|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 928 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 900 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e over. In this case, we are conserned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii) of the 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehension/desirability. It is always open to the accessing officer to call for details of individual debtors account if the assessing officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flip side to the argument of the department. The assessee has instituted recovery suits in courts against its debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed. In the light of the jughment of Apex Court, there is no merit in this appeal. 5. The appeals are dismissed answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenve.
-
2013 (2) TMI 899 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e may be directed to be given to all Directors if any meeting is proposed to be held. Therefore, the following order is passed i. The impugned order is set aside. ii. The matter is remitted to the Board for fresh consideration and disposal, in Company Appeal No.15/2012 9 accordance with law. iii. The matter will be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. We make it clear that any decision taken or resolution adopted by the extra ordinary general body meeting which was held on 12.11.2012 will be subject to the order to be passed by the Board. v. It is also made clear that till the disposal of the matter by the Board as directed above, if any decision is being taken in any meeting or any meeting is held at the instance of the respondents, notice shall be given to all the Directors, irrespective of whether respondents have a contention that the Directors are not entitled to receive any such notice. This appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 898 - SUPREME COURT
Procedure for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure - Suit for specific performance - Doctrine of lis pendens - Whether if the Appellant who is the transferee pendente lite having notice and knowledge about the pendency of the suit for specific performance and order of injunction can be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour by the Defendants Sawhneys' - HC dismissed the application on the ground that there was an injunction order passed way back on 04.11.1991 in the suit for specific performance restraining the Defendants-Sawhneys' from transferring or alienating the suit property passed, the purported sale deeds executed by the Defendants in favour of the Appellant was in violation of the undertaking given by the Respondents which was in the nature of injunction.
Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge and held that in view of the injunction in the form of undertaking given by the Respondents-Sawhneys' and recorded in the suit proceedings, how the property could be purchased by the Appellants in the year 2008.
HELD THAT:- Sub-rule(2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 provides that the Court may either upon or without an application of either party, add any party whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Since the Respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific performance cannot be determined. Therefore, he is not a necessary party.
It is well settled that the doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of this Section does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.
As noticed above, even before the institution of suit for specific performance when the Plaintiff came to know about the activities of the Sawhneys' to deal with the property, a public notice was published at the instance of the Plaintiff in a newspaper "The Hindustan Times" dated 12.02.1990 (Delhi Edn.) informing the public in general about the agreement with the Plaintiff s. In response to the said notice the sister concern of the Appellant M/s Living Media India Limited served a legal notice on the Defendants- Sawhneys' dated 24.06.1990 whereby he has referred the 'agreement to sell' entered into between the Plaintiff s and the Defendants- Sawhneys'.
Even after the institution of the suit, the counsel who appeared for the Defendants-Sawhneys' gave an undertaking not to transfer and alienate the suit property. Notwithstanding the order passed by the Court regarding the undertaking given on behalf of the Defendants- Sawhneys', and having full notice and knowledge of all these facts, the sister concern of the Appellant namely Living Media India Ltd. entered into series of transaction and finally the Appellant M/s. Thomson Press got a sale deed executed in their favour by Sawhneys' in respect of suit property.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant entered into a clandestine transaction with the Defendants-Sawhneys' and got the property transferred in their favour. Hence the Appellant - M/s Thomson Press cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser, without notice.
This Court again in the case of Dwarka Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Harikant Prasad Singh and Ors.[1972 (11) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT] subscribed its earlier view and held that in a suit for specific performance against a person with notice of a prior agreement of sale is a necessary party.
For the ends of justice the Appellant is to be added as party-Defendant in the suit. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside.
T.S. THAKUR, J. - I entirely agree with the conclusion that the Appellant ought to be added as a party-Defendant to the suit, I wish to add a few lines of my own.
It is true that the application which the Appellant made was only under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure but the enabling provision of Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure could always be invoked if the fact situation so demanded. It was in any case not urged by counsel for the Respondents that Order XXII Rule 10 could not be called in aid with a view to justifying addition of the Appellant as a party-Defendant. Such being the position all that is required to be examined is whether a transferee pendente lite could in a suit for specific performance be added as a party Defendant and, if so, on what terms.
To sum up:
(1) The Appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is, therefore, not protected against specific performance of the contract between the Plaintiff's and the owner Defendants in the suit.
(2) The transfer in favour of the Appellant pendente lite is effective in transferring title to the Appellant but such title shall remain subservient to the rights of the Plaintiff in the suit and subject to any direction which the Court may eventually pass therein.
(3) Since the Appellant has purchased the entire estate that forms the subject matter of the suit, the Appellant is entitled to be added as a party Defendant to the suit.
(4) The Appellant shall as a result of his addition raise and pursue only such defenses as were available and taken by the original Defendants and none other.
With the above additions, I agree with the order proposed by my Esteemed Brother, M.Y. Eqbal, J. that this appeal be allowed and the Appellant added as party Defendant to the suit in question.
-
2013 (2) TMI 897 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... decision. Such issue, therefore, shall have to be placed back before the Tribunal for consideration on merits.” This issue is also being remanded to the Tribunal to examine on merit and to render its decision. 5. As far as question 3 B is concerned, concerning public issue expenses to the tune of ₹ 9,13,861/-, the Tribunal, in its impugned order, had directed the Assessing Officer to follow the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01. This had been challenged before this Court for the assessment year 2000-01. This Court has not entertained such question. Being the identical question arising in case of very same assessee. With no new grounds having been made, the same does not deserve any further consideration on merits. Tax appeal, resultantly, stands disposed of remanding the question 3(A) back to the Tribunal for rendering its decision after duly considering the question in accordance with law, on availing opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
-
2013 (2) TMI 896 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... same. This ground is accordingly allowed.” 9. We find that it is not in dispute that income of Hong Kong branch was truly and correctly declared by the assessee in its return of income. No inaccuracy in the particulars of the income disclosed by the assessee was found in the assessment. The only error which was found in the assessment for which penalty in question is levied, relates to the computation of tax liability. In the above circumstances, in our considered opinion, it cannot be held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and consequently keeping in view the provisions of Explantion-4 to section 271(1) of the Act , no penalty is legally leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We ,therefore confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue. 10. In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 14th February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 895 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... data was available, Settlement Commission has not brought the figure out of nothing nor based its conclusion on surmise or conjecture. It is also not his whims or fancy getting reflected in the final additional figure of ₹ 47.34 Lacs, causing alleged serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is made out from the material on record, that too for filling the void of remaining period, statement of the partner is made the basis who has spoken of different rates for different categories of construction and also amongst those categories, importance of location in determining the amount of consideration of such shops and flats. Neither in the process of decision making nor otherwise, petitioner is able to make out a case of any breach of provisions nor the decision appears to have led to cause any serious prejudice on account of faulty decision making process, necessitating invocation of powers of judicial review. 17. Petition resultantly is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 894 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il Court where a compromise by and between the parties had been effected. There was no question of any transfer till the said compromise was effected in the Civil Suit No.4801-98. Therefore, it allowed the order of the CIT(A) holding that the profit under question in such circumstances was declared in assessment year 2003-2004 and this interpretation is in consonance with the provisions of law where, in fact, there was no transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) (sic) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the business profit of ₹ 36,52,656/- assessed as undisclosed profit by the Assessing Officer, was rightly directed to be deleted by both the authorities. The question answered by both the authorities is predominantly based on material available and interpreting the same in accordance with law, the question of law is accordingly answered. In view of discussion held herein above, Tax Appeal deserves no further consideration and therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 893 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut not fallen due or received?. 2 The Counsel for the parties state that the question raised in this Appeal is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the RespondentAssessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait, BSC in Income Tax Appeal No.1738 of 2011 rendered on 5th February, 2013. 3 In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 892 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... be assessed in the hands of the company itself.” 14. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, we are finally inclined to hold that the assessee company discharged his burden to prove the genuineness of the transaction by submitting confirmation and other relevant details of the share applicant companies and on the other hand, the Assessing Officer did not bother to verify the confirmation and other details filed by the assessee as per available procedure in the statutory provisions. We also observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the Assessing Officer came forward to reject all the material and evidence submitted by the assessee without any verification on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, we hold that this appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.2.2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 891 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... has failed to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in connection with the said disallowance. The assessee had furnished complete particulars of its income and expenditure and had also furnished the details of interest bearing funds and also interest free advances made by it. The case of the Revenue was that in view of the mixed funds available with the assessee, proportionate disallowance is to be made out of interest expenditure relatable to the interest free advances made by the assessee. We are in agreement with the order of the assessee that the assessee having furnished complete particulars of income and mere disallowance of interest in the hands of the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 890 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se and in law the Tribunal has erred in holding that interest income payable by the Indian PE of a foreign bank to its HO and branch Offices abroad cannot be taken into account for the purpose of accounting the income of HO liable to be taxed in India? 3) Counsel for the revenue requests that an early date for final hearing of the appeal be fixed as the issues arising in the impugned order affects large number of matters which are in dispute before the authorities. 4) In this view of the matter, by consent, appeal is fixed for hearing on 15/4/2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 889 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... T v. East Coast Commercial Company Ltd. (63 ITR 449) (SC). 34. The Assessing Officer after receiving the information from the CBDT and intimating the same to the assessee and after detailed enquiry with questionnaire issued to the assessee, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the assessee had invested unaccounted money in Webster Foundation and accordingly he invoked section 69 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 69 of the Act and the same has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). In view of the above, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee also. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 25th of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 888 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 30.10.2009 had confirmed the disallowance of employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF totaling ₹ 3,79,961/-. The plea of the assessee is that the issue of allowability of such expenditure has not been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that once the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such law is the law of land and is applicable to all. In view thereof, we find merit in the plea of the assessee and we recall our order dated 30.10.2009 to the limited extent of deciding the ground No.1 raised by the assessee in relation to the disallowance made on account of late deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF. The said ground of appeal No.1 is recalled and fixed for hearing on 19.3.2013. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms stated above. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 887 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rsons to move the court for direction of registration of an FIR as there have been other accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how the trial would commence and be concluded is up to the concerned court. The Appellants or any of the other complainants or the accused persons may move the appropriate court for a trial in one court. That is another aspect altogether. But to say that it is a second FIR relating to the same cause of action and the same incident and there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case is not correct. Hence, we conclude and hold that the submission that the FIR lodged by the fourth Respondent is a second FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed, does not merit acceptance. 26. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal, being sans substance, stands dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 886 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r Amit Sachdeva, Advs. ORDER This appeal already stands admitted and the question of law has also been formulated. List in due course.
-
2013 (2) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o appeal at the instance of the appellant is maintainable either against the order dated 9.10.2002 or against the order dated 3.11.2006. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the concession which the respondent had made before the learned Single Judge during the hearing of the review application and which came to be incorporated in the order dated 3.11.2006, we direct that the said concession shall remain binding upon the respondent for eight weeks from today and consequently if the appellant allots any one out of the three semi-structured shops and the tin shed in question to the respondent within eight weeks from today at the market rate to be determined by the appellant, that would be sufficient compliance of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in this case. If, however, the appellant fails to do so, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.10.2002 would come into force and will be complied by the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of.
-
2013 (2) TMI 884 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allowed the claim of the respondentassessee by following its orders in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1986-87, 1988-89,1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96. In the aforesaid years, the commission expenses incurred by the respondents-assessee were allowed as deduction in determining the profits of the respondent-assessee. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the revenue has challenged the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years allowing the claim of the respondent-assessee. Moreover, neither before the Tribunal nor before us, the revenue made any attempt to distinguish the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier years from the facts as appearing in the present assessment year. In view of the above, we find no fault to with the reasoning of the Tribunal and do not entertain the questions (d) & (e). 6. So far a question (b) is concerned, it is a different facet of question (a). The appeal is admitted on question (a) above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 883 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l, the respondent assessee had pointed out that similar dispute has arisen in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 and the Tribunal upheld the stand of the respondent-assessee. It also records the fact that the respondent-assessee's policy of identifying and making provision for the diminution of the value of the obsolete stock was accepted by the department for earlier assessment years and no disallowance was made in the earlier assessment years till the instant assessment year. The revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishable circumstances during the current assessment year from that existing and accepted in the earlier assessment years and also more particularly with regard to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. In the aforesaid circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (f) as formulated by the taken revenue. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 882 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... giving them notice and hearing them, the Registrar passed the order to strike off the Company on the application moved by two Directors of the Company. In that context, after examining the facts and circumstances, the High Court found that the order passed by the Registrar was unsustainable, and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. In the present Writ Petition, petitioners have not even stated when they moved the application the Company was defunct, nor of its liability to secured creditors, if any, or the litigation pending against the Company. 5. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. Similar is the case over the challenges made against Exts.P7 and P8 complaints, which have been initiated against the Company and its officers for non-filing of annual returns. Whatever defence available to the accused persons against their prosecution on the complaints, no doubt, can be raised by them before the Magistrate concerned. Both Writ Petition and Crl. M. C are dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 881 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose on the above issue.” Taking cue from the same, we also hold that merely by making a provision, the assessee has not made any actual contribution to the approved pension fund in question so as to attract the charging section aforesaid. So far as the case law cited by the Revenue is concerned (supra), mindful of the trite preposition of the law is that in case of two divergent judicial opinions, the one which favours the assessee has to be adopted, we hereby decide the appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 . 7. Therefore, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and order passed by the CIT(A) is upheld. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 20th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
