|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1232 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1247 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ason that they had already undergone the sentence, have not preferred appeals before this Court. Further, this Court had not gone into the merits of the appeals preferred by few convicts on the ground that they have already served out the sentence and released thereafter. The view which we have taken goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the conviction and, hence, we deem it expedient to grant benefit of this judgment to all those accused who have been held guilty and not preferred appeal and also those convicts whose appeals have been dismissed by this Court as infructuous on the ground that they had already undergone the sentence awarded. 46. In the result, we allow the appeals preferred by those accused who have been convicted and sentenced by the Designated Court and set aside the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence. However, we dismiss the appeals preferred by the State against the inadequacy of sentence and acquittal of some of the accused persons.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1246 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... the AO for verification and fresh adjudication in the light of the Visakhapatnam Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transport(Supra). The learned DR on the other hand has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law. In view of the above submissions by both the sides, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication of the issue in the light of the decision cited (Supra) and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Ground of appeal No. 2 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground of appeal No.3 being general in nature is dismissed. 23. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1245 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n (b), therefore, does not also raise any substantial question of law. 9. As held by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, the AO cannot take a different view when the facts and circumstances are identical for all the assessment years. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the assessee has appointed Portfolio Manager for its funds to be invested in the shares, therefore, in view of the decision in case of ARA Trading Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) as well as in the case of ITO vs. Radha Birju Patel of this Tribunal, the investment made in the shares through Portfolio Manager cannot be held as trading when the other factors are also in favour of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and this Tribunal, we find no error or illegality in the order of the CIT (A). 10. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1244 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... may be sufficient to mention in this regard. 28. In the light of foregoing discussion, judicial discipline demand that we should not probe into any legal debate arising in the case and nor should embark upon any exercise for deciding issues which may have arisen except to decline to answer the reference that being the only option left in such circumstances. We accordingly decline to do so. 29. Before parting with the case, we place on record our words of due appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Advocate as amicus curie who with his usual fairness and erudition deeply went into all legal issues arising in the case including its all legal consequences. So was the case with Shri Sanjay Agrawal Advocate General who rendered valuable assistance in searching case laws on the subject. We also place on record the assistance rendered by Shri UN Awasthi, Senior Advocate and Shri R.K. Gupta Advocate who argued myriad issues with clarity. No cost.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1243 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... son concerned can appoint any counsel to conduct the prosecution on his behalf in the magistrate's court. 11. But the above laxity is not extended to other courts. A reference to Section 225 of the Code is necessary in this context. 22. Petitioner has not made any specific allegations about the existence of any threat or danger to him or his family. In his application to the DCP (Annexure 8), he stated that he was informed about accused and others beating up his brother by a tea stall owner. He further stated therein that the tea stall owner has disappeared, and thus the threats are not empty ones, but serious in nature. In this context, the Court is of opinion that such a request can be made to the court concerned if any threat exists. The court would consider the application on its merits. In view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is of the opinion that the petition lacks in merits and is dismissed, but subject to the liberty granted in Para-23. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1242 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... considered on merits only after deliberations and further probing into the matter, which is not permissible at this stage. Further, for seeking relief in computation of income, the assessee could have availed to remedies u/s. 154 of the IT Act, but it appears that the assessee did not take any step deliberately before the AO as per section 154 of the IT Act. It may also be noted here that the Tribunal has not admitted the additional ground of appeal above, before finally deciding the appeals. Therefore, the request of the assessee could not be considered legally at this stage. Considering the above discussion in the light of the fact that the appeal of the assessee has already been dismissed on merits, we are not inclined to admit the additional ground of appeal so raised above. In the result, the application for admission of additional ground is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee to the above extent also is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1241 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ming the disallowance of interest expense is concerned, the opinion expressed was that no prudent financial institution would have ventured to advance such a huge sum as non-interest loans keeping aside its business feasibility. It was a general observation based upon a probability, however, there was no finding that the facts were either false or deliberately concealed. Due to this reason, we hereby hold that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly directed to delete the penalty on this amount. Resultantly, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed that too for statistical purposes. 16. We summarize the result as under - (1) Assessee s appeal ITA No.1528/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is allowed for statistical purposes. (2) Assessee s appeal ITA No.1529/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1996-97 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (3) Revenue s appeal ITA No.1603/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1993-94 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (4) Revenue s appeal ITA No.1604/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1240 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssing officer on the construction and sale of flats to be prospective owners treating the transaction as works contract ? The Tribunal has recorded findings that the assessee had made the flats on his own behalf and has even paid stamp duty on his own and therefore, this case is not covered under Section 3F of the Act. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, no question of law arises. This revision has no merit, it is dismissed. Sri Suyash Agrawal has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1239 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 20th December 2002 is set aside leaving it open to BCL to resort to appropriate legal remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs of Rs. 30,000 which will be paid by the DOT to BCL within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... peal. 3. Having perused the documents on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the revenue, we notice that the Tribunal had though confirmed the view of the revenue authorities with respect to the rejection of the books of account of the assessee, did not accept the re-computation of higher rate of gross profit on the premise that the average gross profit rate of last three years immediately preceding the year under consideration came to 14.79%. On such basis, the Tribunal found that the claim of gross profit rate @ 15.27% cannot be stated to be low. On such basis, the assessee's appeal was allowed. 4. We are of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence on record and are purely factual in nature. The Tribunal after taking into account relevant materials, came to the conclusion that a certain rate of gross profit presented by the assessee was acceptable. 5. In our view, therefore, no questions of law arise. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1237 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lease effected by the respondent/company should be construed as one executed on behalf of the shareholders. Notwithstanding the fact that the lease deed may not refer to that effect. Therefore, it is to be held that the shareholders are the owners of the specific portion of the building allotted to them and the company which executed the lease deed, has not retained any part of rent amount or rent deposit and after deducting the tax and maintenance has distributed the income to the shareholders proportionately to their shareholders. The shareholders have also filed returns disclosing the said income and paid the tax. In the given situation, it cannot be argued that the respondent/company deemed to have derived the income from rental and rental deposit. In that view of the matter, the first question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and as a consequence, the second and third questions of law would not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1236 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty in creating hindrance to the investigation and continues to scuttle it and also intimidating and pressurizing the Complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses. 14. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the mandate prescribed in Section 438 of the Code, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court in rejecting the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 15. In view of our order dismissing the appeal, the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand vacated and the Appellant is granted two weeks time from today to surrender and seek regular bail. It is also made clear that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below including the present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of the relief of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide the bail application de hors to the above observation and in accordance with law.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1235 - DELHI DISTRICT COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g with a shift to the younger generation. There is little mechanism to check the transfer of money through the international routes. Information stored in clouds leads to jurisdictional issues. Lack of regulation results in total evasion of taxes, though vide the due diligence rules in Information Technology made in 2011, an attempt to transfer money involving online gambling is prohibited and excess to such content may be blocked. Payment gateways of gambling sites are also blocked by the Reserve Bank of India. 36. Before concluding, this Court regrets that despite service to the Government of NCT though its Law Department, there was neither any assistance to the Court, nor resistance to the arguments advanced by the petitioner that there was nothing illegal in a gaming portal offering the facility of betting online on games of Skill. 37. All queries have been answered by this Court. The petition stands disposed off according. 38. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1234 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Constitution being not competent to sit in appeal over exercise of such quasi-legislative powers of the administrative authorities. 16. This Court speaking through one of us (Acting CJ) in Court on its Own Motion Vs. State of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/0758/2011 has held that the Executive within the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act is empowered to frame any Scheme which subserves the common good, welfare of the public at large and their safety concerns. A reliance was placed on Netai Bag Vs. The State of West Bengal (2008) SCC 262 laying down that the Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances and the Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would be fairer, wiser or more scientific or logical. 17. We therefore do not find any merit in these petitions and dismiss the same. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1233 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... free so as to provide free movement/access to children with disabilities. We further direct the DoE, Govt. NCT of Delhi to ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court and to take action for de-recognition against the erring schools. We however grant time up to 31st March, 2013 to the said schools to, if not have already done, make their school premises barrier free/access free. We have granted the said time having regard to the fact that Section 19 of the RTE Act has given time of three years from 1st April, 2010. We further grant time of two years to appoint Special Educators. However, schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for Special Educators and further ordain that no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing Special Educators or not providing barrier free access in the school premises. The petition is disposed of. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion, cannot really stand in the way, since the law is well settled by the Supreme Court in the decisions which I have referred to in paragraph 13 above. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the demand for OSR charges from the petitioner, on the ground that OSR land was not conveyed, cannot be sustained for 3 reasons namely--- (i) that 10% of the area had actually been handed over to the local body about 36 years ago; (ii) that no charges in lieu of OSR land can be accepted if the parent site of the layout is more than 10,000 sq. meters; and (iii) that in any case, the legitimacy of the demand for conveying of the OSR land by a registered deed is doubted by the Supreme Court in Pt. Chet Ram and other cases. Therefore the impuged demand is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e service tax collected by it, not debiting the same to its Profit & Loss A/c as an expenditure nor claiming any deduction in respect of the said amount, the question of disallowing the same under section 43B does not arise. No contrary decision was brought to our notice. Therefore, respectfully following the principles laid down in the above said decision, we hold that the amount of service tax collected by assessee cannot be considered as disallowance under section 43B, even if not paid to government at end of year. 12. However, as submitted by assessee an amount of ₹ 2,92,800/- paid by assessee but charged to Profit & Loss A/c wrongly, requires disallowance. Therefore, AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of ₹ .2,92,800/- and the balance of ₹ .1,34,989/- should be deleted. With these directions the ground is considered allowed. 13. In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1230 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the sole proprietor in favour of respondent No. 2 will not make him personally liable to pay the debts of the firm. A perusal of Mandate clearly indicates that the respondent No. 2 was only given authority to draw bills, cheques etc. in the said account but any liability on that count was to be that of sole proprietor. The clause to this effect reads thus "This mandate if not revoked in my/own life time shall be binding upon my/own estate and effects and any legal representatives unless a written notice of my/own death is given to you". That apart mandate binds the parties to the letter of 'Mandate', that is bank and the sole proprietor and not the outsiders. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the view taken by trial court that the cheque having been issued from the account maintained by M/s. Tina Toni Creations of Shri Manmohan Dhawan respondent No. 2, namely, Gopal could not have been prosecuted and punished. Petition is, thus, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1229 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... s heard today via videoconferencing. Both the Parties were present at Lucknow. 7. Respondents submitted that information as available with them has been provided to the Appellant and they have offered to re verify Appellant's grievance. 8. Appellant submitted that reasons for the foreclosure of his health policy have not been provided by the Respondents. Decision Notice 9. After hearing both the parties the Commission is of the view that in the present case, the Appellant seeks the redressal of his grievance regarding the foreclosure of his health policy. 10. The Appellant is informed that Commission redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum of the Public Authority to initiate the matter further. 11. Commission is satisfied that complete information has been provided to the Appellant. 12. With above Observations the present appeal is dismissed, the case is closed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1228 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill not be liable for criminal action. It may be noted that the firm named as VIP Financiers (Regd.), Agarwal Market, Railway Road, Aligarh, who was the principal accused, has not been made party in the complaint as stated above and side by side the necessary averment required to be made in the complaint satisfying the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are also lacking to maintain prosecution as held in the decisions cited above. In this view of the matter, complaint itself is bad in law and the entire proceedings in pursuance thereof, including the summoning order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 134 of 2007, Ram Singh Rathaur v. Yogend Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo, under Section 138 of the Act, PS Banna Devi, District Aligarh, including the summoning order dated 1.8.2007 are hereby quashed.
........
|
