|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1378 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of such interim injunction. 10. In (2001) 2 P.L.J.R. 268 (Dharam Nath Ojha vs. Raghunath Ojha), this court has held that law is well settled that if a lis has been admitted for adjudication, then it becomes the duty of the Court to preserve the subject matter of the litigation by an appropriate order so that the same is available at the time of final adjudication and the decree does not become a barren one. In view of the above discussion, I find that this is a fit case where the appellant is required to be injuncted from alienating, transferring or dealing with in any manner or damaging the subject matter of the probate proceeding during the pendency of this appeal. I, therefore, in exercise of power u/s. 151 C.P.C. restrained the appellant from alienating, transferring or encumbering or damaging the suit property till the disposal of the appeal. The injunction application is thus allowed and the injunction as prayed for is granted in favour of the deities, respondent no. 1.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1377 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... spectfully following the Hon ble Kolkata Tribunal order for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.552(Kol) of 2008) and my order for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the appellant s own case, I direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the appellant treating the gains from share transactions as LTCG instead of business income. In my earlier order for A.Y. 2006-07 I have also allowed the claim of the appellant in respect of STCG. Following my own order on identical issue and facts, I direct the A.O. to allow the appellant s claim in respect of both LTCG and STCG. The appellant s ground is allowed. We find that the lower authorities have reached a concurrent finding that facts and circumstances are exactly identical, taking the situation as it is, as the revenue now before us could not point out any difference in the facts, we are taking this as covered issue in favour of the assessee. Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1376 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted that usage for personal purpose cannot be ruled out. It was contended that this usage is very less and the disallowance on this account is excessive. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on this account by observing that element of personal use has been accepted by the assessee itself. 10. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that authorities below have made an estimate disallowance in this regard for personal usage. Assessee has also accepted that personal usage cannot be ruled out. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and hence, we uphold the same. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/8//2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... racy. 41. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334. In that case, this Court held that offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In paragraph 24 at page 354 of the report the following observations have been made Conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned, they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has No. consequence. 42. For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find that there is any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding in the instant case. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. 43. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the Appellant under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for life imprisonment is affirmed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e countenanced for the simple reason that in the Division Bench decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application had already been filed before the Collector seeking permission under section 157-AA as required under sub-section (4) thereof. In the case decided by the learned Single Judge, the application had been moved before the Court concerned as it was a Court sale and, therefore, in both the transactions involved in the said 2 decisions, the applications had already been moved prior to the transaction of sale. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner or the respondent-vendor did not move any application prior to the transaction and as a matter of fact the application was moved almost after 4 months of the execution of the sale-deed. The aforesaid 2 decisions, therefore, are clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio thereof will not apply on the facts of the present case. 9. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1373 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Justice U.P. Singh, a former Judge of this Court and a former Chief Judge of Kerala High Court, presently residing at 37, Patliputra Colony, Patna- 800013 is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the arbitral proceeding. The erstwhile arbitral tribunal appointed by the respondents is hereby directed to send all the records of the arbitral proceeding to the said Arbitrator within fifteen days from today. 14. Both the parties are directed to approach the said sole Arbitrator within fifteen days from today, whereafter the said Arbitrator will fix early dates in the case and will also fix the remuneration and expenses, which shall entirely be borne by the East Central Railway and its authorities as the petitioner has been unduly harassed by the authorities for four years, violating even the specific order of this Court dated 09.03.2011 passed in Request Case No. 10 of 2010.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1372 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ng equivalent obligation in the form of continuing to provide use of the capital structure for efficient discharge of effluent emitted by memberindustries. Even accounting standard -9 provides such deferring of revenue for taxation. Accounting Standard 9 has been referred above and para 6 thereof is relevant. 13. Following the above decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Mahindra Holidays Resorts (India) Ltd. (supra) we hold that the assessee was justified in deferring the revenue for taxation for four years. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed. Since the issue under consideration is identical, the above finding of the ITAT for A.Y.2001-02 would be squarely applicable to the under consideration. We therefore respectfully following the above order of the ITAT, allow Ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal and delete the addition made by the AO in this regard. 5. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 12th August, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1371 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d/- Justice N.K. Sodhi Presiding Officer Sd/- P.K. Malhotra Member Sd/- S.S.N. Moorthy Member 26. After we pronounced the orders in Court, the learned Counsel for the Appellants made an oral prayer that we should stay the operation of our orders to enable the Appellants to continue operating in the market till such time they approach the Supreme Court. This prayer is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Board. The prayer made on behalf of the Appellants, in our view, is wholly misconceived. By orders dated June 28, 2010 and July 27, 2010, the Board had restrained the Appellants from accessing the securities market for a period of one year and seven years respectively and these orders had been impugned in the appeals. When the appeals were admitted, we did not stay the operation of the orders impugned therein. Now when we have affirmed those orders and dismissed the appeals, there is No. reason for us to grant any interim stay. Consequently, the prayer is rejected.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1370 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oks of accounts from DGIT Exemption and verify the facts of the case whether income was applied by the assessee trust for the objects of the trust. We, therefore, set aside both the appeals to the file of the assessing officer with the directions that he will obtain the books of accounts from the DGIT Exemption and verify whether the expenses incurred by the assessee were utilized for the purpose of the trust and all other conditions relating to allowability of deduction under section 11 were satisfied or not. The ld. AR of the assessee had given undertaken that the assessee will co-operate with the assessing officer in getting the assessment expeditiously. The assessing officer is directed to pass order on merits after providing sufficient opportunity being heard to the assessee to explain its case. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 05th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1369 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... an Kumar, Adv., Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1368 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rchased by the assessee was not a commercial vehicle and, therefore, 50% depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee. 8. As per note3A, forming part of AppendixI, the expression "commercial vehicle" in the aforesaid rule means and includes the light motor vehicle. The expression "light motor vehicle" is further defined to mean a motor car, the unladen weight of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee fulfills all the conditions laid down in rule III(2)(iid) of AppendixI and even the unladen weight of the light motor vehicle purchased by the assessee does not exceed 7,500 kgs. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the I.T.A.T. that the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 50% on the BMW motor car as per rule III(2)(iid) of AppendixI of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be faulted. 9. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1367 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ication as income under the head of business and profession but would fall for classification as income from other sources. Undoubtedly as counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits, in determining under which head income would fall, the court must be guided by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody vs. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT 1966 61 ITR 428. The Supreme Court held that “whether an income falls under one head or another has to be decided according to the common notions of practical men, for the act does not provide any guidance in the matter”. The interest which accrued to the assessee on the deposits held in the EEFC account cannot be treated as business income.” 6. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble High Court (supra), we decide the issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 24th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1366 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, apparently the owner of the goods (gold) from whose possession the gold was seized, and option to pay fine, which shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, in lieu of confiscation. Such market price has to relate to the date, when the goods (gold) was confiscated. 24. In the facts and circumstances, we find that the custom authorities did not decide the case on the settled principles of law, relating to the burden of proof, and the reliance upon the statements under Section 108 of the Act. They also did not give an opportunity, if they found that the gold was imported against the prohibition in law under Section 123(2) of the Act to the appellants, pay fine in lieu of confiscation of gold. 25. We consequently allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Member Technical, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.10.2005, and remand the matter back to him to decide it in accordance with law and the observations made by us in the judgment.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1365 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... re, the order of the CIT (A) has to be reversed on this issue. It is clear that the ‘initial assessment year’ for the above purposes was the first year in which the assessee claimed the deduction u/s 80IA(1) after exercising his option as per the provisions of s.80IA(2) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of Rs.25,44,326 u/s 80IA in respect of the profits from the windmill activity. Accordingly, the clarificatory ground raised is allowed. In the result, adjudication of the grounds 3 and 4 raised in the appeal is mere academic and hence they are dismissed as infructuous.” 4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) has to be reversed. It is also to be noted that the above ratio is upheld by the High Court of Chennai in the case of 231 ITR 368. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 26-8-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1364 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d by these Rules. By not granting the credit of TDS to the assessee, rr. 37BA(1), (3)(i) and (4) were flouted. The learned CIT(A) correctly rectified this position also. 39. The Department has not been able to show as to why, in this scenario the assessee was required to file any revised return of income. There was no excess TDS to be claimed. It was due to sheer unintended inadvertence that the total TDS of Rs. 31,47,636 did not get shown in the return, though as per the TDS certificates filed along with the return, the total TDS undisputedly was of Rs. 31,47,636. 31. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow credit of TDS of Rs. 31,47,636 to the assessee and to grant consequential refund. Thus, finding no error whatsoever in the impugned order, the same is hereby confirmed. The grievance of the Department is found to be sans substratum. It is, hence, rejected. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1363 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts was maintainable but in view of Order III Rules 1 and 4, Chapter relating to the role of Pleaders, and in view of the conduct of the appellants in not raising any objection as to the act of their counsel except filing review petition, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the appellants. 20) Finally, Mr. Garg vehemently contended that by the concession of their counsel, appellants lost their property and they suffered huge loss in terms of money. On perusal of the modified decree as available in the order of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 19 of 2005 and the sketch produced about the existence of Sheesham and Shreen trees running as a demarcating line and whenever those trees fall on either side the parties having ownership of the land get right to use the same, we are unable to accept the said contention also. 21) In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in both the appeals. Consequently, the same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1362 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ties finding the grounds of appeal of the Assessee devoid of merits. 11. Now coming to the other issue of disallowance of ₹ 11,19,048 being expenses under the head Garden, Park, Lake and Vegetable, undisputedly the Assessee has incurred this amount for maintaining the garden, park, lake and garden expenses and growing vegetables directly. The facts made out by the Departmental Authorities are that the sale proceeds of vegetable grown was not brought to account by the Assessee. Therefore, the Departmental Authorities have disallowed the same, which in our view rightly. Hence, we are of the considered view that the action taken by the Departmental Authorities is not at all unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. For the reasons discussed above, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Assessee having found the issues raised by the Assessee to be devoid of merits. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1361 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ssue as in the present appeals and that the said case was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order passed on 16-8-2007. Since in the connected matter mentioned above, the appeal was dismissed, therefore, being similar in nature and as similar issues arise in the present appeals, these appeals are also dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1360 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... with commercial prudence and nothing is on record indicating that the loss was claimed to be bogus. Even otherwise, the businessman is the best judge in his interest under the peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, there is nothing on record except probabilities, surmises and conjectures, that too, without any cogent material on record especially when the accounts are audited, transactions are properly recorded, sales are verified, purchases are not doubted, therefore, in view of the decision in ITO vs. Madanlal Singhal & Sons (100 ITJ 647) (Jod), the transaction of purchase and sales, under the facts and circumstances cannot be treated as bogus, therefore, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, we do not feel it appropriate to go into non-admission of addl. evidence under rule 46A filed before the ld. CIT(A). Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1359 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... lls P. Ltd, 293 ITR 201, inter alia. This fact was not or could not be denied by the ld.DR as we are also aware of this line of action being taken by the Benches in Chennai. Consequently, we restore this appeal of the Revenue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he shall decide the impugned issue in the light of plethora of judicial pronouncements on this issue. Needless to mention that the Assessing Officer shall give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as required by law. 4. The cross objection by the assessee would become premature in view of the fact that we have set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and that of Assessing Officer, but the assessee is at liberty to raise this issue whenever occasion arises. Accordingly, we keep open the issues raised in the cross objection but dismiss the same as premature. 5. In the result appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30-08-2011.
........
|
