|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these contemnors and not to punish them with fine or imprisonment. They should be more careful in discharge of their functions and duties in accordance with the judgment of this Court and we further direct them to ensure circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of Priya Gupta's case to all the Directors, Health Services of the respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges. 33. In result of the above discussion, contemnor Dr. S.L. Adile, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D. Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished and awarded the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The fine should be deposited within four weeks from today. In the event of default, they shall be liable to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of contempt against them is discharged, however, subject to the observations aforemade.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1243 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the finding on the existence of the partnership firm, it is difficult to grant the prayer on the suit properties. In the circumstances, we reject the plea of the first respondent seeking leave of the Court for withdrawal of the suit. We, however, make it clear that with the finding on the existence of the partnership, the consequences flowing therefrom is a totally different relief, on which no prayer was sought. In the light of the view that we have taken, the M.P. No. 4 of 2012, filed for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, stands dismissed. As far as the issue of dissolution is concerned, we hold that the plaintiff has not proved his case as regards the purchase of the property as available for any division and the prayer in the suit for partition itself is misconceived. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment to the extent stated above. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 stand closed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1242 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ate from the finding reached by the CIT(A) to direct the AO to add the proportion of offered amount of Rs 1.95 crores to the income eligible for deduction under section 80IA for assessment year 2005-06. 104. The ground raised by the department, is therefore, rejected. 105. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. We may clarify that in the course of hearing before us, both the parties cited a number of decision and judgment, which have all been perused by us. We, in any case, have referred to and cited only those cases, which according to us were relevant for taking the above decisions in all the appeals filed by the department and cross objections filed by the assessee. To sum-up The appeals filed by the department, as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 are dismissed and departmental appeal for assessment year 2005-06 is also dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1241 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the deceased and the co-accused cannot be said to be limited to that of an employer and employee relationship as can be gathered from the medical record and the statement of the doctor. 37. Taking into consideration the parameters to be kept in mind while considering an application at the time of grant of bail, I find that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are serious as a young life has been lost on inability to bear the harassment at the hands of petitioner and her co-accused. The petitioner may be an employee of MDLR but from the record, it can be gathered that she ensured that the deceased remain in MDLR Company. 38. Having considered the submissions made and the material on record, I feel that it is not a case of extending the benefit of bail to the petitioner. Application is dismissed. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions of the parties shall not prejudice to the case of either party at any stage of the trial.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1240 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... f either the Revenue or the assessee. Therefore, we find that the argument of the Revenue that the assessee is the enterprise and it is owned by the consortium of other three companies, in which two companies are not Indian companies, is far-fetched and devoid of any merit. 48. In the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions laid down in subsection(4) of section 80IA and accordingly it is entitled for the deduction provided under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 49. The assessing authority is therefore directed to redo the assessments after giving the assessee the deduction in respect of the profits and gains arising from its infrastructure project developed at Tuticorin Port. 50. In result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed both on the question of reopening as well as on the question of eligibility for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Orders pronounced on Thursday, the 6th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1239 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the absence of proper enquiry and verification of the relevant facts. 14.1 Since the issue with regard to the most appropriate method has been set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer; therefore, in the interest of justice, the Assessing Officer may consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer may also decide the admissibility of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. 15 Ground no.9 is regarding not granting 5% benefit under the proviso of sec. 92C of the I T Act. 16 At the time of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee stated that the assessee does not press this ground and therefore, the same may be dismissed. The ld DR has no objection, if the ground no,9 of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the ground no.9 is dismissed being not pressed. 17 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and partly for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 19th, Day of Dec 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1238 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... of business purpose of the assessee. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales V/s CIT (1993) 199 ITR 17 (Guj) after considering the various case laws has held that the gifts given by a Co-operative Society to its members were for the purposes of business. Considering the issue in the light of the above said precedent as well as the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court taken as the basis for deciding the issue by the ld. CIT(A), we find ourselves in agreement that the expenditure incurred on welfare activities for its members is for the prosperity of the Co-operative Bank business and thus the same serves the business propose which essentially is allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Finding no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere with the well reasoned conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 7.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1237 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he shares were not even issued to the aforesaid companies nor copies of such share certificates or share transfer registers have been placed before us. In the absence of any evidence regarding genuineness of the aforesaid transactions in the light of information received by the AO from the DIT(Investigation) that there was specific involvement of the assessee-company in the modus operandi followed by entry providers, we are of the opinion that the creditworthiness of the aforesaid three parties and the genuineness of the transactions cannot be said to have been established. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 4 in the appeal are dismissed. 7. No additional ground having been raised in term of residuary ground no. 5 in the appeal, accordingly this ground is dismissed. 8. No other plea or argument has been raised before us. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1236 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... unt of depreciation on goodwill when the AO has rightly made this disallowance by observing that the goodwill is not a depreciable asset and there is no provision under the law to allow depreciation on it. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,42,02,744/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, when the AO has rightly drawn the conclusion that the packing material consumed amounting to Rs. 5,42,02,744/- both pre printed or plain is in the nature of job work and section 194C is applicable on these transactions.” 22. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are identical to ground nos. 1 & 2 for A.Y. 2005- 06 vide ITA No. 2459/Del/2011. Therefore, for the reasons given for the respective grounds in the said ITA, the Department’s appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result, the Departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the effect that they do not want to lead evidence on preliminary issue. The Apex Court concluded that in order to decide the preliminary issue of limitation, evidence is required to be led. So far as the present case is concerned, no such prusis is filed by the parties. It is settled position of law that parties are allowed to lead evidence in support of their contention, while deciding the preliminary issue. In these circumstances, ratio of the Apex Court decision cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. By the impugned order, the preliminary issue about maintainability of the suit is framed. No prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner inasmuch as this issue will have to be decided after granting an opportunity to both the sides. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1234 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ute, difference or misunderstanding between the parties or on account of delay or omission to make payments and the clause terminates with the phrase ‘in any other respect whatsoever’. 18. The rule of ejusdem generis guides us that where two or more words or phrases which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, a noscitur a sociis, they are to be understood to mean in their cognate sense and take colour from each other but only if there is a distinct genus or a category. Where this is lacking i.e. unless there is a category, the rule cannot apply. 19. Thus, the two clauses in the instant case compel us to hold that neither there is a conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra’s case (supra) and Jai Prakash Associates' case (supra) and that the law declared in Jai Prakash Associates' case (supra) governs the instant contract. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without there being any order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Order XXXVIII Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below, without looking into the schedule of properties to be attached in the event of failure by the revision petitioner to furnish security, erred in ordering attachment as the order of attachment will amount to closing down its business and that is not the object of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the order passed by the court below dated 30.11.2012 ordering attachment of the schedule of properties is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below and the court below is directed to give opportunity to the revision petitioner to file counter to the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, the court below is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1232 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hospital for further examination. Thus, Ext. P.5 cannot be looked into in isolation and must be examined in light of other ocular and documentary evidence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not even expected of PW1 or the Investigating officer PW11 to examine the victim particularly in relation to her private parts. Absence of such recording does not cause any infirmity to the case of the prosecution much less a reason for acquitting the accused. 42. In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record cumulatively and in its correct perspective by ignoring the material piece of evidence and improper appreciation of evidence. It has recorded findings which are on the face of it unsustainable. This error was rightly corrected by the High Court, and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the High Court. 43. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1231 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... cepted the claim of the assessee of genuine share capital invested by the three companies. Therefore, no assessment or reassessment proceedings for the block period were pending on the date of initiation of search and as such those assessments could not be treated to have abated. Since the issue is already considered in the regular assessment prior to the search on the basis of books of account and no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore, on the issue of share capital, no addition could be made against the assessee as per decision of Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra). Following the decision of Special Bench also, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. In the result, the departmental appeal in ITA No. 404/Agra/2012 fails and is dismissed. 14. In the result, all the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1230 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f Disallowance Amount Disallowed 1. General Exp. 1637728/- 10% 163777/- 2. Traveling & Conv. 719708/- 10% 71971/- 3. Site Exp. 1327131/- 10% 132713/- 4. Staff Welfare 85726/- 10000/- 5. Repair & Maint. 1018425/- 10% 101842/- Total 4,80,301/- 34. The CIT(A) has deleted both the additions after considering the A.O.’s remand report and assessee’s submission following the decision of I.T.A.T. in the case of Chandra Confectionary Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (2) MTC 1022 I.T.A.T. Lucknow Bench. 35. We find that the facts of the case under consideration are identical to the facts of the case in M/s. A.K. Construction Company, ITA No.149/A/2012, wherein after detailed discussions made in this order vide paragraph nos.12 to 26 confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Following the said discussions, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed in this case also i.e. ITA No.140/A/2012. 36. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1229 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request to the court that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. c. He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case. d. He shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear to that effect on an affidavit. If he has already surrendered the passport before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. e. This Court gives liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling this order, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , within two weeks from today. He further states that the respondents will not invoke the remaining bank guarantee and will return the same duly discharged, to the petitioners, upon the expiry or the validity thereof, without insisting for renewal thereof . 2. The above statements are accepted and it is so ordered. 3. The notice of motion is accordingly disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1227 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he case and bearing in mind the fact that the commercial area developed by the respondent is even less than 10% of the total area developed for housing, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1226 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... many cases where the High Courts, after recording the non-challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly state that the same being impermissible in law should not be taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the established principles of law. 22. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the appeal is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits in accordance with law. As the Appellants were on bail during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and are presently in custody, they shall be released on bail on the said terms subject to the final decision in the appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1225 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s reduced. First sec.80P has to be applied and thereafter alone the Assessing Officer has to look into the question of set off of brought forward business loss which could be set off against the current years business profit. Therefore, the current years business profit alone could be set off of against brought forward business losses. The assessee must be given deduction under sec.80P independently against the income from other sources. If the above correct method is followed, the amount available for set off gets reduced; the amount of losses to be carried forward for succeeding assessment years will be increased and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction under sec.80P. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the assessment as stated above. 9. The appeal filed by the assessee succeeds. 10. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Orders pronounced on Friday, the 14th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
........
|
