|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 888 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... med Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in administrative as well as quasi judicial orders is a requirement for both accountability and transparency. It is important for sustaining faith in the justice delivery system. It also operates as a valid restraint for any possibility of arbitrariness by decision maker and facilitates the process of judicial review by Superior Courts. We find that the impugned order without giving any reasons on which reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Income Tax Officer (Technical) for the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur is set aside. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur is directed to pass fresh order after considering the reply of the petitoner giving sufficient reasons, show application of mind expeditiously if possible within a period of six weeks from the day a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
-
2011 (11) TMI 887 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t the very same payment is royalty in the hands of payee. We jettison the viewpoint of the Revenue on this score as well. 20. In view of the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the amount collected by the assessee towards the intellectual property be assessed as royalty. The impugned order on this issue is, therefore, overturned and it is held that the entire amount of 58.29 lakh be considered as business profits. The learned CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee does not have a permanent establishment in India and thus its business profit cannot be taxed in India. No appeal has been preferred by the Revenue to challenge this finding given by the learned CIT(A). Ex consequenti the business profits amounting to 58.29 lakh cannot be charged to tax in India in view of the assessee not having any PE in India. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on this 28th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 886 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... n discussed wherein identical ratio was laid down. The decision in Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (292 ITR 205) (All) also held identically. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) especially when the interest income on fixed deposits and saving bank account is very much part of banking activity/business of the assessee. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (254 ITR 697) (Bom) further supports the case of the assessee. Exemption of interest income will be available only if it has arisen in the course of business of banking and not otherwise as was held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.P. Cooperative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 472). Finally, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (11) TMI 885 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. Appeals are admitted.
-
2011 (11) TMI 884 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... the order of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) has merely followed the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for assessment year 2006-07 order dated 23-09-2010 in ITA No. 793/RJT/2010. The facts in the assessment year under appeal are identical to assessment year 2006-07. In the assessment year 2006-07 also the Central Excise duty of Rs. 80,88,026 and sales-tax incentive of Rs. 3,57,05,815 were claimed as exempt during the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter. After considering both the judgments, viz. Goetze India Ltd (supra) and Sahaney Steel Press Works Ltd V. CIT (supra) the Tribunal held that these receipts are of capital in nature In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has merely followed this order. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-11-2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 883 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this stage by reserving liberty to the Petitioners to produce such certificate in the Trial Court and leaving it open to the Trial Court to consider legal effect of such a certificate on the maintainability or otherwise of the Suit after permitting the parties to lead appropriate evidence. 22. Mr. Khambata submits that since Union of India has been allowed to intervene in the present proceedings, I should direct the Trial Court to permit the Union of India to intervene. Mr. Thorat opposes such request. In my opinion, whether a party should be permitted to intervene or not is a prerogative of the Trial Court. No such application had ever been made before the Trial Court, and, hence, it will be open for the Union of India to make such application before the Trial Court which shall also be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 23. Subject to the aforesaid clarifications the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 882 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... KR. PRASAD ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 881 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... manufactured and sold by them does not entitle the appellant to claim CENVAT credit at all, shall remain stayed, if the appellant is otherwise entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the said items in law. SLP (C) No. 12855-12856 of 2011 Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 12855-12856/2011. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with appeal arising out of SLP (C) 34310-34311/2010.
-
2011 (11) TMI 880 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f power under Article 142 and declare the acquisition of the Appellants' land bad although the acquisition proceedings have been completed in accordance with law. 32. Lastly, the learned senior counsel invited our attention to the application (I.A. No. 4) wherein the Appellants offered for amicable settlement by expressing their readiness and willingness to give an area of land admeasuring 13250 square feet out of the total land of 1.45 acres (i.e. 1 acre and 19445 sq. ft.) free of cost to the Corporation. The offer is not acceptable to Mr. B. Balaji. He submitted that such a small area is of no use for expansion of the existing depot. We do not find any unreasonableness in the submission of the counsel that an area of 13250 square feet would not meet the purpose for which the Appellants' land has been acquired. 33. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. I.A. No. 4 and other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 879 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ond reasonable doubt that accused issued cheque in question to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability and hence, it is further apparently clear that complainant has failed to discharge the said burden beyond reasonable doubt, which was rebutted as mentioned herein above and therefore, learned trial court acquitted the accused rightly for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. 26. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by learned trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and said view does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused also cannot be faulted with, and hence, no interference therein is called for in the Appellate jurisdiction and therefore, present appeal fails. 27. In the result, present appeal which is sans merits, stands dismissed. R P be sent back to the concerned Court.
-
2011 (11) TMI 878 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is stated that there have been subsequent developments in the matter as stated therein whereby the Respondent had not appointed their Director on Board and had not exercised any such power and they had already sold their stake in the Target Company and had retained only about six per cent shareholding of the Target Company. 3. Further, it was....2/- also informed that a company by name of M/s. Welspun had already acquired majority stake in the Target Company and the said M/s. Welspun had also taken control of the Target Company and, accordingly, complied with the requirements of both Regulation 10 as well as Regulation 12 of the Takeover Regulations. 4. Keeping in view the above changed circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to dispose of the present appeal by keeping the question of law open and it is also clarified that the impugned order passed by the SAT will not be treated as a precedent. 5. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly member. 27. It is no doubt true that in the gift deed Ex.DW-1/B there is a condition that the defendant No. 1 could not sell the same without the consent of her husband, but we have proof through Ex.DW-1/D that husband of defendant No. 1 gave the necessary consent and qua the challenge to his mental condition to do so, except for making self-serving statements, the plaintiff and his witnesses could take the case no further. Be that as it may, assuming the sale deed, which we note has been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of her daughter-in-law, failing due to any reason, it would be of no benefit to the plaintiff because in said circumstance the gift deed would stand. That apart, if the gift deed would stand, the plaintiff would have no locus standi to challenge the sale deed. 28. Looked at from any angle, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 29. The appeal is dismissed with costs in favour of the contesting respondents and against the appellant.
-
2011 (11) TMI 876 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... refore, the assessing authority was not justified in excluding those expenditure from the computation of the cost of asset while granting depreciation allowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has granted the relief, which is rightful in law. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on this point is upheld. 7. The grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals are the same and, therefore, the above findings are applicable to both the appeals under consideration. 8. The assessee has filed cross objections to support the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). In view of the orders passed in the appeals filed by the Revenue, these cross objections are liable to be dismissed. 9. In result these appeals filed by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 29th of November, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (11) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s to be paid 75% of the salary by way of Subsistence Allowance. In this case, the respondent has been kept under prolonged suspension for a period of nearly 5 years with salary in the form of Subsistence Allowance without extracting any work from him, which is nothing but wasting of Government money. On the other hand, applying Rule 3(e)(5) of the Rules, pending trial of the Criminal Case, the suspension of the respondent shall be revoked and as rightly held by the learned single Judge, he can be posted in a far away place in a non-sensitive post and some work could be extracted from him for the salary paid to him. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting our interference. For the reasons stated supra, we have no hesitation to confirm the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 874 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... deletion of addition of interest paid on the alleged bogus loan as well as commission paid on alleged bogus loan. We have accepted that it is not a bogus loan and it is for the business as we have already decided the issue of addition on account of alleged bogus loan against the Department and in favour of assessee. This interest which was paid on the above loan and the commission paid on the alleged loan which are of consequent in nature and has to be decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Therefore, this interest can not be taken as undisclosed income of the assessee, so of the commission payment should also be deleted accordingly. In view of the above foregoing findings, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the above captioned 5 appeals i.e. for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 2006-07. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the Department are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 29.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 873 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing in some other way, the Respondent-Police have a right to enter the premises of the Petitioner's association, inspect and take further action as per law; c. In respect of the FIR registered by the Respondent-Police against those 56 persons and others who said to have indulged in illegal gambling activities as per the raid conducted on 10.8.2011, it is open to the Respondent-Police to proceed further as per law and it is for the Petitioner's association, its members and their guests to defend the same in the manner known to law, as the Criminal action was initiated after a valid raid conducted on 10.8.2011 by the Respondent-Police; d. The Respondent-Police are also advised not to disturb the Petitioner-Association frequently under the guise of inspection as it would disturb the peace harmony of the Petitioner-Association. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 872 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... veyors are not public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The licenced surveyors are not mere contractors bound by their engagements. They are definitely bound by the terms of their office as licenced surveyors. 5(c). For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the licensed surveyors appointed under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are the public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the dictum laid down in Crl. P. No.15283/2011 disposed of on 23.05.2011 is not a good law. 6. In view of the above, we answer the issue referred to the Division Bench as under “The licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” Reference is answered accordingly. Post the Criminal Petition before the bench having roster for hearing.
-
2011 (11) TMI 871 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the time of appellate proceedings and on the basis of which appeal was allowed. Against the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, the department has gone before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as may be perused from the department’s grounds of appeal. In my respectful prayer, this not a valid ground for rejecting the said exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has already been approved by Ld. CCIT as on date. Therefore, the appeal of the department may kindly be directed to be deleted.” 6. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that this appeal has been filed by the Revenue to keep the matter alive. Accordingly, upon careful consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2011, upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2011 (11) TMI 870 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹. 2,17,49,200/-, 42% being ₹.91,34,664/- is sustained as income in the hands of the assessee and the assessee was granted relief of ₹. 1,26,14,536/-. 6.1 Considering the complete details furnished before the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has estimated and adopted the effective interest rate at an higher side. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 50% of effective interest rate i.e., 26% (52x0.5) of gross cash deposited shall be considered as income and 50% of estimated interest has been given as relief to the assessee and would include therein any claims on account of peak credit. As a result, out of the cash deposit of ₹.2,17,49,200/-, 26% being ₹.56,54,792/- is sustained as income in the hands of the assessee and the assessee get a relief of ₹.1,60,94,408/-. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 18th November, 2022 at Chennai.
-
2011 (11) TMI 869 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... emicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 observed that the provisions of section 43(1) will not apply in this case and deleted the addition made by the A.O. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that the ratio of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals (supra) is applicable in the facts of the present case and therefore, provisions of 43(1) will not be applicable and the A.O. is not justified to reduce the capital subsidy and hence the depreciation and no addition was called for. We find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus ground no.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. As regards ground nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue, since the same are general in nature, therefore, do not require any adjudication. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.236/Agr/2010 is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2011).
........
|
