|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 870 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 877
... ...
... ... ..... ction 5(2) of the 1981 Amendment Act that no declaration Under Section 6 of the 1953 Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice Under Section 4(5) has been given before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act, it has to be held and we hold that preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980, which was followed by notice Under Section 4(5) before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act, has lapsed and does not survive since declaration Under Section 6 has been made much beyond the time limit prescribed in law. 33. Civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. It is declared that preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 has lapsed and the declaration made on 19.03.1987 is legally unsustainable. If possession of the subject land has been taken from the Appellants, the same shall be restored to them without any delay. No orders as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 876
... ...
... ... ..... hile deciding the issue of un-absorbed depreciation, AO has not considered the amended provisions of the Section 32(2) of the Act in right perspective. We are of the opinion that FAA has analysed the provisions with regard to un-absorbed depreciation at length and has arrived at a logical conclusion. During the assessment year under consideration, amended provisions (w.e.f. 01-04-1997) were applicable and AO was supposed to calculate the un-absorbed depreciation as required by the Act. In our opinion, there was no bar to allow the un-absorbed depreciation of the earlier years in the AY 2007- 08. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA, we decide Ground No.4 against the AO. As a result, appeals filed by the AO stand Partly Allowed. Appeals filed by the assessee for the AY 2003-04 stands partly allowed, whereas appeal filed for the AY 2007-08 stands dismissed and Appeal for the AY 2008-09 stands partly allowed. Order pronounced by e-Court at Mumbai on this 13th of March, 2013
-
2013 (3) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... d that in that year, we have deleted the interest disallowance on this basis that own funds are much more than the interest free advances given to the sister concern and no direct nexus was established by the A.O. between interest free advances and interest bearing borrowed funds. In the present year also, we find that interest free advances given by the assessee to sister concern was Rs.90,34,592/- whereas the own funds available with the assessee as per the balance sheet of the assessee company is to the extent of Rs.2091.47 lacs and hence, in this year also, no disallowance of interest is justified as per our decision for the assessment year 2007-08 as per para 2.2.3 above. This ground of the revenue is rejected. 5. In the result, this appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the combined result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (3) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... boy, the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 15. In the course of investigation and in pursuance of the information given by A-1, pant and shirt stained with blood of Ramesh were recovered from his house in the presence of PWs 21 and 23. The pant and shirt were seized and sealed in a packet marked as S-8. It is further seen that as per FSL report, Exh. P-86, the presence of blood on the pant and shirt are of human origin. 16. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established all the circumstances by cogent and acceptable evidence and if we consider all the circumstances it leads to a conclusion that it was the Appellants/Accused who kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased Kamlesh. We are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly accepted the prosecution case and awarded life sentence which was affirmed by the High Court. We fully concur with the said conclusion. Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... ady rejected by this Court. The learned arbitrator, therefore was right in rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 12 read with 13 of the Act. In my view, there is no substance in the allegation of the petitioner that the learned arbitrator was biased against the petitioner for the reasons alleged therein or otherwise. In my view, no bias can be imputed against the learned arbitrator if he has allowed the claim of the respondents on merits. As the petitioner has not made any submission on merits of the award and thus, those issues were not replied by the respondents. This Court thus, has not dealt with those issues. The petitioner did not make any other submissions apart from what is recorded in foregoing paragraphs of the petition. In my view, there is no merit in any of the submissions made by the petitioner and the petitions thus, deserve to be rejected. I, therefore pass the following order. Arbitration petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... lawful activities carried on by it. Learned HCGP has denied the allegations made in the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the respondents should not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner. At the same time, respondents should be permitted to take action according to law in case the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity. On identical facts, this Court in Shiva’s case (supra) has restrained the respondents from interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following order - a) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner-Association. b) It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to take any appropriate action according to law, if the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 871
... ...
... ... ..... r argued that the assessee company also have reserve and surplus at Rs. 2.51 crore. Therefore, no addition can be made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) and requested to confirm the addition. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The investment made by the appellant from A.Y. 96-97, during the year, no investigation from the borrowed fund had been made by the appellant. It is also found that other income does not include dividend income during the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. had not established any relation with interest bearing fund and utilized for non-taxable income earning. The Rule 8D is effective form A.Y. 08-09 but before applying the Rule 8D, other condition of Section 14A is to be fulfilled for disallowance under Rule 8D. Thus, we allow the assessee’s appeal. 6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 08.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 870
Forfeiture of right of the Corporation for appointment of an arbitrator - seeking an order of injunction against the Corporation from stopping the supply of Kerosene/LDO - whether the appointment of the arbitrator by Respondent No. 1 in the course of the proceedings u/s 11(6) is of any legal consequence and the Chief Justice of the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and appointed an arbitrator? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Corporation has failed to act as required under the procedure agreed upon by the parties in Clause 29 and despite the demand by the dealer to appoint the arbitrator, the Corporation did not make appointment until the application was made u/s 11(6). Thus, the Corporation has forfeited its right of appointment of an arbitrator. In this view of the matter, the Chief Justice ought to have exercised his jurisdiction u/s 11(6) in the matter for appointment of an arbitrator appropriately. The appointment of the arbitrator by the Corporation during the pendency of proceedings u/s 11(6) was of no consequence.
In the course of arguments before us, on behalf of the Appellant certain names of retired High Court Judges were indicated to the senior counsel for the Corporation for appointment as sole arbitrator but the Corporation did not agree to any of the names proposed by the Appellant. In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to send the matter back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate order on the application made by the dealer u/s 11(6).
Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Arbitration Case, Deep Trading Co. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for fresh consideration by the Chief Justice or the designate Judge, as the case may be, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above.
-
2013 (3) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... ed Section 40(A)(7)(a) of the and thereafter it has to be seen whether it satisfied Section 43B of the Act and proviso thereunder. In other words, a provision made for an approved Gratuity Fund is definitely allowable under Section 40(A)(7) of the Act. Nevertheless, one more condition which is to be satisfied is that actual payment has been effected either within the relevant previous year or within the due date for furnishing the return of income, as mentioned in proviso to Section 43B of the Act. In our opinion, these aspects have not been verified by any of the authorities below. We, therefore, set aside their orders on this issue, and remit it back to the file of Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Relevant ground taken by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 7th of March, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... rect the Assessing Officer to proceed on the basis of material recovered against the assessees for taking appropriate action in accordance with law if so advised. We may also clarify here that ld. representatives of both the parties were made aware of the decision in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal (supra) during the course of hearing to which they could not contribute much on this aspect. The ld. representatives of both the parties have also intimated that in the cases of the persons actually searched, proceedings are pending before the ld. CIT(A), Gwalior. We may clarify here that the ld. CIT(A) where further appeals are pending of other concerned parties, would not be influenced by this order of the Tribunal and he may proceed against connected parties in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, we dismiss all the departmental appeals. 9. In the result, all the departmental appeals of different assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (3) TMI 867
... ...
... ... ..... by Prasanna Kumar in compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was not an integral part of the election petition, and no such case was set up. It also seems quite clear that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. Therefore, the High Court was quite right in coming to the conclusion that the affidavit not being in the prescribed format of Form No. 25 and with a defective verification were curable defects and that an opportunity ought to be granted to Prasanna Kumar to cure the defects. 66. No submissions were made with regard to the striking out, in accordance with Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of specifically objectionable paragraphs in the election petition. In any event this is a matter for trial and we see no reason to take a view different from that taken by the High Court. Conclusion 67. There is no merit in these appeals and they are, accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 866
... ...
... ... ..... , this contention is rejected. 7. Regarding the 2nd contention, we find that this was held by the Mumbai bench of the tribunal in the case of Porwal Creative Vision (P) Ltd. (supra) that if the payment could not be made due to financial difficulty and since the payment has not been made, the TDS return could not be filed as the same required data relating to payment of TDS and hence, the penalty for not filing TDS return in time should be levied only from the date of payment of tax till the date of filing of TDS return. In the present case also, we order accordingly by respectfully following this tribunal decision and the A.O. is directed to work out the penalty only on this basis i.e. the default of delay should be worked out from the date of payment of tax till the date of filing of TDS return. We hold accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in terms indicated above. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (3) TMI 865
... ...
... ... ..... of the reasons given by the Sessions Court. Therefore, I respectfully concur with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions. 29) In the cases on hand, the petitioners have not pleaded any special circumstances or reasons for directly approaching this Court. I do not find any special or adequate reasons for the petitioners directly approaching this Court bye-passing the court of sessions. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners may approach the sessions court first and, if necessary, thereafter to approach this court. 30) In view of the above discussions, all the Criminal Petitions are disposed off. C.C. Nos. 6414/12, 6415/12, 6416/12 and 6417/12, pending before the IV-ACMM, Bangalore, are directed to be transferred to I- ACMM, Bangalore, for trial and disposal along with C.C. Nos. 10389/2010 and 6907/2012 pending therein. Petitioners may approach the Sessions Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking relief of anticipatory bail.
-
2013 (3) TMI 864
... ...
... ... ..... atter of M/s.Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Mills Co. Ltd. (Civil Application No.183 of 2012). The upset price of the land under auction shall be fixed at ₹ 55 Crores and earnest money deposit shall be fixed at 10% thereof. The Official Liquidator shall give public notice of the sale in the two daily Gujarati newspaper having wide circulation in the State of Gujarat and in the city of Mumbai as also in one English newspaper “Times of India” in the State of Gujarat and in the city of Mumbai. The schedule of program of sale shall be as under Sr.No .Description Date 1 Date of Advertisement 10/04/13 2 Date of issue of Tender Forms 15/04/13 3 Date of inspection of property 22/04/13 4 Last date of receipt of offer in the office of Official Liquidator 29/04/13 upto 4.30 P.M. 5 Opening of offers and auction / interse-bidding in the High Court of Gujarat 03/05/13 at 11.00 A.M. and onwards The matter shall be now listed on 3rd May 2013 for further action.
-
2013 (3) TMI 863
... ...
... ... ..... lenged the sale by the District Collector not once, but twice and was unsuccessful. The decision of this Court in W.P.No.4733 of 2003 and W.P.No.10026 of 2003 is a decision upholding of the sale of the Company's property inspite of objections by the company. The Official Liquidator after taking over all the assets, cannot re-agitate the matter which has attained finality on the writ side. 47 It may be pertinent to mention here, that one order was passed by this Court after the company was in liquidation. The sale by the District Collector therefore, cannot be said to be "void ab initio". The claims of the Vijaya bank and Canara bank also stood rejected by the competent authority. 48 The Official Liquidator, in view of the earlier decision of this Court, has no locus standi to maintain this application to challenge the auction which not only stands upheld by this Court, but sale proceeds have also been utilised to discharge the dues of the company in liquidation.
-
2013 (3) TMI 862
... ...
... ... ..... has not given any specific finding of fact as to which of the expenses are not properly vouched. In the absence of any details of inadmissible expenses and in the absence of any finding that the expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business, it appears that the AO has made adhoc additions by disallowing labour expenses and other expenses. The disallowance, thus, cannot be sustained. Considering the history of the assessee as noted above and the book results declared and further additions made on account of sundry creditors and that only adhoc additions have been made by disallowing expenses, we do not find any justification to sustain the orders of the authorities below in making or confirming the disallowance of expenses above. The orders of the authorities below are, therefore, set aside and the additions of ₹ 7,46,710/- & ₹ 50,000/- are accordingly deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (3) TMI 861
... ...
... ... ..... ith law. 22.6. The petition is preferred and the relief is prayed for on premature apprehension, and therefore, it does not require to be considered at this stage. 22.7. Therefore, the said third petition does not deserve to be entertained, and is consequently, rejected. In the result, for the foregoing discussion and reasons, the petitions are not accepted. The reliefs prayed for in the petitions do not deserve to be granted. Hence, the petitions are rejected. Orders accordingly. Rule discharged. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioners have prayed that the interim relief, which has remained in operation until now, may be continued for some more time so as to enable the petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings before the Apex Court. The request is not opposed by learned Advocate for the respondent and learned A.P.P. In view of the said request, it is directed that the interim relief, which has remained in operation until now, shall continue till 11-10-2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 860
... ...
... ... ..... clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (5) of section 80G were fulfilled. The assessee trust is not for the benefit of any particular religion, community or caste, as envisaged in clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 80G, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied approval as there cannot be any ground to hold that the assessee is not carrying on any charitable purposes so as to deny it registration under section 80G(5). Since in the instant case the conditions laid down in rule 11AA as also in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (5) of section 80G were complied with, the assessee was eligible for approval under section 80G(5)(vi). 17. In view of above discussion, the CIT is directed to grant registration under Section 12A/12AA of the Act w.e.f. 10.04.2012 and also grant approval under Section 80G of the Act w.e.f. 10.04.2012 within thirty days from the date of this order. 18. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (3) TMI 859
... ...
... ... ..... come chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No such reason is visible in the present case. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the Assessing Officer has made a review of the earlier assessment order and took a different view on the subject matter and on the strength of that review and change of opinion, proceeded to complete the income-escaping assessment. As rightly held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), this procedure is unknown to law. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561, an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a change of opinion, leading to a review of the order. We agree with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The impugned in come escaping assessment is bad in law. 17. In result, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. Orders pronounced on Monday, the 18th of March, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... r of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly observed that the assessee-company itself has apportioned interest and administrative expenses and depreciation on the basis of total expenses relatable to taxable activities and exempted 80-IB projects. If that apportionment is taken into consideration, the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has rightly pointed out that the interest should have been adopted at ₹ 16.25 crores as against ₹ 20.56 crores adopted by the Assessing Officer. This mistake has been made good by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by giving a relief of ₹ 19,30,683/-. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is a well speaking order, based on facts and figures available from the records of the case. Therefore, we find no ground for the Revenue to agitate this issue before us. This ground is also rejected. 18. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Orders pronounced on Monday, the 18th of March, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
