|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 620 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 768
... ...
... ... ..... d by the authorities below and hence, assessee should not be provided any further opportunity. 3. We have considered the rival submissions on this aspect and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that there was dispute going on between the partners of the assessee firm, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity. Hence, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision on all issues. 4. Regarding various specific grounds raised by the assessee, we do not find any reason to adjudicate at this stage because we are restoring back the entire matter to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision. We do not express any opinion on these grounds raised by the assessee be f ore us. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (12) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... concerned departments of this Court. 37. In any case, if the plaint were filed on 15th June, 2007, the Writ of Summons is out of time, the same having been taken out beyond 14 days from the date of filing of the plaint. If Writ of Summons is not taken out within 14 days, extension of time would have to be obtained. This has admittedly not been done. 38. It is true, as argued by Mr. Chakravarti that the point of delay in taking out Writ of Summons has not been taken in the Affidavit-in-Opposition or in the written statement. However, the written statement and the Affidavit-in-Opposition had been filed on the assumption that the suit had been filed on 19th June, 2007 as indicated in the plaint as also the Writ of Summons and the question of limitation has been raised. 39. This Court is unable to hold that the defendant has no defence to the claim of the plaintiff. This application for final judgment is, therefore, rejected and the defendant is granted leave to defend the suit.
-
2011 (12) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... . 66. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, which have already been noticed above, the Returning Officer erred in acting in hot haste in rejecting the nomination paper of the proposed candidate and not postponing the scrutiny to the next day, particularly, when a request was made by the authorised representative of the proposed candidate. The election Petitioners have been successful in proving the improper rejection of the proposed candidate's nomination paper. In other words, they have been able to prove the ground for setting aside Appellant's election to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act. 67. The consideration of the matter by the High Court does not suffer from any factual or illegal infirmity. In this view of the matter - and the factual and legal position discussed above - we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 68. The appeals, accordingly, fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... of deduction u/s 80IB and the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable because Hon’ble Apex Court did not say that revised return cannot be entertained by the AO after the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, we feel that ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (supra) wherein it has been held that filing of audit report was not mandatory condition for claiming deduction and even if during the assessment proceedings the same is furnished the claim of assessee on the basis of such report cannot be denied. Therefore, we feel no need to interfere with the order of ld. CT(A) and the same is hereby upheld.. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 21.12.11.
-
2011 (12) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Delay Condoned. Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 763
... ...
... ... ..... dhoc basis. She claimed that no specific instances for non-business expenses have been brought on record. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that Assessing Officer has made the disallowances in this regard on estimate basis and in making the disallowances Assessing Officer has not brought on record any specific instances that the vouchers are not maintained or the expenses are not related to the business of the assessee. Assessing Officer has made the disallowances of lumpsum 80% and 75 and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has sustained the same also. In our considered opinion, such disallowances based on estimate basis without bringing on record any cogent reasons, are not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 762
... ...
... ... ..... Judge of the Calcutta High Court has observed that learned Magistrate had failed to proceed in accordance with the procedure established by law in framing the charges against the accused. No such case is made out here. It was improper for the High Court to go beyond the scope of the prayers made by respondent no.1 and quash even the charges framed against all other accused. 19. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It will have to be, therefore, set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. We confirm the order framing charge dated 4.1.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba and direct him to proceed further in accordance with law. We make it clear that if any observations made by us touch the merits of the case, they should be treated as prima facie observations. Learned Special Judge shall deal with the case independently and in accordance with law. 20. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
-
2011 (12) TMI 761
... ...
... ... ..... erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and impose a levy. 72. In this case, of course, this Court is not really required to decide any jurisdictional fact since, on the face of the reasons disclosed, the Assessing Officer has not even addressed the issue of whether there has been any failure on the part of the petitioner company to disclose truly or fully any material facts necessary for assessment for the relevant year. The Assessing Officer, ex facie, lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, in the absence of any formation of belief that there was failure of the petitioner company to truly and fully disclose material facts necessary for assessment. 73. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned notice is set aside quashed. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. Mr. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, prayed for stay of operation of the judgment and order. The prayer for stay is considered and rejected. Indira Banerjee, J.
-
2011 (12) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... ered view that use of the impugned mark by the defendant constitutes infringement not only of the copyright, but also of the trademark of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction against use of the aforesaid mark of the defendant in any manner. Though the plaintiff has also claimed damages and delivery up of the infringing material, no arguments on these reliefs having been advanced, I do not deem it appropriate to grant these reliefs to the plaintiffs. ORDER A decree for perpetual injunction is passed, restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademark Ex.PW-1/9 or any other mark which is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant is also restrained from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the red mug device by re-producing the aforesaid device or any substantial part thereof. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
-
2011 (12) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... punishable under Section 120-B is also upheld; 165. The Court is of the opinion that the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) (ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 returned by the Trial Court, against Mr. Sukh Ram was justified; the same is accordingly affirmed. However, his conviction under Section 120-B IPC is not justified; the same is set aside. 166. The Appeals of Ms. Runu Ghosh and Mr. Rama Rao, accordingly fail and are dismissed; Mr. Sukh Ram's appeal against the conviction for conspiracy, under Section 120-B IPC has to succeed, and is allowed. Mr. Sukh Ram's appeal against his conviction under Sections 13(1)(d) (ii) and (iii) read with Section 13(2) fails and is dismissed. The orders on sentence impugned in all these appeals are, for the above reasons, affirmed, and left undisturbed. The Appellants shall surrender and serve their sentences; they shall appear before the Trial Court, for this purpose, on 5th January, 2012.
-
2011 (12) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... ot the case here. The addition has been made by taking 2% of the exempted income. This is not a disallowance out of an expenditure but it is an income which is being assessed as relating to earning an exempted income. Adding this amount to the business income would, in net result, mean granting an assessee an additional expenditure which has not been claimed by the assessee but treating the disallowance out of the income as a deemed expenditure of an assessee which is not permissible. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the action of the learned Assessing Officer in treating the said disallowance as ‘income from other sources’ is on a right footing. Consequently, ground No.8 of the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. 21. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 23. The order was pronounced in the court on 23/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... ficer can adopt a reasonable basis for effecting the apportionment. While making that determination, the Assessing Officer should provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 8.8 In view of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the matter is remitted back to the file of the AO to determine whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to the exempted income/income not forming part of the total income, as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, ground no.5 raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed, whereas, the appeal preferred by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of December, 2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... r to see that such incidents are not repeated in future and the State may not be required to face further consequences in future, including that of liability of the State to pay compensation and the other action against the concerned erring officer. Hence, we direct the Secretary, Home Department to examine the same and to take suitable remedial measure and intimate to this Court about the appropriate steps taken by the State ensuring that such incidents are not repeated in future. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Secretary Home Department of the State Government within a period of three months and the report shall be submitted within 15 days thereafter to this Court. 10. In the event the report is not submitted, office shall place the matter before this Court for appropriate orders. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. 11. Mr. Pandya, learned APP shall communicate this order to the Secretary, Home Department of the State Government.
-
2011 (12) TMI 755
... ...
... ... ..... he Assessee has not been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay high Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills (P) Ltd. (supra. We are of the view that the said decision is of no assistance to the plea of the Assessee. The decision relates to a case of a Co-operative Society where collection of deposit and earning interest thereon was considered to be part of the bye laws of the society. The other decisions of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court. We are therefore of the view that the CIT(A) was right in rejecting the claim of the Assessee as raised in Ground No.1 before the Tribunal and we therefore dismiss Gr.No.1 raised by the Assessee. 6. Gr.No.2 was not pressed and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is dimissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of Dec. 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 754
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER For orders see our order of date passed in Writ (Tax) No. 1484 of 2007 (I.T.C. Limited vs. State of UP and others).
-
2011 (12) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that he has no objection to furnishing most of the documents as sought for by the respondents/UOI in its letter dated 30.11.2011, and enumerated in the list of 19 documents mentioned in the said letter, except for those set out at Sr. No.11 and 14 to 16. Notice. Counsel for the respondents/UOI accepts notice. He seeks and is granted four weeks? time to file a reply, with an advance copy to the other side, who may file a rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing. Subject to the petitioner furnishing to respondents No.2 to 4, the documents at Sr. No.1 to 10, 12 and 13 and 17 to 19 as mentioned in the letter dated 30.11.2011 within a period of two weeks, so as to not impede/hamper the process of investigation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for prosecution under Section 243 of the Act, till the next date of hearing. List on the date fixed. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2011 (12) TMI 752
... ...
... ... ..... In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed along with order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare shall remain stayed. It shall be the petitioner’s duty to serve the respondents before the next date of hearing failing which the interim order passed today shall stand automatically vacated.
-
2011 (12) TMI 751
... ...
... ... ..... of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, MANU/SC/1580/1996 (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. 13. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 750
... ...
... ... ..... 4 and 13.9.2002 for AY 1994-95, respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).” The Assessing Officer has also stated in his order that identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal but the Department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, hence the matter is pending adjudication. However, the fact emerges that as the position stands today, the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, which is to be followed in the present Assessment Year. 7. Respectfully following the aforesaid Tribunal’s order passed in Assessment Year 2005-06, we are inclined to uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) in granting exemption under sec. 11 of the Act. Thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. This decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 26th December, 2011 immediately after the hearing was over.
-
2011 (12) TMI 749
... ...
... ... ..... ons, claim was also allowed in decision dated 18.6.2009 for the AY 2005-06 in ITA no.45/Del./2009. Recently, the ITAT, vide their order dated 26.12.2011 in ITA no.4671/Del./2011 for the AY 2008-09, following the aforesaid decision dated 18.6.2009 for the AY 2005-06, allowed the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5.1 Since the facts and circumstances of the case in the year under consideration are similar to the facts and circumstances in the preceding assessment years, following the consistent view taken by the ITAT in their aforesaid decisions, we have no alternative but to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A), allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 of the Act in the year under consideration. Accordingly, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is also dismissed.. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court
........
|
