|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 955 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 14A - Held that:- We note that one of the ingredient to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is not satisfied viz. prejudice to the revenue. As pointed out by the Tribunal the respondent is being assessed to tax on book profits under Section 115JB of the Act and even if the dis-allowance is higher than that allowed by Assessing officer under Section 14A of the Act would not have any effect on the book profits on which the tax is payable. Thus the entire exercise is academic.
-
2013 (1) TMI 954 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nquiry as to the individual liability of the Directors vis- -vis the allegations made in the complaint. Needless to state here that after holding the inquiry as indicated above the learned Magistrate will have to decide as to whether process can be issued and if yes, against which of the accused. Hence, I pass the following order. i) The order passed by learned Magistrate on 16th January, 2012 in Summary Criminal Case No. 16047 of 2010 issuing process against the petitioners is quashed and set aside. ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to hold a brief inquiry as indicated herein above and to decide as to whether a process can be issued. If the learned Magistrate decides to issue process, he shall simultaneously decide as to whether process could be issued against all the petitioners. iii) The petition stands disposed of accordingly. iv) Stay stands vacated. v) The complainant shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 16th January, 2013. Certified copy expedited.
-
2013 (1) TMI 953 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come from undisclosed sources and not as business income. The Tribunal having already held that the income of the assessee was to be taxed as business income and not as income from undisclosed sources, deleted the addition in relation to interest expenditure. However, before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer had pointed out that interest amounting to ₹ 42,87,359/had not been paid to the Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank and as such was not allowable under section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 42,87,359/since the assessee had not paid the amount and deleted addition to the extent of ₹ 1,69,12,024/. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in relation to proposed question no.2 are merely by way of necessary corollary to the conclusion arrived at in relation to proposed question no.1 and as such do not give rise to a question of law as proposed or otherwise. In the result, present Tax Appeal is also dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 952 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observed that in case there is a default of even one single installment, the respondent would be at liberty to take appropriate action under the contempt law and in such an eventuality the provisional liquidator should also be appointed. We notice that interests of the appellant have also been protected by observing that the order passed by the Court would not be communicated or used in the Media or Press by either party or uploaded on the net. We do not think there is any need for this Court to interfere with the impugned order as it is based upon the settlement arrived at between the parties. In case the appellant requires any clarification or modification for any reason including the said term/condition was not agreed or accepted, they can approach the Company Court for the said clarification/modification. Keeping in view the nature of the order, we are not inclined to issue notice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of. Dasti.
-
2013 (1) TMI 951 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt under section 11(6) of the Act. 18. Under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate can appoint arbitrator only if the party fails to appoint arbitrator in accordance with the agreed procedure under section 11((2) of the Act. In view of the agreement arrived at under clause 21 of the agreement, the respondent has exercised its right by appointing substitute arbitrator, in my view the proceedings under section 11(4) would not be maintainable. The proceedings under section 11(6) can be filed only if the parties fail to act as required under the agreed procedure and not otherwise. The respondents have already appointed Justice A.D. Mane (retired) as substitute arbitrator. In my view, unless there is vacancy, the application filed under section 11(6) of Arbitration Act, 1996 is not maintainable. I am therefore, of the view that the present application is not maintainable and the same is therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 950 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee-firm has paid the ESI amounts before the due date for filing the return of income. Accordingly, he submitted that the entire amount is allowable. However, he could not furnish the details of the dates of payment of ESI contributions. The instant issue has since been settled by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. ( 213 CTR 268) and CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) and also by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Sharma (297 ITR 320). In view of the above said decisions, this issue needs fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the decisions referred supra. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 11-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 949 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... gh his counsel and he was required to look after the appeal. However, the counsel could not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed for hearing nor he communicated such date of hearing to assessee. It is submitted that he was under bonafide belief that the matter will be properly attended by his counsel. In view of this, it is prayed to recall the exparte order dt.12.3.2012 and the appeal be fixed for hearing on merits. Assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. 4. We have considered the contents of miscellaneous application and submissions of ld D.R. Considering the facts of the case, we are satisfied that non-appearance of assessee on the date of hearing was due to a reasonable cause. We, in the interest of justice, recall the order of Tribunal dated 12.3.2012 and direct the Registry to fix the appeal in due course before 'D' Bench. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 11th January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 948 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that operation of this judgment is restricted to the AO and it does not, in any way, affect the powers of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to examine and allow assessee's claim about the eligible amount of double taxation credit as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Ground No.5 is against giving credit of only ₹ 1,79,44,144/- as against claim of ₹ 1,96,04,867/- without assigning any reason and without providing any opportunity to the assessee. On this issue again we direct the AO to examine this aspect of allowing of short credit of the tax as per law and decide it afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. The last ground about the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C is consequential. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 947 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh. 14. In my view, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self contained code and as the said Act does not provide any remedy of review, it is manifest that review could not be made. In my view, remedy of review is substantive remedy and would not be maintainable unless the statute/rules permits. If, the right of review is not provided and is allowed to be exercised, any order if passed would be ultra-virus and without jurisdiction. In my view, the present proceedings filed by the petitioner are totally without jurisdiction. I, therefore, pas the following order - (a) Review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (b) No order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 946 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e in suits being CS(OS) No. 1185/2006 and CS(OS) No. 1996/2009 as well as a Division Bench in appeals arising out of the said orders has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction as prayed for. Consequently, plaintiff s application being I.A. 8586/2008 is dismissed. CS(OS) 1392/2008 However, as this Court is informed that the Division Bench s judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is granted liberty to file a fresh application in the event the Supreme Court decides in favour of the plaintiff. I.A. No. 9068/2008 filed by the defendants is dismissed as infructuous. I.A. 12102/2011 IN CS(OS) 1392/2008 Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, present application has become infructuous. Accordingly, present application is dismissed as infructuous. CS(OS) 1392/2008 and CC 56/2009 List before Court on 25th April, 2013 for consideration of pending application, if any.
-
2013 (1) TMI 945 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... esorting to reassessment proceedings. The law is well settled that validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings have to be judged on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO and it is not possible to substitute, delete or add anything to such reasons recorded by the AO. It is also not possible to draw any inference based on the reasons not recorded. In the light of the law as laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO in the present case is not in accordance with the law. The order of reassessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled. 15. In view of the decision on the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits do not require any consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 944 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... panies Act, 1956 made by the company. The company does not wish to press the applications at this stage and seeks to withdraw them with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate time. CA No.760 of 2012 and CA No. 782 of 2012 are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate stage. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 943 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in a complaint case, an appeal from an order of acquittal of the Magistrate would lie to the Sessions Court under Section 378(1) (a) of the Code or to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code - Held that:- As already noted Clause 37 of the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India and Clause 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994 which state that in order to guard against the arbitrary exercise of power and to reduce reckless acquittals Section 378 was sought to be amended to provide appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence. Thus, this step is taken by the legislature to check arbitrary and reckless acquittals. It appears that being conscious of rise in unmerited acquittals, in case of certain acquittals, the legislature has enabled the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Sessions Court, thereby avoiding the tedious and time consuming procedure of approaching the State with a proposal, getting it sanctioned and then filing an appeal.
It is true that the State has an overall control over the law and order and public order of the area under its jurisdiction. Till Section 378 was amended by Act 25 of 2005 the State could prefer appeals against all acquittal orders. But the major amendment made in Section 378 by Act 25 of 2005 cannot be ignored. It has a purpose. It does not throw the concern of security of the community to the winds. In fact, it makes filing of appeals against certain types of acquittal orders described in Section 378(1)(a) easier, less cumbersome and less time consuming. The judgments cited by Mr. Malhotra pertain to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and Section 378 prior to its amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and will, therefore, have no relevance to the present case.
We conclude that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court. In the instant case the complaint alleging offences punishable under Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the Rules is filed by complainant Shri Jaiswal, Local Health Authority through Delhi Administration. The appellant was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The complainant can challenge the order of acquittal by filing an application for special leave to appeal in the Delhi High Court and not in the Sessions Court. Therefore, the impugned order holding that this case is not governed by Section 378(4) of the Code is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ?RD?). Notice is accepted on behalf of the OL by Mr. Rajiv Bahl and on behalf of RD by Mr. K.S. Pradhan. Their respective reports/affidavits be filed within three weeks. 3. Publication of citation be effected in ?Business Standard? (English) edition and ?Veer Arjun? (Hindi) edition within three weeks prior to the next date. 4. List on 11th April 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 941 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is made under his/her supervision or his authorized representative. 14. The Quorum for the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the Transferee company is fixed as follows Company Unsecured Creditors Transferee Company Number 30 10 15. It is also directed that if the Quorum is not present in this meeting, then the meeting would be adjourned for 30 minutes and thereafter, the persons present in the meeting, who shall be not less than two, would per treated as proper Quorum. 16. Voting by proxies is permitted provided that the proxy in the prescribed form and duly signed by the person entitled to attend and vote in the said meeting or by his authorized representative, is filed with the Transferee company at its registered office, not later than 48 hours before the said meeting. 17. The Chairperson/the Alternate Chairperson shall file their reports within seven days of the conclusion of the respective meeting. 18. The application is allowed in the above terms. 19. Order dasti.
-
2013 (1) TMI 940 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s also, in our view, wrong for the High Court to hold that the respondents were not the makers of the documents or that the filing of a civil suit based on the same would not constitute an offence. Whether or not the respondents had forged the documents and if so what offence was committed by the respondents was a matter for investigation which could not be prejudged or quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the result this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the High Court is set aside and Criminal O.P. No.15917 of 2010 filed by the respondents dismissed. We make it clear that neither the investigating agency nor the Court before whom the matter may eventually come up for trial and hearing upon conclusion of the investigation shall be influenced by any observation made by this Court regarding the merit of the case.
-
2013 (1) TMI 939 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o law" refers to the order as a whole, and is not to be equated to errors of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall order, which must be according to law, which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. Hence, mere breach of, or non-conformity with, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act or similar other procedural laws, will not be a ground for interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court. The revisional powers are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. As a general rule where substantial justice has been done by order of the lower Court, the revisional Court will not interfere with it notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the order are not correct or the order is improper or irregular. The writ petitions will now go back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and deciding them in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.
-
2013 (1) TMI 938 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... were from the other High courts and ITAT. At no stage of hearing, the CIT (A) confronted the assessee or his counsel with these judgments or gave an opportunity to explain its case in terms of the judgments. The ld. AR pleads that this appeal may be restored to the file of the CIT (A) and the CIT (A) may be directed to give an opportunity to assessee to explain his case with reference to these judgments. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR was also not having any serious objection of restoring the issues to the file of the CIT (A). 5. After hearing both the sides on the issue, we find it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction that CIT (A) shall make available the copy of unreported judgments of the other High Courts and ITAT and then decide the issues afresh. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 10th day of January, 2013 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2013 (1) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ers of M/s.Xelo Pty. Limited (supra) and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (supra), question (a) as proposed cannot be entertained. 3. So far as question (b) is concerned, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the Tribunal have reached a finding of fact that the respondent-assessee was maintaining regular books of account and had even submitted the same to the assessing officer for verification, who also verified the same. Consequently, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the Tribunal held that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the respondent-assessee without explaining as to why the accounts are suspect. Consequently, no occasion to apply Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 to estimate the income can arise. Thus, this being a finding of fact and the same is not shown to be perverse by the Revenue, question (b) as proposed cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 935 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Vandana Properties Income Tax Appeal No.3633 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.4361 of 2010 decided on 28th March, 2012 in favour of the respondent-assessee. 3. However, it is the grievance of the revenue that the observation in the impugned order and approval of the layout plan is different from the approval of the building plan and while granting the benefit under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 what has to be considered is the sanction of the building plan and not the layout plan needs consideration. Since the question raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vandapa Properties (supra), we dispose of the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid decision. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the deduction under Section 80IB based on the aproval of the layout plan / building plan and leave it tobe decided in an appropriate case. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
............
|
