|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 876 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1296 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng (supra), we hold that the cash seized from the assessee was liable to be adjusted against the instalment of advance tax due on 15.03.2009 and in that respect the interest under sec. 234B and 234C is to be computed accordingly. At this stage, we clarify that the interest chargeable under sec. 234C in respect of the amount of instalment of interest already fallen due on 15th September, 2008 and 15th December, 2008 shall be charged inasmuch as the cash seized on 19.01.2009 cannot be adjusted against the liability of advance tax fallen due on 15.09.2008 and 15.12.2008. The Assessing Officer shall recompute the interest chargeable under sec. 234B & 234C accordingly after giving credit of the amount seized against the advance tax liability fallen due on 15th March, 2009. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld with the above observation. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 14. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 10th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1295 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 24/11/2000 of M/s Vrindavan Lal Goverdhan Lal is not genuine. The fact that the agreement for letting out the premises to ICICI Bank Ltd. is for a period of 15 years, clinches the issue in favour of the assessee as they become the deemed owner under the provision of section 27 iiib r.w.s. 269UA(F)(I) of the Act and accordingly is entitled to deduction as provided u/s.24 a of the Act. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in 8 SOT 441 and Calcutta Tribunal in 89 ITD 199 covers the issue in this case in favour of the assessee and accordingly we hold that there is no mistake in the order of CIT A in holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the premises u/s.27 iiib of the Act and the order of the CIT A is confirmed and grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed.” Following the above order, we decide this issue against the Revenue. 3. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1294 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ould be restricted to that extent which result into net income to the extent of returned income. The AO should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. Regarding AY 2002-03, it has been submitted by the 12 ITA-1725 to 1727/D/2009 assessee that no working can be made available regarding expenses of this year. Hence, for AY 2002-03, we confirm the order of CIT(A) because in this year only commission from PIA, Singapore has been brought to tax and no income on account of commission from group companies and other income has been brought to tax in this year and therefore, no deduction is to be allowed in this year on account of expenses. As a result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is dismissed whereas the remaining two appeals for AY 2003-04 & 2004- 05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1293 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... eleted the said addition by accepting the explanation of the assessee. Hence the revenue is in appeal before us on this issue. 7. We have heard the rival contentions on this point. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the Partnership Firm is not paying any interest on the credit balance of the Partners. Coupled with the above fact, it is noticed that the net capital balance of all Partners put together shows a credit balance only. The Assessing Officer has also not established that any of the borrowed funds has been diverted. In these circumstances, we agree with the decision of the learned CIT (A) in holding that there is no question of presuming that the funds of the assessee firm has been diverted for personal purposes, so long as there exists an overall credit balance. Accordingly we uphold the view of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. 8. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 21st December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1292 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and such person shall attend as so required. Section 160 authorises an officer investigating a case, to require the attendance before himself only of a person within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. 4. Petitioner is, admittedly, a resident of Ernakulam. He is also working at Ernakulam. By virtue of the powers under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Deputy Superintendent of Police, though, can require a person to attend his office, when Petitioner is neither a resident within the limits of the Investigating Officer or the adjoining places, he cannot be directed to appear before him. In such circumstances, Annexure-3 notice can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Annexure-3 notice is quashed. But, that does not mean that Investigating Officer cannot question the Petitioner or record his statement. Investigating Officer has to approach the Petitioner and record the statement.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1291 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... become imposable in case the Supreme court on an appeal upset the decision of the court rendered in the case of the firm. This reasoning was unsustainable and the orders of penalty were liable to be quashed.” 6. In the light of above discussion we find that in the case under consideration, there is no satisfaction of the assessing officer recorded. The original quantum order based on which the penalty proceedings are initiated has also been set aside by the ITAT. In the light of that we are of the considered view that the penalty initiated in the original assessment proceedings and levied on the basis of the satisfaction recorded in the original assessment proceedings which have been set aside by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1290 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he High Court, we are satisfied that the sanction order has been issued in according with law. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant secondly submitted that the judgment recorded by both the courts below is contrary to the evidence on record. We have examined the entire issue. We are of the considered opinion that the trial court as well as the High Court have analyzed the entire evidence and clearly held that a demand was definitely made by the Appellant for delivery of the tax certificate. The trial court as well as the High Court have made a reference to the evidence given by PWs. 2 and 3 who have categorically stated that the demand was made by the Appellant. No other point was urged before us. 17. We may notice that the entire trap have been meticulously orchestrated by the prosecution authority. We are unable to discern any arbitrariness or inconsistencies in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1289 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... because of the rigours of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The Prayers should also have been allowed in the interest of justice in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. This is especially so since we are unable to discern any malafide advantage that the plaintiffs would stand to gain on allowing amended Prayers to come on the record. Conversely, we are unable to locate any disadvantage that would visit the Defendants because of the presence of the amended Prayers. Indeed, it is in the interest of all the parties that all relevant facts, all complexions and hues of the cause of action, and all the Prayers should be decided by the Court within the circumference of a single comprehensive lis. 30. The Appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed along with pending Applications with costs of 50,000/- in each Appeal, of which half shall be payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund and the half to the Respondents, to be paid within four weeks from today.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1288 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s by way of damages and not continuation of the contract by an interim mandatory injunction. 10. This Court has not been shown any Indian precedent where, in similar circumstances, the continuance of contract has been ordered at the interim stage. The order dated 8th December 2010 of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India Arbitration Petition (Lodge) No.1303 of 2010 and the order dated 14th December 2010 in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. Arbitration Appeal (Lodging) No.30742 of 2010 relied upon by Mr. Lekhi contain no reference whatsoever to provisions of the SRA. 11. For all the above reasons, this Court finds no ground having been made out for interference with the impugned order of the TDSAT. The writ petition is dismissed as such but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. Both the caveats as well as the application for stay stand disposed of.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1287 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... le purposes in the year. Moreover, in the next financial year the assessee received donation from the donee trust Sri Sri Mohanananda Brahmachan Medical Welfare Trust to the tune of ₹ 5,22,5151-.” 9.1 When the Bench pointed out the above statement of facts submitted by the Revenue, the Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Assessee, could not contradict these facts with supporting evidence. Again, when the Bench proposed to set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, the Ld. Counsel has not objected to it. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this requires fresh verification. Hence, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matters to the file of the AO to re-decide the same, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). We order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1286 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... osed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process. 3. We are compelled to observe this because the mediators should know what kind of reports they should send to the Courts. The report sent in this core should not have mentioned the proposals made by the parties, but should only have stated that the mediation was unsuccessful. 4. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and the Mediation Centres in all the High Courts and District Courts in the country, including the Chandigarh Mediation Centre. So far as this case is concerned, at the request of the counsel for the Appellants, list this matter in January, 2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1285 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hich is a public financial institution, and has been only provisionally appropriated in terms of the orders of the Recovery Officer. 12. We thus consider it appropriate to modify the impugned orders and permit the petitioner to retain the amount realized against sale of immoveable properties making it clear that the claims of any unsecured creditors would rank pari passu with that of the petitioner-Corporation to that extent and the claim of workmen would first have to be satisfied. Insofar as the advertisement costs are concerned, the OL to communicate the costs in writing to the petitioner-Corporation and the petitioner-Corporation will make the payment to OL of that amount along with 20 per cent additional amount to defray the incidental expenses. The petitioner-Corporation will abide by the undertaking given on its behalf before the DRT as well as before us on 28.07.2010. 13. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1284 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t proceedings stood abated. The company aggrieved by that order preferred an appeal before AAIFR. The Appellate Authority accepted the contention of the Petitioners that the statutory requirement under the Securitisation Act had been met but proceeded on the footing that the company was not heard and as such remanded the matter back to BIFR by order dated 15.6.2006. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition. 5. After the Appellate Authority held that the Petitioner had complied with the requirements of the provisions of the Securitisation Act then operation of law the proceedings would abate, as held by BIFR. In these circumstances, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set-aside. 35. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Petitioners in all the writ petitions are not entitled for relief as claimed in the writ petitions. All the writ petitions are dismissed. 36. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1283 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue . The AO had not shirked his responsibility of examining and investigating the case.. Apparently, the AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of the claim for deduction of commission. A change of opinion or view would not enable the CIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act more so, when the AO had considered the details and the explanation offered by the assessee. Change of opinion by reappraising the evidence is not within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. In view thereof, we set aside the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and quash the same. Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal are allowed. Consequently, ground no. 4 does not survive for our adjudication . 8. In the result , appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on16-12-2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1282 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e other containing industrial estates, where new industrial units were shown to be entitled to the benefits of the said policy. It was contended that the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, has been included in Annexure III to the amended Notification, but inclusion of the petitioner’s industry in the said annexure was a mistake and, accordingly, the same is required to be corrected. Even assuming that what petitioner contends is correct and a pronouncement to that effect is made and as a result, the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, is shifted to Annexure II, the petitioner would not get any relief, inasmuch as, being an existing industry the petitioner was required to expand and thereupon to commence production by 31st March, 2010, which the petitioner has not done. In these circumstances, there is nothing to be done in the writ petition. 5. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1281 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... e) of the petition is declared illegal. (3) as the state of Karnataka and IREDA are not made parties, relief no.(f) is not allowable as such. If the loan Of ₹ 380 Lacs sanctioned by the IREDA to the company has not been disbursed, the parties are at liberty to apply to IREDA New Delhi, to release the charge created on the whole of the movable properties of the company and get back the documents filed with IREDA. (4) PI, P2 & P3 are the first directors and P4 & P5 were subsequently appointed as Director. In the absence of any evidence regarding the alleged resignation by the above persons, this Bench holds that Pi to P5 continue to be directors of the company. (5) The other prayers (a), (b) and acts Of mismanagement in (c), (g), (h) and (i) made in the petition are disallowed. (6) The petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps with the ROC, Karnataka in respect of order (2), (3), & (4) above. With the above order, CP is disposed. No orders as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1280 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earned Solicitor General should instruct the concerned Ministries to approach National Institute of Public Health to undertake a comprehensive analysis and study of the contents of gutkha, tobacco, pan masala and similar articles manufactured in the country and harmful effects of consumption of such articles. The learned Solicitor General says that a report based on such study will be made available within eight weeks. 2) The Plastics (Manufacture, Usage and Waste Management) Rules, 2009 be finalised, notified and enforced within a period of eight weeks from today. 3) The direction contained in the impugned order of the High Court for imposition of fine shall remain stayed. 4) Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and other manufacturers of gutkha, tobacco, pan masala are restrained from using plastic material in the sachets of gutkha, tobacco and pan masala. This direction shall come into force with effect from 1st March, 2011. 3. For further hearing, the case be listed on March 9, 2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1279 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dmittedly, the Defendants have already been restrained by IPAB from using EVEREADY (device). Hence, there is no need for the Court to injunct against use of this device by the Defendants. The Defendants, however, will not use the word trademark 'EVEREADY' except in respect of the screw drivers and pliers. If, however, the registration in favour of the Defendants is cancelled, they will forthwith stop the use of the word mark 'EVEREADY' even in respect of screw drivers and pliers. The interim order passed by this Court on August 24, 2009 stands modified accordingly. The observation made in this order being tentative and having been necessitated for the purpose of taking a prima facie view, will not affect the decision of the suit in any manner. The applications stand disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 14th February, 2011. The matter be listed for framing of issues on 04th April, 2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1278 - ITAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... emption u/s 11 to the assessee when there was clear violation u/s 13(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the question of law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing accumulation u/s.11(2) of the I.T.Act without appreciating the facts that purpose of accumulation was not specific.” 3. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is observed that the issues in the appeals are related to the issues already decided in the appeals by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 205/206/Kol/2010 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 wherein we have set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration before the AO. Since these are related matters, we set aside these appeals of the Revenue also to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1277 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... than ₹ 10 Crores. The company has not produced any document to show that its investment in plant and machinery was less than ₹ 10 Crores at the time of starting industry. It is asserted by the secured creditor that one time settlement guidelines are not applicable to the Company. Such stand of the secured creditors that the Company is not small and medium enterprise has not been controverted. There is no explanation as to how such guidelines are applicable to it. Therefore, the company can not avail the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme notified and circulated on 3.9.2005 and November 22, 2005. ( 42. ) In view of the above discussion, the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court is misconceived. The action of the Company in approaching this Court not only suffers from lack of bona -fide, but is an attempt to frustrate the claim of the secured creditors on false and made up grounds without any legal justification. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
........
|
