|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 844 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1151
... ...
... ... ..... dents was justified. The learned Single Judge had passed a reasoned order, and, in no way, it could be said that he had exercised the discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner, or had ignored the settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. There was no reason for the Appellate Bench to interfere and set aside that order. 24. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the rival claims of the Appellants as well as the Respondents. We have confined ourselves only with respect to the question as to what should be the interlocutory arrangement in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was well reasoned and justified in that context. In the facts of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1150
... ...
... ... ..... r services would be covered under the definition of term input service used in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On such courier service, the assessee claims Cenvat credit. From the record, it emerges that the assessee had used such courier service for placing orders, filing quotation for procurement as well as marketing dispatch instructions, issuing cheque for procurement, sending stock transfer documents and also for receiving dispatch instructions from the marketing or the Head Office. The Tribunal was of the opinion that courier services therefore, be input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. This very issue in similar factual background was considered by us in Tax Appeal No. 433 of 2010. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Without giving separate elaborate reasons in the present tax appeal, we answered the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... High Court wherein the High Court had set aside the order of the Trial Court permitting the respondent accused of an offence under FERA to travel abroad on the ground that he being a foreign national was found in possession of Indian and foreign currency. I do not find any analogy between the facts of the said case, and the present case so as to draw an inference that merely because a person is a foreign national he should not be permitted to go abroad when he has roots in India. The learned counsel for the petitioner is overlooking the fact that the present matter is only emanating from the matrimonial dispute and not on account of any violation of statutory provisions like FERA or FEMA or any other white collar crime. 11. I do not find any merit in the petition warranting any interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be considered as an expression on the merits of the case.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... anation and declined claim of deduction. The said provisions are not applicable to the instant case and it speaks about the tax levied on the profit and gains of business. Since the assessee has made the statutory payments, which it is required to make u/s 43(2B) of M.P. Coop. Societies Act. Since it is statutory payment, the same is allowable as deduction. Agreeing with the ld. Authorized Representative, we direct the AO to allow the same. The issue is also covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Burhanpur Mandi Samiti, 12 ITJ 12, wherein statutory payment to the Board has been held to be an allowable deduction. 15. With respect to allowing deduction of Rs. 7,12,500/-, ld. Authorized Representative fairly conceded that the directions have already been given by the ld. CIT(A) to this effect. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms contained hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1147
... ...
... ... ..... ned at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt her testimony. The defence put a suggestion to her that she was talking about the age of her younger daughter and not of Shankari (PW.4), which she flatly denied. Her deposition remained un-shaken and is fully reliable. 14. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to hold that prosecutrix, Shankari (PW.4) was major on the date of incident and in view thereof, no other issue is required to be considered. We also see no reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment in either of these appeals. Thus, appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. 15. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Appellants must surrender within 30 days from today to serve the remaining part of the sentences, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, shall apprehend the Appellants and send them to jail. Copy of the judgment and order be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1146
... ...
... ... ..... e impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) made any attempt to make cross-verification whether the assessee is engaged in the business of cheque/draft discounting. In case of cheque/draft discounting for 1 to 3 days, we are of the view that earning of commission @ 0.125% is fair and reasonable before allowance of expenditure as allowed by the AO in the assessment order. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice, if the contention of the assessee is accepted that in the case of Sahyadri Textiles, he was doing the business of cheques/draft discounting and income earned in this line of business is 0.125%. We, accordingly direct the AO to re-work out the income of the assessee in respect of all the assessment years under appeal by applying the commission earned @ 0.125% in respect of cheques/drafts discounting. 11. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 31.05.2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1145
... ...
... ... ..... in the said area. The only reason in the instant case as to why the petitioner's licence was cancelled is based on the judgment of M.C. Mehta (supra). In our opinion, as this is the only ground, based upon which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled, the impugned order is nullity at law. Consequently, it is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. In the light of that, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii), which read as under - (i) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 01.12.2010 (Anneuxre-8 to this petition). (ii) that a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or prohibition be issued restraining/prohibiting the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in view of the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as stay application is disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1144
... ...
... ... ..... failed to establish that Assessing Officer had considered the issue while passing order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act. Further, no explanation was furnished before the CIT in this regard. There was no occasion where Assessing Officer has applied his mind and formed an opinion. In our considered view, the action of CIT u/s 263 of Income-tax Act is justified. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we hold that a modification is necessary in CIT s direction. We modify the direction to the extent that Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard before making any addition on these issues. The Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard and also permit assessee to submit details regarding the loan and share capital, if assessee so desires. Therefore, we sustain the order u/s 263 with the modification noted above. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 27th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1143
... ...
... ... ..... f facts as have been considered by the learned CIT in the impugned order. Hon ble Supreme Court s decision therefore only suggests an option available to the assessee trust without holding it against the assessee trust. It was a view by the learned CIT that the amended provision led to the finding that the assessee trust could no more be treated as charitable in nature specifically in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 2(15) therefore has not been established as has been considered by the Hon ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Sanjeevamma Hanumanthe Gowda Charitable Trust v. DIT (285 ITR 327). 6. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the assessee cannot be subjected to revocation of the registration already granted u/s.12AA. We direct the learned CIT to grant registration to the assessee trust and cancel the impugned order dt.01.02.2011. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 27th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. We have heard both the sides and after hearing and considering the facts of the case, we find that the CIT (A) has granted the relief on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court, i.e. the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Limited reported in 286 ITR 1 (P H). Further, we find that there is overall increase in the capital from the partners and no interest has been debited on the credit balance of the partners in the books of accounts of the firm. Further there was no nexus between the use of borrowed funds for the non-business purpose. Considering all these facts, we find no fault in the order of the CIT (A) and sustain the same and dismiss this ground of revenue s appeal. 6. Ground No.3 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 27th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1141
... ...
... ... ..... above. 20. In the background of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complaint made before the Lok Ayukta does not contain any 'allegation' or 'grievance' within the meaning of those expressions occurring in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. 21. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal is required to be allowed. Therefore, Writ Appeal is allowed. As a consequence., the Writ Petition stands allowed and the order impugned in the Writ Petition i.e., the report of the Lok Ayukta referred to above, stands set aside. 22. In view of our conclusion, we also deem it appropriate that, if the first Respondent is aggrieved by the proceedings of the District Registrar in re-determining the value of the property, it is open to him to approach the appellate authority within a period of thirty days from today as the first Respondent is bona fide pursuing other remedies though the remedies are found to be untenable in law.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... authorities. Therefore transaction fee paid cannot said to be a fee paid in consideration of the stock exchange rendering a technical services to the assessee. The provisions of s. 194J are therefore not attracted. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the provisions of S. 40(a)(ia) were also not attracted and therefore the disallowance made directed to be deleted. Transaction fee paid to stock exchange on the basis of volume of transaction is payment for use of facilities provided by stock exchange and not for any services, either technical or managerial, hence provisions of s. 194J are not attracted and no disallowance can be made by invoking 40(a)(ia).” Respectfully following the decision in the case of Kotak Securities (supra), we delete the disallowance of Rs. 10,88,883/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia). 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of May, 2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... to be noted that counsel for LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., and the Reserve Bank of India have not argued that the petitioner's section 18(1) application referring the dispute between him and Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., was not entertainable by the Reserve Bank of India. On the contrary, counsel for the Reserve Bank of India has submitted that the bank will need at least four weeks for taking a decision in terms of section 18(2) of the Act. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. Within four weeks from the date of communication of this order the Reserve Bank of India shall give its decision dealing with the petitioner's application dated July 20, 2010, treating it as a reference under section 18(1) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The decision shall be communicated to all concerned. C. A. N. No. 3067 of 2011 shall be deemed to be disposed of. No costs. Certified xerox.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... s a capital expenditure. On the next issue regarding the enhancing the value of the closing stock correspond the opening stock of the succeeding year was also held by the learned CIT(A) when the ITAT, Cuttack in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2004-05 in ITA No.126/CTK/2008 has affirmed the principle that the value of the closing stock adopted for this year should invariably be taken as opening stock for the subsequent year. Finding no infirmity in the adjudication thereof by the Tribunal and on the facts as noted by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 5. On both the issues, the learned DR has not been able to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) by producing any material and as such, the issues remained covered in favour of the assesses by the orders of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is bound to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 27th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1137
... ...
... ... ..... st the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). The learned DR supported the order of the AO while the learned AR on behalf of the assessee relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably and as pointed out by the ld. CIT(A) , expenses are petty in nature and comprise small amounts . Since the AO has not identified any specific item of expenditure, incurred for personal or non business purposes and merely disallowed an adhoc amount while the Revenue have not placed before us any material so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no.2 in the appeal is also dismissed. 10. Ground nos. 3 & 4 being mere prayer and no separate submissions having been made , these grounds do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 13-05-2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... s resulted in "miscarriage of justice". 14. For the foregoing reasons, acquittal of the Respondent is set aside and he is convicted under Section 138 of the Act. 15. Section 138 provides that a person guilty for the offence be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Out of the fine so deposited, a sum of ₹ 4,75,000/- be paid to the Appellant/complainant. Respondent to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. In case he fails to do so Trial Court shall take him in custody and remit him to Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi. Copy of this order be sent to Trial Court for compliance. 16. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... of this judgment to the lower court. The respondents No.2 to bear the expenses of charges of the expert. 12 It is informed that already 7.5.2011 is the date fixed before the lower court. The parties to collect authenticated copy of this judgment and to place it before the lower court. After appearance of the parties this exercise to be completed by the lower court within a period of three months. As directed earlier the hand writing expert to submit his report within a period of three months and if extra special charges are required to be deposited for this urgency then the same should be deposited by respondent No.2 herein. On receipt of report of the hand writing expert, the trial court to dispose of the case within a period of one months thereafter, in accordance with law. 13 Rule made absolute as indicated above in modified terms. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 14 The parties to act on copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... through the material available on record. In the case before us it is a fact that the notices issued in case of one of the share applicants had been received back. One of the applicants had stated that she had not made any deposit in the company whereas no reply was received from two persons. It is also a fact that the assessing officer on receipt of reply or receipt of notice received un-served, no further opportunity was provided by him to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have admitted the additional evidence and adjudicated upon. We, therefore, admit the additional evidence and direct the ld. CIT (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh, after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Ld CIT(A) will decide the issue on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... nts. In the absence of reasons based on which it can be said that the accounts are complex or not, mere assumption that they are complex would not satisfy the test, nor would the appointment of Special Auditor merely for the purpose of examination of related supporting vouchers, bring the matter within ambit of Section 142(2A). In the instant case, it is apparent that what weighed with the Commissioner was certain acts and omissions. The Commissioner did not approve the mode of allocation of expenditure. The reasons do not indicate what exactly was so complex in the accounts of the petitioner company, that required special audit. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the Revenue prays for stay of operation of this order. Such prayer is granted for a period of four weeks from date. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... vision Bench seeking permission to withdraw the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed as not pressed. We direct that if the petitioners take steps for withdrawal of the appeal before the next date fixed by the Division Bench, the contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall remain stayed till the said application is disposed of.
........
|
