|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 585 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 605 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... is no iota of any evidence over the above transaction as it were through d-mat format. Hence, we agree with the given findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in accepting the transactions as genuine toto. The ground raised by the department for the assessment year 2005-06 is dismissed. 8. The appeal of the revenue ITA No.1502/Kol/2008 A.Y 2005-06 is dismissed. ITA No.1496/Kol/09 A.Y 2006-07 by the department 9. Since the facts are identical to the facts mentioned in ITA No.1502/Kol/08, which have been disposed by us hereinabove. Hence, we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under given set of facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds raised by the department in ITA No.1496/Kol/09 AY 2006-07 are also dismissed. 10. In the result, both the departmental appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 are dismissed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 15-03-2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 604 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty. In view of this, I am not inclined to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, as it is not necessary in view of distinguishing facts and circumstances and the clauses so referred in both these judgments. 18. The Arbitration Act, 1996 has an international foundation for all the purposes. The time fixed for the Arbitration and/or schedule of time limit in such Arbitration proceedings, as it is recognized, there is no reason to not accept the same, basically in the present facts and circumstances where the parties themselves agreed to bind themselves by the time limit. Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, also recognize this mechanism. 19. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The mandate of Mr. J. Dinaker, or any other new Arbitrator nominated by the Respondents, pursuant to the Arbitration Clause contained in Tender Enquiry No. M/M/WL/60T/1999/167OR shall stand terminated. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 603 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , relies on new case law or advances new argument. In the present case, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and without hearing the respondent i.e. the assessee, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the AO. Thus, Revenue's appeal was decided statistically in favour of the assessee (sic-Revenue). Therefore, the matter was effectively decided against the assessee because the order of the CIT(A) which was in favour of the assessee was set aside by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent was required to be heard. 19. In view of the above, I answer the question referred to me in the affirmative and hold that it will be appropriate in law to recall the ex parte order of the Tribunal dt. 8th Oct., 2010 passed in ITA No. 1063/Del/2010. 20. The matter shall now be placed before the regular Bench for passing appropriate order.
-
2012 (3) TMI 602 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... very of the same. Therefore, the findings should be given again that the Petitioners' guarantors were the guarantors since the inception. The issue of jurisdiction and of limitation, therefore if goes to the root of the matter, then it follows the grant of interest on such awarded amount. The award is illegal and perverse and unsustainable. 20. The facts of insolvency proceedings and its effects on the parties and the litigation ought to have been discussed. 21. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering the scope and purpose of Arbitration Act and proceedings, and as observed above, the award so passed is without jurisdiction and illegal. The Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is entitled to interfere with the same. 22. Resultantly, the common award passed by the sole Arbitrator, in Arbitration Proceeding No. 206 of 2006, (Exhibit A), is quashed and set aside. Both these petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 601 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ) E.L.T. 112 (Tri. - Bang.). In detailed judgment, it was held that supplies to SEZ developers are to be equated with exports. The Board’s Circular issued vide F. No. 267/52/2008-CX.8 dated 7/1/2009, relied upon by the learned SDR was also considered by the Tribunal in the said decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (supra). As such, we are of the view that the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the above referred three judgments and nothing more is required to be addressed by either side. No contrary judgment has been brought to our notice. As such, we deem it fit to dispose of the appeal itself at this interim stage. 5. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we, after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 6. Stay petition as also appeal get dispose of in above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2012 (3) TMI 600 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... oncerned. 31. The victim like Smt. Asha Srivastava cannot be deprived of her statutory right to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge concerned against the judgment and order of acquittal just on the basis of technicalities like absence of the word "complaint or complainant" in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. This is just a technicality. Since the word "complaint" is not mentioned or included in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. the victim lady should not be compelled to seek the leave to appeal from the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly admitted the instant appeal by which the order of acquittal has been challenged by the victim lady after discussing the relevant aspects of the matter and citing the complete reasons. There is no error of law or jurisdiction committed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in the impugned order dated 9.2.2012. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 599 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... be confronted to the assessee and the assessee should be given opportunity to cross examine Mr. Soni with regard to his statement. So in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, including the Tribunal decision . Since we are restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer on a preliminary issue, we are refraining to make any comment on the issue at hand. In ITA No. 58/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2001-02, the facts are similar to those in A.Y. 200-01. So following the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue on facts and law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 0rder pronounced in the open on 29th March 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 598 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sidered the cash credit in the name of very same creditor, Shri Aboobaker, Poothayil amounting to ₹ 11 lakhs while dealing with the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 elsewhere in this order. The facts and circumstances stated to be the same. We have already found that the judgment of the apex court in the case of P Mohanakala is not applicable to the facts of the case as the assessee in the present case has discharged the onus of proving the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction and therefore deleted the addition. Therefore, consistent with the view taken for the assessment year 2006-07, especially when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs made as unexplained cash credit in the name of Aboobaker Poothayil. 45. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th the day of March, 2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 597 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... taking into consideration the past history and current events of the case. It is further seen that in immediately preceding year i.e. 2006-07 against disclosed GP rate of 24.78 the AO applied GP rate of 26.23 . The addition made by AO was deleted by ld. CIT (A) and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of ld. CIT (A) vide its order in ITA No. 457/JP/2009 dated 30.09.2009. The Tribunal has held that GP rate declared by assessee is quite reasonable. In the year under consideration, the GP rate has gone very high i.e. 35.36 against 24.78 , therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of past history. However, the fact remains that certain purchases remained unverifiable, therefore, we are of the view that if an addition of ₹ 1 lac is sustained which will take care of leakage of revenue, if any, that will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 7. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.3.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reditors Consent Given Transferor Company 02 All Nil N.A. 24 23 8. A prayer has been made for dispensation of the requirement of convening meetings of Shareholders of the Transferor Company. 9. In view of the written consents/NOC obtained, the requirement of convening meetings of Shareholders of the Transferor Company is dispensed with. 10. Since the Transferor Company does not have any Secured Creditors, the question of convening their meeting does not arise. 11. Learned counsel for Applicant Company submits that out of 24 Unsecured Creditors, 23 Unsecured Creditors constituting 95.83 in number and 99.64 in value of the total creditors have given their written consents/NOC to the Scheme. 12. In view of the aforesaid, as the requirement of Sub-section 2 of Section 391 of the Act is fulfilled, the requirement of convening meeting of the Unsecured Creditors of the Transferor Company is also dispensed with. 13. The Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Dasti.
-
2012 (3) TMI 595 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of EIH Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 503 Cal in relation to the assessment year 1998-99 by judgment and order dated 12th August, 2011. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue, does not dispute the said submission. We have gone through the points raised herein and we have also examined the judgment cited before us. We are of the view that the points raised in this appeal are identical with the abovementioned case. Accordingly, in view of the decision rendered earlier in relation to the assessment year 1998-99 by this Court, we do not think that any separate and different judgment shall be delivered and therefore, the instant appeal is disposed of following the aforesaid judgment. We allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (3) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
Respondent's suit for injunction against the true owner - Here, the respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellant is the owner of the suit property and has the title and possession of the same which was never challenged by the respondent. The appellant also submitted that apart from the title of the suit property, house tax records and wealth tax records indicate that she was and continued to be the owner of the suit property. She further submitted that the utility bills of electricity, water and telephone were of minimal amount which show that the respondent had never resided in the suit premises. Appellant filed this petition against the order of trial court and High Court.
HELD THAT:- Truth as guiding star in judicial process In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.
In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and we accordingly do so. Consequently, this Court directs that the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the appellant, who is admittedly the owner of the suit property.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the legal representatives of the respondent are granted three months time to vacate the suit premises. They are further directed that after the expiry of the three months period, the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over to the appellant. The usual undertaking to this effect be filed by the legal representatives of the respondent in this Court within two weeks.
-
2012 (3) TMI 593 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... livered to the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 4. That notice of the registration by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, of this order and of the said minute be published once each in ‘Business Standard’ and ‘Andhra Bhoomi’ (Hyderabad Editions) within 14 days of the registration as aforesaid. Dated this, the day of March, 2013 SCHEDULE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 AND IN THE MATTER OF BRILLIANT INDUSTRIES LIMITED COMPANY PETITION NO.91 OF 2012 “The authorized share capital of Brilliant Industries Limited, Hyderabad, is ₹ 3,50,00,000/- divided into 35,00,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each. Its paid up share capital shall henceforth be ₹ 1,85,66,000/- reduced from the paid up share capital of ₹ 2,65,00,000/-.” The company petitions are ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (3) TMI 592 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid factual backdrop, it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact from this Court and has not approached with clean hands. This kind of speculation and suppression of fact cannot be appreciated. The temple of justice cannot be permitted to be converted into asylum of frivolous and unscrupulous litigants. 6. In the light of aforesaid, I am not inclined to invoke the equity and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a litigant, who has indulged in speculative litigation and has not approached this Court with clean hands. At this stage, Shri Bansal intends to withdraw the petition. The said prayer is rejected. Interference is declined. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall pay ₹ 2000/- as costs to the Bank. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and petitioner is at liberty to prosecute the appeal pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
-
2012 (3) TMI 591 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... dence or any detail regarding the aforesaid expenditure which is debited in the account. There is no substance in the submission of the Ld. Counsel. Even if the Assessing Officer had not called for the evidence and the assessee was having any evidence for the said expenditure, the same could have been filed during the course of appellate proceedings. However, no such details filed therefore, the expenditure cannot be allowed against the interest income. The disallowance so made is accordingly sustained. The second ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed.” 11. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. Since the assessee has not furnished any details either before the lower authorities, or before us, we are in agreement with the views of CIT (A) and accordingly dismiss the Cross objection of the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal of the department as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 16 - 3 - 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 590 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... The assessee has paid interest to L & T Finance on the entire amount borrowed though only partial allotment of shares was made to the assessee. The borrowed funds were having direct nexus with the acquisition of shares. This fact is not disputed by the Assessing Officer. We therefore, hold that the interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for acquiring the shares on which the assessee paid the interest partakes the character of the cost of the shares. Accordingly, the interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for IPO application is part of acquisition and the same is to be allowed. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire interest paid by the assessee for acquisition of shares of Reliance Power Ltd., as the cost of acquisition while computing the Short Term Capital loss. The ground of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 16 - 3 - 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 589 - ITAT JAIPUR
Exemption under section 11 - Held that:- We find that assessee deserves to succeed in this ground. We have seem various assessment orders for earlier years, copies of which are placed on record and found that the respective assessing officers had allowed the net deficit to be carried forward in the respective assessment order. Therefore, there is no reason in not allowing the benefit of carry forward losses/deficit. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the benefit of quantified carry forward losses to the assessee against the income of the assessee.
For the year under consideration there was a positive income and, therefore, assessee has filed its return showing the income of the year, exemption under section 11 of the Act has also been claimed. If the carry forward losses are allowed to be set off then the income will become of negative figure and, therefore, exemption under section 11 cannot be allowed. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has fairly agreed that if the ground no. 8 is allowed in its favour then other grounds will become academic in nature. Since we have allowed this ground in favour of the assessee, therefore, all other grounds having become academic in nature and has become infructuous, they are dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 588 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the case reported in 2010(1) SCC 609 Gimik Piotr v. State of T.N) cited supra squarely applies to the facts of the present case as the detenu therein is also a Foreign National. 20. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no material placed before the detaining authority to show that "even though the passport had been impounded there is likelihood of the detenu indulging in smuggling activities in future". In the absence of such acceptable materials to come to the subjective satisfaction the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of detention passed by the first respondent in G.O.No. SR.1/706-6/2011 Public (SC) Department, dated 7.12.2011, against the detenu is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenu Shaik Rahamathullah S/o Shaik Hassan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required in connection with any other case.
-
2012 (3) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT
Offence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - we are not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 586 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... r-all development of the dairy in the State assessee has received grant for revival of the societies from the Apex Society i.e. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited at ₹ 22,91,920/- which has been offered for taxation by the assessee. The expenditure of ₹ 3 lacs or odd has been incurred for the same purpose i.e. for registering the members and the societies at village level so that regular supply of milk from these persons/societies can be maintained. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the AO and ld. CIT (A) were not justified in not allowing the claim of the assessee. On one hand assessee is taxing the grant received by assessee and on the other hand the expenditure incurred for the same purpose is not allowed, which is not justified. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we delete this addition also. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.3.2012.
............
|
