|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1299 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1282 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion order itself so that the organization is in a position to know what were the reasons which impelled the Government to suspend its registration and in case the organization feels that certificate has been suspended for the reasons which are not envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 13 or are not otherwise cogent, objective and transparent, it can challenge such suspension by way of appropriate proceedings. Such reasons cannot be given, by way of extraneous evidence at a later stage. In the absence of reasons, it would not be possible for the organization to challenge the suspension. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 30.04.2013 is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way of respondent initiating a fresh action in terms of the provisions of the Act in the light of this order. The respondent is directed to release the account of the petitioner forthwith. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1281 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) noticed that while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08, the said amount was part of total assessed income. The CIT(A) found the contention of the assessee to be correct and he therefore directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the amount of ₹ 62,19,510/- which was assessed in assessment year 2007-08, out of the total credit written-back in the current assessment year. 11. In the above background, the plea of the Revenue is on the same basis, as we have considered in the assessment year 2008-09 in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, following the parity of reasoning taken for assessment year 2008-09 on a similar issue in this year also, we find no substantive merit in the appeal of the Revenue. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2059/PN/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is also dismissed 13. Resultantly, both the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1280 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... direct transfer of property to evade tax and the capital gain. Therefore, there was distribution of assets which enables the partners of the erstwhile partners of the firm to withdraw the value of the landed property at any point of time from the accounts of the company. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Alto Inter-Chem Industries (supra) is not applicable since the conditions laid down in section 47(xiii) of the Act are not complied with. The partners of the firm made an attempt to transfer the property by treating the value of the land as loan in the company. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority; the same is confirmed. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... darambal, without receiving any consideration. The respondent/plaintiff had demanded money, based on the suit promissory note, based on the made over. The demand made by the respondent/plaintiff was also not disputed by the appellant. That would be the normal conduct of any prudent person. In this case, admittedly, the appellant is not an illiterate woman but a teacher, hence, the self-contradictory evidence adduced by her and the Trustworthy evidence of the plaintiff witnesses would show that the respondent/plaintiff has proved the claim, as held by the Courts below. On the aforesaid circumstances, the substantial questions of law No. 2 is answered against the appellant/defendant and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, holding that the respondent/plaintiff has got valid made over from late Sundarambal for valuable consideration and became holder in due course of the promissory note and also entitled to the suit claim and hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1278 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... , although it is seen that Saumal Bhavnagri has been punished in this instant case. (xvi) Similarly, learned AO while passing orders, in para 2, role of Galaxy Broking Ltd. and Grishma Securities (P) Ltd. has been brought without mentioning, whether their role is context to their own proprietary trades or on behalf of their clients, and is with lot of difficulty it can be inferred that they were dealing with their clients and it is clients role that is being investigated. Learned AO is advised to be more careful in clarifying issues, entities, their role in proceedings, the charges, their acts, etc. for clarification and easy appreciation of facts and evidence. 26. Hence, in totality of circumstances and in interest of justice and equity, it is held that no case of violation of SEBI Act, PFUTP Regulations 2003 and of Sub-brokers Regulations or Code of Conduct prescribed for Sub-brokers exists and accordingly appeal is allowed, impugned order quashed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oncerned Town Vending Committee. (xvi) The provisions of the 2009 Policy and the directions contained hereinabove shall apply to all the municipal areas in the country. 17. The aforesaid directions shall remain operative till an appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature and is brought into force. 18. The parties, whose applications have remained pending before this Court, shall be free to institute appropriate proceedings in the jurisdictional High Court. If so advised, the aggrieved person shall be free to file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. All the appeals and I. As are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 20. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, Administrators of the Union Territories and Registrar Generals/Registrars (Judicial) of all the High Courts, who shall place the order before the Chief Justice for consideration and necessary directions.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... secondly as far as prayer (b) of the petition for clarification is concerned, it is made clear that inasmuch as the applicant is being prosecuted for the offences under the MCOC Act, 1999, as well as The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, such offences are triable only by Special Court, and therefore application for bail in such matters will have to be made before the Special Court under the NIA Act, 2008, and shall not lie before the High Court either under Section 439 or under Section 482 of the Code. The application for bail filed by the applicant in the present case is not maintainable before the High Court. (c) Thus, where the NIA Act applies, the original application for bail shall lie only before the Special Court, and appeal against the orders therein shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court. 22. The Criminal Misc. Petitions are therefore dismissed. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts forthwith.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1275 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... that for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Act the two conditions must be satisfied by the CIT i.e. (i) the order should be erroneous and (ii) it should also be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the assessment orders for both the years cannot be said to be erroneous merely because the CIT has not ITA Nos. 1709 & 1710/PN/2011, M/s. Mundra Steel & Alloy, Pune agreed with the view taken by the Assessing Officer on the Survey report of the DDIT (Inv.) and that itself would not give any jurisdiction to him u/s. 263 to set aside the assessment orders. We, therefore, hold that the assessment orders for both the assessment years passed by the Assessing Officer are not erroneous and hence, the power exercised by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act is bad in law. We, accordingly, quash the orders passed by the CIT for the A.Y₹ 2007-08 and 2008-09. 17. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 20-09-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1274 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... o Calicut through individual carriers. This fact is unexplained by the assessee. In view of this unsatisfactory explanation offered by the assessee to bring ₹ 30 lakhs from Bangalore to Calicut through three different individuals, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly disbelieved the statement made by five persons, who claim themselves that they have advanced money for purchase of jewelleries. As rightly submitted by the ld.DR, there is no occasion for a middleman to borrow money from assessee’s own brother and loan the same to the assessee for making investment in the gold jewellery. This kind of explanation clearly shows that the assessee is suppressing the material fact. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 05th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lier, the company-in-liquidation purchases this property in February 1996 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 7,72,000/-. But the company sells it to the applicant in February 1999 (exactly after 3 years), for a total sale consideration of ₹ 5,53,260/-. But even this payment is purported to have been adjusted towards the discharge of the mortgage loan. Therefore, the transaction does not pass even the test laid down by the Supreme Court in NGEF Limited. 37. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, this application is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the Official Liquidator is permitted to take back possession of the property from the applicant. Since the applicant was handed over possession only by this Court, in pursuance of an earlier order passed in their favour, the applicant is duty bound to re-deliver possession to the Official Liquidator. 38. The application is dismissed with the above directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1272 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tendering evidence or with respect to the date of the incident. In view of the mandatory presumption of law Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code/113B of the Evidence Act, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the death occurred within seven years of marriage. Section 304B of Indian Penal Code permits presumption of law only in a given set of facts and not presumption of fact. Fact is to be proved and then only, law will presume. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to establish the crucial fact on the death occurring within seven years of marriage. 11. Hence, we set aside the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The conviction Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is confirmed. However, taking note of the late evening age of the Appellant, the substantive sentence is limited to the period undergone by him during the investigation/trial. 12. The appeal is allowed as above.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1271 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking for regular bail - Committed offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Indulging in conspiracy to mobilize bribe money u/s-120B IPC - Rot of moral depravity is ravaging the very fabric of the nation - Persons of high positions & authority indulged in Corruption - Intending to secure plum post - Working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification - Influential persons can tamper with evidence, influence the witnesses - mere ipse dixit - HELD THAT:- It is required to maintain an even handed approach while exercising its judicial discretion where the accused have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused approaches the Court for relief against deprivation of their personal liberty.
the charge is that of a conspiracy of working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post in exchange of pecuniary advantage that was agreed to be extended to another person so that official favours extended by one person to another. The maximum punishment for the said offence is imprisonment that may extend to five years.
The persons holding high positions/status in the society acts as a safeguard and guarantee for them that they would stand their trial and not attempt to flee from the process of law. At the end of the day, the guiding factor for enlarging an accused on bail is to secure his presence to take the judgment and serve the sentence if indicted by the court. The vocation, family background, antecedents and social circumstances of the petitioners are not found to be unfavourable and they show that the petitioners have roots in the society and thus will never evade the legal process or fail to turn up during the trial.
The evidences gathered by the investigating agency are telephonic conversation, i.e., electronic evidence and recovery of cash, apart from other circumstantial evidence, thus Court stated that the likelihood of the persons attempting to erase the evidence appears to be quite remote. In the present case, not only is the investigation complete, the charge-sheet has also been filed and the recordings of the telephonic conversation that are in the custody of the prosecution will be properly analyzed.
Deciding the Bail Applications - HELD THAT:- The Court must not overlook while deciding the bail applications is the likelihood of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court has often taken a view that when there is delay in the trial, bail should ordinarily be granted to the accused but on case to case basis.
The decision in the case of DIPAK SHUBHASH CHANDRA MEHTA VERSUS CBI. [2013 (6) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] and BABBA ALIAS SHANKAR RAGHUMAN ROHIDA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. [2005 (4) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Resultantly, the persons were enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs each, with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The persons shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any authority.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or make any attempt to thwart the trial of the case.
(iii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports.
(iv) The petitioners shall remain present before the trial court on the dates fixed before it unless they have been exempted by the Special Judge, CBI with prior permission.
If any of the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail, then the CBI shall be at liberty to approach the Court for seeking cancellation of the bail order. The petitions were disposed of.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1270 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... deemed or converted into equity shares. The respondent-company has not cared to look into such claims of the applicants and instead, had pursued litigation to stall the process of redeeming the eligible debentures as per the claim of the applicants. 9. As regards the parallel proceedings resorted to by the applicants, the same cannot be denied unless any legal infirmity is brought on record while pursuing such proceedings which can debar such applicants to lodge the application before CLB under section 117C of the Act craving for relief as envisaged in the said section. To sum up, the applications filed by the applicants under section 117C of the Act are considered to be maintainable and accordingly, the respondent-company is hereby directed to redeem the debentures covered by these applications by payment of the principal amount and interest due thereon as per the terms and conditions of issue of such debentures within six months of issue of such order. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1269 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Officer with a direction that enquiry should be carried out with the 8 parties referred to so as to confirm whether they have received the extra amount reflected by the assessee and also whether such extra amounts are towards purchase of land as reflected in the books of the assessee. 12. The CIT has directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after conducting necessary enquiries. We are of the opinion that the CIT is justified, since the Order of the Assessing Officer does not mention any details and the order of assessment does not show any application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the CIT is right in exercising his power of revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act and directing the Assessing Officer to examine certain aspects thoroughly and decide afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... entitled to 50% thereof with effect from 15th March, 1991 till such date as the petitioner would have retired from service. He shall be entitled to the full amount of pension due and admissible to him from the date on which he would have retired. (iv) The respondents shall effect computation of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner in terms of the above within six weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. (v) The payment of the amount in terms of the above judgment shall be made to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks thereafter. (vi) The petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount of ₹ 10,000/- deposited on 5th of September, 1991 which was deposited by him in compliance of the orders dated 15th March, 1991 and 27th August, 1991. (vii) The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of litigation which is are quantified at ₹ 25,000/- which shall be paid within six weeks. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1267 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f 18% per annum will not debar the plaintiff from filing a suit under Order 37 of the Code…………” That case, therefore, does not create any distinction between Order XXXVII CPC suits based on cheques or based on written contracts, neither does the text of Order XXXVII CPC give any credence to such a distinction, given that both a written contract or a cheque, are only the source of the liability, which, in both cases, is liquidated and established as between the parties. 17. For the reasons indicated above, this Court finds that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as there is no infirmity with the Order of the learned Single Judge and the leave to defend was correctly denied. The judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge is consequently not liable to be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court fees shall be paid within two weeks. C.M. No. 15156/2013 is accordingly disposed off in the above terms.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1266 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heque had been issued, is not contemplated under Section 138. If on a reading of Section 139, this position is made even more certain that the presumption is already in favour of the holder of the cheque and the same having been issued in discharge of a legal liability. Therefore, the primary argument of the learned counsel for the respondent and the finding of the court below proceeding on that assumption, is not tenable form the appreciation of the evidence that was tendered. Therefore, the findings of the court below cannot be sustained. The decisions referred to are misinterpreted in arriving at the conclusions. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. An offence punishable under Section 138 stands established. The respondent is convicted to pay a fine of ₹ 90,000/-, of which ₹ 85,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the appellant, within four weeks. In default, the respondent shall suffer simple imprisonment of two months.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1265 - SUPREME COURT
Imposing condition for depositing huge amount in fixed deposit for grant of anticipatory bail - Inability of the petitioner to comply with the condition - Within or outside the purview of Section 438 of the CrPC - Anticipatory bail u/s-438 CrPC - Nature and gravity of accusation - Onerous and unreasonable - HELD THAT:- While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is under obligation to maintain balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of Police investigation. While granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation but no condition can be imposed which gives reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.
Thus, fixed deposit of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- for a period of six months in the name of the complainant and to keep the FDR with the investigating officer as a condition for granting anticipatory bail is evidently onerous and unreasonable. Therefore, it was suggested that power to impose a condition of this nature is totally excluded, even in cases of cheating, electricity pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams etc.
The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition whatsoever. Any condition- interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Thus, Court held that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.
In the cas of Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi [2002 (1) TMI 1326 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that, "the imposition of condition to deposit the sum of ₹ 15 lacks in the form of FDR in the Trial Court is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside the said condition as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant.”
In the result, the direction relating to deposit of FDR in the name of the complainant was set aside.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1264 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal will be heard on the questions of law as formulated in paragraph-V of the Memorandum of appeal on 23.09.2013.” 3. Today, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and they fairly state that we need not record reasons for the order that we propose to pass, and they have agreed for the following order a. The order dated 11.1.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, (for short the ‘Tribunal’) Bangalore, in ITA No.1416/Bang/2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh on all the issues except the issue of validity/question of re-opening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 1996-97. b. It is open to the assessee as well as the appellants to raise all contentions as may be available in law before the Tribunal. c. All contentions of the parties on all other issues, as aforementioned, are kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1263 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... advancing amounts to other trusts. Further, the amounts advanced have never been returned though a long period of more than 15 years have elapsed from the first date of it being granted and has also not been returned till date and therefore it can be said to have gone out of the trust. In these facts of the case, we hold that the amount advanced by the Assessee trust to the 3 other trusts as loan, was in fact a diversion of corpus fund of the Assessee to the other trusts and was not in the nature of loans or advance. The diversion of corpus fund is a clear violation of the specific direction of the donors and also the applicable laws of the land. We further find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of DIT(E) and thus the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 - 09 - 2013.
........
|
