|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) within a period of six weeks in the Supreme Court Registry which will be deposited in a nationalized bank in a Fixed Deposit Account initially for a period of three months.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1213 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the first authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Muzaffarpur, the seized betel-nuts, being perishable, were sold on 24th August 2000 for a sum of Rs.1,23,415/-. In view of the order setting aside the order of confiscation, the said sum was refunded to the respondent-writ petitioner on 1st August 2005 after deducting certain costs. The learned single Judge has observed that since the goods worth Rs.3,50,000/- were seized from the writ petitioner, he is entitled to refund of the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Learned single Judge has accordingly directed the appellants to pay the amount of difference with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of confiscation till the date of payment. Therefore, this Appeal. Learned advocate Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar has appeared for the appellants. We have heard her extensively. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interim relief stands vacated. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 5. In the light of the above decision, the Court below is right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to send the disputed cheque in question for ascertaining the age of the ink or the variation in the ink in the subject matter of the cheque. 6. The Court below also found that if the cheque in question was issued long back, as contended by the petitioner/accused, the same can be proved by way of bank records and therefore also the comparision of the admitted signature and the alleged disputed signature are unnecessary. Such a reasoning assigned by the court below is valid and justified. Further, the petitioner has filed the instant application only after three years from the date of institution of the case by the respondent. In any view of the matter, in the light of the decision of this Court, mentioned supra, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Consequently, Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1211 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ip of another from a port in India upto a hub port abroad and from there transporting the goods further to their final destination upon a ship owned or chartered or otherwise controlled by it. We held that such cases fall within Article 9(1) of the India - U.K. DTAA. 11. The India - France DTAA being similar thereto, it follows that the respondent herein is also entitled to the benefit of Article 9(1) of the India - France DTAA. 12. Various other arguments including in respect of sections 44B, 115VB and 172 were also raised in that case and which have dealt with in our judgment. This case is therefore, clearly covered in favour of the respondent - assessee by our judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Balaji Shipping UK Limited in Income Tax Appeal No.3024 of 2009 and Income Tax appeal No.3215 of 2009. 13. The question of law is therefore, answered in the respondent's favour. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1210 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... 39;ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co., 83 ITR 187 (SC), the addition is not warranted. 36. In ground no. 2, the Revenue raised the issue that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by relying upon the transaction of the period beginning 01.04.2004 onwards. In this regard, objection of the Revenue cannot be sustained because the CIT(A) considered those details and transactions in support of discharge of burden of proving capacity of share applicants and cash credits. These documents were not furnished to support that in fact the money of share application and cash credits were out of those transaction. Further, the judgements relied upon by the Revenue does not help to the Revenue in the light of judgements of jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court as cited above. In the light of above discussion, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1209 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for which additions were made by the AO. In view of the foregoing, especially when the ld. CIT(A) have not passed a speaking order on various issues raised in the appeal before him, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the aforesaid issues, afresh in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while redeciding the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act. With these observations, ground no. 5 in the appeal is disposed of. As a corollary, ground nos. 1 to 4 in the appeal do not survive for our adjudication at this stage 8. No additional ground has been before us, accordingly this ground is dismissed. No other argument or submission was made before us. 9. In result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not amount to provision of services and are actually arrangement of expenses. As the assessee and other enterprises are claimed to have separate agreements about the arrangements of advertisement and sale promotion expenses, it will be desirable that this aspect is taken into consideration. In view of these facts, we set aside this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer fore decision afresh in accordance with law. 6. Apropos the issue of depreciation, by various rulings computer UPS has been held to be integral part of the computer system eligible for depreciation @ 60%. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 7. Apropos third ground, it is pleaded that the amount was reimbursed to Luxottica S.r.L Italy. There is no prescription of TDS on reimbursement of expenses incurred. In view of these facts, this ground of the assessee is also allowed. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 09-08-2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ness is fake". Ordinarily, E.L. Dorado theory of "absolute proof" being unattainable, the law accepts for it probability as a working substitute. 609. Hardly one come across a case, where Court does not resort to "certain probability" as working substitute for proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, in the case in hand, from the evidence, oral and documentary, reference of which have copiously been made in the Judgment by my noble and learned Brother Aftab Alam, J. make me believe that "absolute certainty" may not necessarily be a myth or fake in all cases and can be a reality. 610. The present case is an exception. Here, I am more than certain that the planning and conspiracy to commit the crime were hatched in Pakistan, the perpetrators of crime were Pakistani trained at different centres in that country, and the devastation which took place at various places in the city of Mumbai, were executed by the Appellant in furtherance thereof.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1206 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 26/- (c ) Add; Labour Charges 25,45,759/- (d) Add; other Expenses 51,309/- (e) Less; Closing stock of Material & W.I.P. 8,04,948/- Total works cost 90,30,339/- Therefore, the addition made by the AO is infructuous and requires to be deleted. 6.1 I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. Since the closing work in progress has already been taken into account in the total works cost as above, the addition made by the AO amounts to double addition and therefore deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 22. The learned D.R. for the Revenue has failed to controvert the above said finding of the CIT (Appeals) and in view thereof, we find no merit in ground No.4 raised by the Revenue. Thus the same is dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.582/Chd/20011 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.606/Chd/2011 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28 th day of August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and not of U.P. Trade Tax Act where there is clear and specific provision has been enacted/inserted in Explanation II (i) with regard to the word "turnover". In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the case in hand needs re-decision on this aspect of the matter i.e. the tribunal will return clear finding as to whether the prices which were separately mentioned in the contract A and B were actually paid by the railways. While hearing the matter on remand, the tribunal will allow the revisionist an opportunity of hearing and will also permit him to lead such evidence that are already there on record. The matter will be decided by the tribunal within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order being placed by the petitioner within 15 days. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is set aside. The revision is allowed as above. No costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1204 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is a case of denial. Though the accused deposed later as DW-1 and marked Exs.D1 to D4, the defence being not probable and inconsistent with the stand taken in Ex.P17, the presumption having not been rebutted, learned Magistrate is justified in recording the finding of guilt of the accused under S.138 of the Act. There is neither any perversity or illegality committed by the Courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence. The ingredients to punish the accused for the offence under S.138 of the Act has been made out. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted a month's time to deposit the fine amount. In case, fine amount is not deposited within the time allowed, the bail and surety bonds shall stand cancelled and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate to serve the custodial sentence. The amount in deposit in the Trial Court, if any, be released in favour of the complainant.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1203 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ;prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law.” We are of the opinion that above observation is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and accordingly we quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30.08.2012
-
2012 (8) TMI 1202 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s premise that Explanation 3(c) of Section 43B(d) is applicable, is erroneous. As we have already held earlier that as per the reading of loan agreement, the interest amount has very much accrued and the liability has crystallized. In this view of the matter, we hold that order of the authorities below is liable to be set aside and assessee's claim be allowed.” 5. The DR could not point out any distinguishable features in the above quoted order of the Tribunal and neither he could bring any material on record to show that the above order of the Tribunal was varied in appeal by any higher forum. We, therefore, respectfully following the above quoted order of the Tribunal, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 02nd of August, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1201 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ach should be adopted in such matters instead of a pedantic one. 35. The aforesaid decision came up for consideration before a Seven-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao (supra) and while approving the ratio, the Court in Paragraph 29 (1) & (2) observed as follows (1) The dictum in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 is correct and still holds the field. (2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions. 36. Hence, in my opinion, the trial cannot be terminated merely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons thereof. 37. My learned and noble brother has gone into the reasons for delay and I agree with him that the facts of the present case do not justify quashing of the prosecution.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1200 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hereto. 20. I do not find any ground for award of compensation twice to the amount of cheque as prayed by the complainant. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Revision No. 365/2012 filed on behalf of the accused-Tijauram, Anjor Singh and Rampreet is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentence of imprisonment i.e. till rising of the Court is hereby maintained, however, fine of ₹ 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for thirty days is hereby quashed. Compensation of ₹ 5 lacs awarded to the complainant jointly from the accused under Section 357(3) of the Code, in default of payment of compensation to undergo S.I. for six months is also affirmed. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, three months time for payment of compensation to the complainant is granted to the accused from today. Criminal Revision No. 503/2012 filed on behalf of the complainant-Satish Chandrakar is hereby dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1199 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... td. though the addition was partly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal and that part was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court also. Therefore, this decision is not strictly applicable because the addition was partly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). However, this decision is totally applicable on the observation that it would depend on the circumstances for recording the finding as we have already discussed the contents of the document above. In fact after discovery of the document during survey the Revenue should have either obtained further information or in any case should have conducted more enquiries to prove the contents of the document. Without such enquiry or any material on record, it is not possible to simply say that the figures mentioned are in terms of lakhs and lead to addition. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 29.08.2012
-
2012 (8) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... us of the matter we are of the view that the order passed by learned CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed. As rightly observed by learned CIT(A) TDR has a direct nexus with the development work and hence it is incidental to the entire project undertaken. Therefore the assessee was correct in reducing the sale proceeds from work-in-progress. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned CIT(A), appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that in the event of acceptance of the stand taken by learned CIT(A) there is no need to consider academic issues urged in the cross objection as well as by way of application u/r. 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. Accordingly cross objection is hereby dismissed and application filed under rule 27 is treated as infructuous. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.8.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1197 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... authorities below, we agree with ld A.R. that AO in the assessment year 2007-08 has also made similar addition of ₹ 35 lakhs on account of unaccounted sale on the basis of survey carried u/s.133A of the Act. Since, we have already upheld the order of ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 of confirming the net profit @ 4% of the unaccounted sale hereinabove, we, for the same reason, confirm the order of ld CIT(A) for A.Y.2007-08. Since assessee has not filed any appeal against order of ld CIT(A) that this net profit rate has been considered in respect of same unaccounted sale of the preceding year, we do not propose to consider the said submissions of ld A.R. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) and reject ground of appeal taken by revenue. 34. In the result, appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is allowed in part and whereas appeals filed by department for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08 are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 8th August, 2012
-
2012 (8) TMI 1196 - DELHIHIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mes to India. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Special Judge. The Special Judge shall now pass appropriate orders for bringing back the amount lying in account nos. 1400103368092, 44259816 in the name of the petitioner and 1400021000697 and 18009336 in the names of her company by the name of Ravina and Associates Pvt. Ltd. with Natwest Bank, 102, St. John’s Wood High Street, London, NW87D. While passing the orders to the aforesaid effect, the learned Special Judge shall also direct the money to be remitted to the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the Court of the Special Judge. Once the money is received, the Special Judge would then be at liberty to deal with that in anyway which it would think appropriate after taking into consideration the rival claims of the petitioner, CBI and the Income Tax Department. The entire exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1195 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r exemption, is not a statement as to law, to be noted as a precedent because that case was not one such. 3. Reverting to the case in hand, the Tribunal adverted to the entire materials and has categorically found that there is nothing on record to show that the capital gains was actually utilized for the construction of a new house. The copy of the approved plan dated 28.6.2000 from the Trivandrum Corporation placed before the Tribunal pertains only to roof changing (sunshade projection) and for construction/extension of/to the first floor. The sanction bears a condition to the effect that the house shall consist of a single residential unit. On the said set of facts and materials, we do not find any question of law arising for decision. The provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act have been appropriately applied. With these, we do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, these appeals fail. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
........
|
