|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 851 Records
-
2010 (3) TMI 1224 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... so deems fit, he can issue appropriate summons to Shir Kanjibhai and ascertain from him as to whether he has claimed ownership of the goods in question. Subject to above, the special leave petitions dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1223 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ; 379.20 crores. It is also on record that a loan of ₹ 1 lakh was given to Mr. Narendra Vyas on 9th October 1998 and there is no nexus with the borrowed funds. Further, it is also on record that the loan to Sandeep Jhunjhunwala was given on 30th March 1999, hence the disallowance of any interest even otherwise does not arise in this assessment year. In view of these facts, in the absence of any evidence or material to indicate that the assessee had advanced monies out of borrowed funds the presumption would arise that the money was advanced out of own funds. Considering the profits of the assessee and the reserves available with it advance of small amounts to the parties cannot be considered for disallowance of interest. On both facts and law, the Revenue has not made out any case to differ from the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly the same is rejected. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1222 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eeks. 2. During the last about five years, the order under challenge in the Appeal was not stayed by this Court and therefore, we do not find any case now to stay the said order. In our opinion, with the passage of time, this Motion has become infructious. 3. Hence, the Motion is rejected. 4. Parties to proceed for hearing of the Appeal in due course.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1221 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t it was adjacent to plot No. R35 and possession of that plot was taken by the Liquidator. In such circumstances, by their acts, they prevented the Official Liquidator from attaching and taking possession of the subject plot, thereby they prevented the court from attaching a valuable asset of the company in liquidation. The court protects assets and properties so as to effectively and properly wind up the affairs of the company in liquidation. The court ensures payment of all legal dues to the creditors of the company in liquidation as per their priorities. When such is the intent of the winding up proceedings, then, in the admitted set of facts, it is not possible to agree with Shri Rajadhyaksha that this is a fit case for giving the subject plot and the transaction in that behalf. 23. Consequently, we find no error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... i-II v. M/s. Mico Glass Industries Private Limited 2010 (254) E.L.T. 254 (P & H) , wherein it has been held that the penalty would be leviable only on the goods, which were being clandestinely removed in a vehicle outside the factory premises and no penalty would be leviable on the goods, which were still lying in the factory premises and have not been removed and only shortage was detected in the stock verification. 2. Thus, the Tribunal fell in error in reducing the penalty upon the assessee and hence, to this extent, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the assessee is held liable to pay same amount of penalty equivalent to the duty involved on the goods i.e. ₹ 16,383/-. 3. In view of the above, the assessee was liable to pay equal amount of penalty on the goods seized from the truck, which were intercepted in view of the observation made by this Court in M/s. Mico Glass Industrie's case (supra). The appeal stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1219 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ch clearance. Today also, the clearance is not forthcoming, nor is there any representation despite notice. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for want of clearance from the COD, however, with liberty to the appellant to move the Bench for restoration of the appeal after obtaining the COD's clearance. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (3) TMI 1218 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Respondents wish to rely on.W.P.(C) No.2042 of 2010 page 1/2 Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that if such a notice is received then within a further period of ten days the Petitioner will file its reply thereto. Thereafter the Respondents will fix a date for hearing the Petitioner and pass a final order on the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today in accordance with law. The said decision will be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of one week thereafter. It will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as available to it in law, if aggrieved by the said decision. 2. In view of the above direction, the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the parties will strictly abide by the time schedule set out in this order. 3. The petition and the application are disposed of. 4. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under signature of Court Master.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1217 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quot;affirm" the allegation. 31. Further, the mere fact that the LG, as a competent authority in relation to the petitioner, might able to act only on some of the recommendations of the Lokayukta and not on all of them cannot dilute the powers of the Lokayukta under Section 12 DLAU Act. A close look at the said provision shows that the powers of the Lokayukta are not intended to be exhausted with the first set of recommendations. The LG is bound to furnish him with the action taken report which if not found satisfactory by the Lokayukta can trigger a further set of recommendations. If the principal objective of the DLAU Act, to enforce the accountability of public functionaries to the people and the law, is kept in view, the Lokayukta must be seen to be vested with the corresponding powers to achieve such objective. 32. For all of the aforementioned reasons, this Court find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such. The applications also stand dismissed
-
2010 (3) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... large are beneficiaries of these technical improvements. Stock exchanges are not the owner of this technology to provide them for a fee to prospective use. They are themselves consumers of the technology. We are therefore of the view that learned CIT(A) was right in holding that the payment in question is not fee for technical services rendered. We therefore confirm the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.” In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the revenue we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal supra, hold that the payment of V-SAT charges and leaseline charges cannot be considered as fees for technical services rendered and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The grounds taken by the revenue are therefore rejected. 14. In the result, revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.3.2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1214 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... eady deposited an amount of ₹ 6.64 Lakhs and willing to deposit the balance amount of admitted liability. In our opinion at this stage pre-deposit of the said amount of ₹ 8.36 Lakhs is sufficient to hear their Appeal. The Appellant is directed to make the said pre-deposit within a period of eight weeks and report compliance directly to the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals).We find that the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh after recording the compliance of ₹ 8.36 Lakhs without insisting any further pre-deposit from the Appellant. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. Both sides are at liberty to adduce evidences in their favour. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed of as above. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
-
2010 (3) TMI 1213 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... for each and every assessment year. 8. As we have found that for this year, the assessee is entitled to netting benefit with relevance to the interest claim to the tune of ₹ 1,14,478/- alone and which we have confirmed in the departmental appeal, the assessee’s cross objection will be rejected. The claim of the assessee in his cross objection would be that the entire interest payment has to be allowed as deduction is not justified in this assessment year as it is borne out of records that the sum of ₹ 4,80,000/- being interest component were incurred including prior years on the loan of ₹ 5,00,000/-. For computation of income as well as expenditure the year in which it is to be allowed has to be established. Hence, under the above facts and circumstances we dismiss the Cross Objection filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1212 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tments allowable as per explanation to section 115J only. Hence, in the present case, there is no need for any adjustment on account of book profit u/s 115JB and there was no claim also on this account. With these observations, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for doing the needful as per above discussion which will result into on assessment of nil income under regular provision and assessment of book profit under MAT provision u/s 115JB to the extent of ₹ 13078.34 lakhs declared by the assessee in the return of income filed by the assessee and total closing WDV of the assessee will go down as a consequence of reduction in cost of project and also reduction in depreciation. The Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 6. In the result, the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1211 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/assessee had entered into an agreement with one Mr. Lakshman to purchase the sites from out of the layout formed by Lakshman. Therefore, the short question that fall for the consideration for the Assessing Officer as the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal was whether if the assessee has agreed to purchase the sites from a vendor if any sale consideration is paid on installment basis, the assessee is required to deduct the tax at source or not. When the assessee is only a purchaser if any advance sale consideration is paid the assessee has no business to deduct the tax at source as it is for the seller of the sites to pay the capital gains depending upon the tax payable by hm. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the question of law framed in this appeal has to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1210 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a “lifer” for pre-mature release, he should be given benefit thereof. 44. As per the information furnished by the appellant-State of Haryana, the respondent Jagdish has served more than 14 years (actual) on 12.2.2009 i.e. prior to the date of judgment impugned herein dated 17.2.2009. By now, the respondent has served (actual) for more than 15 years. Respondent falls in category 3 of the prisoners as he did not indulge in any organised crime. 45. Accordingly, for the reasons given hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, which is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly, subject to the direction that the appellant-State Government shall proceed to calculate the sentence for the purpose of consideration of remission in the case of the respondent as per the policy dated 04.02.1993.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 framed in exercise of power conferred u/s 178 of the 2003 Act - Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal u/s 111 - Doctrine and jurisprudence of delegated legislation - Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question as to the validity of the Regulations framed by the Central Commission? - HELD THAT:- We find that the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (No.57 of 2003) was brought into force by notification dated 27.1.2004. That, notification was issued u/s 1(2) of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (No.57 of 2003). If one reads Section 1(2) of Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (No.57 of 2003) with Notification dated 27.1.2004 issued u/s 1(2) of the amended Act, 2003, it becomes clear that on coming into force of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 (No.57 of 2003) all provisions amended by it also came into force. Hence, there was no requirement for a further notification u/s 1(3), consequently, Section 121 in its amended form came into force with effect from 27.1.2004.
Summary of Our Findings:- (i) In the hierarchy of regulatory powers and functions under the 2003 Act, Section 178, which deals with making of regulations by the Central Commission, under the authority of subordinate legislation, is wider than Section 79(1) of the 2003 Act, which enumerates the regulatory functions of the Central Commission, in specified areas, to be discharged by Orders (decisions).
(ii) A regulation u/s 178, as a part of regulatory framework, intervenes and even overrides the existing contracts between the regulated entities inasmuch as it casts a statutory obligation on the regulated entities to align their existing and future contracts with the said regulations.
(iii) A regulation u/s 178 is made under the authority of delegated legislation and consequently its validity can be tested only in judicial review proceedings before the courts and not by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity u/s 111 of the said Act.
(iv) Section 121 of the 2003 Act does not confer power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal. The words "orders", "instructions" or "directions" in Section 121 do not confer power of judicial review in the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. In this judgment, we do not wish to analyse the English authorities as we find from those authorities that in certain cases in England the power of judicial review is expressly conferred on the Tribunals constituted under the Act. In the present 2003 Act, the power of judicial review of the validity of the Regulations made u/s 178 is not conferred on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
(v) If a dispute arises in adjudication on interpretation of a regulation made u/s 178, an appeal would certainly lie before the Appellate Tribunal u/s 111, however, no appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall lie on the validity of a regulation made u/s 178.
(vi) Applying the principle of "generality versus enumeration", it would be open to the Central Commission to make a regulation on any residuary item u/s 178(1) r/w Section 178(2)(ze). Accordingly, we hold that the CERC was empowered to cap the trading margin under the authority of delegated legislation u/s 178 vide the impugned notification dated 23.1.2006.
(vii) Section 121, as amended by Electricity (Amendment) Act 57 of 2003, came into force with effect from 27.1.2004.
Consequently, there is no merit in the contention advanced that the said section is not yet been brought into force.
Conclusion: - The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission u/s 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The validity of the Regulations may, however, be challenged by seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Our summary of findings and answer to the reference are with reference to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. They shall not be construed as a general principle of law to be applied to Appellate Tribunals vis-`-vis Regulatory Commissions under other enactments. In particular, we make it clear that the decision may not be taken as expression of any view in regard to the powers of Securities Appellate Tribunal vis-`-vis Securities and Exchange Board of India under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or with reference to the Telecom Disputes Settlements and Appellate Tribunal vis-`-vis Telecom Regulatory Authority of India under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
Thus, we dismiss these appeals as having no merit with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... was not to run it as a business since the appellant himself is a well established Doctor and does not have enough time to devote towards day to day share transactions. Similarly, with regard to the other guidelines also specific facts have been put forth by the AR of the appellant to substantiate his claim. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant and accordingly, the AO is directed to treat the share transactions as capital gains and not as income from business and profession. As a result this ground of the appellant is allowed.” The above findings are findings of fact which neither could be controverted by the ld. D.R. nor was there any other material brought on record to establish otherwise. Therefore, in view of the reasoning given by the CIT(A), we confirm his order. 9. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 18th day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 has set aside the orders passed by the District Collector, Faridabad and upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon without any basis or rationale. Apart from the jurisdiction, even what is factually stated in the order of the District Collector, Faridabad as upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon is unexceptionable and any interference was totally unwarranted. 42. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and the order passed by the District Collector, Faridabad which was upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon is restored. The respondent is directed to pay the balance stamp duty within four weeks from the date of this judgment, otherwise the appellants would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 43. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1206 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... owed. 5.1 Undisputedly, facts obtaining in the year under consideration are similar to facts prevailing in the period relevant to the AYs 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2003-04 and since the assessee has provided for the warranty expenses based on technical evaluation and past experience, warranty stood attached to the sale price of the product and a reliable estimate of the expenditure towards such warranty is allowable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, we have no alternative but to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction of provision for warranty expenses for the year under consideration. Therefore, ground nos. 1.1 & 1.2 in the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 6. No additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 22 -03-2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1205 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sue of taxability of transfer funds received from incoming and outgoing members has not attained finality at the time of passing orders and recently only, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the amounts are not taxable. Even though on the basis of the Special Bench decision available at that point of time the amounts were confirmed by the ITAT, the issue was not free from doubt at the time of filing the return as well as at the time of completion of assessment. There is a genuine belief that the amounts are not taxable. Considering the background of the facts of the case, we hold that it is a case of bonafide belief on the part of the assessee and accordingly not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The order of the CIT(A) does not require any modification. Accordingly the ground is rejected. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on19th March 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1204 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... M/s.Prasad Group Resources Pvt. Ltd., is of granting loans and advances in the Assessment Year under consideration. On the other hand, the decision in the case of Rekha Modi v. ITO (supra), relied on by the learned DR, we observe that the assessee Company out of its total fund of ₹ 2.62 Crores used only an amount to the extent of ₹ 42.68 lakhs i.e., 16.29 for money lending business. It was observed that the money lending business of the said Company constituted less than 20 of the total business of the Company and accordingly, it was held that it could not be said to be a substantial part of the business of the said company. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the above decision in the case of Rekha Modi v. ITO (supra) is not applicable to the facts before us. 7.13. Hence, ground No.5 of the appeal taken by the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. This Order is Pronounced in open court on dt. 31.03.2010.
........
|
