|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 654 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tionality under Art.14 of the Constitution and the later development of law as indicated by this Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. (Supra). In the circumstances we permit the appellants/petitioners herein to withdraw the civil appeals and special leave petitions with liberty to file a proper writ petition, if so advised. We make it clear that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition originally filed by the petitioners. Subject to above, civil appeals and special leave petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs. We make it clear that if a proper writ petition is filed giving requisite data to the satisfaction of the High Court then any observation made in the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the appellants/petitioners. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open. Subject to what is stated above, civil appeals/special leave petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 671 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it necessary to deal with Mr. Dwarkadas's submission that while determining which law is to be applied to determine a question as to whether a contract was ever entered into, the Private International law of India and not of the United Kingdom or the other Courts would have to be applied as whatever be the governing law of the contract, admittedly entered into, conflict of law is not a part of governing law. The submission is no doubt of considerable importance but considering the view that I have taken, I do not find it necessary to deal with it or with the judgments cited by him this regard. 104. In the circumstances, Notice of Motion No. 3472 of 2006 is dismissed and prayer (b) of Notice of Motion No. 1343 of 2007 is rejected. Prayer (a) of this Notice of Motion does not survive in view of the dismissal of Notice of Motion No. 3472 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. 105. The ad interim order dated 18th October, 2006 shall continue up to 21st January, 2008.
-
2007 (11) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for that year provide some material for rationalization. It is to be noted that stress is on re-imbursement. Thus the measure is fixed and, therefore, year of operation is immaterial. It needs no reiteration that claim was for 11th and 12th years and the award also covered from 12th to 16th year. It is also to be noted that the HLWG referred to certain anomalies. But they related to the previous years. The "Bench Mark" is the figure of SCI of particular year. So when entry to business was made is irrelevant. 28. There is no proposition that the courts could be slow to interfere with the arbitrator's Award, even if the conclusions are perverse, and even when the very basis of the Arbitrator's award is wrong. In any case this is a case where interference is warranted and we set aside the norms prescribed by the Arbitrator as upheld by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. 29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 669 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich reference has been made in the preceding para. On repeated queries by the Bench, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 14 have not been able to point out any provision of a statute under which guidelines for One Time Settlement could have been issued. Therefore, the ratio of the judgments rendered in the aforementioned cases would be fully applicable. 15. Consequently, it has to be held that the guidelines for One Time Settlement issued by the Reserve Bank of India do not have any statutory flavour creating rights and duties between the parties, which could be enforced by remedy of a writ in the nature of mandamus. Therefore, the directions issued by the Tribunal in order dated 13.4.2007 (P-14) are liable to be set aside. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 13.4.2007 (P-14), passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and that of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh, dated 23.11.2006 (P-1) is restored.
-
2007 (11) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Special Court had taken into consideration the fact that the respondents have constructed on the Schedule Land and therefore, had directed payment of compensation so that title of the respondents in respect of the Schedule Land is perfected. That being the position, it would be open to the respondents to pay the amount as directed by the Special Court and in the event, the said amount as directed by the Special Court is paid within four months from this date, the application filed by the appellant shall be disposed of with that direction and in the event, the respondents fail to deposit the said amount, the application filed by the appellant before the Special Court shall stand allowed and it would be open to the appellant to recover the Schedule Land in accordance with law. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Special Court is restored. 13. The Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... could impede it. 15. In the instant case the insurer was a private limited company doing transport business. There was no material placed before the High Court to show that the claimants would have any difficulty in recovering the awarded amount from it. That being so; the High Court's order is modified to the extent that the insurer shall pay an amount of ₹ 50,000/- with interest awarded to claimants. The balance has to be paid by the insured. 16. Another point urged before this Court in support of the appeal was that the rate of interest is high. The liability of the insurance company is limited to ₹ 50,000/- with interest 9 p.a. from the date of the application. The rate is being fixed considering the date of accident. The insured shall forthwith make payment of the balance amount with interest to the claimants and in any event not later than 3 months from the date of this order. 17. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 666 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e BPO would fully co-operate and sort out all the issues with the person taking control of the company by the order of this Board. Now that the second respondent will be in control of the company by virtue of this order, M/s. Core should honour the statement made before this Board by its counsel. The second respondent will withdraw all the cases against the petitioner as well as against M/s. Core at the earliest and till then she shall not take any further steps to proceed with the same. Should for any reason, the second respondent does not pay the full amount due as per this order to the petitioner within the stipulated time, the right to purchase the interests of the second respondent in respect of her shares and the loans given by her in the company will automatically vest in the petitioner and he will be bound by the same terms and conditions as above. 21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, vacating all the interim reorders and without any order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 665 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mount. This is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. We do not think that the Board could direct the appellants to disgorge the aforesaid amount without first determining their guilt and whether they had made any illegal gains. Again, it is not that every erring entity is held liable to disgorge the amount. Persons who have made illegal or unethical gains alone could be asked to disgorge their ill gotten profits. We are further of the view that all these issues should have been determined only after the passing of the final order holding the appellants guilty of the alleged wrong doings for which proceedings are still pending. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order qua the appellants which we hereby do leaving it open to the Board to initiate, in accordance with law, disgorgement proceedings against such entities as may become liable to disgorge. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 664 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... afted from a lawyer based at Chennai. The lawyer at Chennai did not take steps to draft the rejoinder to the counter-statement for long time and thus the rejoinder could not be filed in time. We have heard both learned Counsel and gone through the correspondences exchanged between the Lawmarks Naveen & Saturn, New Delhi and the lawyer at Chennai. No negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is found to be imputable to the applicant. We are, therefore, satisfied that the cause shown by the applicant constitute sufficient cause for not filing the rejoinder within time. We condone the delay and allow the rejoinder and the document to take on record. 25. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the Registrar is directed to expunge the trade mark No. 1109280 from the Register of Trade Marks. The Miscellaneous petition No. 112/2007 is ordered in the above terms. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of Trade Marks. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 663 - ITAT DELHI
Validity Of Initiation of Proceedings u/s 147/148 - Escaped assessment - belief that (HUF) has not filed the return of income - assumption of justification u/s 148 - Status of HUF - Notice u/s 148 was sent to the HUF and assessment made in the hands of individual - HELD THAT:- In our view, the IT Act recognizes the status of the HUF different from individual status of Karta of the HUF. Two are treated as different legal entities. Therefore, it is necessary that notice u/s 148 of the Act should be sent in the correct status because jurisdiction to make assessment is assumed by issuing valid notice. Admittedly, in this case, the notice u/s 148 was sent to the HUF and assessment has been made in the hands of individual. In our view after having issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to HUF, the AO has no jurisdiction to make the assessment in the case of individual.
In the case of CIT vs. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that; ‘individual’ and the ‘HUF’ are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice u/s 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an individual and not in the correct status of an HUF, the notice is illegal and all proceedings taken under that notice are ultra vires and without jurisdiction."
Thus, it is clear from the above that the Department cannot be permitted to change the status from the HUF to individual. Thus, assessment framed u/s 148/144 is not legally sustainable.
Reasons recorded by the AO - We are of the view that the reopening has been done on the basis of the reason recorded on incorrect facts. That being so, the reasons are, in fact, no reasons at all. This view find support from the decision in the case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989 (4) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]. Further, it is seen from the reason recorded that the purpose of reopening was to make verification of the investment made by the assessee. In the case of Manish Ajmera vs. Asstt. CIT [2005 (3) TMI 388 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A] it has been held that the assessment made u/s 143(1) without issue of notice u/s 143(2) could not be reopened in the absence of any fresh material to show that income has escaped assessment and reopening for making fishing inquiry was not valid.
Therefore, we hold that the initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act is not legally sustainable and as such assessment framed in pursuance of the said notice is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Since we have quashed the assessment made in the matter on the legal ground as aforesaid, the other grounds taken by the assessee will not survive.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 662 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are not covered under the ‘business auxiliary service’. The respondents are having only weigh bridge and only weighing the goods. The contention of the Revenue is that weighment of goods is also a ‘business auxiliary service’. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this application, the same is rejected. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 661 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessing Officer to complete the order of assessment has to be considered by this Court. When once a notice under Section 148 has been issued and the same is served and proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, such proceedings should have been completed within the end of two years of issuance of notice. But in order to save limitation, one more notice was issued on 22.3.1993 and the same need not be taken into account to save limitation, as there is no provision under the Act to issue notice after notices under Section 148 of the Act, Since the question of law has not been considered by the Tribunal, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we are of the opinion that on this short ground, the appeal has to be allowed, by answering the question of law in favour of the assessee. 5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.
-
2007 (11) TMI 660 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rocedure in large number of cases, some of which are CIT v. O.K. Hosiery Mills (P.) Ltd. 2007 165 Taxman 515 (Delhi), CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 2007 165 Taxman 593 (Delhi), Bharat Hotels Ltd.’s case (supra), CIT v. Fibro Tech Chemicals IT Appeal No. 954 of 2006, dated 14-9-2007 , CIT v. Preeti Aggarwala IT Appeal No. 850 of 2006, dated 15-9-2007 and CIT v. Smt. Santosh Sharma IT Appeal No. 1088 of 2006, dated 17-9-2007 . 11. Apart from the above, we also find that the assessee’s appeal has been allowed on merits by the Tribunal. It has been held that the claim of the assessee for expenditure by way of interest on borrowed funds was based on a bona fide belief and that no "contumacious conduct could be attributed" to the assessee. Having examined the matter on merits ourselves, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore on merits as well no case for interference is made out. 12. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2007 (11) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee, it is not possible to infer that the assessee had taken an accommodation entry from M/s Hallmark Healthcare Ltd. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that in CIT vs. Highgain Finvest (P) Ltd. ITA No. 1381 of 2006, dt. 23rd May, 2007 reported at (2008) 214 CTR (Del)441'Ed. this Court had in similar circumstances, remanded the case to the Tribunal for a decision on merits. We find that in the said case, as noted in this Court's order, the statement made by Mr. Sanjay Rastogi specifically mentioned the front company as well as the details of the cheque issued to the front company by the assessee in that case. The said decision is undoubtedly distinguishable on facts since in the instant case the statement given by Mr. Rastogi does not mention either the front company or the assessee. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking the view that it did. 8. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 658 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 8 of the value of the goods at the time of clearance of the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC. As such he has submitted that the duty liability now being fastened upon them be offset and adjusted against the amounts paid under Rule 57CC. For the proposition he relies upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1182 (Tri.-Kolkata) allowing such adjustment. 8. By following the above decision we direct the original authority to quantify the demand for a period of six months in the case of Uniflex Cables Limited by adjusting the amount of 8 already deposited/paid by the appellants. 9. Inasmuch as we have held the demands to be barred by limitation, we do not find any justification for imposition of penalties upon the manufacturers or the other appellants. Same are accordingly set aside. 10. All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated/Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 657 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vernment standing counsel that the direction for reopening of assessment by the AO in the hands of the assessee is correct. In respect of the other contention that the direction given by the CIT(A) to reopen the assessment for the asst. yr. 1998-99 is uncalled for, having regard to the nature of the power given to him under the said provision i.e. s. 246 of the said Act. It is automatic that as and when the appellate authority passes an order, the original authority is having every power to give effect to that order in a procedure known to law. However, the appellate authority cannot exceed in his power while exercising jurisdiction vested by the statute. In the above said factual situation, we are of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant entertainment of the appeals." The reasoning stated above in the cited case would apply to the case on hand on all fours. Following the same, the tax case appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 656 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... hat in a similar matter this Bench has granted waiver of pre-deposit of the amount in the case of C.C.E. v. Sunitha Shetty and three Ors. by Stay Order Nos. 711 to 714/2007 dated 05.09.2007. The High Court of Karnataka in Sunitha Shetty case (supra) has already taken a view that the levy of penalty is discretionary power and the Deputy Commissioner can exercise his discretionary powers in dropping the penalty. Although the High Court of Karnataka in the case of First Flight Couriers Ltd. (supra) has set aside the order passed by this Bench, however this aspect can be looked into in detail at the time of final hearing. The stay applications are allowed by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeals. As all similar cases pertain to levy of penalty are coming for Final hearing on 05 December 2007, these appeals also to be linked up with the same for final hearing on that date. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2007 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mp; Anr. v. Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1959 PAT 413 , a distinction was made between as to what is material and what is not material. In regard to the disclosure of facts in that case itself, it was opined The well-settled law in the field of insurance is that contracts of insurance including the contracts of life assurance are contracts uberrima fides and every fact of materiality must be disclosed otherwise there is good ground for rescission. And this duty to disclose continues up to the conclusion of the contract and covers any material alteration in the character of the risk which may take place between proposal and acceptance. 25. Ratio of the said decision, therefore, instead of assisting the case of appellants, runs counter to his contention. 26. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 654 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he assessment year 198889? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating electrical installations in the building of the assessee used as hotel as a part of plant for the purposes of depreciation, without taking note of the words “fittings used in hotels” under the heading “Furniture and fittings” in the Depreciation Schedule specifically providing for deprecation at the rate of 15 thereon?” Issue notice to the other side. Paper book be filed within 3 months. List the appeal for final hearing after 3 months.
-
2007 (11) TMI 653 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... aspects of the transaction. In our view this is a right stage and a fit case where a Commissioner has to invoke his jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act so as to correct the assessment order. It is clearly established in the findings of the Id Commissioner that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, confirm the action of the ld Commissioner under Section 263 which is justified. The ld. CIT has rightly set aside the assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in accordance with law. Under the above circumstances, we reject the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and accept that of the learned D.R. to confirm the order of the ld CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
........
|
