|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 936 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1298 - CALCUTTA HIGH COUR
... ...
... ... ..... or by some other equitable adjustment like owelty. 39. The suit is essentially for partition of the family business and assets between the four branches by including not only what is mentioned in the MOU but also the other business and assets of the family not included therein. Such matter is covered by the wide words of the arbitration agreement. 40. GA No. 1756 of 2010 is allowed in terms of prayer (a) of the notice of motion dated May 17, 2010. CS No. 121 of 2010 and all interlocutory applications therein, including GA No. 1596 of 2010, stand disposed of. All interim orders subsisting in the suit stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 41. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Later 42. The plaintiffs pray for a stay of operation of this order. Though such prayer is declined, the subsisting interim orders will continue for a period of a fortnight from date.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1297 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ehalf of the petitioner is preposterous. 32. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in M.S. Bindra (supra) and Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 70, it has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that adverse entries had not been made in bona fide manner and as per the requirement prescribed by circulars etc. Therefore, the consequential order of compulsory retirement is illegal. There is no factual foundation on the basis of which such an assertion can be examined, nor there is a challenge in the writ petition to the said adverse entries. Petitioner sought quashing of order of compulsory retirement dated 20.5.2003 and not quashing of the adverse entries. Relief not specifically sought cannot be granted by the court. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to probe the issue further. 33. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... led except to the extent where on assumption of control of an industry by a declaration as envisaged in Entry 52 of List I, a further power of acquisition is taken over by a specific legislation. In our view, this judgment has no bearing on the interpretation of the 1976 Act which, as mentioned above, was enacted for the development of the city of Bangalore and the area adjacent thereto and it contains incidental provisions in Sections 35 and 36 for acquisition of land. 23. Since, we have not accepted the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the judgment of three-Judge Bench in Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. (supra) requires reconsideration, it is not necessary to deal with the argument of Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the B.D.A. that the 1976 Act is a law enacted with reference to Article 31(2A) of the Constitution. 24. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1295 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eceived by the addressees after about two days i.e. on 9th January, 2009 and 24th January, 2009. Fifteen days period would, thus expire on 24th January, 2009 and 6th February, 2009. As the amount has not been paid pursuant to the notice, it can be said that the offence was completed only in the last week of January and 1st week of February, 2009 as the case may be. Admittedly, on that date the petitioner was occupying the post of CEO of the respondent No. 2. For this reason also it cannot be said that complaint qua the petitioner is not maintainable. 14. For the foregoing reasons, petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this judgment are for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the Trial Court will not influenced by the same. It is further clarified that whether or not the averments made in the complaint against the petitioner are correct or false, has to be decided by the Trial Court after the trial.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1294 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or has to leave the matrimonial home. This temporary residence does not include residence in a lodge or hostel or an inn or residence at a place only for the purpose of filing a domestic violence case. This temporary residence must also be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring residence till the application under Section 12 is disposed of and it must not be a fleeing residence where a woman comes only for the purpose of contesting the case and otherwise does not reside there. 11. In the present case, the aggrieved person is residing with her sister and has filed the petition under Domestic Violence Act. It cannot be said that her residence with her sister was a fleeing residence or was a temporary residence acquired for lodging the complaint of domestic violence. Her sister's house is a place where she has taken shelter and temporarily resides. I, therefore, find that there is no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1293 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refunded by the Income Tax Department and by the Land Acquisition Collectors in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Once a judgment is given by this Court, unless the same is challenged, all concerned have to comply with the same and failure to do so, may call for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Several petitions continue to be filed in this Court on the same issue on account of failure of the Income Tax Department or the States to perform their duty, resulting in unnecessary litigation. 5. Accordingly, while disposing of these petitions in terms of earlier judgment in Risal Singh, we direct the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh to issue appropriate directions to all concerned forthwith in terms of the aforesaid judgment, so that unnecessary litigation can be avoided. 6. Copies of this order be sent to said authorities for compliance. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of each connected case.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exclusion as contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Court has no power to entertain and/ or consider and/or condone the delay as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while deciding such application under Section 34(3) of the Act except last thirty days. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there were various reasons for the Petitioner not to initiate proceedings within limitation after receipt of rejection of his application under Section 33 of the Act on 1st July, 2009, just cannot be considered as present petition was filed on 7th October, 2009. 18. Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the matter, in view of above clear provisions of law, as well as, undisputed position of facts, in my view, the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. 19. The Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1291 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ces and tax audit for assessment year 1998-99 to 2000-01 and the bills were received only in 2000-01. On this issue also there is no remark by the A.O. in the remand report. The CIT(A) has not allowed the ground and there was no discussion. It was the submission of the assessee that eventhough tax audit was done in earlier years the relevant bills have been received only in this year and the same was allowable as the demand arose in this year. 17. We have considered the issue. As the bills were submitted during this year for professional fees even though audit was conducted in earlier years, the amount is allowable as deduction not only on the principle of crystallization of demand in this year but also on material concept as the amount involved is very small considered to assessee s turnover and income. The A.O. is directed to allow the amount. 18. In the result, appeal is considered allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1290 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her the definition of Sale Price given under Section 2(42) of Uttarakhand (The Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005) Amendment Act, 2008, includes the market fee (Mandi Shulk) or not, therefore, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be taken into account to solve the controversy before this Court. 19. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the definition of 'Sale Price' given under Section 2 of Sub-section 42 of the Act, rather he has sought the relief for the quashment of impugned circular, in which the respondent No. 1 has made interpretation to this effect that Mandi Shulk is included in the 'Sale Price'. 20. Therefore, in view of discussion made above, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief sought by him in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1289 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s carried over from earlier years, taking a consistent view and following the Tribunal’s order supra, we allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of this appeal of assessee is allowed.” Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. This ground of Revenue is rejected. 18. Ground No.1(v) relates to expenditure on fire fighting equipments etc. of Rs.9325000/-. Similar issue had arisen in the earlier Asst. Year and it was decided in favour of assessee. No appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Both the parties accept that this issue has been settled at the level of CIT(A) whereby it is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, no dispute survives and, therefore, this ground of Revenue is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 17/9/10.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1288 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Arbitral Tribunal shall be free to pass directions in respect of the Bank Guarantee as it considers expedient, lawful and just. The concluding paragraph of the impugned Order is ambiguous on the question of whether the Bank Guarantee in the sum of ₹ 7,60,80,000/- can be invoked or not. If the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it could be encashed, he need not have ordered for the furnishing of a Bank Guarantee and could easily have clarified the position or simply directed the Petitioner/Appellant to pay this amount to the Respondent. In this way, restitution would have been brought about. We think that the learned Single Judge had intended that the Bank Guarantee for ₹ 7,60,80,000/- should be kept alive to await the Orders of the Arbitral Tribunal. This, in any case, seems to us to maintain and balance the equities between the parties. 22. The Appeal along with pending application is disposed off in these terms. 23. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1287 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman. As already stated above, we have to see the transfer of the borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits.” 5. In view of the above finding, the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi Court would not be of any help to the Revenue. Therefore, we have to confirm the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. I.T.A.No. 1903/Mds/08 6. The facts have already been discussed above. By following the same reasoning as done in assessment year 2004-05, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has followed the order in this year, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal for this year also. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.9.10.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1286 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the signatory after filling it properly. In this case, the learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court has rightly observed that since signature of Petitioner on disputed Cheque is admitted by the Petitioner himself, hence no need for sending disputed Cheque for examination by handwriting expert concerning other part of Cheque concerning name of the complainant and date which is alleged to be filled by complainant. So far as citations relied upon by the Petitioner are concerned, facts of those cases are different as in those cases signature of accused on Cheques was disputed while facts of case at hand are altogether different. Considering the overall aspects of the matter so also the impugned orders and the documents on record, it is apparent that the orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court are just, proper, impeccable and infallible and I do not find any perversity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any substance, is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1285 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ection 2(22)(e) of the Act having not been fulfilled the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) are not applicable in the case. Accordingly, the loan borrowed by the appellant from the said company can not be treated as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Hence, the addition of Rs.5,24,80,660/- made on account of Deemed Dividend is deleted.” Since the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted before us and is based on the documents available in the paper book which were also available before the Assessing Officer. we find no infirmity in his order and the same is hereby upheld. Similarly, in respect of ground nos. 2 and 3 for Assessment Year 2006-07, we hold that the addition of Rs.18,32,288/- u/s. 2(22)(e) is unwarranted and accordingly, we confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. 11. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 12. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30.9.10.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1284 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the shareholders of the target company and cannot be said to be serious enough calling for an exorbitant penalty as imposed by the adjudicating officer. This is not a case where a non promoter has acquired a substantial chunk of shares in the target company changing its shareholding pattern and has gone away without making a public announcement. The acquisition by the appellant is within the promoter group which has not led to any change in control of the target company nor has its management changed. However Regulation 10 having been violated, penalty must follow as observed by the Supreme Court in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund AIR 2006 SC 2287. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of this case and the provisions of Section 15 J of the Act, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the amount of penalty is reduced to ₹ 5 lacs. We order accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1283 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at in absence of any positive material to indicate as to how the foreign exchange was acquired, mere possession thereof cannot be treated as acquisition. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court holding the field and in absence of any other adverse material on record, both the impugned orders are unsustainable since they suffer from perverse appreciation of evidence. As such, both the impugned order are liable to be quashed and set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed. Order accordingly. 5. The Revenue shall return the US 1,300 to the appellant within a period of eight weeks. On receipt of money the appellant would be entitled to deal with the foreign exchange in accordance with law. In the event Revenue fails to pay the amount of foreign exchange to the appellant within stipulated period, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum after expiry of period of eight weeks. 6. Appeal stands allowed in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sides religious activities, the trust has carried out charitable activities and activities of general public utility which are charitable in nature, for the community and village in which the Derasar is located. While confirming the order of C.I.T. (Appeals), the Tribunal also observed that in the assessee's case, apart from the religious activities, i.e. propagation of Jain philosophy and ideology, the trust is also engaged in spreading religious and dharmik knowledge and providing amenities and facilities to the pilgrims and renovation of Jain temples all over India. The Tribunal further observed that the trust is engaged in carrying out objects of general public utility which are charitable in nature. 9. In view of the above settled legal position and the findings of fact recorded by both the authorities below, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal and hence, both these appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1281 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e non obstante clause is contained in sec.40 but the same is required to be read harmoniously with the words following it. When so read, the language of the section turns out to be ‘notwithstanding anything contained in section 30 to 38, the following amount shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profit and gains of business or profession’ ……… . A bare perusal of the relevant portion of the section reveals that the non obstante clause is applicable only qua the deductions which are otherwise allowable under the act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as mentioned in section 40. But, it cannot change the source/head of income. 5. In our view, the assessee is entitled for exemption/deduction u/s 10A on the addition to income made by the assessing officer on account of provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 30.9.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1280 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... elating to the period 1st January, 2005 to 31st March, 2006 which had been received in the financial year 2005-2006 and included in the taxable income, considering that the mercantile system of accounting has been adopted by the assessee.” 12. We, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order passed by this Bench of the Tribunal, hold that since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the income for the period starting from 1st January, 2005 to 31st March, 2005 shall be accounted for on accrual basis for taxing the income in assessment year 2005-06, but the assessee is entitled to set off the income relating to the period 1st January, 2004 to 31st March, 2004,which had been received in the financial year 2004-05 and included in the taxable income considering that the mercantile system of accounting has been adopted by the assessee. 131. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 9.9.2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1279 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ire fencing or by any other mode and put to sale the lands bearing final plot nos.32 and 33 admeasuring about 36,250 sq. meters and 6,858 sq. meters, fixing up-set price at about ₹ 150 Crores and Earnest Money Deposit at about ₹ 15 Crores and issue public advertisements in two leading news papers of Ahmedabad namely “Indian Express”, English Daily and “Divya Bhaskar”, Gujarati Daily, inviting offers from intending purchasers and place the offers so received, before the Court in sealed cover on 22nd October, 2010. The advertisements as directed be issued on or before 30th September, 2010. 43.Since the judgments cited by the learned Counsels appearing for the applicants are not applicable to the facts of the present case, and they are clearly distinguishable on facts, they would not under any assistance to the applicants. 44. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations both these applications are accordingly disposed of, as rejected.
........
|
