|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1275 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed of BIFR/AAIFR under Section 22 of SICA. The defendant will now positively file the written statement within a period of six weeks from today failing which the right to file the written statement shall stand closed inasmuch as no written statement has been filed in this suit of the year 1999 till today i.e for about 13 years. Replication be filed within a period of two weeks of filing the written statement. Parties to file documents in their power and possession alongwith their pleadings. Admission/denial of such documents will be done by preparing an index of documents of other side and adding an additional column which will contain the endorsement of admission/denial. Affidavits be filed in support of admission/denial of documents. 6. List before the Joint Registrar for marking exhibits to the documents on 18th December, 2012. 7. List before the Court for framing of issues on 21st January, 2013. I.A. No. 15299/2009 (under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC) 8. Dismissed as not pressed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1274 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whether against which of the accused persons the charge sheet is to be filed. It is quite possible that if after the completion of the investigation the investigating officer may come to the conclusion that the ingredients to constitute a vicarious liability under Section 77 of the VAT Act are not made out and may itself not file charge sheet against such a Director against whom there is no material. In any case if the petitioner finds that in the charge sheet there are no allegations against him, he can very well apply for discharge at that stage. However, the investigation cannot be thwarted at the beginning. 23. In the result, we also find that the application filed by the applicant at this stage would not be tenable. 24. The writ petition as well as application, both are without any merit and as such both are dismissed. 25. In view of the disposal of the petition , nothing survives in the Criminal Application (APPW) Nos. 147 and 148 of 2012 and as such same are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1273 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay, as there is a direction for fresh investigation, it should be inapposite to enlarge the Appellant on bail. We may add that in case the order for reinvestigation is annulled by this Court, it would be open for the Appellant to file a fresh application for bail before the competent Court. If the order of the High Court withstands scrutiny, after the C.B.I. submits its report, liberty is granted to the Appellant to move the appropriate court for grant of bail. We may clarify that though we have narrated the facts, adverted to parameters for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, dwelled upon the view of this Court relating to criminal conspiracy and noted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have not expressed our final opinion on entitlement of the Appellant to be released on bail or not because of the subsequent development i.e. direction by the High Court for comprehensive investigation by the C.B.I. 27. The appeal, is accordingly, disposed of.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1272 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has further not claimed any expenditure under any head against the said income from business. The learned D.R. for the Revenue has fairly conceded that the assessee is entitled to the expenditure relatable to the earning of the business income. The total dividend income received by the assessee during the year was Rs.65,283/- on account of its investment in PMS portfolio. The said dividend income had been claimed as exempt in the hands of the assessee. In order to comply with the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow sum of Rs.5000/- being expenditure relatable to the earning of the dividend income. The present decision is applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case only and cannot be treated as a precedent. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31 st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1271 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... . Being so, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2/3 of expenditure. Before us also nothing has been furnished. However, the AR made as plea that the assessee could furnish details of foreign travel as relating to business trips as well as pleasure trips. Considering the request of the assessee's counsel, we remit the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to get bifurcation of expenditure as attributable to business trips and pleasure trips. On obtaining the information, the Assessing Officer is directed to disallow the expenditure relating to pleasure trips. If the assessee fails to furnish the same the Assessing Officer shall pass consequential order in terms of the CIT(A) order. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, ITA No. 20/Hyd/2012 is dismissed and ITA No. 1828/Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1270 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rcised only where the enforcement is contrary to the public policy of India. 29. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that the enforcement of the impugned Award, which is essentially a money decree, would compel Aargus to do something which is prohibited or contrary to law as prevailing in India. In other words, the enforcement of the impugned Award which is in the form of a money decree cannot be held to be opposed to the public policy of India. 30. The objections of Aargus to the enforcement of the impugned foreign Award under Section 48 of the Act are hereby rejected. Conclusion 31. Consequently, O.M.P. No. 201 of 2012 is dismissed and the objections by Aargus in O.M.P. No. 61 of 2012 are rejected with costs of Rs. 20,000 which should be paid by Aargus to NNR within a period of four weeks. 32. Aargus is directed to deposit the decretal amount in Court within a period of eight weeks from today. List OMP No. 61 of 2012 for further directions on 13th December 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1269 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted with them follow the guidelines laid down by Vishaka. To achieve this, necessary instructions/circulars shall be issued by all the statutory bodies such as Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Company Secretaries within two months from today. On receipt of any complaint of sexual harassment at any of the places referred to above the same shall be dealt with by the statutory bodies in accordance with the Vishaka guidelines and the guidelines in the present order. 17. We are of the view that if there is any non-compliance or non-adherence to the Vishaka guidelines, orders of this Court following Vishaka and the above directions, it will be open to the aggrieved persons to approach the respective High Courts. The High Court of such State would be in a better position to effectively consider the grievances raised in that regard. 18. Writ petitions (including T.C.) and appeals are disposed of as above with no orders as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1268 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on was involved, therefore, while following the said judgment, this revision petition may be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused both the orders. In my opinion, the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur remanded the case to the assessing authority for deciding the case afresh and appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur has been dismissed by the Raj. Tax Board, therefore, now all the questions can be raised by the revenue before the assessing authority because the case has been remitted to the assessing authority for deciding the case afresh. In view of above, no case is made out for interfence. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. However, both the parties are entitled to raise their grounds before the assessing authority in accordance with law and assessing authority shall consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of deciding the matter afresh.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1267 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r estimates exceed Rs. 3000 crores. (Emphasis in the original) 3. Mr. Prasaran stated that the CBI is making investigation without wasting any time and he assured the Court that the investigation will be completed as early as possible and on completion of the investigation the CBI shall submit one final charge-sheet. 4. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the report submitted by the CBI, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. 5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. It will be, however, open to the Petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court on completion of the investigation by the CBI on the issues as indicated above and submission of the final charge-sheet. 7. In case, such a prayer is made, the Court shall consider the prayer for bail independently, on its own merits, without being influenced by the dismissal of the special leave petition. SLP(Crl) No. 5946 of 2012 8. Put up after two weeks.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the name of Defendant No. 2 and later to outsiders upon essentially the sale of the property of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in item No. 1 of the schedule Exhibit-C to the plaint was brought to his knowledge in January 2012. 42. Mr. Madon himself contends that oral evidence upon the issue of limitation would have to be led. 43. The Plaintiff shall file his affidavit of evidence as also affidavit of documents. 44. The suit is adjourned to 10th December 2012 for considering the admissibility of the documents of the Plaintiff. Certain letters and photocopy of letters written by the deceased are stated to have been sent to the Plaintiff. The Defendants dispute the genuineness of these letters. They are stated to have been sent by the deceased by post or by hand delivery to the Plaintiff in the USA. Pending the suit these documents shall be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court without folding the documents.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1264 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... he return of income, as is apparent from the details incorporated in the assessment order. 6. The only issue arising in the present appeal is whether such belated payment of employees’ contribution to ESIC and PF, which had been made before the due date of filing the return of income are to be allowed as a deduction. We find that the issue raised is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani India Ltd.(supra). Following the above said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani India Ltd.(supra) we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction 3 of Rs.1,86,799/- being the contribution made by the employees’ towards PF and ESIC, which was paid before the close of the financial year. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 4th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1263 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s required to be made by adopting some reasonable basis as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that reliance cannot be placed on the basis given in Rule 8D which has been held to be not applicable to the year under consideration by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, such disallowance can be reasonably worked out as some percentage of the dividend income received by the assessee on estimated basis and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to make a disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.29,150/- being 25% of the dividend income of Rs.1,16,600/- received by the assessee. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.29,150/-. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1262 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... benefit of pendency of the proceeding before BIFR as Directors of the Company. Now having gone out of management of the Company they have taken completely reverse stance to challenge the order of BIFR now. Their shifting stand is sheer abuse of the process of the Court, and is absolutely mala fide so much so that their version has now become thoroughly unbelievable to this Court. We make it clear that we have decided these appeals only on the point quoted above not on merit. 31. There will be no order as to costs. Later 32. After judgment is delivered the learned counsels for the contesting respondents in FMA 170 of 2012 have prayed for stay of operation of judgment and order delivered today. Such prayer is opposed by the learned counsels for the appellants. Having considered the contention we grant stay of operation for a period of three weeks after Puja Vacation. However, the interim order granted by this Court earlier will continue till then. K.J. Sengupta, A.C.J. I agree.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1261 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s) had enlarged the scope of appeals by giving a direction to split the unexplained investment on cost of construction to the period of construction. 17. In the result, we are not agreeing with the argument of learned D.R. that CIT(Appeals) had no such power to direct spreading of the unexplained portion of investment, if any, to the period of construction. 18. Nevertheless, in view of the factual situation of the case, we are setting aside the orders of authorities below and remitting the issue back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh. The A.O. has to consider the aspect of cost of construction in accordance with law and he has to give an opportunity to the assessees to explain their case and justify the cost of construction as returned by them. 19. In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well as crossobjections of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of October, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1260 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and Section 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion of Section 45(5)( c) and Section 155(16) w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the receipt of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in dispute.” 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this amount is to be treated as part of compensation itself and is not to be treated as interest. Therefore, the question of law framed above does not survive any more. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court and the Assessing Officer shall proceed accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1259 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng of the order on January 25, 2012. By the said order the Board has permitted the appellants to pay the total amount within 45 days from the date of the order. It was not an amount which was due or payable to the Government or to the Board. It is only after the Board concluded that the appellants have illegally enriched themselves and the amount of illegal gains got crystalized and disgorgement order is passed, it can be said that the amount has become payable. The Board granted 45 days time to the appellants to pay this amount. If any interest is to be charged, it can be charged only from the date of expiry of 45 days of the passing of the impugned order. 11. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeal. However, on the issue of interest, we are inclined to modify the order to the extent that the interest shall be payable @ 12% per annum on expiry of 45 days from the date of the impugned order. The appeal is partly allowed as above with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1258 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... issuance of cheque by the accused of the amount, as claimed by the complainant, advanced by him as loan, has been proved, the accused cannot shirk his liability with a technical plea that he did not receive the notice after the cheque was dishonoured. 10. In view of the discussion, made above, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the finding of learned Magistrate acquitting the accused from the charge is not proper and therefore, the judgment is liable to be interfered and set aside and I did so. Accordingly, the judgment & order of acquittal, dated 14.2.2007, passed in Case No. CR. 34/2006 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura is set aside and quashed. The accused-Sekhar Banik is found guilty of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, he is convicted. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the accused for his appearance for hearing on sentence fixing 19th November, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1257 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that neither the provisions of section 41(1) can be applied nor provisions of section 68 can be applied if the credits are of earlier years. However, this aspect that the loans were received in earlier years/liabilities arose in earlier year has not been examined by either of the authorities. Therefore, for limited verification, we restore the issue to the file of AO to examine whether the credits are of this year and if so consider the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to assessee. In case the credit or liability does not belong to this year, there cannot be any addition under section 68 or under Section 41(1) as there is no cessation of liability in the impugned assessment year. With these directions, we allow the grounds with limited verification of year of receipt of the loan/liability to the file of AO and to decide accordingly. 10. In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1256 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Kavita Jha,Adv.-on-Record ORDER Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 26151/2011. In view of order dated 22nd August, 2012 passed in CA No. 5961 of 2012, no ground is made out for our interference with the view taken by the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1255 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ccordance with law." 7. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh and to see whether the assessee carried on the development of infrastructure facilities cumulatively with the activities of design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract executed by the assessee itself. In the event, the assessee itself carried on the development of infrastructure facilities/contract along with design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period, then such contract to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility executed by the assessee and thereby eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
........
|
