|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1048 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1493 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... pplication asking for issue of exemption certificate nor could show any objection if any raised by the Department or any information called by the Department for grant of such exemption. Even the ld. CIT DR could not bring any material on record to suggest that for noncompliance of any detail/information, the Department has refused the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. From the record, it is not clear as to whether any such application is still pending before the competent authorities and why he has not acted upon it even after lapse of such a long period. 11. In view of the above, we restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to verify the factual position with regard to the application of assessee pending before CCIT and action taken by CCIT for grant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi), if any, and to decide the issue afresh. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1492 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Finance Act, 1994. 4. As this appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Act, the said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, ‘not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment’, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, as held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited, in CEA No. 6/2007, D.D. 1-9-2010. The appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35L, which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question. 5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court. The High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced, to the Department, to prefer the appeal.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1491 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. Appeals admitted.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1490 - ATPMLA, NEW DELHI
Offence under PMLA - Whether the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order is valid - In present case, During investigation, it was found that the fake and forged documents of export were prepared with the help of his two employees and two customs broker and no actual export was ever done by Shri Gopinath Das or his company against the export invoices/documents submitted to banks for discounting and obtaining funds from SBI and OBC. The funds so fraudulently obtained through acts of forgery u/s 467 of IPC are proceeds of crime and it was found that out of these proceeds of crime, immovable properties were acquired and mortgaged with the appellant as security to obtain loan. Statement of Sh. Gopinath Das was recorded by the respondent u/s 50 of the Act, in the statement, he inter-alia stated that he has purchased various properties out of funds consisting of proceeds of crime and these properties were mortgaged with the Syndicate Bank. The properties owned by M/s. Himalayan Projects Pvt. Ltd. of which Shri Gopinath Das is the Managing Director were attached and complaint was filed with the Adjudicating Authority u/s 5(5) of the Act. The matter was placed before the Adjudicating Authority and the order of provisional attachment was confirmed by detailed order which is now being assailed before us in the present proceedings.
HELD THAT:- The appellant is not owner of the properties attached. The properties are in the name of Gopinath Das and M/s. Himalayan Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Gopinath Das has been charged for commission of a schedule offence. Further, any person who is in possession of proceeds of crime and even if not charged for commission of a schedule offence is covered by the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act in view of the findings of this Tribunal in its Judgment in the case of Radha Mohan J. Lakhotia & Others vs. Dy. Director, [2010 (8) TMI 947 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it has been held that the property which is proceeds of crime and is in possession of any person, even though he is not charged of having committed a scheduled offence, can be attached. Thus, we are in full agreement with the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority given in its order in Original Complaint. Thus, the appellants are covered under the Act and attachment proceedings commenced by the authorities under the Act were valid proceedings.
question of prevalence of a subsequent legislation - The Securitisation Act has been enacted for the purpose of establishing a expeditious system for recovery of debts due to Banks and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It only lays down a procedure for recovery of debts due to Banks. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act vests the statutory authorities with a power to forfeit proceeds of crime involved in money laundering to the State. There is thus no apparent conflict between the two statutes. The two statutes operate in their exclusive fields. The question is only who will have his first claim on any property where the claim of the State concur with the claim of any other person.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1489 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... erest on same is allowable. However, in the impugned order Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of assessee that when assessee received interest on tax refund the same is taxable in same manner the interest on late payment of TDS is allowable expense. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of assessee that benefit of netting of interest paid to the Department and received from the Department be allowed. It appears that assessee deducted TDS and deposited the same late with the Income-tax Department. As a result of this, it paid interest of ₹ 11,676/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court income Bharat Commerce & Industries v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC) held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible. Therefore disallowance of interest of ₹ 11,676/- is restored. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8. In the result for the statistical purposes the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/04/2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1488 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hen the BCCI held auction for owning IPL Team and an Administrator - the Respondent No. 2 participated in the bid, variety of real and/or perceived conflict of interest cannot be ruled out. These included access to insider information, possible undue influence on the decision makers who held the auction and the like. 82. Hence, I deem it appropriate to allow these appeals and grant injunction by directing suspension of operation of the impugned amendment dated 27.9.2008 introduced in Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI. In case, the Respondent No. 2 - Sri. N. Srinivasan opts to continue owning and operating IPL Chennai Super King, he shall be at liberty to do so but in that event he shall be restrained from holding any office in the BCCI in any capacity whatsoever in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove. ORDER Since there is difference of opinion, let the papers of these matters be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for being assigned to appropriate Bench.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1487 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, (AIR 1941 Calcutta 670); Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (AIR 1949 Calcutta 495); Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (1997 CWN 122); S.S.Jain & Co. v. Union of India ((1994) 1 CHN 445) and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (AIR 1994 Delhi 126). 30. Applying the ratio of the various decisions, in our considered view, the integral facts constituting cause of action has arisen only in Tirupur and the learned single Judge rightly held that the suit is not maintainable on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned single Judge. 31. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellants/plaintiffs to move the concerned Court. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1486 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the allowability of claim. We have gone through the said judgment. We find that in that case the assessee had reimbursed the expenses incurred by the club formed for the welfare of the employees. The High Court held that the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the club did not constitute contribution under section 40A(9) and therefore could not be disallowed under the said section. In this case the factual position is not clear as to whether the payment made by the assessee was towards reimbursement of expenses or it was a general contribution. We therefore set aside the order and restore the matter to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation (supra) and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. The decision pronounced in the open court on 27. 04. 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1485 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oceedings for fresh consideration in light of the fact that individual liability was required to be fastened. Further, while doing so, it was provided that the revenue should supply the relied upon documents and give proper opportunity to the respondents to present their case. Surely if the documents relied upon by the Department were already supplied previously, direction of the Tribunal would be innocuous. If on the other hand, such documents were not supplied, the Department cannot escape the liability to supply such documents without running the risk of exposing its action being opposed to principle of natural justice. Further the observations of the Tribunal to give opportunity to the respondent to present their case, also would not give rise any question of law. In other appeals, the Tribunal has merely relied upon its previous order dated 8th January, 2009. Facts being similar, such appeals are also liable to be dismissed. In the result, all Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1484 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the assessee by holding that filing of those factors under s. 80QQB is the statutory requirement for filing the certificate in Form No. 10CCD along with the return of income. She has also observed that there was no sufficient cause for not filing the certificate after its receipt but we find that she had admitted it as per r. 46A. In our considered view and for advancing the justice, the CIT(A) rightly admitted the additional evidence and we direct to grant necessary relief on the basis of certificate. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the claim of the assessee by holding that the assessee has failed to adhere to the statutory requirement. In our considered view, once the certificate has been admitted by following the procedure of r. 46A and in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee's claim should have been considered. In view of this, we direct to give the deduction under s. 80QQB to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1483 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, it is not disputed that the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. We therefore respectfully following the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal. 17. Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under “2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition from ₹ 56,102/- to ₹ 30,000/- on account of telephone expenses.” 18. While discussing the assessee’s appeal, we have already considered this issue. For the detailed discussion therein, Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 10. In result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 29th April, 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1482 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... tically, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Concealment refers to a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue, before a penalty is imposed u/s 271(1)© because by no stretch of imagination, making a incorrect claim, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, that too from the Hon’ble Apex Court, no penalty is leviable especially when there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return is erroneous or incorrect, therefore, mere making a excess claim in itself does not invite imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)© because the same cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. We delete the penalty, so imposed, by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1481 - SUPREME COURT
Contempt proceedings - order of sentence against the appellant / Commissioner of police - Allegation that, Respondent No. 2 (IO) made Incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail in the knowledge of Appellant - Offence punishable u/s 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act) - Respondent No. 1 was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (`MLA') - Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing were reported on the day of election - HELD THAT:- The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises.
The analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police. We have already pointed out that the appellant has assumed charge as the Commissioner of Police only on 17.05.2001 i.e. after formation of the new government. The violence in respect of election that took place on 10.05.2001, particularly, the incident relating to Respondent No. 1 was one week before his taking over charge as Commissioner of Police.
When a city like Chennai is managed by several police officers from the level of police constable to the Commissioner of Police, in the absence of specific reference about consultation with the Commissioner of Police or direction to the two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for preparation of an application for cancellation of bail based on the affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving incorrect information by Respondent No. 2 before the High Court.
We have pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered. The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not. [Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal [2000 (2) TMI 831 - SUPREME COURT], Further Section 15 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that, particularly, for initiation of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General is required. Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt.
In the present case, the above provisions have not been strictly adhered to and even the notice issued by the then Division Bench merely sought for explanation from the appellant about the allegations made by Respondent No. 1. We have already noted that (Respondent No. 2) Inspector of Police, who made an incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail has been rightly punished by the Division Bench of the High Court and this Court affirmed the same by dismissing his special leave petition.
Hence, the order of the HC convicting the appellant u/s 2(c) and sentencing him u/s 12 of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1480 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be dismissed, the Company Law Board will decide accordingly and dismiss the company petition. If the contrary is the case, the Company Law Board will dismiss that application and proceed to hear the company petition. If, after perusal of the said application, the Company Law Board is of the opinion that it is not possible to make a final decision on the basis of the papers contained in it, then the Company Law Board will hear this application along with the company petition. But it is essential that the Company Law Board should come to a decision in CA No.210/11 first. Such decision should be arrived at as quickly as possible so that the time period mentioned in the earlier order of this Court can be adhered to as far as possible. By consent of the parties, this appeal and the stay application are treated as on the day’s list and disposed of by passing an order admitting this appeal and disposing them of in terms of the order above. All undertakings are dispensed with.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1479 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... period. These are findings of fact which we ought not and do not wish to dislodge. However, we think it relevant to mention that if the Appellant thinks it is entitled to claim liquidated damages because it had so cautioned and declared in its letter, equal efficacy must be given to the Respondent's letter where it had recorded that no delay had occurred for which the Respondent was liable. Having received such a letter, the Appellant, who enjoys a dominant position, could have refused to accept deliveries. In the event, it has not been done so and must therefore, have acquiesced or agreed or consented to the asseverations made by the Respondent in its Letters to the effect that no delay had transpired. 19. It is in these circumstances it is our view that the Appeal is devoid of merits. No question justiciable under Section 34 or Section 37 of the A&C Act has arisen. It is accordingly dismissed. CM No.12044/2010 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1478 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ly. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009. We are convinced that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. 3. The assessee shall, however, be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for nonappearance on the date of hearing. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1477 - SUPREME COURT
fake encounter - whether after filing of the charge-sheet by the State agency, the Court is precluded from appointing any other independent specialized agency like the CBI to go into the same issues if the earlier investigation was not done as per the established procedure - In present case, Petitioner alleged that the Respondents/accused officers enjoy powerful position in their respective State Police and are trying to obstruct further inquiry into the fake encounter killing of her son, who was a material witness in the case of fake encounter of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi. Hence, the Petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court praying for direction to CBI to register an FIR and investigate the case.
HELD THAT:- In view of discussions and submission although, charge-sheet has been filed by the State of Gujarat after a gap of 3 1/2 years after the incident, that too after pronouncement of judgment in Rubbabudin's case [2010 (1) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] and considering the nature of crime that has been allegedly committed not by any third party but by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat, we are satisfied that the investigation conducted and concluded in the present case by the State police cannot be accepted. In view of various circumstances highlighted and in the light of the involvement of police officials of the State of Gujarat and police officers of two other States. it would not be desirable to allow the Gujarat State Police to continue with the investigation, accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and in the public interest, we feel that the CBI should be directed to take the investigation.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1476 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of repealing the amendment carried out by indian parliament act no.1 of 1997. "11. The proceedings before the learned District Judge were not maintainable and without jurisdiction after the judgment of Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Patel Engineering, ( 2005) 8 SCC 618. Therefore, the decision in such proceedings cannot bar the jurisdiction of this court in appointing an arbitrator." 12. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator after 180 days from the date of payment of final bill cannot extinguish either the right or the remedy of the petitioner. Since the respondents have failed to appoint an Arbitrator, the disputes between the parties are required to be adjudicated upon by an Arbitrator. Consequently, Shri B.R. Gupta, Addl. District Judge (Retd.), resident of H.No.587, Sector-8, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1475 - SC ORDER
2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ... ... ... ... ..... Das,Adv. ORDER Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag the petition with S.L.P. (C) Nos........../2011 (CC 5774-5775/2011).
-
2011 (4) TMI 1474 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee is not able to furnish the confirmation letter, the assessee could have produced the invoices, the name and addresses, related and relevant details of the creditors for enabling the AO to carry out further verification from such creditors in addition to the information available on record. From the order of the AO, we find that inspite of several opportunities to furnish the party’s details, such as, name and address, the ledger account, the same were not furnished. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The assessee shall cooperate with the AO for proper framing of the assessment and the same shall be drawn up as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on Friday, the 8th day of April, 2011 at Bangalore.
........
|
