|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 918 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 928 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fence and prima facie case, the role played by the respondent in the alleged offences and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Kadam s case (1 supra). VII) In case if the CBI approaches the Special Court for cancellation of bail, the learned Special Judge, without being influenced by any of the observations made supra, may consider such application independently. If the CBI has any additional material with regard to the allegations of tampering with the evidence, influencing witnesses, it may place the same before the learned Special Judge for his consideration. VIII) Agencies like CBI / ACB should make independent investigation and shall arrest all those involved in the offences irrespective of their power, position, influence etc., and prove themselves as the best independent investigating agencies and unearth the entire ill-gotten wealth wherever it is stored and secretted. 49. Subject to the observations made supra, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 927 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... re served on the assessees within the stipulated period of twelve months and, therefore, the proceedings under section 143 of the Act come to an end and the matter becomes final In view of the above, the first question now raised, therefore, stands concluded in favour of the assessee. 5.2. In view of the above admitted facts, as well as ratio laid in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and CIT vs C.Palaniappan (supra), that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued in the present case during the proceedings pending u/s 148 of the Act, we are of the considered view that re-assessment framed without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence quashed. 5.2. As we have already decided the jurisdictional issue that the assessment framed is without jurisdiction we need not consider the other jurisdictional issue as well as merits of the case. 6. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 926 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ioner (Appeals) had not considered their request for adjournment and dismissed the appeal. 5. From the record we find that notice for personal hearing was issued on 21.10.2005 received by the appellant on 17.11.2005 fixing the date of hearing on 16, 17 and 18.11.2005 The appellant on 17.11.2005 made a written request for adjournment. In spite of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order and held that enough opportunity was given, but the appellant did not avail on some pretext or the other. 6. As noted above, only one opportunity was granted and the appellant asked for adjournment. In view of this, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh in accordance with the direction given in the earlier remand order dated 20.7.2005 The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
2012 (6) TMI 925 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erty to approach the Tribunal and for taking steps in accordance with law. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
-
2012 (6) TMI 924 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ration the entire factual position in this regard as discussed above and the further fact that the assessee had already complied with the terms and conditions of the first stay and that the assessee has not adopted a hostile attitude in the disposal of appeal, we grant the extension of stay of demand till the disposal of the present appeal or for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. It has been brought to our notice that the appeal is coming up for hearing on 17.07.2012. 4. It is made clear that the extension of stay is granted subject to the condition that the assessee will not seek adjournment without just cause. In case any adjournment is sought without good reasons, the stay granted hereinabove shall automatically revoke and case will be de-listed from the priority list and come up for hearing in the normal course. 5. In the result, the stay application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 923 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ces of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the central excise receipt of Rs.80,88,026/- and sales tax receipt of Rs.3,57,05,815/- granted to the assessee as incentive by the State Government is capital receipt not chargeable to tax?” Issue notice to the respondents. Paper Book be submitted within three months.
-
2012 (6) TMI 922 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... (b) if the arrears of tax, penalty, interest or part thereof or any other amount is more than 25 percent of the total auction value, the 25 percent of the total auction value and the amount in the same proportion of the remaining auction value as the remaining arrears bear to the total dues of the bank or financial institution, shall be paid by the bank or financial institution. 23. The petitioner as also the respondents No.1 and 2 who have entered into Sale transaction of the property in question which is subject to the charge in lieu of Commercial Tax dues, would therefore, be at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 33 (2) of VAT Act, 2002. 24. Except the above liberty no further relief can be granted to the petitioner nor the Commercial Tax Department can be prevented from proceeding with the auction of the property in question to realize their Commercial Tax dues. 25. In view whereof, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 921 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... er circumstances, we are of the view that in view of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Talkies (refer to supra), no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, the addition of Rs. 1 lakh as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stands deleted. 11. Even on the facts, it is noticed that the D.V.O has estimated the cost of construction at Rs.. 29,06,032/- as against the cost of construction recorded by the assessee of Rs.26,29,160/-. The variation is amount of Rs. 2,76,863/,- which is less than 10% margin, which could normally be granted to the assessee towards self supervision. In the circumstances, the addition as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue stands deleted. In the circumstances, the cross objection of the assessee stands allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 920 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dicating authority after the issuance of the letter dated 23rd August 2004. 4. In our opinion, if the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - I has represented to the Members, CBEC that the objections raised by the audit party is erroneous, then, unless it is shown that the statement made by the Commissioner is erroneous or contrary to facts, the demands confirmed based on the auditors report could not be sustained. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to hear the appeal before CESTAT without insisting on any predeposit. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3rd November 2011 passed by the CESTAT is quashed and set aside and the CESTAT is directed to hear the appeal on merits in accordance with law without insisting upon any predeposit. The observations made herein are prima facie observations and the CESTAT shall pass the order on merits without being influenced by this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 919 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ifically permits to pay that part of the fine which is to be paid as compensation, directly to the complainant, Magistrate is competent to receive the balance of fine deducting the compensation so payable and make necessary entries in Form No. 20. In that case based on the statement filed by the complainant acknowledging receipt of the compensation, necessary entries of the payment of compensation and receipt are to be recorded as in the case of deposit of fine and payment of compensation under S. 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. We also find that there is no general direction in Beena's case (supra) and the direction to the Magistrate was on the peculiar facts and circumstance of that case. Having satisfied that compensation was paid to the complainant, the learned Single Judge directed the Magistrate to make necessary entries in the fine register. We do not find any error or defect in the directions given in the decision. The references are answered accordingly.
-
2012 (6) TMI 918 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lso make it clear that the Central Government would be free to frame a rehabilitation scheme specifically for such retired employees like the respondents and in such a scheme, it can specify the terms and conditions on which such persons would be entitled to rehabilitate/alternate residence, which may include the term that these respondents or their family members do not have any residence in any part of the country. It would also be open to the Government to specify the nature of accommodation to which such retired Government servants would be entitled to or the place where they would be rehabilitated which may not necessarily be in Delhi but can be even in the NCR region. After the scheme is framed, the cases of the respondents can be scrutinized in terms of that scheme and those not found eligible for rehabilitation in terms thereof can be ousted from the present accommodation. Subject to our observations made immediately above, the appeals are hereby dismissed with costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 917 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same after having the following observations - “Third ground is directed against disallowance of ₹ 40,000/- out of repairs and maintenance and other expenses claimed at ₹ 2,15,885/-. Such disallowance is also made broadly in the similar fashion as noted in respect of Travelling and Conveyance expense. Hence for the reasons recorded above, such disallowance is also not found to be sustainable and is accordingly deleted. ” 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that no cogent reason was assigned by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the reasonable business expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 916 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... at the assessee was given an opportunity to cross examine the said party and the assessee has denied or refused to cross examine the party. Therefore, we, in the interest of justice, deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify as to what has happened in the hands of the sellers in case they have received any extra money over and above the sale price. Further the AO shall also give opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the seller whose statement was the basis for the addition in the impugned appeal. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the AO for adjudication of the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the Open court on 11th June 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 915 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y of the instrument i.e. cheque issued can only be enhanced if the payment thereunder is assured. In the instant case, therefore, the complainant had a minimum expectation, and reasonably so, of the payment due under the said cheque. This fact has been completely overlooked by the learned trial Court leading it to land itself in error. There is nothing before this Court to suggest that the amount due under the cheque has been repaid. In the result, the sentence imposed by the trial Court needs to be modified as follows. ORDER Respondent No. 1 / accused shall pay a fine of ₹ 28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight thousand) and i.d. of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months and on realisation of fine amount, a sum of ₹ 25,000/-be paid to the complainant. Bail bond of the respondent No. 1 / accused stands cancelled. Issue warrant for arrest of the respondent No. 1 /accused. Criminal Revision Application No. 23/1997stands disposed off accordingly.
-
2012 (6) TMI 914 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t paid such amounts directly to the fuel seller. All transactions were made through drivers of vehicles who are not his fixed and permanent staff and acted as agent for such purchase. Keeping in view of the above fact we are of the view that the assessee will cover under Rule 6DD(k) of IT Rules. It is further observed that the revenue could not bring any other material except that from the ledger copy these payments on particular dates exceed ₹ 20,000/- when compared to the individual bills. It is observed that all the bills are below ₹ 20,000/-. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the disallowances made by the revenue is not sustainable in view of the specific provision of Rule 6DD(k) of IT Rules. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and direct the AO to delete the amount of disallowances made by AO u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act. 7. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 913 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trust which was accepted by the authorities themselves in the past years. There was no reason therefore to deny the assessee the benefit of exemption by invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Act. 6.1 In Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (SC) 193 ITR 321 (SC) the Supreme Court observed that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. However, it was further observed "...where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and partis have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed ina subsequent year." 7. In the above view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal was proper. No error was found so as to warrant interference. In the facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The present Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 912 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. 80IB in view of the past history. Therefore, in this background there is no justification to uphold the stand of the IT authorities to deny the claim of the assessee for deduction under s. 80IB in relation to the profits and gains. - Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 11 CTR (Guj) 139; (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) and CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) relied on." 14. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(A) on the issue relating to deduction u/s. 80-IA and accordingly dismiss the Revenue appeals.” Consistent with the view taken by the coordinate benches of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years, on the point at issue, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 08 June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 911 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itioner, to the consumers. We further hold that the Board is also not empowered to fix any component of Network Tariff or Compression Charge for an entity such as the petitioner having its own distribution network. The provisions of the Regulations (supra) in so far as construed by the Board to be so empowering it are held to be bad/illegal. Accordingly, the order dated 9th April, 2012 to the extent so fixing the maximum retail price or requiring the petitioner to disclose the Network Tariff and the Compression Charges to its consumers is struck down/quashed. Rule is made absolute. We may also record that though we had not granted any interim stay of the order dated 9th April, 2012 which came into force immediately but the matter having been taken up immediately for hearing, the intent was that no coercive/penal steps shall be taken against the petitioner for non-compliance thereof. The respondent having co-operated in expeditious disposal of the matter, no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 910 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... M/s. Sadras Venkatarama Chetty’s Charities vs. DDIT(E), as the facts and circumstances are identical to the facts of the assessee’s case. 12. On the issue of reopening under section 147 and furnishing reasons for reopening to the assessee by the Assessing Officer inspite of request made by the assessee, we are of the view that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Others 259 ITR 19 , the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act to the assessee. 13. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remit the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine this issue afresh in accordance with law and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 12th of June, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (6) TMI 909 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ided in section 2(m) and section 2(ea), respectively, includes a building let out to a tenant used for commercial purposes, the same cannot be subjected to wealth-tax. Even if the assessee had included the same in his return, that would not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of law. There cannot be any estoppel against the statute. A property, which is not otherwise taxable, cannot become taxable because of misunderstanding or wrong understanding of law by the assessee or because of his admission or on his misapprehension. If in law an item is not taxable, no amount of admission or misapprehension can make it taxable. The taxability or the authority to impose tax is independent of admission. Neither there can be any waiver of the right by the assessee. The Department cannot rely upon any such admission or misapprehension if it is not otherwise taxable.” 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and, is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
