|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 891 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1121 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not have gone into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there was no existing debt or liability.” The Court further held that “17. There is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the respondents. This they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of averments in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability.” 10. In view of my above discussion, I consider that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was not tenable and this petition is liable to be allowed. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 2nd September, 2008 is hereby set aside. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint as per law. The parties are directed to appear before Ld. MM on 7th September, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... file private paper book within six weeks from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. S.O. after six weeks.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1119 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... A) out of miscellaneous expenses on the ground that there was a possibility of involvement of personal element in the said expenses. In the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT 2002 253 ITR 749/121 Taxman 43 (Guj.), it was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that no disallowance on account of involvement of personal element in the expenses can be made in case of a company. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) out of miscellaneous expenses for alleged involvement of personal element and allow ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal. 10. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1118 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee disabled from making such provision in a year only for a reason that similar provisions were not made for any earlier years. In our opinion, when assessee is lawfully and legitimately eligible to make a claim for provision for warrantee and if it has made the provision on scientific basis, worked on preceding year’s actual warrantee expenses, the claim has to be allowed, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotor Control Ltd supra . Their Lordships clearly held that provision for warrantee made on scientific basis was allowable. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd supra of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered on an earlier date, pales into insignificance. In this view of the matter, we cannot find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) 14. In the result appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 19.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1116 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ily Arrangement. 11. The last point, that is, the Suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, was not seriously canvassed before us. In the application, it has been pleaded that no leave to file the present Suit had been granted by the Court entertaining CS(OS) No. 118/2005 as mentioned in the application and/or CS(OS) No. 1158/2005 as mentioned in the Rejoinder filed by the Appellant and, therefore, the present Suit should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. In response thereto, it has been pointed out that the previous suit was filed by the relatives of the plaintiff/Respondent and the present Respondent/plaintiff was the Defendant therein and hence the aforementioned provisions did not apply. Perhaps, for this reason, the Objection that has been taken has not been pressed before us. 12. For these manifold reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. The Appeal is without merit and is dismissed. Pending application is also dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as obtained instruction from the Department and the Department vide its letter dated 10.03.2010 has stated that the issue will not affect the income of the assessee and the matter is tax neutral. For this reason alone, we dismiss this appeal, leaving the question of law raised open.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1114 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -3) had been destroyed by him after making repayment of loan and interest, therefore, the agreement dated 1.9.2008 had been destroyed by Balwant Singh (DW-2) himself and it was an agreement which created an enforceable legal right which had been destroyed after the amount of ₹ 1 Lac and interest has been given to Roshan Lal. Besides, the pronote and receipt dated 2.9.2008 had been destroyed by Chandgi Ram (DW-3) which also created an enforceable legal right or an obligation. Therefore, the agreement and the pronote-cumreceipt which are sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence had lost their character and identity. Such documents are, therefore, not to be admitted or taken in evidence by way of secondary evidence as chances of their alteration or otherwise tampering with cannot be ruled out. 13. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly declined the said application. The criminal revision petition is, therefore devoid of merit and is dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1113 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... handrashekharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. H Shankar, Adv., Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,Adv. O R D E R Issue notice.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1112 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sh law, it meant that England was the more appropriate forum, in which the case, could be more suitably be tried. 11. Having regard to the above, in my view the issue framed here, in the present case, "whether the court had jurisdiction to interfere and try the instant suit" should more appropriately be Given the contractual obligations undertaken by the parties, should this Court entertain the instant suit? In my view, for the reasons given above, I am not inclined to entertain the present suit. 12. The other issue raised by Mr. Kaul, appearing for the defendant, that the plaintiff had not pleaded the foreign law nor filed an affidavit of an expert, in my view, would only arise if the court were to otherwise exercise its discretion to entertain the suit. Therefore, the judgments cited on this issue by Mr. Kaul, in my view, do not require a discussion. 13. In these circumstances, plaint is returned to enable the plaintiff to file the action in an appropriate court.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1111 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal to HC - SSI Exemption - Held that:- As an appeal has since been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment and order, this petition may be allowed to be withdrawn - SLP dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1110 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nal Inc. (supra) we hold that only 15% of gross receipts could be attributed as accruing or arising in India and since the assessee had already incurred expenditure @ 25% of gross receipts on account of payments to ADSIL in India, there is no income which can be taxed in India. 8. In assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessee has also raised grounds challenging the reopening of the assessments. The Learned Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that in case the appeals were decided in favour of the assessee on merit it may not be necessary to go into the legal issue relating to the reopening of the assessments. No arguments were also advanced on this issue. As we have already decided the appeals in favour of the assessee on merit, we do not go into the issue of reopening of the assessments in A.Yrs.2001-02 and 2002-03. 9. In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of the order above. 10. The order was pronounced in open court on 20.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. Their lordships have not considered various statutory provisions discussed hereinabove in their true spirit. With profound respect, we are in disagreement with the judgment of Karnataka High Court. 23. In view of the above, we are of the view that in case application under section 254(2) of the Act is rejected by the Tribunal, then appeal under section 260A of the Act, shall not be maintainable. The only option with the Revenue is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. With liberty to appellant to invoke writ jurisdiction. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the extent of maintainability. Since the appeal is not maintainable, no finding is recorded with regard to controversy on merit with liberty to appellant to approach the appropriate forum or to invoke writ jurisdiction. 24. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s rightly been sustained by CIT(A). 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The AO in the assessment order has not pin-pointed any voucher which was unsupported or not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business. The assessee is maintaining accounts and details which were produced before the AO. The disallowance made by the AO was adhoc one. Similarly ld. CIT(A) has sustained partial disallowance without giving any finding that any particular voucher was not maintained by the assessee. Keeping in view the entirety of facts of present case, we are of the opinion that disallowance partly sustained by CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and has to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) in respect of both the items. Both the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 13.8.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1107 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... s squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Devi Fisheries Ltd. (supra) in which the Tribunal following the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. Dabur India Limited (supra) has categorically held that the main purpose in buying the packing material was to obtain goods for the purpose of packing and the fact that incidentally some printing was required to be done by the supplier was of no consequence; therefore, the provisions of section 194C are not attracted. Since the impugned issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we find no justification to take a contrary view in this appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that since CIT(A) has decided the issue in consonance with the order of the Tribunal and the judgement of Delhi High Court, we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 5. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 18.8.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1106 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nk accounts is on the depositors and if any adverse inference has to be drawn on the basis of examination of these accounts unless nexus is established between the deposits in the bank accounts of the depositors and flow of fund from the appellant such adverse inference has to be drawn only in the hands of the depositors and not the appellant. Considering the above facts of the case the addition of ₹ 16,25,691/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 16,25,691/-.” In view of the above and since the submissions of the assessee and also the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Ld. DR at the time of hearing before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. The appeal of the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.8.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1105 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he lower authorities are set aside, the matter is remanded to the file of assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the issue and thereafter decide the same in accordance with the law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. The next addition is with regard to interest on TDS, Sales Tax refund, machinery hire charges seinerages etc. These amounts are received in addition to the contract work. Interest on TDS, Sales tax refund, seinerages charge refund, machinery hire charge etc. are all independent from the contract work. The assessee would have earned this income even otherwise. Therefore, as in the case of interest on fixed deposit, these receipts are also to be separately added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th August, 2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1104 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rm is constituted to support the financial needs of the ‘Bhogilal Family’ Group concerns and it is a commercial expediency. In our opinion, applying the principles laid down in the case of S.A. Builders (supra), as per the facts on record, the transact ions with the four Group concerns (as noted by the A.O, two Group concerns are closed and hence, no interest is disallowed) are in the nature of the commercial expediency only and there is no justification to make disallowance of the interest as done by the A.O. We accordingly delete the addition made by the A.O of ₹ 8,55,037/ -. ” 5. To maintain the consistency with the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case and respect fully fol lowing the same we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The addition of disallowance of interest of ₹ 6,88,161/ - is deleted. 6. In the result , the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 13.08.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... iew of lack of orders and lesser production, was rejected in a summary manner. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed the copy of depreciation chart, copy of which is also furnished before us. The contention of the assessee was that the depreciation at Parwanoo Unit was claimed at ₹ 3,10,275/- only. Further, the investment made in the plant and machinery was accepted in the preceding year and depreciation was allowed to the assessee. The said machineries in later years were transferred to the Panchkula unit due to lack of manufacturing activities at Parwanoo Unit establishes the existence of the plant and machinery and consequently the claim of depreciation is to be allowed. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee and deleting the addition of ₹ 9,32,258/-. The ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of August,2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om COD to prefer the appeal. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to refile after the approval is obtained. We have said so, as the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to refile when the approval is obtained.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anager, and the entry with regard to his doubtful integrity which had been made on account of the pending matters, had also been removed. The Division Bench had also called for the confidential record of the respondent and observed that he had been assessed as "very good" for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, "Excellent" for the year 2003-04 and "Outstanding" for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. It goes without saying that these were the crucial years in so far as the respondent's case for promotion to Director (Marketing) was concerned. The Division Bench also observed, that though requested, the counsel for the Union of India had not been able to show any record indicating the reasons as to why the ACC had differed with the opinion of the PESB, leading to the only inference that no reasons whatsoever had been recorded. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
