|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 936 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Detention Order - incarceration u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ("NS Act") - Rights of detenue - HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the grounds on which detention order is passed has no probative value and were extraneous to the scope, purpose and the object of the National Security Act. This Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Rather Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [1979 (8) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that under Article 22(5), a detenu has two rights (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which his detention is based and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against his detention. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first right and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second right. No distinction can be made between introductory facts, background facts and `grounds' as such; if the actual allegations were vague and irrelevant, detention would be rendered invalid. In so far as the documents on which reliance is placed, in our opinion, none of these documents provide any reasonable basis for passing the detention order. The primary reliance has been on the accused's own statement made to an Investigating Officer. This cannot be said to be sufficient to form the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority. Statements u/s 161, of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as sufficient grounds in the absence of any supportive or corroborating grounds. Section 161 statements are not considered substantive evidence, but can only be used to contradict the witness in the course of a trial. The same is clear from the wording of Section 162(1) of the Cr.P.C and has been so held time and again by this Court. In Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,[2007 (8) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT]. Furthermore, none of the other documents substantiate the involvement of the detenu in unlawful activities as alleged in the detention order.
In regard to delay of 7 days - delay has occurred in the forwarding of the representation. This may not be inordinate; however, at no stage has there been an explanation given for this delay. The State Government or Central Government has not clarified the same and thus the delay remains unexplained.
In light of the fact that none of the documents relied on by the detaining Authority in passing the detention order can be deemed to be pertinent, and the fact that the delay has remained unexplained, there is sufficient ground made out in order to quash the order of preventive detention made against the detenu.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1216 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner of the allegations made against him in the F.I.R. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner. This is not a case where the Magistrate took recourse to any further inquiry but took cognizance on the police report itself, which he was entitled to do under Section 190(1)(b)Cr.P.C. 17. Even otherwise, the Petitioner thereafter filed an application for discharge before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.281 of 2006, but such prayer under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and a date was fixed for framing of charge. We have been informed that charges have since been framed against the petitioner which has rendered the present proceedings infructuous and the Petitioner's remedy, if any, will no longer be available therein. 18. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed in the light of the aforesaid observations.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1215 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... tly applicable in the case of the assessee as in the case of the assessee the gross receipts from the civil construction business exceeded ₹ 40 lacs. We accordingly confirm order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thus, this ground taken by the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. So far as ground no.2 is concerned, after hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the provisions of section 144 are not applicable in the case of the assessee as there is no failure on the part of the assessee in complying with the provisions of section 144 of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) was correct in law that the provisions of section 184(5) of the Act are not appalicable and accordingly he has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the A.O. in respect of interest and salary to the partners. Thus, this ground stands dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal field by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.09.2010).
-
2010 (9) TMI 1214 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... recorded prima facie belief and reasons before issuing notice. The Hon'ble High Court held that it is not a case of acting under dictates of superior Officer. The Hon'ble Court further held that it was clear from the reasons recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that he prima facie had reason to believe that the assessee had omitted to disclose fully and truly the materials facts and that as a consequence income had escaped assessment. On these facts, the Hon'ble High Court held that the reassessment was valid. Thus, the facts are entirely different and therefore, this decision is also of no help to Revenue’s case. 6.5 In our considered view, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in following the order of the Tribunal passed in the assessee’s case for assessment year 2000- 01 and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 29.9.2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1213 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the confiscation of the goods and therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be set aside and the order of the original authority deserves to be restored. 8. However, the redemption fine has been imposed by the original authority under presumption that the goods were meant cleared without payment of duty and that presumption cannot be endorsed. 9. There is no specific demand of duty in the order of the original authority. The learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the goods have since been accounted and cleared on payment of duty. 10. In view of the above, the appeal of the Department is disposed of as follows - (a) the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the original authority confiscating the goods and imposing penalty is restored. (b) while restoring the order of confiscation, the redemption fine imposed is reduced from ₹ 4,50,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/-.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... permission to withdraw this writ petition challenging the detention order against the petitioner at the pre-execution stage with liberty to approach this Court in case he has a grievance after the grounds of detention and the detention order are served upon the detenu. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1211 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... amounts could not be added in the hands of the assessee company. Pertinently, it may be mentioned here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the share application money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, even then no addition is permissible in the hands of the assessee company but, the Department was free to reopen the individual assessments. In the facts of the present case where the assessee has established the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction being proved and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are in conformity with the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 43,49,920/-. We uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 15th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1210 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le in this case or not? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the answers to the aforesaid questions are in favour of the revenue, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in not interfering with the orders of the learned Commissioner, Income Tax(Appeals) as the assessee’s case is covered by explanation to section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Let notice of appeal be issued. The appellant shall file the requisite number of paper books within two months from date.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1209 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rmed against the respondent as they were eligible to import old/used/damaged transformers. 4. Heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. Learned Counsel Ms. Yajnik has assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal by reiterating the reasoning adopted by the Adjudicating Authority. It is an accepted position that in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Royal Recycling Industries, which involved similar facts, the Revenue had challenged the order of the Tribunal before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 450 of 2009 and vide judgment and order dated 31-3-2010 2011 (263) E.L.T. 526 , this Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal does not give rise to any question of law. 5. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the order dated 31-3-2010 passed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Royal Recycling Industries, Tax Appeal No. 450 of 2009, this appeal is also dismissed in absence of any question of law.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1208 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sent case, admittedly, the original alleged document is absent. That being so, secondary evidence thereof in the same of photo copy cannot form the basis of any addition.” 7. On a perusal of the order passed by the authorities below, it is luminescent that the original documents were never confronted to the assessee. Nothing has been brought on record as to what happened to the original documents. There is no material even to indicate that the photocopies are the copies of the original documents. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the tribunal has correctly held that they do not have any evidentiary value. That apart, no steps were taken to establish the factum of the transaction but time and again reliance was placed on the photocopy of the instrument which pertained to the transaction. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to cost.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1207 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 14. The interest from customers for delayed payment. This issue has been settled by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Advance Detergents Ltd (supra) , the Hon. High Court has decided the issue after considering the decision of the hon. Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon. Gujarat High Court in Nirma Industries reported in 283 ITR 402. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon.Delhi High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and hold that when the interest was due and received on the delayed payment by the customers against the sale then the same is part and parcel of the profit derived from the business of the industrial undertaking. 15. The decisions relied upon by the revenue are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue in question. 16. In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open Court on 30.09.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sactions are not illegal transactions. The revenue has not been able to bring out even a single evidence to prove that the sale in question or the purchase in question has not taken place. Entire assessments as well as appellate order are based only on surmises and conjecture. Thus, we agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee and hold that purchase and sale of shares in all these cases, based on the evidence filed by the assessee, have to be accepted as genuine and gains obtained on sale of shares be taxed under the head ‘capital gain’. 30. Coming to other arguments of assessee on the issue of jurisdiction u/s. 153A, we do not deal with the same, as the assessee has got relief on merits and would be an academic exercise, to dwell on the matter. Suffice to say that contrary decisions of the Tribunal are there on this issue. 31. In the result, we allow all these appeals of the assessee. Order has been pronounced on 24th Day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1205 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f wastage had been accepted. 6. Further, from the CIT (A)’s order, we find that the same AO had, in the case of another assessee, namely, Shri Ramesh Kumar Batra, while computing his income for the assessment year 2003-2004, taken the sale price to be ₹ 5.75 for 600 grams of loaf, that means, ₹ 7.66 for 800 grams of loaf of bread. In our opinion, if the same AO had estimated the sale price at ₹ 7.66 for the assessment year 2003-04 in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar Batra, he could not have estimated a higher price for a loaf of bread for the assessment year 1998-99 in the assessee’s case. 7. Consequently the additions made by the AO cannot be retained. In any event, the factual findings arrived at by the final fact finding authority cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to record. Accordingly, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the present proceedings. Hence, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed in limine.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1204 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ableness as well as the genuineness of the expenses, but even then a partial adhoc disallowance was made. Rather the admitted position is that the assessee has not substantiated the genuineness or the reasonableness of the claim of expenses, though the opportunity was granted to the assessee. In view of this, we hereby hold that the relief granted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not on firm-footing which can be upheld either on facts or on law. We, therefore, restore this issue back to the stage of first appellate authority to be decided de novo, needless to say, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. We hold accordingly. Resultantly, this ground of the Revenue may be treated as allowed but for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2003-04 is dismissed, whereas for Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed in the terms ordered supra. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 17/ 09 /2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1203 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ountry, the judicial officers who are entrusted with the task of adjudication must officiate in a manner that is becoming of their position and responsibility towards society. 26.Upright and honest judicial officers are needed not only to bolster the image of the judiciary in the eyes of litigants, but also to sustain the culture of integrity, virtue and ethics among judges. The public's perception of the judiciary matters just as much as its role in dispute resolution. The credibility of the entire judiciary is often undermined by isolated acts of transgression by a few members of the Bench, and therefore it is imperative to maintain a high benchmark of honesty, accountability and good conduct. 27.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the contentions raised by the petitioner are found to be without any merit and consequently they are rejected. 28.As a result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition, which is hereby dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1202 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... chart given by the AO clearly shows that inspite of issuing quantities the closing balance had remained the same for several days. If it was a clerical mistaken then corrections ought to have done and presented to the AO as pointed out by him. 11. So far as the application of gross profit rate is concerned, we are of the view that assessee has not satisfactorily explained as to why its profit margin is low in post survey period, when he continued to do the same business throughout the year. We find that there is no reasonable cause for declaring lower profits in post survey period as compared to presurvey period. Accordingly, we confirm the order of AO in applying the same profit rates to the post survey period sales as were shown by the assessee on pre-survey period sales. Accordingly addition as worked out by the AO is confirmed. This ground of Revenue is allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 30/9/10.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1201 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order itself reflects that the assessee has filed evidence to show his case, it appears to this Court that the evidence has not been looked into closely. This Court is therefore of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered. 10. I therefore remand the matter back to the tribunal to reconsider the evidence, which is already there on record before it to especially examine as to whether the cotton which was purchased was ultimately converted into khadi material or not. The tribunal will record specific finding with regard to this after giving to the assessee an opportunity of hearing and establishing this case from the documents which are already there on record. Due notice of hearing may also be given to the assessee. The matter on remand will be considered within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. The impugned order of the tribunal is set aside. 11. The revision is disposed of as above.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1200 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J ORDER Delay condoned. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1199 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase, the ITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed in accordance with amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1998?” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated 16.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings and I.T.A. No.299 of 2010 CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, wherein after noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals 2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders of this Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have any grievance against this order.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cation in the light of our observations made earlier in the order. Consistent with the stand so taken, we also remit this grievance of the assessee to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Our observations for the assessment year 2005-06 will apply mutatis mutandi for this assessment year as well. 16. Ground No. 1 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 17. As regards ground nos. 3 and 4, learned counsel for the assessee did not make any specific submissions in respect of the same and left the matter to the bench. We dismiss these grounds as not pressed. 18. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are thus dismissed. 19. Ground No. 5 is general and does not call for any adjudication. It is dismissed as such. 20. In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2006 -07 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes. 21. To sum up, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 30th day of September, 2010.
........
|
