|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1159 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1088 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Period of limitation for initiation of suit. - Administrator had granted right to construct/develop the suit land - Sale to nominee or 3rd party - Breach of fiduciary duty - validity of sale made.
HELD THAT:- We have adverted to some of these events because they would suggest prima facie, though in fairly unmistakable terms, that parties were in dispute over the transactions which Ferani entered into right. The record before the Court would, prima facie, indicate that from time to time the administrator raised objections to those transactions and was confronted with the defence by Ferani that the transactions accorded with the prevailing market price and were genuine transactions. In this background, the fact that the administrator chose to file the suit only in May 2008 assumes significance. Equities have intervened in the meantime. It has been stated before the Court on behalf of Ferani that in the interregnum steps have been taken for the removal of encroachment and for carrying out the work of development. Third party rights have intervened.
Even after the suit was instituted on 13 May 2008, an application for ad interim relief was moved before the Learned Single Judge only on 3 March 2010. The only explanation which the administrator had for the delay in moving an application for ad interim relief is that the Sub Registrar and the Municipal Corporation had been moved not to register documents or, as the case may be, to grant building permission and it was only in October / December 2009 that the Municipal Corporation informed him that absent any injunction, it would proceed with permissions.
Admittedly, in the meantime, the work under the project was continuing. These are circumstances which must weigh with the Court in declining to grant a stay on construction at the ad interim stage. The order which the Learned Single Judge passed precludes the sale of any unit whatsoever without the consent of the parties. Parties are in dispute and an order of the Court restricting the sale of constructed premises only with the consent of the parties would virtually bring the entirety of the project to a stand still. The entitlement of the administrator under the agreement dated 2 January 1995 is to the receipt of a share in the gross total consideration equivalent to 12%. The grant of injunctive relief restraining Ferani from selling its units would therefore neither be in accordance with the equities of the situation nor the mutual rights and obligations of the parties.
Accordingly, the Appeals shall stand disposed of in terms of the directions. A Commissioner is appointed for recording evidence.
Matter restored back before Single Member Bench with directions and questions framed to be decided.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1087 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 89 (Mum). 5.1 Since the very basis upon which the penalty has been imposed on the amount of Rs.Rs.7,22,18,646/- added by the AO, does not exist in view of the aforesaid order dated 9-3-2012 of the ITAT in quantum appeal, we are of the opinion that penalty levied in relation to the said amount does not survive at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is, therefore, set aside to that extent . However, the AO is free to initiate the penalty proceedings in accordance with law while completing the assessment in pursuance to the direct ions of the ITAT in quantum appeal. With these observat ions, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are disposed of. 6. Ground no.3 in the appeal, being general in nature, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.4 in the appeal, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 7. No other plea or argument was made before us. 8. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1086 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e it merely because they passed amendment subsequent to the order. However, we do not think we should enter into the controversy because our judgment above helps these appellants/petitioners also to get licence. We therefore allow all these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions declaring the deletion of three star hotels from Rule 13(3) by SRO. No. 779/2011 dated 09/12/2011 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also by declaring that addition of sub-rule (3E) to Rule 13 by SRO No. 202/2012 dated 27/03/2012 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We consequently, allow all the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions by declaring the impugned amendments as unconstitutional and by vacating the orders impugned in the W.P.(C)s. with direction to the respondents to consider and grant FL-3 licence to all eligible Hotels with 3-Star and above and Heritage classification based on the unamended Rules.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1084 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... se factual situations, this Tribunal is of the opinion that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A). When there is a conflict between technicalities and substantial justice, the substantial justice has to be preferred rather than technicalities. This view of this Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v MST. Kattiji 1987 167 ITR 471. By following the judgment of the Apex Court in MST Kattiji (supra) and for the reasons stated therein the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is condoned. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee stands restored on the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A). The Commissioner of Income-tax(A) shall dispose of the appeal on merit, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1083 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Decision of the Gujarat High Court affirmed. Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT 2007 291 ITR 519 (SC) and Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu 2009 23 VST 249 (SC) relied on.” 8. Thus, on the facts of the present case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby deleted. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th July 2012
-
2012 (7) TMI 1082 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Petition (C) No. 7556 of 2008 is dismissed. (ii) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4954 of 2009 is however allowed, the judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 16815 of 2008 and in Writ Appeal No. 2211 of 2008 set aside. (iii) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33421 of 2009 is dismissed. (iv) Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011 are allowed, the judgment and orders passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 21384 of 2009 and in Writ Appeal No. 2791 of 2009 are set aside. The order passed by the Government in revision and that passed by the District Educational Officer dated 22nd October, 2007 shall stand quashed. Prayer for compassionate appointment made by Respondent No. 1 is consequently rejected. (v) Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4467 of 2010 is dismissed. 31. The parties are left to bear their own costs in all the appeals.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ration/sale proceeds of the sale of the original asset by the assessee. In the present case though it is argued that the assessee has domain and ownership of the said property but nothing has been produced before us to show that assessee has the title in the said property. So far as the bank documents are concerned, that cannot be the decisive as admittedly the son of the assessee has been shown as the main borrower and the assessee is shown as the co-borrower but it is nothing but as a guarantor. In our opinion, assessee’s case is squarely covered by legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash v/s. ITO (Supra) as assessee failed to demonstrate that he has title or ownership in the property of the son. We, therefore, allow the ground taken by the revenue and reverse the order of the CIT(A) , Nasik. 8. In the result, revenue’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 25th July, 2012
-
2012 (7) TMI 1080 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Customs Act, 1962? iii)Whether inclusion of NCCD for computation of Brand rate of Drawback has any thing to do with “payment of drawback” appearing at exception clause (C) of the first proviso to section 129A(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962? iv)Whether any appeal arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to “inclusion of NCCD for computation of Brand rate of Drawback” would lie before the Tribunal in terms of section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly when NCCD is not considered as a duty of Customs? Issue notice to the respondents. Paper book be filed with in three months.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1079 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the U.P. State Electricity Board/U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and the rates as determined/ recommended by the independent authority? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to consider the claim of the appellant (assessee) for exclusion of the amount re-payable to customers as per the minimum consumption guarantee scheme? Admit. Issue notice. Notices on behalf of the respondents have been accepted by Sri Dhananjai Awathi, learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, no notice need be sent to the respondents. The parties may file their respective Paper-Books within six weeks. The Appeal will be listed for hearing in due course.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1078 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Turnover Tax - determination of compounded rate of tax - comparable parameters - Section 7 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT:- the tax paid would necessarily include the tax assessed and the payment of tax at compound rate in Section 7 applicable to the case of the assessee would definitely enable the Assessing officer to arrive the highest turnover tax payable for any of the previous three consecutive years; taking into account the assessed tax, as modified in appeal, revision or other proceedings. The question raised by the assessee in STRs 59 & 61 of 2012, has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, since the assessment of the earlier year 2008-09 is remanded, the determination of the highest turnover tax for the purpose of granting facility of payment of tax at compound rates would also depend on such assessment proceedings directed to be de-novo completed. In the above circumstance, we answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, but all the same remand the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
The Sales Tax Revisions are ordered as above.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1077 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in respect of determination of ALP. The assessee shall produce copies of the additional evidences filed before us to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer after considering these materials and after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, decide the issue in respect of the ALP. The assessee shall also cooperate with the Assessing Officer by producing the materials that may be required by him. 05. The assessee has also taken a ground in respect of levy of interest u/s.234D of the IT Act. Since we have restored the matter to decide the main issue relating to transfer pricing, we direct the Assessing Officer to redecide this issue relating to interest u/s.234D of the Act while giving effect to our direction in respect of transfer pricing. 06. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court after the completion of the hearing on 10.07.2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1076 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 12. Learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani waives service of notice for respondent no.1State of Gujarat. Ad interim relief in terms of Para No.15c till then. Direct service is permitted.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1075 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r, Adv., Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Rahul Sateeja, Adv., Ms. Husnal Syali, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1074 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... entative will forget to pursue filing of appeal in cases of his most valued clients particularly when the stakes involved are substantial. These facts lead to only one conclusion that the claim that appeal is not presented in time due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel’s office is not correct.” Without going into much deliberation, we are of the view that no person should be condemned unheard. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we condone the delay and direct the ld. first appellate authority to hear the appeals of the respective assessee on merit and decide in accordance with law. The assessees be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate their claim. Finally, these appeals are allowed in part for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 17th July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1073 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trar, High Court (O.S.), Bombay, with the concerned Superintendent of Stamps for the purpose of adjudication of stamp duty payable, if any, on the same within 60 days from the date of order. 12. Petitioners are directed to file a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the Scheme of Amalgamation with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E-Form 21 in addition to physical copy within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order by the Registry 13. The Petitioners in both Petitions to pay costs of ₹ 10,000/- each to the Regional Director. Petitioner in Company Scheme Petition No. 275 of 2012 to pay sum of ₹ 10,000/- to the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay toward his Costs. Costs to be paid within four weeks from today. 14. Filing and issuance of the drawn up order is dispensed with. 15. All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this order along with Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court (O.S.), Bombay.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by collecting prepayment charges/reset charges from the borrowers, the appellants are providing services in the nature of banking and other financial services so as to liable to service tax?” Issue notice to the respondent. Paper Books be submitted within three months.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1071 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... trading assets can be looked into only by verifying the source of dividend income, on which shares the dividend income had been earned. Whether the shares on which short term capital gain shown by the assessee were sold just prior to the declaration of the dividend date or these were sold post dividend. All these aspects are necessary to ascertain the objective of the assessee in investment in these shares. If the motive of investment is to realize profit by making purchases and sales of shares then it shall be definitely trading assets and the profits shall be treated as a business income, but if the objective of the investment is to derive income by way of dividend then the transaction of purchases and sales of shares would definitely yield capital gain and not business profit. For this aspect, we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 13th day of July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1070 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have filed an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return and if the petitioner files an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return the Commissioner will reconsider the matter in accordance with law. 3. In view of the above, I make the following order The impugned order dated 19.03.2012 at Annexure-K is set-aside. The petitioner shall file an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return. On such filing of the application , the Commissioner shall consider the matter in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1069 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... .L.P. (C) Nos.17002/2012 and 17216/2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The special leave petitions are dismissed. S.L.P. (C) No.17919/2012 and 18103/2012 The special leave petitions shall stand over for two weeks.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1068 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the direction to supply information be confined to the list of 706 complementary tickets issued only. The counsel for the respondent information seeker opposes. He states that the appellant as per the law is required to maintain the records for eight years and the information was sought within two years and since the proceedings were pending could not have been destroyed. It is further urged that the appellant has not even cared to state on affidavit that the remaining information is not available. 15. In the circumstances, while dismissing this appeal, we direct that subject to the appellant within one week filing an affidavit in this Court with advance copy to the respondent that the information qua the remaining complementary tickets issued in the year 2006 has been destroyed and is not available, the direction for supply of information of the said year shall be confined to 706 complementary tickets only. We refrain ourselves from imposing any cost on the appellant.
........
|
