|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1481 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cts which engaged the attention of this Bench - where the order of the CLB dated 16.09.2013 in C.P.110(ND)13 was questioned, learned Single Judge, by the decision dated 30.09.2013 (in W.P. 6002/2013) deprecated an identical conduct by the very same petitioners. He also directed strict compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra) and Fakeerappa (supra). 11. It goes without saying that the petitioners may, in accordance with law, pursue their caveat application, or another application to intervene in the matter, before the CLB itself which is free to pass appropriate orders. Nothing stated in this order would be construed as an expression of the merits as to whether the petitioners had lodged the caveat, as they allege, and whether they had caveatable rights, which can be recognized and whether they can be heard in the matter in which they claim to be interested. The petition is, for the above reasons, dismissed along with pending applications.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1480 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... an asset is treated as application of funds for charitable purposes. In fact the question of application considered in the second segment is entirely different. In fact, there is no question of double benefit. An assessee is getting the benefit of application of funds for charitable purposes from the income computed according to normal accounting practices. Accordingly, it is to be seen that there is no clash between providing depreciation allowance and recognising the application of funds for charitable purposes. 13. In these circumstances, we find that the lower authorities have erred in deciding the issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute income of the assessee after providing for depreciation and from the resultant income, treat the money spent in acquisition of asset as application of funds. 14. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1479 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)
... ...
... ... ..... ni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kakumanu Pedasubhayya and another vrs. Kakumanu Akkammaa and another, reported in AIR 1958 SC 1042, specially paragraph 14 therein, to urge that a right of the minor is involved and the proposed amendment directly reflects upon the right of the minor. He, therefore, submits that the amendment needs to be allowed on that count. It is not in dispute that it was a joint written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5. The plea raised by way of amendment could have been raised when the written statement was filed. Apart from this, no such case is made out in the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence, under the garb of protecting rights of a minor, the circuitous way cannot be adopted, to get the amendment allowed at the instance of the defendants. In the result, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1478 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are disposed of with the following directions - (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought, to the extent it was sought, shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent; (iii) the information in terms of this order shall be provided within four weeks from today. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... de order dated 16.7.2012. The applicants filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and vide the impugned order the Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed the appeal which is filed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the application for rectification of mistake. 4. We find that the appeal against the adjudication order whereby the demand was confirmed was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dated 21.4.11 and the applicants had not challenged that order. Therefore, the application for rectification of mistake in the adjudication order which is merged with the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) does not survive. Further we find that the applicants seek review of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, which is already upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), by filing rectification of mistake application which is not sustainable. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. 5. Stay application is also dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ers from this Court within three weeks from today. b) Till the respondent furnishes bank guarantee of the amount as directed, all the assets which are hypothecated in favour of the petitioner by the respondent shall be continued to be charged in favour of the petitioner. Respondent shall not create any further encumbrances in respect of the immovable properties of the respondent and other assets including the shares and current assets. c) Respondent is restrained from finalizing and/or implementing in any manner Corporate Debt Restructuring Scheme in terms of prayer clause (k) of the petition. (d) In the event of the respondent furnishing bank guarantee as directed, liberty is granted to the respondent to apply for modification of this order. In case of the respondent failing to comply with the direction aforesaid, petitioner would be at liberty to apply for further interim measures. (e) Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1475 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ven a stock exchange from taking huge positions without adequate collateral which may generate very high profit or loss. In fact, non-collection of margins at the client level by a Broker and/or its non-reporting, attracts heavy fines and penalties, as is stipulated by SEBI’s circular dated August 10, 2011. No circular authorizes the use by a broker of funds and/or securities of clients to cover margin requirements of other clients. Such action is, in fact, prohibited. In fact, under Regulation 26(xiii) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, a broker using securities of funds of a client for his own purpose or for the purpose of any other clients is liable for a monetary penalty. Therefore, the contention of the appellants in this regard that margin is their prerogative is misconceived and hence rejected. 29. In view of the above discussion of law and fact, the appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r to calculate the dues of the applicants and similarly situated workmen by taking 5 September 2005 as the date of severance of the services and recalculate the dues accordingly. The decision of the Official Liquidator to consider 13 February 2002 as the relevant date is set aside. The component of the dues will be as per the decisions of Engineering Workers Association7 and Jubilee Mills1, however the Official Liquidator will recalculate the dues by taking 5 September 2005 as the date of severance of the services. The Official Liquidator will move the Provident fund Commissioner expeditiously, in any case not later than six weeks from today. If necessary he will file a report for that purpose within three weeks. The Official Liquidator will permit the Badli workers to place the factual position as regards completion of stipulated number of days and thereafter consider their submission based on legal provisions. 93. The Company application is disposed off as above. No costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1473 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on of description of goods and value thereof. Inextricable link of the courier with the import cannot be ruled out when courier is intimately connected from the stage of packing of goods till delivery and obliged under law to know the contents thereof as well as various implication of the contents under Indian law. No doubt the appellant has faced huge penalty of ₹ 20 lakhs but there does not mean that courier is absolved of its duty and not responsible under law for the mis-declartion surfaced considering the quantum of levy to be disproportionate being excessive when penalty on the importer was very less for the reason best known to the Adjudicating Authority, it is considered proper to restrict the penalty to ₹ 5 lakhs instead of ₹ 20 lakhs, to bring the litigation to an end prescribed as a preventive measure against recurrence thereof. Accordingly, appeal is allowed partly and to the extent indicated above. . (Dictated and Pronounced in the open court )
-
2013 (10) TMI 1472 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Justification of transfer order of case u/s 127 - Centralization of case - exercise of discretion of the authority - scope of the reasons for transfer of case - arbitrary and/or perverse and/or malafide - agreement between CIT Mumbai and CIT Delhi - requirement of co-ordinated Investigation - CIT rejected the objections of the assessee - HELD THAT:- There is no reason as to how the transfer of the petitioners' case from Mumbai to Delhi was required for co-ordinated investigation and assessment, yet it does give reasons for co-ordinated investigation i.e. the petitioners are a part of the Sahara Group of the Companies and the petitioners had substantial transactions and investments in other entities of the Sahara Group particularly-Sahara Adventures Sports (Pvt.) Ltd. which is assessed in Delhi with DCIT, Central Circle-6 to whom the petitioners case is transferred.
Another view is that there is no evidence of any agreement between Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi, and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai that the petitioners case should be transferred from Mumbai to New Delhi. These proceedings for transfer of the petitioners case was initiated on report instituted by communication dated 30 August 2011 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi seeking to centralization of the petitioners' case at Delhi. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 7 March 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai has transferred the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. Thus, there is an agreement between the Commissioners of Income Tax, New Delhi and Mumbai as required in terms of section 127(2)(a) of the Act was available. Therefore, this objection was not sustainable.
The decision of SAHARA HOSPITALITY LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 AND OTHERS [2013 (10) TMI 289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was followed.
In view of all the above reasons, Court did not find any reason to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1471 - SUPREME COURT
Misuse of power - Police officers - "At best acts of omission towards official duty" - Unwarranted search - Invading the privacy of the complainant - Insult and Humiliation - Forcible medical examination - Undressing and dragging to police station - unsubstantiated by any lawful justification - "Test of direct and reasonable connection between the official duty of the accused & acts allegedly committed by them" - HELD THAT:- The alleged acts of the respondent cannot, therefore, be said to in discharge of his official duties or in the purported discharge of such duties. Public functionaries cannot under the cloak of purported discharge of official duties resort to harassment and humiliation of the citizens on the pretext of a complaint having been received by them, especially when the same does not disclose the commission of any offence triable by the Executive Magistrate or cognizable by the police; nor was there any other proceeding in connection with which such conduct could be justified in law. The plea of the respondent that the prosecution was barred under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has, therefore, to be rejected.
The decision in this case GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING VERSUS CBI & ANR. [2012 (5) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1470 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... core a march. 75. That leaves me with one last question. As per the report of the Official Liquidator, he has funds to the tune of ₹ 1,27,00,000/- by way of investments and ₹ 3,29,441/- in the bank. This is as on 1.1.2013. If the company petition for winding up is rejected, this money has to be transferred by the Official Liquidator to the company, after deducting all the expenses incurred by the Office of the Official Liquidator. Once the money is returned by the Official Liquidator, it may be open to the creditors to proceed against the company and the money so returned. 76. In view of the above, the application of the IDBI Bank is allowed and the Official Liquidator, appointed as the Provisional Liquidator is discharged. The main company petition is dismissed and the Official Liquidator is directed to return to the company, the amount now lying with him, after deducting all the administrative expenses so far incurred by him. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1469 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... eedings for assessment year 1998-99 is not ultimately upheld. Therefore, following the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund (supra) issuance of notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act in the present case, reopening the assessment for assessment year 1998-99 suffers from a jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, we set-aside the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act dated 30.05.2005. As a consequence the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 17 r.w.s. 16(3) of the W.T. Act is liable to be quashed. We hold so. 19. As the assessment itself has been quashed, the issue raised by the assessee with regard to the merits of the addition as well as the cross-appeal of the Revenue is rendered infructuous. 20. In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above, that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1468 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... order it emerges that no inquiry whatsoever was carried out by the assessing officer. There is no reference to any issuance of summons u/s 131 or notice u/s 133(6). In the absence of any inquiry or any adverse report based thereof, the plethora evidence furnished by the assessee cannot be brushed aside in a summary manner. The case law cited by the ld. DR in the case of Nova Promoters (supra) is quite distinguishable from the facts of the assessee’s case as full fledged further enquiry was conducted in that case. In our considered view, the ratio of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgments in the cases of Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra) Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are fully applicable to facts of assessee’s case. In the absence of any inquiry or cross verification made by the assessing officer, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 31-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1467 - SUPREME COURT
100% EOU - Review of earlier order - Non-issuance of SCN - Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem -fundamental right under article 14 - HELD THAT:- no order could be passed against a person without issuing a show cause notice to him/it. Thus, the order passed by the Development Commissioner is in contravention to the principles of natural justice., therefore cannot be sustained.
Matter restored back.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1466 - SUPREME COURT
Revision petition - Challenged the compulsory retirement - Mercy petition - Departmental inquiry - disciplinary proceedings -
HELD THAT:- Once, we find that the revision or second representation to the higher authority was made within prescribed period (in fact within few days of the rejection of representation by the IGP) and such a representation to the higher authority was permissible, it cannot be said in this case that the order of the DGP, Haryana was without jurisdiction i.e. on a representation “which was not permissible” in law. Once, we find this to be the factual position, we are constrained to hold that three years thereafter, the case could not be re-opened and order dated 25.2003 could be interdicted by the successor.
As a result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Result would be to allow the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court and quash the orders dated 25.10.2006 passed by the DGP, Haryana.
Since, we have allowed C.A. No. 396 of 2008, the effect thereof is that adverse remarks for the period in question no longer remain in the service record of the appellant and for this period his rating now is “good” to which he was upgraded vide orders dated 2.5.2003. In so far as award of “warning” is concerned, leaned Counsel for the State could not dispute that “warning” is not a punishment prescribed under the Rules. It was not given to him after holding any inquiry. Therefore, such a warning recorded administratively in a service record cannot be the sole basis of compulsory retirement.
The appellant's writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court vide orders dated 26.12.2011. We, thus allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. As a consequence, the appellant shall be reinstated in service in the same position on which he was working as on the date of compulsorily retirement with consequential benefits in case he has not already attained the age of superannuation. However, if he has already attained the age of superannuation, he shall be treated as deemed to be in service throughout as if no compulsory retirement orders were passed and will be given consequential benefits including pay for the intervening period and pensionary benefits on that basis.
Mercy petition - In the scheme of things, as provided, it is clear that Rule 16.28 is different from Rule 16.32. While Rule 16.28 deals with Review, Rule 16.32 deals with Revision which is permissible under certain specified circumstances, after the appeal is rejected. It is this provision in Rule 16.32 which talks of Revision on certain grounds namely (a) material irregularity in the proceedings or (b) on provision of fresh evidence.
In the present case, we also find that the mercy petition was not filed within one month. Further, it was not filed on the ground of material irregularity in the proceedings or by producing any fresh evidence. On the contrary, as pointed out above, the DGP while allowing the mercy petition specifically recorded that there was no irregularity in the conduct of departmental proceedings. In spite thereof, he cancelled the order of penalty without giving any cogent reasons. Such a order was palpably illegal and was rightly set right departmentally. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Thus, we are of the view that the order allowing the mercy petition without reason was clearly untenable and was rightly recalled. We thus, do not find any merit in this appeal either which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1465 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch that the goods cannot be supplied by the appellant/defendant no.1 concern, it takes help from its sister concerns to make up the deficiency and in this way the goods are supplied. 30. In my view, the said explanation does not meet the argument of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The sole witness of the appellants/defendants in the same breath had also admitted that the debit notes on the basis of which the payments admittedly due to the respondent/plaintiff were sought to be avoided had no concern with the transactions between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant no.1. It was for the appellants/defendants to plead and prove the constitution of the other concerns and an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff of adjustments of dues of one concern against the dues of the other. Neither any such plea has been taken nor any such evidence led. 31. No other argument has been raised. 32. There is thus no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1464 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of the Appellate Authority, felt that the Appellate Authority has struck down the addition or increase, while the Appellate Authority did not do so. There is a manifest error, therefore, on the face of the order of the Tribunal. We hold and declare that the appellate order made it clear that the Appellate Authority is remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer pertaining to the addition/increase of the total income to the extent mentioned above and, thus, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Appellate Authority struck down the said addition or increase is an erroneous finding. The order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of determination, whether, in view of the provisions contained in Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Authority had the power of remanding the matter for reassessment of the increase/addition, as was appealed against the order of the Assessing Officer?
-
2013 (10) TMI 1463 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has not made any new investment during the year under consideration therefore, for ascertaining the fact whether the assessee has utilised the borrowed fund in making the investment a proper inquiry has to be conducted. The A.O has not examined this issue by considering the fact that no investment was made during the year yielding the dividend income. Therefore, as regards the disallowance of interest attributable to the exempt income u/s 14A this issue requires a proper inquiry and verification of the facts. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to decide the same after considering, verifying and examining of the necessary facts. 13. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed and assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th day of October 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1462 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the part of the Commission to impose penalty on the Board. However, we may hasten to add that under the 2003 Act constitution of the State Commission is governed by Section 82. Section 86 deals with the function of the State Commission. On a reading of Section 86 we find that at present no notification is required to be issued to confer any power on the State Commission. It is conferred and controlled by the statute. If anything else is required to be done in praesenti, the Commission is at liberty to proceed under the provisions of the 2003 Act. Be it clarified, our grant of liberty may not be understood to have said that the Commission can take any action arising out of its earlier order dated 29.10.2001 or any subsequent orders passed thereon. We have said so, for the Commission and a statutory Board can really work to achieve the objects and purposes of the 2003 Act. 35. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
............
|
