|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 583 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iew Petition. Since the matter is old, we request the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge tentatively on 29th May, 2012. 20. The Registrar General of the said Court would get it listed before the learned Single Judge, who had decided the main matter and it be listed as per his convenience, because it is a Review Petition. In case learned Single Judge is sitting in some other combination, then some other suitable date from the learned Single Judge be ascertained. 21. With the aforesaid directions, impugned order dated 12.3.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court in R.P. No. 369 of 2008 is set aside and the Civil Appeal is allowed, but with no order as to costs. SLP(C) No. 26537 of 2009 22. In view of above, SLP(C) No. 26537 of 2009 filed against order dated 15.7.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1476 of 2005 stands disposed of. The Registry is directed to remit a copy of this order to Karnataka High Court forthwith.
-
2012 (3) TMI 723 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e find that the same is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative did not fully dispute this finding, he only contended that the agreement also provided training to the assessee s employees, which cannot be returned in any case. We do not find any cogency in this aspect of this agreement as training expense of employee cannot be treated as capital expenditure. The case law relied upon by the revenue are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, respectfully following the precedent from the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court cited above, we set aside the order of the authorities below on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 6. In view of the above position, we uphold the impugned order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 21st March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 722 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... for the preceding assessment year 2004-05 has recorded that other persons who are not covered by section 40A(2)(b) of the Act were also paid interest at the rate of 18%. There are other factors also justifying higher rate of interest paid to the creditors as compared to the rate of interest paid to the bank, such as no need of offering security or pledging the movable or immovable asset, the period for which the loan was required and the purpose of the loan, etc. There is no material brought on record on behalf of the Revenue to suggest that the assessee has paid a lower rate of interest to outside parties as compared to the depositors covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In these facts of the case, we hold that the addition / disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(b) on account of excessive interest is not justified and is deleted accordingly and the ground of appeal no.1 is allowed. 4 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 30-03-2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 721 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e AO and no opportunity was given by the learned CIT(A) to the AO on this aspect by asking for remand report. Under these facts, we feel that this issue should go to the file of the AO for fresh decision. Hence, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore back the matter to the AO for fresh decision. The AO shall examine the contention of the assessee regarding unaccounted sales worked out by him and contention of the assessee that it is explained by assessee s captive consumption of these two products and if this is found correct, then no addition is called for. The AO should pass necessary order as per law in the light of the above discussions after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes. 31. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court. 23/3/12.
-
2012 (3) TMI 720 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... benefit of the shareholders. They are not liable for the dues of the company only on the ground that they have signed an agreement on behalf of the company, unless there is specific provision, or when they agree under the agreement or execute personal guarantees or bonds for due payment of the amount. 14. We do find that there is any averment in the counter-affidavit that the U.P. Power Corporation had first proceeded against the assets of the company, for recovering its dues, and thereafter issued the recovery certificate for recovering the balance amount from the personal assets of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed partly. The citation 8.5.2003 is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from recovery of the dues of the U.P. Lime Chem. Ltd from the personal assets of the petitioner. It will be open to the respondent Power Corporation, to proceed with the recovery proceedings against the U.P. Lime Chem. Ltd in accordance with law.
-
2012 (3) TMI 719 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ecision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 725 726/Mds/2010 dated 16.12.2010 wherein the Tribunal had held that the payment made for the use of the logo is revenue in nature by following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 224 ITR 342 (SC). In the circumstances respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. 23. Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier years, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue on this issue. 24. In the result, both the appeal of assessee in I.T.A. No. 1182/Mds/2011 and the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1297/Mds/2011 are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 30.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 718 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed before calculating the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 3. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. 4. Insofar as appeal of the assessee is concerned, we are of the opinion that in view of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218) where it has been held that receipts of DEPB and Duty Drawback could not be considered as income derived from industrial undertaking, ld. CIT(Appeals) s order could not be faulted with. Ld. CIT(Appeals) had held that income from DEPB sales and interest receipt on margin money deposit had to be excluded while calculating deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. Revenue is also supported by the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228). We are, therefore, of the opinion that appeal of the assessee is also devoid of any merits. 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 717 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... es, stationery charges, etc. amounts to a claim by the service provider that they can render such services in vacuum. What are costs for inputs services and inputs used in rendering services cannot be treated as reimbursable costs. There is no justification or legal authority to artificially split the cost towards providing services partly as cost of services and the rest as reimbursable expenses. 6.1. In these circumstances, the above aspect is required to be re-considered. Therefore, the case is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh, while taking into consideration the above guidelines prescribed by the Tribunal in Shri Bhagwati Traders (supra). It is made clear that all the issues are kept open. Both sides are at liberty to produce documents in their support. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to the Appellants. Appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. Dictated and pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (3) TMI 716 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... akes of law and facts can be rectified. In view of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Volkart Brothers Others(supra), it is not open to the AO to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in proceedings under section 154 of the Act. It is clear from the facts of the case that there was a debatable question relating to accrual of interest on stick advances and taxation thereof. 7 In view of the foregoing, especially when the Revenue have not placed before us any material in order to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor even pointed out any contrary decision while the issues are debatable, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, reject ground nos. 1 2 raised by the Revenue. 8. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.3 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is also dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2012 (3) TMI 715 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng Officer to verify from the coordinate Assessing Officer of the said lender whether the transaction in question has found place in the account of the said lender. If it appears that such transaction has been accepted to be genuine by the Assessing Officer of the said depositor, the Assessing Officer in question cannot dispute any further the genuineness or creditworthiness of the selfsame transaction which has been accepted to be genuine by the coordinate Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to decide such question. In the case before us, the Assessing Officer did not place any material indicating that the transaction in question i.e. the loan, has been either disbelieved by the Assessing Officer of the lender or is not reflected in the lender's account. Such being the position, there was no scope of branding the transaction as not worthy of credence . We, thus, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal and consequently, the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 714 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lling upon the Defendant was served by Under Certificate of Posting at the address of Sion Hospital as the Defendant was employed with the said hospital. The Plaintiff has disputed the receipt of alleged notice. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant also contended that from the perusal of the alleged signature of the Defendant on the Promissory Note and Form No. 8 relied upon by the Plaintiff, it is clear that both the signatures are different. The Plaintiff has not explained the source of payment of Rs.80,000/. In my view, there are disputed questions of facts and the triable issues have been raised by the Defendant. The Defendant is, therefore, entitled to unconditional leave to defend. The Defendant is directed to file Written Statement within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Office to place the suit for framing of issues on 18th April, 2012. Summons for Judgment is disposed of accordingly. Suit is transferred to the list of Commercial Causes.
-
2012 (3) TMI 713 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... med in the status of artificial juridical person. The learned CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Kamalchand, 22 TTJ (All.) 11 for Assessment Year 1978-79. In this case the Revenue sought to change the status from individual to HUF and the AO had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee HUF on the ground that he had not issued notice under sec. 147/148 of the Act. It was held that defect of jurisdiction could not be cured by obtaining consent of the assessee. The facts of the case under consideration are similar to that of the facts of the case of Kamalchand (supra). In our considered opinion the Assessing Officer could not have changed the status from Local Authority to Artificial Juridical Person. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 30th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 712 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an opportunity would arise only when the trader applied for the issue of a gate pass. As a matter of fact, the goods having been taken away without gate passes and without any material to show that there was no sale, the Samiti could demand payment of the market fee and leave it open to the Respondent-trader to claim refund by rebutting the presumption that the removal was pursuant to a sale. At any rate, the Samiti and the Deputy Director have concurrently held that the Respondent-company has not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam. We see no reason to interfere with that finding especially when the appraisal of the evidence by the said two authorities has not been shown to us to be in any way perverse to warrant interference with the same. 9. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore that passed by the Samiti and the Deputy Director in revision. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 711 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of minor mineral & in case the Petitioner is not found to be the highest bidder, but agrees to match with the price at which the bid is knocked, preference shall be given to him even though he is not the highest bidder. We make this observation keeping in view the provision of Rules 27, 35 & 36 of the Rules, 2004 vis-a-vis interest of the State which really means the larger interest of the people of the State. If the sairat is settled in favour of the Petitioner then the same may be renewed at least for a period of five years in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order in the case of Deepak Kumar etc (supra) subject to payment of consideration money in each succeeding year which shall be fixed by increasing 15% of the consideration money of the immediate preceding year pending framing of Rules. 25. With the above observations & directions, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. I agree.
-
2012 (3) TMI 710 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt-Association shall not indulge in any activity by allowing its members or the guests to play rummy (13 cards) with stakes and make profit or gain. (2) The Police are entitled to take action in the event any illegal activity is carried on in the association premises. (3) In respect of the FIR registered by the Police against those 56 persons and others who were said to have indulged in illegal gambling activity as per the raid conducted on 10.08.2011, it is open to the Police to proceed further as per law and it is for the 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 10.08.2011 by the Police. (4) The Police shall not disturb the respondent-Association frequently under the guise of inspection without there being any reliable information as to the illegal activities of the association or its members or the guests. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 709 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ances can be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations, disguised as a respectable trade, imperil numerous innocents. He is a security risk. Secondly, these economic offences committed by white-collar criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by the gentle probationary process. Neither casual provocation nor motive against particular persons but planned profit-making from numbers of consumers furnishes the incentive - not easily humanised by the therapeutic probationary measure. 19. Thus, in view of the above, the relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted. Petition is misconceived and untenable. The petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- which the Petitioner is directed to deposit within a period of four weeks with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority and file proof thereof before the Registrar of this Court, failing which the matter be placed before the Court for appropriate direction for recovery.
-
2012 (3) TMI 708 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... te Limited wherein the assessee filed list of all subscribers and gave affidavits of all subscribers in the form of confirmations and in that situation the Hon'ble Court held that the assessee is required to establish the identity and source of credits and further held that if the confirmation is given, no addition could be made against the assessee whereas in the case of the assessee the share applicants were found to be non-existent, therefore, this judicial pronouncement from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court clearly goes against the assessee.” 9. In the instant case, also, the assessee was in receipt of share application money from Money Penny Fincom Private Limited whose identity was not established as per the verdict of the coordinate Bench narrated hereinabove. Accordingly, we confirm the addition of Rs. 5 lacs in the hands of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. This order was pronounced on 23rd March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 707 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the A.O. with the direction to decide the same after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, challenging the orders of the Ld. CCIT. The assessee is also directed to file the copy of the decisions/ judgement of the Hon'ble High Court after the Writ Petition is decided at the earliest before the A.O.” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee requested for similar directions in this case also. 4. The learned D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we restore all the appeals as well as the cross objections to the file of the A.O. with a direction to him to decide the issue after the decision of the court in Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Mumbai. 6. In the result, all the appeals as well as the cross objections are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th March 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... defendant has been infringing the plaintiff's trademark and label mark and has been dishonestly attempting to pass off the defendant's playing cards as those of the plaintiff in order to get himself illegally enriched caring upon the reputation built up qua that trade mark and label mark. 31. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case, both on the questions of prima facie case as well as balance of convenience, and, therefore, the interim injunction deserves to be granted during pendency of the Suit. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 28 November 2011 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (d) during pendency of the Suit. As regards the remaining prayers in the Notice of Motion, the plaintiff will be at liberty to take out a fresh Notice of Motion at an appropriate stage, if required.
-
2012 (3) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirement of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, the interim order passed by this Court on 22nd July 2009 hereby stands vacated. IA No. 9768 of 2009 is accordingly allowed. 13. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear in the present case that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, as the plaintiff has not sent a complete set of paper book and documents admittedly on the basis of the record available in the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed on 06.02.2012 is liable to be suspended. Since no one appears on behalf of the plaintiff to argue the interim application, being I.A. No. 2222/2012, the same is dismissed. 14. Consequently, the application, being I.A. No. 2846/2012, is also disposed of. CS (OS) No. 284/2012 No one appears on behalf of the plaintiff. However, in the interest of justice, renotify on 24.05.2012 for further consideration.
........
|
