|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1561
Trade Union Registration obtained by fraud or mistake - Minimum Number of Workers required for Registration - Powers of Registrar to Cancel Registration - The petitioner received a certificate of registration under Trade Union Regulations, 1927.Soon thereafter, 88 workers of the 4th respondent submitted individual letters informing the 3rd respondent that they were not the members of the Union, their I.D. Cards and other documents were obtained without their knowledge and were used for the purpose of registration of the Trade Union. The 4th respondent submitted representations to the Management that they had no knowledge of the registration of the Union by the so called office bearers, which needed urgent enquiry to ascertain the real facts; and a proper enquiry should be made regarding membership of the petitioner Union, and their registration cancelled.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner's Certificate of Registration was cancelled, is set aside. Sec.9A of the Act relates to the minimum requirement of membership of a Trade Union and, thereunder, a registered Trade Union of workmen shall at all times continue to have not less than ten per cent, or one hundred of the workmen. Sec.10 of the Act relates to cancellation of registration and, thereunder, a certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar. As the petitioner Union was neither put on notice nor were they informed of the proposal to cancel their registration under Sect.10(b) of the Act, the requirement of affording the petitioner Union a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as stipulated under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act, cannot be said to have been complied with.
Sec.4(1) of the Act obligated the Registrar to ascertain whether the Petitioner-Union had the minimum required strength of 10% of the workmen, or 100 workers, in the establishment of the 4th respondent on the date of its registration. He ought to have verified whether the 88 workmen, who submitted a representation to him, were never the member of the Petitioner Union, and registration of the Union was obtained by fraud; or they had disassociated themselves from the petitioner Union between the date of the submission of the application and the date of registration of the Union.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1560
... ...
... ... ..... oceed on or find the petitioners to be wilful defaulters. WP No. 865 of 2013 is allowed by setting aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee reflected in the notice of May 27, 2013 and by setting aside the decision of the screening committee of the bank as reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on January 8, 2013, limited to the case of the petitioners. However, the bank is left free to start the process afresh in accordance with law by adhering strictly to the procedure as laid down in clause 3 of the RBI Master Circular. Since the bank had been put on notice at the initial stage and before affidavits were called for, that costs would follow if the bank could not sustain its decision on the basis of the procedure as recognised in the Master Circular, the bank will pay costs assessed at 300 GM to the petitioners. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1559
... ...
... ... ..... to be rejected by this Court is the contention. 4. In the light of the fact that even as per the communications produced along with the application in IA.No.1/2013 since the petitioner-company has not shown their bonafides by making any payments, the question of this Court extending the time to the petitioner to pay the amount would not arise. However, taking note of the exchange of correspondences between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 had indicated that the settlement could be possible in the terms as indicated therein, it would be open for the petitioner to make substantial payments out of the said amount to respondent No.2 and thereafter request respondent No.2 for time to pay the balance amount and in such event it is for the respondent No.2 to consider such representation as per procedure. With the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the main petition, the application in IA.No.1/2013 also stands disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1558
... ...
... ... ..... The present writ petition will be treated as a representation and will be dealt with by the authorities concerned within three weeks from today. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1557
... ...
... ... ..... the plaint makes it clear that the same is vexatious and meritless. The plaint and the accompanying documents clearly show that in the period from 1993 to 1996 plaintiff had full knowledge about the flat in question having been taken over by defendant No. 2 and having been sold to defendant No. 3. She has chosen not to take any step at that stage but has woken up almost 15-16 years later to file the present suit claiming declaration, possession and injunction. The plaint stresses on the communications received from DDA in 2009 to 2010, trying to camouflage the real issues i.e. documents allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2 and by DDA in favour of defendant No. 4. There is clearly merit in the application of defendant No. 4. The application is allowed. CS(OS) 509/2011 In view of the above orders passed in IA No. 5642/2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the suit is dismissed as barred by limitation. All other pending applications also stand disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1556
... ...
... ... ..... olved in the criminal cases relied on by the detaining authority, does not in any manner invalidate the order of detention issued against the detenu in this case. 18. Insofar as the contention that the offences are not grave enough to initiate proceedings under the Act is concerned, we must first of all say that Section 2(j) of the Act defines 'goonda' and it includes 'depredator of environment'. The expression 'depredator of environment' is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and the offences, which are charged against the detenu, are squarely covered by this definition. The depredation of environment is a penal offence and is certainly grave one and therefore, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that the offences are not grave enough justifying an order of preventive detention. In the result, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1555
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee and fixed the hearing on 20.03.2013. It is the obligation of the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT or file reply to the notice. The assessee neither appeared before the ld. CIT nor filed any reply. Moreover, the assessment order could not speak about whether the assessee HUF’s father was assessed to tax or not. Therefore, in our opinion and to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT to consider the issue afresh by considering the explanation of the assessee in accordance with law after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to file explanation before the ld. CIT. The ld. CIT may also consider the decision in the case of Addl.CIT v. Durgamma (supra) while deciding the issue afresh. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th of October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1554
... ...
... ... ..... ed to in Ext.P30 in respect of the actual deployment of the concerned officers effected during the relevant period. The plea of excess payment shall also be considered and the liability, if any, shall be refixed as above, after hearing the petitioner and the proceedings shall be finalised, at the earliest, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any liability is found as subsisting, to be satisfied by the petitioner, it shall be cleared within 'two weeks' from the date of demand and similarly, if any excess payment is there, it shall be set off against future payments to be effected by the petitioner. The application for renewal of licence shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within 'one month' thereafter, subject to satisfaction of the liability, if any, by the petitioner. 'Status quo' as on today will continue till such time. Both the writ petitions are disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1553
... ...
... ... ..... used in the business activity of exporting Software Development/Software Application Management Services as per Section 20(2) of the Act and Rule 130-A(1) of KVAT Rules, 2005. (3) The impugned orders of the FAA are set aside. (4) The reassessment orders of the AA are set aside and the matter is remitted for limited purpose to AA to quantify the amount of refund to be accorded to the appellant-unit as per Rule 130-A(3) of KVAT Rules, 2005. (5) The appellant is directed to adduce the statement of purchases for the claim of refund before the AA as envisaged under Rule 130-A(3) of KVAT Rules. (6) Keep the original judgment in STA No. 624 of 2012 and copies of the same in STA Nos. 625 to 654 of 2012. (7) The Registrar of the Tribunal is directed to comply Regulation 53(b) of Chapter IX of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979 by communicating this order to the persons mentioned therein. (8) The Office is directed to send back the lower authorities records within 15 days.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1552
... ...
... ... ..... he very same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court suggests that it is more in favour of the assessee in the present case because when the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two view are possible and the AO has taken one view, which the CIT does not agree the order of the AO, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order or prejudicial to the interest of revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Considering this ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the light of the facts of the present case, we find that the view taken by the AO is not only of possible view but also permissible in law. Therefore, the order of the CIT under Section 263 deserves to be set aside and we accordingly set aside the order of the CIT and restore that of the AO. 10. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1551
... ...
... ... ..... udgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., (supra) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Ashok Logani (supra). We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the aforesaid judgments do not apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is a non-speaking and cryptic. No valid reason has been given as to in what manner, the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and what is the basis or material for forming such an opinion. The CIT has leveled general allegations which is not permissible under the provisions of the Act for initiating revision proceedings u/s.263. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1550
... ...
... ... ..... t the same ground was taken by the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 and the Tribunal adjudicating this ground had restored the matter back to the file of AO. Both the parties therefore agreed that the matter requires to be sent back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in the light of procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts Ltd vs ITO 259 ITR 90 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Garden Finance Ltd vs. CIT 268 ITR 48 and MGM Export vs. DCIT 23 DTR 356(Guj). This additional ground is accordingly disposed off 4. In view of our decision in respect of additional ground, the other grounds raised in the appeals of assessee and revenue do not require any adjudication on our part at this stage and are therefore treated as infructuous. 5. In the result, both these appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (10) TMI 1549
... ...
... ... ..... al have not been accepted by the Department and matters are being taken in appeals before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. 6. But in addition to the decisions of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to, in paragraph above. There is no decision of Jurisdictional High Court against the propositions argued by the Revenue. When that is the case, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192, the decisions favourable to the assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Courts have to be acted upon. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is justified in accepting the contentions advanced by the assessee. 7. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 7th of October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1548
... ...
... ... ..... 396 (2008-TIOL-404-ITAT-MUM), Jethalal D. MehtaVs Dy. CIT 2 SOT 422 (Mum) and Maheshwar Prakash 2 c. h. s. Vs ITO 20 DTR 269 (Mum). Therefore following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in assessing the transfer of FSI/TDR under the head capital gain instead of assessing the same under the head “income from other sources”. However, as there is no cost of acquisition of the asset transferred, there will be no liability to capital gains. ” Respectfully following the above order as well as the other order of the coordinating bench, we decide effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 3 is about chargability of interest u/s. 234 of the Act. As the issue of charging of interest u/s. 234 is consequential in nature so, the ground filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1547
... ...
... ... ..... ide. In the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant in his reply before the High Court was actuated by reasons that are not bona fide. 12. It has also been noticed by us that the writ petition in which the interim order dated 18.08.2011 came to be passed has been finally terminated by an order dated 30.10.2012 dismissing the writ petition and also that the said order has attained finality in law. This is another relevant circumstance that cannot be ignored though we should not be understood to be saying that all cases of dismissal of the writ petition, by itself, would absolve a contemnor of the charge of commission of contempt in respect of an interim order passed while the writ petition had remained pending. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside the said order dated 23.07.2012 and allow the appeal.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1546
... ...
... ... ..... s set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of AO for the limited purpose to recalculate disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, if any, in accordance with the above observations and as per provisions of IT Act.-CIT vs. Tingri Tea Co. Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 294 (Cal) relied on.” 15.1. The ld.Sr.DR could not controvert the finding of the Hon’ble coordinate Bench and nothing has been brought on record suggesting that the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Torrent Financiers(supra) is not applicable. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble coordinate Bench, we hereby set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the AO is directed to delete the addition. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee in its cross-objection is allowed. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed, whereas crossobjection filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (10) TMI 1545
... ...
... ... ..... ential order only after disposal of the SLP (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court. 3. It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In view of the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4. We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP arising from the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In other words, till then, the Assessing Officer shall keep the matter pending for passing the consequential orders. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected. 5. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1544
... ...
... ... ..... ction created in this section cannot be extended to any asset other than those specifically provided therein. As sec. 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land. As the assessee transferred lease right for sixty years in the Plot and not land itself, the provisions of sec.50C cannot be invoked. We, therefore, hold that the full value of consideration in the instant case be taken as ₹ 2.50 crores.” 5. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any new fact or proposition of law which may justify departure there from the above settled legal position on the issue by the coordinate bench of the tribunal on this issue. So respectfully following the same, it is held that section 50C can not be invoked in the case of assessee being the case of transfer of lease hold rights. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1543
... ...
... ... ..... essment proceedings under this Act, if satisfied can proceed to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c). So, there is clear distinction between the two provisions because u/s 271AAA, it is the A.O. who could invoke such provision whereas under the provisions of Section 271(1), any of the three authorities including Commissioner (Appeals) could invoke the said provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the action of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be justified so far as provisions relatable to Section 271AAA is concerned. 3.3 As such, penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) and converted it by Ld. CIT(A) into section 271AAA even on reduced amount cannot be held to be proper or legally justified at all. As such, while accepting the appeal of the assessee, we vacate the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) and to the extent reduced by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 271AAA of the Act. 4. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. Order pronounced in Open Court on 11th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1542
... ...
... ... ..... g Term Capital Gain and that the Assessee was entitled to the consequential benefits of Sec.54F of the Act. The Department however held it to be income chargeable to tax under the head “salaries” and consequently denied benefit of Sec.54F of the Act. In our view, in the given facts and circumstances, the bona fides of the Assessee cannot be doubted. The Assessee should be entitled to the benefit of Expln.1 to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in as much as facts material to the computation of the total income under the Act have been disclosed by the Assessee. The Assessee has offered an explanation which is bona fide. The Assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the claim for deduction made by him and material to the computation of his total income. 50. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Revenue. 51. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2013.
........
|
