14A. It is thus clear that there had been double disallowance under section 14A. Since the assessee had already disallowed interest under section 14A more than the amount disallowed by AO, the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest has to be deleted. We therefore see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition and the same is therefore upheld. 4. In the result appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2003-04 is partly allowed for statistical purpose whereas the appeal for assessment year 2004-05 is dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... ore the court below to show that he had nothing to do with the business of the firm which had issued the cheque in question to the complainant. This Court is of the opinion that essential ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are not satisfied against the petitioner and therefore the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot proceed against the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the cognizance taken by the Court against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is without jurisdiction. The impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent may take appropriate legal remedy against the concerned persons as may be available to him as per law. Needless to say private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is also quashed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... s not appealed to us. It is true that the non-registration of the rent note does not debar the use of a document that is compulsorily registerable for collateral purposes but that aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping in view the state of pleadings on the question of month of tenancy and the legal implications thereof. 12. In the result this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 16th September, 2009 and that passed by the First Appellate Court dated 30th November, 2005 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court shall stand restored. Parties shall bear their own costs. 13. We further direct that the respondent shall have time till 30th November, 2011 to vacate the premises in question and handover the possession of the same to the appellant subject to the respondent filing an undertaking on usual terms in this Court within two months from today.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... in the year in which the project was completed ? 4 The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the receipts in question had direct nexus with the project of the Assessee and that the said cash receipts have been offered to tax in the AY2008-2009, since the Assessee was following the project completion method. Once the cash in question has already been assessed to tax, the question of taxing the same assessment year in question AY2005-2006 does not arise. In this view, we see no merit in the Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... ject the adjournment application filed by the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal. Hence, following the decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as unadmitted for want of prosecution. 3. The assessee shall, however, be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... rtaking the entire exercise by the plaintiff which shall be recovered by them on quarterly basis from the Registry of this Court from the amount deposited by the learned Receiver. The learned Receiver shall further be entitled to take all such actions as may be considered by her to be reasonable, prudent and necessary for discharge of her duties enjoined under Order XL CPC. In the event their being any clarification needed by her she shall be fee free to file such applications may be permissible in law. 38. For the reasons mentioned above, the IA bearing No. 10546/2009 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) Code of Civil Procedure and IA bearing No. 7093/2009 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure are disallowed. However, the IA bearing No. 7094/2009 under Order XL Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The expression of any opinion hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case. 39. List on 23.2.2011 for the disposal of all the pending I As.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... n for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Consequently, he also rejected the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. 3. After considering the rival submissions, we find that the objects of the trust were found to be charitable although the trust has not started its activities. According to the ld. CIT, if the activities are not begun by the trust, its objects and genuineness of the trust cannot be ascertained. In our opinion, this is not the requirement of the law. When the objects of the trust are found to be charitable, the ld. CIT should have granted registration instead of dismissing the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act in limine when nobody appeared on the dates of hearing on behalf of the assessee-trust. Consequently, we direct the ld. CIT to grant registration u/s 12AA as well as approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee-trust. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 3.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... activities, he rejected the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12AA of the Act 4. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. We find that the objects mentioned in the trust deed are found to be charitable. So far as other factors into which the ld. CIT has gone into in depth are not the subject of enquiry at the initial stage of granting or refusing to grant registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the assessee-trust. The procedure to be followed by the trust and the number of trustees including the substitution or change of the trustees thereafter/subsequently, would not affect the original object unless the objects itself is changed by a subsequent supplementary deed. In view of the above, the matter is sent back to the file of the ld. CIT with a direction to allow registration to the trust u/s 12AA of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 12.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... re bonded. Later these structures are erected on to the building. Therefore, the authority held that fabrication supply and installation -of structural glazing work was liable to tax at 4%. 9. If the assessing authority comes across contracts between the appellants were also undertaking different kinds of work other than structural i.e. curtains walls the Advance Ruling Authoriity's order will not be binding on the assessing authority. Therefore depending upon the nature of contract i.e. the different types of works undertaken under the contract by the appellant the assessing authority has to see whether a particular work would under Entry 4 of the 6th schedule or not and then levy tax in accordance with the Act. If any of the works undertaken by the appellant would fall outside the purview of Entry 4 the assessing authority is at liberty to exclude such work from the application of Entry 4 of the 6th schedule or the Act. With these observations, We dispose of the appeal.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... e has raised the additional ground vide letter dated 27.08.2009 stating that the A.O. has erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80HHC on export incentives. 19. The learned counsel fairly submitted that this ground was raised consequent to the decision in the case of Topman Exports in ITA No. 5769/Mum/2006 where in has been held that only profit on sale of export incentives was covered under section 28(iiid) of the Act and consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals ITA No. 2887 of 2009 the issue is to be decided to against the assessee. In view of this the additional ground is rejected. This issue is also held against the assessee by the order of the ITAT in A.Y. 2003- 04 in ITA No. 1887/Mum/2007 and accordingly the additional ground raised is rejected. 20. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th November 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1101
... ...
... ... ..... sion of this Court in Sardar Khan vs. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1447, the Wakf Act will not be applicable to suits/appeals/revisions/proceedings commenced prior to 1.1.1996 when the Wakf Act came into force. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied on the decision of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCALE 698. In the aforesaid decision it was held that eviction proceedings can only be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Wakf Tribunal. 24. The dispute in the present case is not an eviction dispute. Hence, the aforesaid decision in Ramesh Gobindram's case is distinguishable. 25. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. We hold that only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter and the parties can approach the Wakf Tribunal, if so advised. The appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1100
... ...
... ... ..... tribunal we note that except referring to the judgement in Fosroc Chemicals pvt. ltd., the provision of law which existed as on the date of the assessment year 1999-2000 was not considered by the tribunal which is entirely different from what was in existence when the case of Fosroc Chemicals pvt. ltd., was disposed of, in that view of the matter, the tribunal ought to be have decided the appeal before it after noticing the method of accounting in certain cases as provided under section 145A which came to be inserted for the first time by Finance Act, 2/1998 with effect from 01.04.1999. 5. In that view of the matter with out answering the substantial questions of law we dispose of the appeal remitting the matter back to the tribunal for consideration of the controversy in the above said appeal with reference to section 145A as it stood with effect from 01.04.1999 as the assessment year we are concerned with is 1999-2000. All the contentions are kept open. Ordered accordingly.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding Orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that Deduction u/s 80-I is admissible even on the Export Incentive and Cash Compensatory Assistance on Export even though the receipt of which is not attributable to conduct of any Manufacturing Activities by the Respondent.” Learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and the appeal is allowed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... ecided on 7-7-2004). 14. In view of the aforesaid position, the third objection raised by the Regional Director is rejected. 15. The petitioner i.e. the transferor company has placed on record copy of the citations, which were published under Rule 80 of the Company Court (Rules) 1959. An affidavit has also been filed that no objection has been received from the general public opposing the scheme of demerger/arrangement. As per the Registry, no objection has been received opposing the scheme of demerger/arrangement. The Regional Director has not stated that any person has approached him opposing the scheme of demerger/arrangement. 16. In view of the above, I allow the present petition and the scheme of arrangement as per the terms of the above order is approved. This order will not be construed as an order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty, if payable. Similarly, the transferor company will be liable to pay fee or charges, if any, payable under the Act, Rules etc.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1097
... ...
... ... ..... before this Court; the same shall be taken on record. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the aim and purpose of Section 138 of NI Act is not to punish the accused, but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused, but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act, in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant the Apex Court is of the opinion that the case should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted. 17. In the present case, the amount has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof. Thus, this Court quashes and sets aside the judgments dated 9.2.2009 and 12.11.2009 and acquits the Petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, this petition is, hereby, allowed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... se the incentive was granted even prior to setting up of the industry and the commencement of commercial production. The incentive was restricted to 85% of the cost of capital asset. Therefore, in our opinion, the sales-tax incentive was given only as an alternative to cash disbursement to meet the capital cost of asset. Therefore, the ratio of the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court would be in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) and also the Special Bench decision of I.T.A.T., Mumbai in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) hold the sales-tax subsidy to be capital receipt.” Respectfully following the same, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue’s ground of appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. The order is announced in the open court on 16.11.10
-
2010 (11) TMI 1095
... ...
... ... ..... Appellant seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal. The Appellant is allowed to withdraw the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1094
... ...
... ... ..... nsation to the appellants became final and binding after the award was passed and the judgment was pronounced by the reference court and further by the High Court and thereafter, no appeal having been filed in this Court. Such a judgment and decree which has become final and binding could not have been reopened by the High Court on the basis of revision applications filed under Section 151 and 152 of C.P.C. 30.In view of the two issues that we have discussed and elaborated herein, we are of the considered opinion that the executing court as also the High Court were justified in holding that the orders passed by the High Court granting enhanced solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. 31.We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals. The orders passed by the executing court and the High Court are found to be legal, valid and justified. We, accordingly, dismiss all these appeals, but, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
........
|
