|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 945 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... perverse is a matter which requires consideration. Consequently, we heard arguments on the following substantial question of law - (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty, in respect of the aforesaid two items, amounting to ₹ 4.74 lacs approximately imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard the counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question on the basis of the record available inasmuch as the question is purely a legal question and does not require any further documents. Orders are reserved.
-
2010 (5) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on India Ltd. 2008 (1) GLT 1020 for the reasons given above. 55. As regards the State of Orissa, it is an admitted position that it issued NIT for the first time on April 11, 2007 inviting bids for the manufacture and supply of HSRP in respect of the existing motor vehicles and vehicles to be registered in the State of Orissa. The said NIT was not taken to logical conclusion and a fresh NIT was issued on July 6, 2009 on BOO basis. In that NIT, inter alia, eligibility criteria has been provided that bidder should have experience of working in the field of HSRP having used the security features as mentioned in Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. However, NIT does not insist on conditions like experience in the foreign countries and minimum prescribed turnover from the said business. In what we have already discussed above, no case for judicial review or intervention in the said NIT is made out. 56. For the foregoing reasons, both appeals must fail and are dismissed with no order as to cost.
-
2010 (5) TMI 943 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts will not suffer any such loss at this stage as is obvious by weighing the comparative hardship. 110. To sum up, the plaintiffs have made out a case for the grant of temporary injunction by satisfying the three essentials elements for the grant of injunction. Accordingly, IA No. 11331/2008 is allowed and IA No. 14897/2008 is dismissed. Consequently, the defendants and their agents, assigns and sister concerns, till the disposal of the suit, are restrained from advertising, offering for sale/exporting any publications of the plaintiffs to the countries outside the territories specified on the books published by the plaintiffs. 111. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall be treated as tentative in nature and shall not constitute any expression of final opinion on the issues involved and shall have no bearing on the final merit of case and submissions of the parties in the suit. CS (OS) No. 1960/2008 List this matter on 2nd July, 2010 before the Roster Bench.
-
2010 (5) TMI 942 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal were essentially findings of fact which had not been shown to be erroneous and perverse. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the conclusion of the Tribunal had been upheld. However, in the instant case, the assessee neither disclosed the full facts in his computation of income nor filed a revised return immediately after the Assessing Officer detected the mistake during A.Y. 1997-98. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the impugned case. 16. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed order passed by the CIT(A), we are satisfied that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced on 31st May, 2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 941 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here the Police Department is bent upon protecting its personnels. In fact, the Police Department should have immediately executing the warrant of arrest and should have produced the petitioners before the learned trial court in order to restore and strengthen the faith of the people in the state authority. The case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) is distinguishable on the fact that the case dealt with an offences under Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC. The case dealt with those persons are not police personnels. The status of the accused is one of the considerations that has to be taken into account. In the present case, it is the very people who are supposed to uphold the law who have violated the law. Thus, they should also realize the consequences of violating the law. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 940 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rvation of Justice Sargent in Ellis vs. Allen (1914) 1 Ch. D. 904 See page 787 . 21. Similar view has been expressed by Chief Justice Broadway in the case of Abdul Rahman and brothers vs. Parbati Devi reported in AIR 1933 Lahore 403. The learned Chief Justice held that before a Court can act under order 12, Rule 6, the admission must be clear and unambiguous. 22. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the facts of this case this Court cannot uphold the judgment of the High Court as well as of the Additional District Judge. Both the judgments of the High Court and of the Additional District Judge are set aside. 23. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of service of this order on the learned trial Court. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. 24. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 939 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sion drawn by the Assessing Officer. 15. We are of the view that the books of account cannot be rejected without pointing out defects in the same. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects whatsoever in the books of account maintained by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has relied on several judicial pronouncements before us; but we deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260 (Bom); Pandit Brothers Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Ashok Retractories Co. P. Ltd, 279 ITR 457. Considering facts and circumstances prevailing in the present case, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Order of learned CIT(A) is therefore upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 14th Day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 938 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accused in a case of defrauding the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) - Petition u/s 439 - Seeking grant of bail u/s 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 478 of the IPC - The petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 19th February, 2010 and remained in police custody till 27th February, 2010. The petitioner has been in judicial custody thereafter and has been charge sheeted along with five other co-accused in a case of defrauding the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI).
HELD THAT:- In the instant case the FIR was registered on source information and before registration of the present FIR preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CBI. It has nowhere been disclosed on whose statement the FIR was registered and no one from the bank from which loan was availed came forward alleging that the bank has been cheated by the accused persons.
In the order passed by the ACMM at the time of hearing submissions on the aspect of cognizance in the case, it has been observed that the Investigating Officer (IO) has not been able to point out even an iota of evidence in the testimony of the bank witnesses exhibiting that they were deceived by the inducement given by the accused persons. The IO has further not clarified, if, as per the statements given by the bank officials, the machines were working there then how and from where they were procured and if no machine was procured then how the bank officials given their report.
Petitioner has been in judicial custody, after initial police custody of one week, for a period over 90 days and has already been charge sheeted. The petitioner is 76 years of age and admittedly is a chronic heart patient suffering from coronary heart disease since 1998. Also, nothing has been urged on behalf of the CBI to raise a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail. Further, nothing has been urged to suggest that the CBI has a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will flee from justice if he is released on bail. From the material placed on record and the conduct of the petitioner in appearing before the CBI when summoned before his arrest, it is clear that the petitioner is an established businessman with roots in the Society.
Bail, it has been held in a catena of decisions, is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. Furthermore, there is no justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. It cannot, therefore, be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious economic offences.
The charge sheet in the present case has been filed and cognizance taken on 22nd May 2010 and the petitioner is, therefore, not required for any purpose. It is also seen that evidence has already been collected qua the petitioner and the CBI has not thought it appropriate to ask for custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the long period of 90 days when the petitioner was in judicial custody. One more consideration which weighs with the Court is that a scheme of arrangement u/s 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed by SML Company and is pending finalization before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Under the scheme of arrangement the IDBI and the petitioner were already agreed on the terms and conditions for the repayment of the loan extended to the company at the instance of the petitioner and other co-accused.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for detaining the petitioner in prison any longer. Therefore, the petitioner who is in custody since 19th February, 2010 should be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to the conditions.
-
2010 (5) TMI 937 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... his case will not be taken up in scrutiny and the amount of tax involved is low. 8. In both the assessment and penalty proceedings, assessee’s tax consultant appeared and furnished the above explanation which indicates that the mistake originated from the side of tax consultant. In the given facts and circumstances, the assessee’s claim of inadvertent error cannot be ruled out. Relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Escorts Finance Limited, we hold that the assessee’s claim of inadvertent error on the part of income-tax return consultant cannot be found to be implausible looking at the low amount of tax involved and facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, we delete the penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 26th day of May, 2010 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2010 (5) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w that the appellant therein had indulged in similar activities after the detention order was passed, quashed the order of detention. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the facts being similar, the present appeal may also be disposed of on the same grounds. We have heard both Mr. A.K. Ganguli and the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. P.P. Malhotra, and since the facts are similar, in that, the detention order had been passed in 2003 and has not been executed till today and also that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has indulged in similar activities after the detention order, we hold that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the detention order alive. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the detention order is quashed. We make it clear that this order is being passed in the facts of this case and will not be treated as a precedent in other cases.
-
2010 (5) TMI 935 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... house of the appellant. Therefore, in our opinion, the provision of Section 42 of the Act is not applicable in the present case. However, we find force in the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as referred to above. Under the NDPS Act, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution is more onerous. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. For such type of cases, a higher degree of assurance, thus, would be necessary to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. Thus, after applying the above principles of law, we find that in this case the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar are set aside. The appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
-
2010 (5) TMI 934 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... med income of the assessee for the reasons as mentioned in sub-para (b) of para 14.3 of the assessment order. If the totality of facts is considered, it can be said that it is not a case of revocable transfer of asset within the meaning of provisions of section 61 read with section 63 as the ownership of asset has not been transferred, therefore, such provisions are not applicable. To put it differently, the absolute ownership of an asset must be transferred at the first instance and the relevant agreement should provide for re-transfer of such ownership to the transferor later on to attract the provisions of section 61. However, in the present case, it is not so as the money has been given as a loan only. In this view of the matter, we hold that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 4th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 933 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ,25,000 15.4.04 1,00,000 28.4.04 1,00,000 24.4.04 5,00,000 22.5.04 30,000 26.6.04 1,25,000 28.5.04 1,70,000 1.6.04 30,000 9.6.04 2,70,000 10.6.04 30,000 16.6.04 2,00,000 17.6.04 25,000 30.6.04 25,000 2.7.04 1,25,000 6.7.04 65,000 7.7.04 1,00,000 9.7.04 1,00,000 12.7.04 1,00,000 Total 11,80,000 15,95,000 4,15,000 6.9.04 20,000 6.10.04 2,00,000 4.10.04 50,000 Total 70,000 2,00,000 1,30,000 14.10.04 60,000 60,000 Total 6,05,000 Less old cash available with the assessee by estimate, in the absence of any evidence 25,000 Total unexplained cash deposit 5,80,000 Accordingly the excess amount deposited in the bank ₹ 5,80,000/- is treated as unexplained amount. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt the figure of ₹ 5,80,00/- in place of ₹ 15.12,225/- adopted and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed. 10. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.5.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 932 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... means judicial discretion, not whims, caprice or fancy of a Judge. The discretion is something to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion. It should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful nor illegal and irregular. We add that discretion is a decision of a Court which on given facts and circumstances, a reasonable prudent man will think it is possible to take such an action under the circumstances and it is also possible to accept such views, then it can be said to be discretion well exercised. 19. In view of the above discussion, having already answered question no. (i) in the negative as discussed in paragraph 12 of this judgment, our answer to issue no. (ii) is in the negative and, therefore, issue no. (iii) is answered in the affirmative. 20. The matter is disposed of accordingly. All other appeals mentioned above on this issue may now be disposed of by the appropriate Benches taking note of the views expressed by us. I agree.
-
2010 (5) TMI 931 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ision in the said case is since available vide Misc. Order No. 296/2010-EX(LB) dated 30.4.2010, holding that credit of duty in respect of goods like cement and steel items used for laying foundation and building supporting structures is not available, the present appeal is dismissed applying the ratio of the said Larger Bench. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2010 (5) TMI 930 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mation Commission to call any person or compel any person to be present in a hearing before it in the proceedings under the Act, except for the purposes of giving evidence - oral or written or for producing any documents or things. Thus, no adverse inference could have been drawn for the absence of the Vice-Chairman, DDA in the proceedings held on 03.09.2009. This question is also answered in the negative. Reliefs 40. In view of the answers to the questions formulated above, the impugned order dated 22.09.2009 is set aside to the extent the Central Information Commission appointed an ‘enquiry committee‘ when it was incumbent upon the Commission to conduct the inquiry itself. It is also set aside to the extent that it draws an adverse inference with regard to the absence of the Vice-Chairman, DDA in one of its sittings. The impugned Regulations are quashed as being ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 929 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Whether the appellant is required to discharge customs duty foregone by the Revenue on the capital goods and raw materials, consumables and components, imported for setting up of green house for export of cut flowers as per the letter of permission given by DGFT?
Held that:- The admitted fact being that the appellant had installed and used the capital goods and raw materials, consumables and components imported by him claiming the benefit of Notification No.126/94-Cus. and it is recorded in the Order-in-Original that the appellant had started commercial production from 10/11/1995.
It is undisputed that the capital goods which were procured by claiming benefit of exemption under Notification No.126/94-Cus was installed and used for production of goods for export - as per notification, the demand of the duty on the capital goods cannot be sustained.
Enhancement of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority - Held that:- As we have held in favour of the appellant/assessee on merits and set aside the impugned order, there cannot be any penalty on the appellant and hence, question of enhancement of the penalty as prayed in the Revenue’s appeal does not arise.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (5) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT
Challenge the marks prescribed for viva-voce test were excessive and contrary to the law - recruitment for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) - unsuccessful in merit - Division Bench of the High Court non-suited the Petitioner on the ground that he moved the Court after taking a chance for being selected on the basis of the provision which he was seeking to challenge - Whether the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules? - HELD THAT:- The marks prescribed for viva voce test/interview are excessive and selection made in accordance with the criteria like the one specified in Rule 14 read with Appendix-C and para (vi) of the advertisement issued by the Commission has been considered by this Court in several cases including those upon which reliance has been placed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Although, no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates, by and large, the courts have not found any Constitutional infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview for recruitment to judicial services, administrative services and the like.
We are of considered view, that earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.
Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K.[1995 (2) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT], Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.[2007 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT], Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.[2008 (3) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT], Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam[2009 (1) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT].
In the result, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 927 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... his mind and held that the concealed income belonged to J.M. Shah and not to the assessee and, therefore, he could not have recorded or reached the requisite satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee. The decision of the Allahabad High Court, to the extent stated above, strengthens the view to which we have taken.” 10. In view of the above facts, the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Bankim J Shah (supra) referred by Ld. counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that in the instant case the requisite satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings is without any basis and could not survive. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A). The orders of the lower authorities are reversed and this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/05/2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to effectively complete the process of demarcation, but we deem it fit and proper to grant only two months' time to them keeping in mind, the ensuing rainy season. 17. We also clarify that either of the parties would be at liberty to approach this Court for further directions, if need, so arises. With the aforesaid directions, the interim order passed by this Court on 11.3.2010 and extended from time to time stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 18.All parties would fully co-operate with the Committee to complete the demarcation work at the earliest and would not cause any hindrance in its work. They would also not in any manner try to overreach this order. 19. For the purpose of effective demarcation to be carried out by Committee, it shall be open for it to ask respondent No.1 to stop mining operations in that area where demarcation is to be done and the same shall be strictly obeyed by respondent No.1. 20.Special Leave Petitions be listed for hearing in due course.
........
|
