|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1094 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sheet/complaint did not disclose the commission of the offence under Section 509 IPC. The discharge order was passed at the stage of Section 251 CrPC and the concerned Magistrate has not resorted to Section 258 CrPC. Thus, the submission of the petitioner in this regard is devoid of merit. 17. It is pertinent to note that petitioner admittedly has filed a suit for mandatory injunction to clear the window and ventilator in the Civil Court. The complaint appears to have been filed by the petitioner/complainant with the mala fide intention to pressurize them to settle the civil dispute. This conduct of the petitioner/complainant is gross abuse of process of law. Therefore also, the petition is likely to be dismissed. 18. In view of the discussions above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which may call for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction underSection 482 CrPC. 19. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1093 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is a conflict of decision and admitted that liability stands paid? B) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of section 57(iii) of the claim of expenditure for earning the interest is to be allowed under the head Income from other sources while computing the chargeable income? C) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 80HHC read with section 80IA (9) read with section 80IB (13) the Tribunal ahs erred in restricting the claim of deduction under the Act?” Learned counsel for the assessee states that he is not pressing Question ‘B’, while questions ‘A’ and ‘C’ are covered against the assessee by earlier orders of this Court dated 16.7.2010 in ITR No.2 of 1996, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. M/s Hero Cycles (P) Limited and dated 21.4.2011 in ITA No.371 of 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. M/s Davinder Exports. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1092 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ering the submissions by the Revenue the delay is condoned. 20. The Revenue has raised the sole issue in this appeal which relates to disallowance of ₹ 3,07,940/- on account of foreign exchange loss. 21. After hearing the rival submissions since the company is regularly treating the foreign exchange gains as business income and the Revenue also has assessed the same as business income. Under these circumstances it is not fair on the part of the AO to ignore the loss on account of foreign exchange and disallow the same. We have already confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(A) in Revenue’s appeal for A.Yr.2002-03 i.e. in ITA NO.2243/Kol/2010. Therefore, we confirm the same in this A.Yr also i.e. 2004-05 and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 22. In the result the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 31.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w that a Court while exercising its review jurisdiction cannot decide upon the merits of the reasoning or judgment, rendered by it. Review jurisdiction is circumscribed to examining any error apparent on the face of the record, or examination of any material, which was not brought to the knowledge of the Court previously, and which could not have been so disclosed by the Applicant, despite exercise of due diligence. Besides the fact that the applicants here were not parties, and were not necessary parties to the writ petition (for the reasons discussed earlier) the mention of the facts highlighted in the two applications are really the subject matter of appeals. If the Court were to examine them too closely, as is urged, it would be exercising appellate, not review jurisdiction- which is clearly impermissible. 32. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the Applications preferred by the respondents are unmerited, and cannot succeed. The same are accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1090 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... as repayment - is not justified, as even otherwise only peak of credits can be taxed, in the present case, the peak being ₹ 34,500/- only.” In view of the foregoing, the addition of ₹ 69,000/- is not sustainable and hence deleted.” 9. After going through the aforesaid finding given by the ld. First Appellate Authority on the deletion of ₹ 69,000/-, we are of the considered opinion that the depositors, who appeared before the Assessing Officer, have not corroborated the version of the assessee and they denied that they have not given any loan to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. First Appellate Authority has wrongly deleted the addition in dispute. We cancel the order on this issue and uphold the Assessment Order in respect of addition of ₹ 69,000/-. Thus, the issue involved in ground no.2 is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.05.2011).
-
2011 (5) TMI 1089 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner has also stated that although the cheque was presented at the IDBI Bank at Indore, the original drawe Bank would be the Bank at Chandigarh on which the cheque was drawn and in this light also I find that the complainant has no ground to file the complaint at Indore and there is substance in the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above foregoing discussions, the petitions are allowed. The complaint filed by the petitioner may be returned to the complainant. In the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside with a direction that the complaint may be returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The delay if any occasioned in filing the complaint may be condoned on proper application. 9. The petitions are allowed to the terms herein above indicated. Original judgment is retained in M.Cr.C. No. 2674/10 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected M.Cr.C. Nos. 2675/10, 2676/10 and 2677/10.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1088 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e course of the earlier reassessment proceedings. We have already noted that the earlier reassessment proceedings were taken in appeal by the assessee to the CIT(A), who by order dated 26.06.2007 deleted the additions and the department did not file any further appeal to the Tribunal. Having accepted the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.06.2007, the Assessing Officer was not justified in repeating the same addition in the present proceedings by merely seeking to rely on the statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi and his affidavit which are nothing but reiteration of the stand which he took in the earlier proceedings also. 25. For the above reasons we are of the view that even on merits the additions are not justified. We therefore confirm the orders of the CIT(A) for both the years even on merits. 26. In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the department are dismissed. No costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th May 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1087 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... to the passing of title. It is immaterial whether the eligible expenditure was incurred prior or subsequent to the passing of title. But in the present case before us, the expenditure in the nature of management fee and other expenses paid to PMFs and custody fee paid for maintaining demat are not in relation to transfer of share rather it is paid for preservation of assets i.e. the shares and securities. Maintaining demat account is statutorily compulsory but custody fee paid are for taking care of the port folio by the company for maintaining demat account. Similarly, the management fee and other expenses paid to PMFs are also in the nature of advisory expenses and cannot be deducted from the capital gains under section 48 of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and C.Os of the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in open court on 27.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1086 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Dave, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Army College of Medical Sciences (ACMS) is an instrumentality of the State or an aided institution - validity for seeking admission only students who are wards or children of current and former army personnel and widows of army personnel (entire group as “wards of army personnel) - (AWES) Army Welfare Education Society, it is stated, is a charitable trust that has been set up to cater to the educational needs of wards of Army personnel, both current and former, and widows of Army personnel. It is stated that the operation of its educational institutions is funded purely from regimental funds, which have been recognized to be private funds and not that of the Indian Army. ACMS, in the year 2008, began to admit students. It sought to do this by a set of rules framed by itself.
HELD THAT:- Neither AWES nor ACMS, are protected by any constitutional provision that allows it to choose to be an educational institution serving only a small class of students from within the general pool. If indeed Army personnel now constitute a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”, then under Clause (5) of Article 15, it is for the State to determine the same, and provide by law, for reservations of wards of Army personnel, in consonance with the constitutional jurisprudence extant with regard to how a Socially and Educationally Backward Class is to be delineated, for instance by removal of the creamy layer, and that the extent of reservations to be provided ought not to exceed certain levels etc. That has not happened in this instant matter.
The Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee And Other Measures to Ensure Equity And Excellence) Act, 2007 (Delhi Act 80 of 2007) or any provisions thereof do not suffer from any constitutional infirmities. The validity of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007, and its provisions, are accordingly upheld.
The Notification dated 14-08-2008 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi permitting “the Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi to allocate hundred percent seats in the said college for admission towards of Army personnel in accordance with the policy followed by the Indian Army” is ultra vires the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 and also unconstitutional. The same is accordingly set aside.
The admission procedures devised by Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi for admitting the students in the first year MBBS course from a pre-defined source, carved out by itself and its parent society, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007. Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
we have to conclude that non-minority private unaided professional colleges do not have the right to choose their own “source” from within the general pool. The equivalence between minority and non-minority unaided institutions, apart from that distinction because of clause (1) of Article 30, was to be on the basis that both are subject to reasonable restrictions pursuant to clause (6) of Article 19, that neither minority nor non-minority institutions could maladminister their educational institutions, especially professional institutions, that affect the quality of education, and by choosing students arbitrarily from within the sources that they are entitled to choose from.
that it is impermissible for us to apply the direct impact and effects test to evaluate whether clause (5) of Article 15 provisions with respect to admissions to unaided non-minority educational institutions violate the basic structure. By no stretch of imagination could the provisions of Clause (5) of Article 15 be deemed to be so wide as to eliminate an entire chapter of fundamental rights, or permit complete evisceration of even the freedom to engage in one of the occupations of the many occupations guaranteed by clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19. The correct test would be the “essences of rights” test, i.e., the “over-arching principles” test as enunciated in M. Nagaraj [2006 (10) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT].
that the claimed rights of non-minority educational institutions to admit students of their choice, would not only be a minor right, but if that were in fact a right, if exercised in full measure, that would be detrimental to the true nature of education as an occupation, damage the environment in which our students are taught the lessons of life, and imparted knowledge, and further also damage their ability to learn to deal with the diversity of India, and gain access to knowledge of its problems, so that they can appreciate how they can apply their formal knowledge in concrete social realities they will confront. Consequently, given the absolute necessity of achieving the egalitarian and social justice goals that are implied by provisions of clause (5) of Article 15, and the urgency of such a requirement, we hold that they are not a violation of the basic structure, but in fact strengthen the basic structure of our constitution. Consequently, we also find that the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007, with respect to various categories of reservations provided therein to be constitutionally valid.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1084 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... glorious cover drives and effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I have different duties to discharge. Here I must be objective and eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause which has come before the Court. 55. For the reasons aforesaid,the order of allotment of plot no. CA-222, Sector-V, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar),Kolkata made in favour of Mr.Sourav Ganguly,the allottee,is quashed. In consequence thereof, the lease deed dated 1.4.09, pursuant to such allotment stands quashed. The allottee must, within two weeks from date, handover the peaceful and vacant possession of plot No. CA-222 measuring 63.04 Kathas in Sector-V, Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata to the concerned department of the State Government. Within two weeks thereafter the State Government must refund to the allottee, by a Cheque, the entire money paid by him for such allotment. 56. The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. 57. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1083 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1082 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts and circumstances of the cases in hand. We, therefore, hold that the crucial date for determination of the premium is the date on which the Collector grants such permission, i.e. prospective date and not retrospective date. For the same very reason, we hold that the resolution dated 4.7.2008 is prospective and cover all the pending cases, including the cases where assessment was made by State or District level Committee or any other authority, if the matter is pending for permission by the Collector. 45. So far as the individual cases are concerned, we are not dealing with or discussing the individual claim as their applications for permission are pending with the Collector and will be guided by the finding as given by us and mentioned hereinabove. We find no merit in any of the writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals and, therefore, we dismiss all the writ petitions, Letters Patent Appeals and the Civil Applications. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1081 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e includes any income referred to in sub-section (2) of section 80P. In the instant case, the assessee has still income u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, after restricting disallowance of ₹ 1,82,00,000/- determined under Rule 8D and, therefore, the assessee will be eligible for deduction of ₹ 50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act.. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition. 24. The last issue for consideration relates to deletion the addition of ₹ 2,98,28,000/- being contribution to Cooperative Education Fund. Since identical issue has been decided in I.T.A. No.1194/Del./2011 (supra), for the same reasons, it is held that the assessee is eligible for deduction on account of contribution to Cooperative Education Fund. 25. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are rejected. 26. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for both the years are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 31.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1080 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... The learned CIT (A) accordingly held that the amount of ₹ 11,37,500/- cannot be considered as an ad hoc disallowance as t was fully allowable. The balance amount of ₹ 4,83,922/- mainly incurred on vehicles and conveyance expenses for business purposes, the learned CIT (A) restricted the disallowance of 20 on this amount of ₹ 4,83,922/- only. But, again considering the submissions of the assessee, he reduced the disallowance to 10 of the amount. The same has been questioned by the revenue before us. 10. Considering the submissions of the parties in this regard, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (A) on the issue especially looking into the turnover of the assessee as discussed above. The first appellate order in this regard is thus upheld and the ground No.3 raised on this issue is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 31st day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1079 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... l on record, we find that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rohan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the depreciation was allowable to the assessee in respect of the motor cars purchased by it and used for the purpose of its business, though registered in the name of the Managing Director. In the present case, the assessee purchased the vehicles called Demo cars in the name of the Directors though ownership thereof did not lie with the assessee. The facts of the present case are in pari materia with those in the case of Rohan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra). So, respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. We uphold the same. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 11th Day of May 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1078 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... states, on instructions, that he would like to withdraw this special leave petition. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. However, we direct the Company Law Board to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending Company Petition No.201 of 2007, preferably by 30th June, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d as follows “Uto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80IB(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as “housing project” or ‘residential plus commercial’. Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80IB(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10 of the total built-up area of the plot; cl (d) inserted in s. 80-IB(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 is prospective and not retrospective.” Respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 6th day of May, 2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1076 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eady stand taken, and the fact that the matter is already referred to arbitration shows that both parties are at variance in relation to the claims referred to arbitration. Pertinently, in this case the DRE opined in favour of the petitioner in relation to the claim No. 4 (which was dispute issue No. 6 before the DRE). Therefore, there was no purpose in again going back to the Engineer or the DRE only on account of a change in the quantification of claim No. 4 which corresponded to dispute issue No. 6 before the DRE. The power of the Arbitral Tribunal to allow amendment of the claim is preserved by the Act. I, therefore, reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment of the claimed amount required the respondent to re-invoke clauses 24 and 25 of the General Conditions of Contract and the amount could not have been amended before the Arbitral Tribunal. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1075 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)
... ...
... ... ..... acquittals for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and same do not come under the ambit and purview of the said amended proviso to Section 372 of the Code. 24. Accordingly, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents accused, are not acceptable on the touchstone of the above enunciated legal position, and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the same, and hence, the question for determination in respect of maintainability of the present applications before this Court is answered in the affirmative, and resultantly, present applications under Section 378(4) of the Code, seeking leave to file appeals challenging the respective judgments and orders of acquittals for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are maintainable before this Court, since there is no application of the amended proviso of Section 372 of the Code there to, and hence, same be decided on their own merits. Stand over to 20.6.2011.
........
|
