|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1550 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... re (Respondent No.1). We acknowledge our gratitude to Mr. B. Bhattacharya, the Commissioner of Customs, Headquarters Office, Bangalore for having appeared personally to assist this Court on the issue in hand. 3. Mr. Bhattacharya has made a statement to us in Court today affirming, that adequate staff has already been posted for recovering customs duty as and when the same is due in term of the provisions of the Customs Act and the notification issued thereunder from time to time. 4. Based on the statement made by Respondent No.1, we are satisfied that the cause agitated by the petitioner in public interest is taken care of. 5. The instant writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1548 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the CBDT, appeal in those cases where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lacs, appeal is not to be filed. This appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1547 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the above appeals are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1194 of 2010 (CIT V/s. Brahma Associates) dated 22.02.2011. For the reasons stated therein, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1546 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on under Rule 57H. The amendment prescribing limitation under Rule 57G on 29-6-1995 had the prospective effect and no period of limitation was prescribed by any statutory provision before that date. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal’s conclusion that restriction of six months for availing Modvat credit from the date of issue of Modvatable document prescribed under Rule 57G is not applicable under Rule 57H(1B), is unexceptionable. We also take note of the argument of Learned Counsel for the respondent that the Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the cited decision of the Tribunal in the impugned order and the same attained finality and therefore, the Tribunal cannot be permitted to take a different view in the case of the respondent, as held in various judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the respondent. 12. For the aforesaid discussions, we dismiss this appeal and decide the issue in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue/respondent (sic).
-
2011 (2) TMI 1545 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... enue expenditure. We dot agree with this. The assessee was setting up a new line of business in insurance sector. Therefore, the expenditure incurred is in the nature of capital expenditure incurred for setting up of a new business. This expenditure also was incurred contemporaneous to issue of shares and raising of share capital for the new joint venture. The said joint venture is basically distinct from the banking business carried on by the assessee. Therefore, this expenditure has been rightly held to be capital expenditure by the authorities below. This ground is rejected. The cross objection fails. 14. In result (i) Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed ; (ii) Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA.216/Bang/2010 is allowed ; (iii) Cross objection filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose ; and (iv) Cross objection in No.57/Bang/2010 filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 25th day of February, 2011, at Bangalore.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1544 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing urgent payment for its construction work and labour charges. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that section 273B permitted the Assessing Officer to waive the penalty if it is found that the assessee had shown sufficient reasons for accepting such loans in cash. Reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection v. Km. A.B.Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 wherein the vires of statutory provisions in question were upheld relying on the provisions of section 273B giving discretion under certain circumstances not to impose penalty. We are of the view that the Tribunal committed no error particularly when the loan transactions were not in doubt and the loans were received from HUF of the partners of the firm and when justification was shown for accepting such loans in cash instead of cheque. No question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) (vjn)
-
2011 (2) TMI 1543 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ons of section 80P. In view of the above, even though addition of ₹ 7,67,936/- made to the income of the assessee is sustained, it is held that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was allowable on the total income. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is allowed." 6. From the above, it is evident that the amount of disallowance of expenditure under consideration is the payment, which is incidental to the banking activities and it comes under the purview of the provisions of section 80P(20(a)(i) of the Act. Considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. In principle, the ITA No.159/PN/09 Karad Merchant Sah. Credit Sanstha A.Y. 2005-06 citation relied upon by the learned counsel also strengthen the above decision of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 28th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Judge was not right in holding that since Director of the company had been acquitted for non-service of notice under Section 2(35) of the Act, Respondent was also entitled to acquittal. 15. In Greatway (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Asstt. CIT 1993 199 ITR 391(P&H), Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that in the absence of appointment of a “Principal Officer” by issuing a notice by the department, the prosecution, if any, could only be launched against the company. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality by holding that Respondent company was entitled to acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 276-B of the Act since its Director Shri S.K. Das had been acquitted for non-compliance of notice under Section 2(35) of the Act. Impugned order is set aside and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the ACMM-02 (North) Delhi are restored. 17. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1541 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... al for assessment year 2005-06 in case the same is not allowed by the Tribunal for assessment year 2004-05. 29. We have already remanded the issue with regard to the addition of ₹ 2,53,30,692/- on account of change in the method of accounting of income from service charges to the CIT(A). In these circumstance, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in assessment year 05-06 also and direct the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in the light of his decision on the same issue that may be taken in the set aside proceedings for A.Y 2004-05. 30. As far as the claim of deduction on account of bad debts of ₹ 84,27,944/- is concerned we have already confirmed the order of CIT(A) in A.Y. 2004-05 and, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) to this extent has to be upheld. For statistical purposes the appeal is treated as partly allowed. 31. In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Court on the 18th day of Feb. 2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be issued to the members of the transferor company by the transferee company, the scheme will not affect the members of the transferee company. 9. Therefore, considering the averments in paragraph 14 & 15 of the application that under the scheme, no compromise is offered to any of the creditors whether secured or unsecured and neither any liability of the creditors under the scheme is being reduced or extinguished and considering the fact that as per the audited balance sheet as on 31.3.2010 in case of transferee company there are excess of assets over liabilities to the tune of ₹ 25 crores and as the interest of the secured and unsecured creditors of the applicant company are not in any way affected by the proposed scheme of amalgamation, the meetings of the secured and unsecured creditors of the applicant company to consider and/or approve the proposed scheme of amalgamation is hereby dispensed with. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1539 - SUPREME COURT
Offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) - award of the sentence - appellant here is on post of Inspector. An FIR was registered against the appellant by the DSP, CBI (ACB) u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, alleging that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets. appellant held guilty of the charges and awarded the punishment by the Special Judge. Therefore, Appellant challenged the said order in this appeal.
HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that a sum of ₹ 2,71,613.69 remained unexplained. The appellant entered into in service in 1972 and there is no break up so far as assets and expenditures etc. are concerned in the charge sheet though the check period covered both the Acts i.e. P.C. Acts, 1947 or 1988. Even if the said amount is spread over the period from 1987 to 1996, the alleged unexplained income remains merely a marginal/paltry sum which any government employee can save every year.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that judgments and orders of the courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and they are liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1538 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . The aforesaid tribunal’s order for the assessment year 2001-02 has been followed by the tribunal in the assessment year 2003-04 vide order dated 28.3.2008 in ITA No. 3887/del/2007. 8. In the light of the earlier orders of the tribunal in the matter and there being no change in the facts of the case in the present assessment year vis a vis the facts in the assessment year 2001-02 and 2003-04, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. 9. In the result, the instant appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.” 5. Since the facts in the present cases are identical as referred in earlier years of the tribunal. We are upholding the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) respectfully following the precedent. 6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/2/2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1537 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, set aside the order passed by the DRT stating that the borrower has to approach the Appellant-Bank for return of the documents and the Tribunal cannot issue directions. It is only at that stage by a communication dated 14.02.2008, for the first time, the Bank informed the Respondents that they are holding the documents in exercise of its general lien. Thus, the approach of the Bank also appears to be not very appreciable. 19. After having given our anxious considerations to all the above factual and legal aspects, we are of the firm view that the Appellant-Bank was not justified in retaining the documents in question which were deposited by (late) N.P.S. Mahendran, husband of the 1st Respondent herein. For the above reasons, we dispose of the Appeal by directing the Appellant-Bank to return the title deeds to the Respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1536 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... below, we find that assessee has offered the prior period income along with the expenditure during the impugned assessment year. The assessing officer has accepted the prior period income in this year but disallowed the prior period expenditure. This action of the assessing officer is not proper as he has to take into the account the status as a whole and not to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of CIT(A) and we find that CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of additional CIT Vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mobile Pvt. Ltd. 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 10.2.2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1535 - SUPREME COURT
Whether application filled before magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3) be treated as complaint u/s 200 - In the present case it was alleged by the respondent No. 3 that the police officer in charge of the police station had refused to register her complaint and, therefore, she had made application to the Senior Superintendent of Police as required by Section 154(3) of the Code, but of no avail. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 had approached the appellant, who was then discharging duties as Judicial Magistrate praying to direct the Officer-in-charge of Police Station to register complaint u/s 156(3). Appellant directed to proceed case u/s 200. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code to quash the passed by the appellant.
The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the appellant had passed the order ignoring all judicial disciplines and had not at all applied her judicial mind. he severely criticized the conduct of the appellant and recorded his serious displeasure against the appellant for passing such type of illegal orders. Therefore, set aside the order passed by the appellant, and directed the appellant to decide the application of the respondent No. 3 within the ambit of her power u/s 156(3) of the Code. while setting aside the order has given rise to the present appeal.
HELD THAT:- Under the circumstances the appellant had exercised judicial discretion available to a Magistrate and directed that the application, which was submitted by the respondent No. 3 u/s 156(3) of the Code, be registered as complaint and directed the Registry to present the said complaint for recording the statement of the respondent No.3 u/s 200 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the judicial discretion exercised by the appellant, to proceed u/s 200 of the Code could not faulted with nor the appellant could be subject to severe criticism as was done by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, were not justified at all and, therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1534 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ya appearing for respondent No. 3 states that a copy of agreement which has been executed with respondent No. 2 will be forwarded within two weeks from today. Further needless to state that any relief that is sought against these respondents can be granted only by a court competent to grant it, inasmuch as the company court in its limited jurisdiction would have no jurisdiction to grant substantive reliefs as prayed in this application. Reserving the liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings as are permissible in law and accepting the statement of Mr. Vaidya, the application is dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1533 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... als. These documents however docs not bear any signatures to show that these documents were actually prepared by the present appellant and so far as statement of Smt. Khadooja is concerned, the Adjudicating Authority himself has not relied upon and on her statement for arriving of finding against the present appellant. He has relied only statement of present appellant and the statement of co-noticee Shri K.K. Jalmaluddin and both the statements are retracted statements and there is no corroborating evidence to prove the contention of retracted statement. Apart from that the criminal Court after appreciating the entire evidence has held that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant has actually received any amount from Shri K.K. Siraju or paid any amount to him. 11. Such a scenario, this appeal No. 91/1992 deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The Impugned Order of penalty amount is set aside. The appeal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 stands dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1532 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and Ors. - (1997) 6 SCC 73 in absence of fixation of limitation powers should be exercised within reasonable time. 5. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority has exonerated the respondents on the ground that there is no evidence against them except the retracted statement. It is true that the Adjudicating Authority has given finding that allegations against the respondents for contravention of Section 9(1)(a) are proved. This finding is arrived at page 31 of the impugned order. However, the Adjudicating Authority has not imposed penalty on that account because in the show cause notice there are no allegations against the respondents for violation of provisions of Section 9(1)(a) of FERA and in the absence of show cause notice on that charge penalty cannot be imposed. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be said to be erroneous to call for interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, without any merits and is dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1531 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... take note of the fact that a lot of energy and resources are spent in litigating against those who infringe the trademark and copyright of others and try to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of other brands by passing of their goods and/or services as those of that well known brand. 22. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant No. 1 is restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, distributing or promoting in any manner, any milk or milk product, including ice-creams as well as any flour or cereal products, using the trademark GIAN'S or any other mark similar to the registered trademark GIANI'S of the Plaintiff. Taking into consideration all the fact and circumstances of the case, punitive damages, amounting to ₹ 20,000/- are also awarded to the Plaintiff. The name of Defendant No. 2, which is only a trade name adopted by Defendant No. 1, is deleted from the array of Defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1530 - HIGH COURT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... discharging the tender. As such the decision contained in the communication dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure-2 of WP(C) No.4489/2011) and letter dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure-P10 of WP(C) No.4668/2011) is set aside. But it is made clear that if the highest bidders i.e. the writ petitioners' firms undertake to accept the non-incorporated clause (as executed in the CCM's note dated 18.05.2011), which could not be made part of the tender, the railway respondents shall consider their highest bid for acceptance. If the writ petitioners are ready to undertake that they would abide by the said non-incorporated clause, they shall furnish an undertaking in writing to the tendering authority within a period of 7(seven) days from this day and the tendering authority i.e. the railway respondents shall determine the tender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said undertaking. 21. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to cost.
........
|
