Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 914 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1231 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t, the proportionate costs and interest due on the said amount, proviso (c) to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot have any application. 33. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. We held that in the proceedings for execution of the decree amount of Rs. 2,55,500/- (i.e. Rs. 3,25,500/- minus Rs. 70,000/- as shown earlier) along with interest and proportionate costs, the Respondent is not entitled to take up the plea of no means. 34. This appeal is allowed to the above extent. The Court below shall proceed with the execution petition and pass appropriate orders. Parties/counsel shall appear before the Family Court on 30-8-2010 to continue the proceedings. 35. The Registry shall forthwith forward the records to the Family Court. 36. We place on record our appreciation for the worthy assistance rendered to this Court by the Advocates for the contestants and by Advocate Sri C.S. Dias who assisted us as amicus curiae.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1230 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ice returnable on 27th July, 2010. By way of adinterim relief, the respondent is permitted to proceed further with the investigation and inquiry. However, final order shall not be passed without the permission of this Court. 3. Direct Service is permitted.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1229 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... terest income on FDRs and mutual funds arises out of the funds invested with non-members? Similar question was also involved in Income Tax Appeal (30) of 2003, The Commissioner of Income Tax-11 another Vs. M/s Noida Golf Course Society. This Court has dismissed the appeal on 26.5.2010. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1228 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ... ... ... ..... s cancellation agreement was filed along with the application u/s 154 but it relates to the nature of transactions. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court that justice should not only be done it should seem to have been done and minor technicalities should not come in the way. Therefore, in order to impart justice to the parties the entire transactions should be examined in the light of this cancellation deed which is filed along with the rectification application. We therefore, of the view that the A.O. ought to have allowed the rectification application and to adjudicate the issue in the light of cancellation deed filed before the A.O. We accordingly, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to admit the cancellation deed and to re-examine the entire issue in the light of these documents. Accordingly, this appeal is stand disposed off. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 19.7.2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1227 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... n law of the deceased and Mukesh, the brother in law of the deceased. As already noticed, Lajwanti and Mukesh have been acquitted by the High Court for total lack of evidence. Neither the State nor the complainant has preferred an appeal against judgment of acquittal. The accused is a young person of 48 years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by awarding him the minimum sentence provided in law, i.e. 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. Resultantly, the appeal is partially accepted and the accused-appellant is awarded sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304B of the Code. 34. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms. 35. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds and surety stand discharged. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1226 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... ctly attributable to the Indian PE i.e. rendered to a project or client in India. In effect thus, entire profits relating to services rendered by the assessee, whether rendered in India or outside India, in respect of Indian projects is taxable in India. That is precisely what the Assessing Officer had done. The grievance of the Assessing Officer is indeed justified and we uphold the same. We, therefore, vacate the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. 149. In this view of the matter, second ground of appeal of the Assessing Officer is thus allowed. Outcome of Assessing Officer s appeal 150. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Summary of outcome of cross appeals 151. To sum up, the appeals filed by the assessee as also by the Assessing Officer are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 16 th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1225 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... be supplied and the bar under Section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked. There is no question, therefore, of not providing the information concerning the Respondent to the Respondent himself. 26. The provision of Section 8(1)(j) is also not attracted. The disclosure to the Respondent of the information concerning himself can hardly be said to be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. This is information about himself which he needs to know as it provides the reason why he was not considered for promotion. Therefore, the information directed to be disclosed by the SBI to the Respondent is only the disaggregated marks awarded to him in the promotion process and cannot be stated to be covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 27. No other point was urged by Mr. Kapur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 28. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the CIC. 29. The writ petition and the pending application are dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1224 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nothing to do with the resolution passed by the BAI. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how the Government Order issued based on the alleged resolution of BAI authorising mandatory contributions to NAC can be enforced against contractors. It is brought to the notice of this Court that BAI is a body of persons engaged in the construction of buildings, and it is not an association of contractors who are engaged in construction of roads. Be that as it is, by reading the Government Orders being G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 19.5.1998, G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 11.4.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 05.7.2000, it is very clear that the Government itself contemplated the mandatory contributions to be made by the contractors. The law does not permit such extraction by forceful contributions. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the Government Orders lack legal sanction and, therefore, they cannot be sustained. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ appeals are dismissed with costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1223 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... empted must have been applied in the year in question and not earlier. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. 8. Exclusion of income from total income under Section 11 of the Act is to the extent of its application for charitable purposes. Adjustment against excess expenditure of an earlier year is also application of income under the said provision. In CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 1987 164 ITR 439 , it was held that it was not necessary that the income should be applied in the year in which it has arisen. Excess expenditure already incurred could also be adjusted against the income of the following year. Requirement of Section 11 of the Act was only to apply the income which could also cover adjustment of the income for the expenditure for charitable purposes. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the said judgment. No contrary view has been shown. 9. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1222 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... d hoc addition is unjustified. Addition was accordingly deleted. 3. The learned DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, assessee sought adjournment which is rejected separately. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. 4. On consideration of the above facts and submissions of the learned DR, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The AO has not brought any material on record to show as to which of the bills/vouchers of the expenditure has not been produced before him. Even, no quantum of amount is specified as to how which expenditure was not supported by any bills/vouchers. The AO has also not pointed out as to which of the expenditure was inadmissible in nature. It, therefore, appears that the AO has made ad hoc addition of 15% out of the total expenditure. The learned CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition. 5. As a result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9-07-2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1221 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... public offer through a merchant banker to acquire shares from public shareholders by paying them the value determined by the valuer in the manner prescribed(sic) in regulation 23 of the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 and acquire the shares offered in response to the public offer, within three months from the date of this order; (d) Direct BSE to facilitate valuation of shares to be purchased, as at (c) above, and compulsorily delist Parsoli Corporation Ltd., if the public shareholding reduces below the minimum level in view of aforesaid purchase. 13. A copy of this order shall be served on all recognized stock exchanges and depositories to ensure that the directions given in para 12 above are strictly complied with. A copy of this order shall also be served on NSE, BSE, and CDSL of which Parsoli Corporation Ltd. is a member or depository participant or where Parsoli is listed, as the case may be. 14. This order shall come into force with immediate effect.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1220 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e is no averment in the application for injunction in terms of Order 39, Rule 1(b) of the Code that the Defendant threatened or intended to dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors. Thus, the said decision does not help the Plaintiff in anyway. 28. On consideration of the entire materials on record we find that the Plaintiff having failed to make out any case of attachment before judgment as provided in Order 38 of the Code, the learned single Judge should have dismissed the application itself instead of calling upon the Defendant to show cause and granting ad interim order of injunction in the nature of attachment before judgment. 29. We, therefore, allow the appeal preferred by the Defendant, dismiss the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, and dismiss the application for injunction filed by the Plaintiff on the ground that no case of injunction as prayed for has been made out. 30. There will be, however, no order as to costs. J.N. Patel, C.J. 31. I agree.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... d holder. The Commission shall submit its report not to the Central Government but to this Court for approval and further directions. Any de-notification/release of the land would be only subject to further orders passed by this Court in light of the Commission's report. The Commission may proceed with the survey in relation to the acquired lands in other villages, as suggested in paragraph 9 of the scheme only after submitting its report in respect of village Gopalpur and subject to further orders by this Court. 23. The officers of the State Government and the coal company shall extend full help and cooperation to the Commission in preparing the report and in the discharge of their duties in terms of the scheme. 24. We record our deep appreciation of Mr. Subramanium for sharing the feelings of the court and for his effort to resolve this matter. We may, however, remind him that his task is not over. It has only begun. 25. Put up on receipt of the Commission's report.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1218 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., 312 ITR 254 and judgment of this Court in Skycell Communications Ltd. and Anr. vs. DCIT and Ors., 251 ITR 53 which has been followed in appeal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd., I.T.A. No. 1120/2007. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It could not be disputed that the question covered there is a pure question of fact. No question of law has arisen. Dismissed.? In view of the aforesaid order, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1217 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... red the facts of the case and submissions made before us. It is clear that a fiction created u/s 50C is applicable only for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the case of transferor. This fiction is not applicable to the case of a buyer in this year. The issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra). Following this decision, it is held that the provisions contained in sections 69 and 69B cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee unless specific evidence of non-disclosure of any part of the investment is brought on record. Such an evidence does not exist in this case. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the ld. CIT(A) in this matter. Relying on the decision in the case of Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd., it is held that no amount could be added to the income of the assessee u/s 69 or 69B. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1216 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... applications (Exhibits39 and 49) are one of the tactics to protract the matter and sight cannot be lost of the said submissions and, therefore, it is necessary to expedite the hearing of the case. 14) In the circumstances, there is no perversity and arbitrariness in the orders passed by learned JMFC (2nd Court) Jalgaon rejecting the applications (Exhibits39 and 49) preferred by the petitioner on 12th January, 2009 and also by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No. 57/2009 on 12.11.2009, and hence no interference therein is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15) In the result, the present petition is sans merit, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. 16) The learned JMFC, (2nd Court) Jalgaon, to decide the S.C.C.No.2534/2003 on its own merits expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1215 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... AO. 7. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the relevant material available on record. As the facts emerge, AO in his order has merely referred to excessiveness of expenditure; self made vouchers and without assigning any reasons ad hoc disallowances have been made, which in A.Y. 2003- 04 have been upheld by CIT(A) and in A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 have been partly confirmed. In our view, if the books of assessee are properly maintained and produced before AO, the disallowance shall proceed on items of expenditure, which are not proved by the assessee. Ad hoc disallowance in every year without assigning any reasons is not justifiable. In view thereof, we are inclined to delete the ad hoc disallowance as upheld by CIT(A). Assessee’s grounds in this behalf are allowed. 8. Charging of interest u/s 234(b) & (c) is consequential in nature. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed on above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 30-7-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1214 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ... ... ... ..... w, in this case also the payment made is for business consideration and cannot be considered to be illegal in nature and have been incurred in the ordinary course of business in order to ensure that the work is completed on time. Therefore, the said amount has to be allowed as deduction by way of "business expenditure". Therefore said decision squarely applies to the present case also and accordingly, we answer the substantial questions against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the considered view that the assessee's case is quite identical to the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court supra. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has also arrived at the same conclusion. Therefore we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1213 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... the seller has sold the gold or diamond at higher rate to the purchaser and has shown a lesser price. In the case of these shares there is some limitations also hence argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel supports that assessee has not paid more price for acquiring those shares than declared in the books of accounts. The learned CIT(A) has only expressed a doubt regarding the purchase price shown by the assessee at the same time accepted valuation report furnished by the assessee which was furnish before him for the firsty time. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the addition made u/s.69B and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, allow the ground of the assessee on this issue and delete the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) and at the same time dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue. 9. In the result, of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this day of 30th, July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... to wait compulsorily and indefinitely for the appearance of the complainant. In such situation, the Magistrate may close the complaint, which would not amount to acquittal of the accused. Therefore, in this case, the learned Magistrate, by closing the complaint, has not committed any illegality. At the same time, this Court considers the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the representative of the complainant could not appear before the Court due to illness. 5. In the interests of justice that the complainant must be given a chance to put forth his case and he should not be stopped at the threshold, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode made in C.M.P. No. 2170 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010, dismissing the complaint is set aside. Therefore, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The complainant is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
........
|