|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 928 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 940 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mendations of the DPC in every six months where the employee concerned is facing criminal prosecution or departmental inquiry. 6. From the narration of this, it is clear that provisions where the stoppage could have been done of a benefit or ad hoc promotion could have been denied as is prescribed in the circular dated 30/06/1994, have not been adopted by the respondents. Merely because an appeal is pending against the judgment of acquittal, there is nothing prescribed that the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of benefit of higher pay scale for which he was found fit long back. Consequently the respondents could not have denied such benefit to the petitioner. 11. This Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed in Brij Bahadur Upadhyay (supra). 12. In view whereof, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 13. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Second Higher Pay Scale from the due date. Let the same be done within 45 days. No costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 939 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... workers, the instant Original Application is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The petitioners despite opportunities have not filed their appointment orders. The respondents have stated that no appointment orders have been issued to the petitioners. The nature of relationship of the petitioners with the respondents, particularly regarding terms and conditions of their service, is therefore not clear. Apparently, the petitioners have no right to stop the respondents from outsourcing their certain services in the interest of economy and efficiency. The respondents submit that there is no bar for the contractor if he decides to appoint the petitioners for carrying out the services outsourced. For these reasons we find no illegality in the impugned order and merit in the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. In the result the interim order dated 27.12.2012 passed in favour of the petitioners stands vacated.
-
2013 (2) TMI 938 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... do not find any substance in this ground of appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 349/Agr/2011 by the assessee Smt. Renu Agarwal 39. Ground No. 1 is in respect of sustenance of addition of Rs. 7,37,000/- by the CIT(A) being payment made to Mrs. Bina Gupta. 40. In the light of the detailed discussion made in this order vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 24, we delete the addition and ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 41. The second ground of appeal is in respect of charging of interest under section 234C of the Act. 42. In the light of the detailed discussions made in paragraph Nos. 36 to 39 of this order, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. In the result, ITA Nos. 405, 404, 406, 407 466/Agr/2011 filed by the Revenue are dismissed and ITA Nos. 348 349/Agr/2011 filed by the assessee are partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (2) TMI 937 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... is admitted. To be heard along with Civil Appeal Nos. 5926-5927 of 2011.
-
2013 (2) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... we may have remitted the case to the Commission for reconsideration of the entire matter but, keeping in view the fact that the Appellant has already retired from service and he had put in unblemished service of 17 years as on the date of initiation of the departmental proceedings, we do not consider it proper to adopt that course. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of punishment passed by the Secretary of the Commission and the appellate order passed by the Chairman of the Commission are quashed and it is declared that the Appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the period during which he was kept out of employment. He shall also be entitled to the retiral benefits, which may be admissible to him under the relevant service rules. The concerned authority of the Commission is directed to pay the salary, allowances, etc., to the Appellant within 4 months from the date of production of copy of this judgment.
-
2013 (2) TMI 935 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... simply observe that prima-facie no derogatory words impinging upon the character of the respondents have been used and that the nature of the programme as also the content of the transcript does not prima-facie reveal merits of the case being discussed. Of course, reference has been made to the evidence when the characters speak i.e. the dialogue is a reflection of the evidence, or to put it differently, the transcript of the evidence has been given a dramatic effect. 39. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated February 22, 2013 is set aside. 40. The usual mantra. Nothing said by us would be treated as an expression on the merits of the case. The application seeking interim injunction would be decided by the learned Single Judge uninfluenced by any observations made by us on the factual aspect of the matter. Reference to the facts made by us are limited for purposes of discussing the legal issue which arose with respect to the grant of the ad-interim injunction. No costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 934 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on sale of scrap as well as on account of job work charges at Rs.1,09,800/-. 6. Remaining item is sundry balance written off aggregating to Rs.24,936./- i.e., in respect of sundry balances all creditors written off. I noted that the purchase of material/service from such creditor has gone to reduce the profit of the firm thereby reducing the claim of deduction under section 80IB in earlier year. Hence, credit balance written off from such expenses would form part of the business income under section 41 (1) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that deduction under section 80IB is allowable on this amount also. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB on account of job work charges, sale of scrap and sundry balances written off. However, no deduction will be allowed in respect of interest at Rs.1,65,288/-. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01st February, 2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 933 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee has received compensation of Rs. 3,02,16,828/- for granting the developer the right to develop the property which is clearly taxable as per provisions of Section 2(24) read with Section 2(47) and 2(14) of the Income Tax Act? 2 The Revenue seeks to tax the society in respect of the amount received on transfer of TDR. The Tribunal in the impugned order recorded a finding of fact that the amount which was received on the transfer of TDR was received by members of Respondent Society. The members of the Society had offered the amounts received by them to tax in their individual returns. In fact, copies of orders of the Tribunal in respect of individual members who received amount from the developers and offered to tax was also placed before the Tribunal. 3 As the decision is based on a finding of fact which is not challenged by the Revenue as being perverse, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 932 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was subjected to rape at 06.30 A.M. When confronted with the aforesaid contradiction in the cross-examination, she could not explain the aforesaid discrepancy. Her statement that she shouted for help when she was subjected to rape also does not find support from the evidence of Ramchandra Salvi (PW-11), the owner of the house where the incident is alleged to have taken place. Dr. Smt. Sushila (PW-12), has also not supported the allegation of rape as also the Forensic Science Laboratory Report. In the face of what we have observed above, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be wholly reliable. 10. In light of the aforesaid evidence the view taken by the trial court was the only possible view. Once it is held so the order of acquittal is not fit to be interfered with and the High Court rightly declined to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal. 11. In view of what we have observed above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s not the case of the Plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the Plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the Plaintiff, still Plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the Plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court dated 23.08.2011 in C.M. No. 707 of 2010 (Civil Revision No. 707 of 2010) is set aside and the order dated 25.02.2010 of the trial Court is restored. 14. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 930 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking to modify the punishment of removal from service - illegal gratification - demoted from the post of A.S.I. to Head Constable - Appellant and Jagdish Prasad Tiwari were dismissed from service - Doctrine of Equality - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the inquiry report placed before us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak. It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry. The charge levelled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained.
We are of the view the Doctrine of Equality also applies to the facts of the present case. We have indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak.
Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 929 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion of special Courts to try these type of cases. Decision in this behalf be taken by the Government after examining number of cases which are pending before the CBI Court at Ghaziabad. Let this decision be taken within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is received. I have also perused the list of witnesses which the prosecution intends to examine. As many as 384 witnesses have been listed in the charge-sheet which by in itself is sufficient indication that the trial is likely to be delayed. Trial Court in this behalf will examine the relevancy of the witnesses which have been listed in the charge-sheet and call only those witnesses which are relevant. However, this decision is required to be taken by the Trial Court after hearing the parties. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage to quash the proceedings pending against the accused applicants. All the applications fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 928 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ficer should immediately act, like apprehending the accused, sending the victim to medical treatment etc., and thereafter registration of FIR would be an ideal investigation procedure. Otherwise, in all other type of cases, registration of FIR is mandatory since an FIR is to be sent to the Court at the earliest stage, so that no manipulating and tampering of facts would be possible. If the FIR is sent to the Court, all further investigation should necessary be consistent with the FIR. In the context of facts of the case on hand, the conduct of investigation by surprise raid in the absence of FIR is untenable. Accordingly, the substantial question of law formulated for consideration is answered in the affirmative. With these observations, the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police to comply with the observations made above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 927 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e re-look of accounts which were earlier furnished by assessee, Assessing Officer had come to conclusion that income had escaped assessment, same was not permissible under section 147 as it was clearly a change of opinion and therefore order re-opening assessment was not permissible”. 21. On the other issue of “Reduction in relief allowable for taxes paid in Sri Lanka”, also we find the case of the assessee to be covered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. (supra), as extracted in the order, in para 10 above. 22. In the light of our observations made herein above, we quash the reassessment proceedings, as initiated by the AO, as a consequence of which all the subsequent proceedings stands annulled. 23. As we have quashed the reassessment proceedings, we do not find any justification to go into the merits. 24. The appeal filed by the assessee, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 926 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... therwise charitable.” 10. De hors the controversy with respect to amendment of the trust deed, we are of the considered opinion that the original trust deed specifically mentions about charitable activities being carried out by the assessee trust. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has amended its trust deed, therefore, it is not eligible for registration under section 12AA of the Act. 11. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the file back to the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) to decide the application of the assessee for registration afresh by taking into consideration the original trust deed and also the activities being carried out by the assessee from the period of its inception. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 925 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s observed that commencement certificate was issued on 10.03.2000 and according to him, it was revised certificate. It is revised commencement certificate and project Kumar Puram is different identity. Factually, entire land on plot No.411 as stated above was already divided into various plots which was purchased by various parties so it was not justified on part of the Revenue to hold that all construction on the total land was one project. This view is supported by the decisions in the cases of M/s.Rahul Constructions (supra), M/s.Aditya Developers (supra) and Vandana Properties (supra) and Mudit Madanlal Gupta vs. ACIT 51 DTR 217 (Bom) and Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. 119 TTJ 269 (Bang.). In view of above, we hold that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) with regard to Kumar Puram project constructed on plot No.6 of original plot No.411. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a cryptic order, dated 21.02.2012. It is the correctness of otherwise of this order which is called in question by the appellant-accused in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and also carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. To say the least, the order passed by the High Court is a non-speaking order. It is a settled position of law that an order which does not contain any reason is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAI
No Permanent Establishment (PE) in India - Income Earned in India taxable or not? u/s 12(2) of the DTAA - The assessee company is tax residence of USA and has entered into an agreement with an Indian company for the distribution of the cinematographic films in India and has received royalty at specified rates. A.O. held that such receipt is business income of the assessee and taxable in India being the profit attributable to PE in India. - HELD THAT : - If income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to PE. In this case, the assessee does not have any PE in India therefore the amount received under the agreement of distribution is not taxable in India.
Decision in the case of - ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX - 2007 (1) TMI 91 - Supreme Court, relied upon.
-
2013 (2) TMI 922 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profits of the business as reduced by profits allowed as deduction under section 80IA/80IB ? 2. Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (i) is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 2009 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (i). 3. So far as question (ii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in 2011 332 ITR 42. In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 921 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der the proposed scheme would be in the interest of the Companies and their members and creditors, prayers in terms of paragraph 15 (a) of the Company Petition Nos.161, 162 and 165 of 2012, in terms of Paragraph 22(a) of Company Petition No.164 of 2012 and in terms of Paragraph 20(a) of Company Petition No.166 are hereby granted. The Company Petition No.163 of 2012 is hereby disposed off as being infructuous. 12. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. So far as the costs to be paid to the Central Government Standing Counsels is concerned, the same are quantified at Rs.7,500/per petition. The same may be paid to Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for appearing in Company Petition Nos.161, 162 and 165 of 2012 and to Mr. M. Iqbal A. Shaikh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for appearing in Company Petition Nos.164 and 166 of 2012. Cost of Rs.5,000/be paid to the Office of the Official Liquidator towards cost for the Transferor Companies.
........
|
