|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 1050 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Forgery Of documents - Cheating - Seeking grant of regular bail u/s 439 CrPC - Offence punishable u/s 409/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- In view of the facts, Petitioners are entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to allay the apprehension of the investigating agency. It is not necessary to canvass and go into the details of various other issues canvassed by learned counsel for the parties and the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions. I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. In the result, petitions are allowed, Petitioners be admitted to bail on their executing bail bonds with solvent sureties each in the sum of 10.00 lac to the satisfaction of trial Court, Bathinda, on the following conditions:-
a) The petitioners 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 him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the State Vigilance Bureau and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the trial Court, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.
e) I reserve liberty to the State Vigilance Bureau to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling this order, if for any reason, the petitioners violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1049 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of taxation, double deduction in regard to the same business out going is not intended unless clearly expressed. The present case is not one of this type, as rightly distinguished by the CIT(Appeals). 14. Having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion on the precise question that has arisen in the present appeal, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgment taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. In the circumstances, we decline to admit the present appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.” 4. We have heard both the sides. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find no merits in the ground of revenue’s appeal, therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 17th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1048 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s passed following a judgment of the Delhi High Court and on an earlier occasion, an appeal in an identical case was not entertained by this Court. He, therefore, does not press this appeal. The appeal is, as such, dismissed as not pressed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1047 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nder Section 147 of the Act rendered in the case of “Nath Associates” in the earlier paragraphs would apply mutatismutandis in these appeals also. 33. Thus, following the parity of reasoning in the case of “Nath Associates” (supra) in the earlier paragraphs in the present appeals also the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act are held to be invalid and the consequent assessments made are hereby quashed. 34. Resultantly, the appeals of the assessee in “Nath Associates” vide ITA Nos. 579 to 582/PN/2011 pertaining to the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2007-08 are hereby allowed as above. Since the assessments have been quashed, the Grounds raised by the assessee on merits of the claim under Section 80IB(10) of the Act are rendered academic and are not being adjudicated. 35. Resultantly, the captioned appeals relating to the two assessees are allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1046 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... - being reimbursement of interest under TUF scheme of the Ministry of Textiles Company and balance of Rs.3,09,802/- being the refund of interest excess charged by the bank. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case where the issue of computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act in relation to the interest received by the assessee was debatable, the rectification could not be resorted to under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. We find no merit in the orders of the authorities below and reversing the same we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80HHC of the Act at Rs.20,69,011/-. The order passed under section 154 of the Act is thus cancelled. In view of our order in canceling the order passed under section 154 of the Act, we are not addressing the issue on merits as raised vide ground No.1. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ter the normal work in the Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar is over. IA Nos. 72-73 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011 Issue notice. Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners (non- applicants) accept notice. List on May 08, 2013, immediately after the normal work in the Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar is over. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date. We are inclined to stay all further proceedings in Appeal Nos. 42/2013 (Subrata Roy Sahara v. SEBI), 48/2013 (SHICL v. SEBI), 49/2013 (SIRECL v. SEBI) and 50/2013 (Ashok Roy Chaudhary & Ors. v. SEBI) pending before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, and in Writ Petition No. 2088/2013 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, since we are examining the question, whether the respondents have complied with the various conditions stipulated in our judgment dated 31st August, 2012. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1044 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eipts from debtors which the Assessing Officer has totally ignored. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that assessee is a petty businessman and has created a cash book to substantiate that cash deposits in his Savings Bank Account was withdrawal from another bank account and also from receipts from debtors and opening cash in hand. We find that Ld CIT(A) has made a very reasoned findings of fact and we do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A). As regards violation of provisions of Rule 46A(3), we find that evidence submitted before Ld CIT(A) was not additional evidence as assessee was not maintaining books of accounts and he submitted only statements containing entries of bank deposits and withdrawals which was also available before Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as computation in both the cases has to be made in similar manner under the same provisions. The Tribunal therefore, held that short term capital loss arising from STT paid transactions can be set off against short term capital gain arising from non STT transactions. The case of the assessee is identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is, therefore, upheld”. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed”. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the facts being identical in the instant case with that of the cases cited before us, respectfully the following the decisions, as cited by the CIT(A) in the impugned order and referred to by the AR at the time of hearing, we sustain the order of CIT(A) as there is no infirmities in the impugned order. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1042 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid manner does not in any manner affect the liability of the company. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the resolution for reducing the share capital of the company as passed on 9.6.2012 is confirmed and the minutes thereof submitted in prescribed Form No.19 contained in annexure M to the petition are approved. The Registrar of Companies U.P. at Kanpur is directed to register the same on production before him of this order of confirmation of the reduction of the share capital of the company and the minutes so approved in the prescribed manner. The Registrar of Companies would proceed in accordance with Section 103 of the Act for the purpose. On registration of the reduction in share capital, the petitioner company would publish notice of registration in the same two newspapers Times of India (English), Delhi and Amar Ujala (Hindi) Delhi within 14 days of the registration of the order and minute as confirmed and approved by this court. Petition is allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1041 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... /- and 14,29,57,700/- and 1,14,230/- be deleted and the mark '/-' after the above figure be also deleted. "The figure 1,14,230/- appearing in the same paragraph be substituted by 1,04,230/-." In the paragraph 12, the figure appearing as 1,04,200/- be deleted and replaced by 1,04,230; and in paragraph 15, Form No. 19 be deleted and substituted by Form No. 31. Correction Application No. 166760 of 2013 is allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the revenue against the order dated 23.12.2011 in respect of ITA No. 1228/2010 also came to be dismissed. 3. Since the issue of the validity of the proceedings under Section 147 has attained finality in the sense that the said proceedings have been held to be invalid by this court, and the Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeals filed by the respondent/assessee in respect of the remand proceedings. The remand was only consequent upon the decision of the Tribunal in the earlier round to the effect that the proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act were valid. Now, those proceedings have been held to be invalid. Hence, the consequential remand proceedings would be of no consequence. As such no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. These appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1039 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction of civil court anywhere, the fact of the matter is civil court has overlapping jurisdiction in the matters wherein CLB has jurisdiction, the only thing to be tested is whether it is triable issue or an issue that could be decided on the material available on the record. The jurisdiction conferred upon CLB being limited to cases of transfer and transmission as held in between Morgan Ventures Ltd. v. Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. 2010 98 CLA 1 (Bom.) 2010 3 Comp LJ 33 (Bom.) by the High Court of Bombay, this issue of forfeiture cannot be decided by CLB. Since it is a triable issue to be decided by the civil court, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum on the same cause of action. 6. In the light of above discussion, at the request of the petitioner, these petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for the same cause of action. Accordingly, CP No. 7/111/12 and CP No. 8/111/12 are disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1038 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 54B - DR contended that the assessee is eligible for deduction if he has purchases the land for agricultural purpose within a period of two years after transfer of agricultural land - first objection raised by the ld. DR is concerned, the property was only transferred in December, 2008, therefore, the property purchased before that date is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 54B - HELD THAT:- This is only a hyper technical objection raised by the ld. DR, because, the assessee has received substantial amount from the purchaser before executing sale deed. So far as registration of the sale agreement is concerned, if both the parties proceeded to carry the execution of the sale as per the agreement whether it is registered agreement or not, there is no effect so far as transfer is concerned. Therefore, the case law relied on by the ld. DR is altogether on a different context and have no application to the fact of the present case. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
CIT(Appeals) directing the AO to give relief of 50% on the strength of fresh evidences produced - Production of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A - HELD THAT:- It amounts to violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which elucidates that before any additional evidence is accepted, the other party has to be given an opportunity of hearing. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that the matter requires re-examination by the AO. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1037 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rder being both erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue has to be satisfied. In the case on hand, as per the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed from 3.4.1 to 3.5.2 above, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT has failed to make out a cased that the order of assessment sought to be revised under section 263 of the Act is pre-judicial to revenue. In this view of the matter, we cancel the order under section 263 of the Act passed by the CIT. 5.1. As the issue under consideration is similar to that of the issue dealt by the earlier Bench (supra), wherein it has been observed that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act for the detailed reasons recorded therein, we are of the considered view that the same proposition is applicable hereto. In essence, the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, the assessees appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1036 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... claimed by the assessee as a part of exempt income. No doubt, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd & Ors (supra) has held that if an assessee had made a claim regarding no expenditure or some specific amount of expenditure, to have been incurred for the purpose of earning dividend income, then it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to give a finding whether the claim was correct or not. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 is dismissed whereas its appeal for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 09th of May, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1035 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the property after the expiry of the period of the Lease and the plaintiff succeeding in the suit, the tenant shall be liable to be evicted therefrom by orders in this suit only. 30. As aforesaid, the defendant no. 2 being the owner is entitled to rents of the other floors. As far as the rent of the first floor is concerned, taking a prima facie view of the matter it is felt that undertaking of the defendant no. 2 and its Directors to in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in establishing that it was in possession of the first floor and has been forcefully dispossessed therefrom, they will reimburse the rent so earned of the first floor to the plaintiff, would sub-serve the ends of justice. The said undertaking be also filed while seeking approval of the proposed Lease Deed. 31. Needless to state that all observations made hereinabove are on a prima facie view of the matter and will have no bearing over the final adjudication in the suit. The applications are disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1034 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... accepted by Mr. Sahni on behalf of the respondent. Renotify on 09.09.2013 when the main matter is fixed. In the meanwhile, the assessment proceedings may go on and the order may also be passed, however, the same would not be given effect to till further orders.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1033 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. When the assessee has proved the fact that the source of loan was out of bid amount received from the chit and earlier repayment made to the creditors and which were deposited in the bank account of the creditors, the assessee cannot further be asked to prove the source of chit subscriptions made by the creditors. The assessee certainly cannot be asked to prove the source of source. It is also a fact to take note of that no incriminating material was found during the survey operation conducted on the assessee and the chit company which could prove the fact that the assessee was making benami investments in chits. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the ground raised by the department. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions contained in the Code. As observed earlier, the magistrate need not order any investigation if he pre-supposes to take cognizance of the offence and once he takes cognizance of the offence, he has to follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of the Code. It is also settled position that any judicial magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. 19. As rightly observed by the High Court, the magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, we are of the view that the procedure adopted and the power exercised by the magistrate in this case is acceptable and in accordance with the scheme of the Code. We are also satisfied that the High Court rightly refused to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code. 20. In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, we find no merit in all these appeals, consequently, the same are dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1031 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ew that there exists no ground for levy of concealment penalty in this case. Hence, penalty order is cancelled.” 6. The above paragraphs of the CIT(A) are categorical in mentioning that the Tribunal deleted the additions on merits. In fact, the ground raised by the revenue also indicates that the assessee got relief in the quantum appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is reasonable be infer that the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on merits in quantum appeal. As such there is no dispute on the issue of deletion of the said addition, which is the subject matter of the penalty. Ex consequenti, the impugned penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not survive. Considering the above factual matrix of these penalties, in our opinion, the order of the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.05.2013.
........
|
