|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1184 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent No. 2 from his bank and the deposition of DW-2 (clerk from the Bank) were themselves sufficient to hold that the respondent No. 2 had been able to raise a plausible defence and the notices issued by him to his banker on 18.1.2002 and 3.2.2002 much prior to issuance of the demand notice issued by the petitioner on 26.3.2002, also substantiated the said defence. However, once the burden of proof had shifted back to the petitioner/ complainant, he was unable to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing the source of the alleged friendly loan extended to the resident No. 2, thus disentitling him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that there is no illegality, arbitrariness, perversity or mis-appreciation of facts in the impugned judgment, for granting leave to the petitioner to assail the same in appeal. The leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1183 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... charge-sheet filed as well as the material on record, I find that the nature of allegations in FIR in question are such that prima facie, it cannot be said that they strictly fall within the ambit of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 or that petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 420/477A Indian Penal Code is not uncalled for. Certainly, prima facie case for petitioner's prosecution for the offence in question is clearly made out. However, petitioner cannot be simultaneously prosecuted for the offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and so, the petitioner is discharged for offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code. However, petitioner deserves to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 420/477A Indian Penal Code. This petition and the application are disposed of in aforesaid terms while refraining to comment upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1182 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner from Respondent No.4 cannot be proceeded against for default of respondent No.5. Issue notice to respondent No.4. Dasti service is also permitted. List again on 24.04.2013, as prayed. 2. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are inter connected entities. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition but seeks liberty to establish its rights in appropriate civil proceedings. We do not see any objection to this course being adopted in accordance with law. 3. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1181 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of Case No. C-1284/2008? The hollowness of the answer looms large. The liberty of the petitioners will be seriously affected in that event. 49. On the other hand, if the opposite party No. 2 succeeds in CAT, he will get opportunity to prosecute the petitioners, according to law. Therefore, the lodging of complaint by the opposite party No. 2 is premature, to some extent, so to speak. 50. However, to get remedy, if any, a complaint is lodged against any person alongwith touch of imputation there arises no malice or mens rea to attract defamation. 51. This being the position, I find that the continuance of proceedings of Case No. C-1286/2008 pending before the 9th Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore will be a sheer abuse of process of administration of justice. Hence, all the four revisions stand hereby allowed and accordingly, the proceedings of C-1286/2008 and others stand quashed. Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied according to rules.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted by the second respondent was confirmed in favour of the petitioner/auction purchaser and Sale Certificate was also issued by the Authorised Officer, the petitioner/auction purchaser is entitled to get the Sale Certificate registered in their favour. 42. So far as the writ petition in W.P.No.4088 of 2012 is concerned, the proceedings/letter dated 08.02.2012 on the file of the second respondent is set aside. The petitioner/auction purchaser shall pay the amount returned by the second respondent along with the letter dated 08.02.2012 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents 1 2 are directed to hand over physical possession of the properties to the petitioner/auction purchaser within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition in W.P.No.4088 of 2012 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.4088 of 2012 is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1179 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... pportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) for affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against enhancement to the assessee. If he fails to afford an opportunity to the assessee, enhancement made by him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the light of these facts, enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable as it was done without issuing a show cause against enhancement to the assessee. We, therefore, find no merit in the additions. Accordingly, we delete the same. 5. The other grounds raised with regard to the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, are totally irrelevant at this stage as it can only be considered while dealing with the issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no merit in these grounds and reject the same. 6. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.8.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1178 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The ITAT came to a finding of fact that Assessing Officer has taken a possible view in the matter and there is nothing to indicate that the Assessing Officer has applied the provisions on an incorrect way. Since the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, the Principal CIT has assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without properly complying with the mandate of Section 263 of the Act. The ITAT held that the Principal CIT has failed to show that the Assessment Order was erroneous, causing prejudice to the Revenue. This finding of the ITAT that the Principal CIT could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act has not been even challenged. Since that has not been challenged, we do not think it permissible to go into the merits of the case as decided by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in our view, no substantial questions of law arises. 7 Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1177 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant submits that the sanction was granted without application of mind and without taking into consideration the fact that in case of the superior officers it was refused. However, we find that in case of the superior officer, Mr. D.L. Rangotha, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, the State Government refused to grant sanction on 12.03.1999 and in the case of Mr. D.P. Tiwari, Administrator of the State Municipal Corporation, the Central Government refused to grant sanction on 17.02.2000. A Public Interest Litigation - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 1997 appears to have been preferred against the order of withdrawal of the sanction dated 14.02.1997, in which, the order of withdrawal of the sanction was quashed by order dated 11.09.1997. (see pp. 108-109). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought for and is granted one week time to file additional documents, if any. Post the matter after two weeks.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1176 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... fore the appropriate Court. The order passed by the High Court was in regard to a transit bail and the observations made by this Court in the order dated 14th June, 2013 were with regard to anticipatory bail and hence the observations made by this Court in the order dated 14th June, 2013 or in any other order passed by this Court in these matters, will not prejudice in any way the claim of the Respondent No. 1 for either temporary or regular bail before the Trial Court or the High Court which may be decided on its own merits. We also make it clear that observations in the order passed by this Court on 14th June, 2013 or in any other order in these cases will also not cause any prejudice to the claim of any other accused in this matter for anticipatory or regular bail before the High Court or any other appropriate Court. The special leave petitions as also the criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of. W.P. (CRL) No. 83 of 2013 List this writ petition after two weeks.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Apex Court as above and following the principles as laid down in Kamaleshkumar Iswar Das Patel v. Union of India Ors. (Full Bench) reported in 1995 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 117 (supra), I am of the view that the carriage of the complaint case No. C-26935/11 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta against the petitioner will be a sheer abuse of process of Court and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 51. This order, accordingly, covers other revisions viz. CRR No. 4016/2011 (arising out of case No. C/26934/2011); CRR No. 4017/2011 (arising out of case No. C/26936/2011); CRR No. 4018/2011 (arising out of case No. C/26937/2011) and CRR No. 4034/2011 (arising out of case No. C/26935/2011). Accordingly, all such revisions stand allowed, CRAN applications are disposed of and corresponding complaint cases in the learned Court below stand quashed. Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied according to rules.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1174 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... will proceed to hear the special leave petition on merits and attempt to provide an answer to the several questions raised by the Petitioners before us. 13. We, therefore, issue notice in this special leave petition and permit the Respondents to bring their respective additional pleadings on record, if any. 14. By our order dated 31.7.2013 we had permitted the first Petitioner to bring to the notice of the Board that the present special leave petition was to be heard by us on 14.8.2013. We are told at the Bar that in anticipation of our orders in the matter, the Board has deferred further consideration of the proceedings against the first Respondent. In the light of the view taken by us that the questions raised by the Petitioners require an answer which need not be specific qua the first Respondent we make it clear that it is now open for the Board to proceed further in the matter and render such orders, in accordance with law, as may be considered just, adequate and proper.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1173 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... was discriminatory and not in accordance with law. Reference was made to non-discrimination clause in the Treaty, as per which there should not be any discrimination between the domestic and the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04- 1962 as per which the higher tax rate in case of foreign company, should not be regarded as violation of non-discrimination clause. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. J.K. Synthetics. The Tribunal accordingly, rejected the ground raised by the assessee. The facts in the present appeal are identical and, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s BNP Paribas(supra), we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 5. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of Aug,2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1172 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of CIT(A) and the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice shall be met by restricting the disallowance made by the AO to Rs.5 lacs instead of Rs.40 lacs made by the AO. We thus direct accordingly. Thus this ground of Revenue is partly allowed. ITA No 2029/Ahd/2012 (AY 2009-10) 7. In asstt.year 2009-2010, assessee had paid total commission of rs.49,67,708/- and AO considered Rs.12 lacs as reasonable and accordingly had disallowed Rs.37,67,708/- considering it to be excessive. Since the facts in the present year are identical to that of AY 2008-09 as admitted by both the parties, we, for similar reasons stated hereinabove for AY 2008-09 restrict the disallowance in the present case to Rs.4.50 lacs instead of Rs.37,67,708/- made by the AO. We thus direct accordingly. Thus this ground of Revenue is partly allowed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1171 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cord brought by the assessing officer to suggest that any money over and above what is recorded in sale deed has been paid by the assessee. There is no other evidence or surrounding circumstances to indicate that there was under hand payment of money for purchase of the properties. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of valuation report. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition.” 12. We find that in identical situation in the case of co-owner the tribunal has held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis and following the ITATs order in the case of co-owner Smt. Pratibha Aggarwal Supra we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CITA on this issue. Hence, the uphold the same. 13. In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 8 August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1170 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 8) 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and also gone through the orders of authorities below as well as Tribunal order. We find that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, while relying on various case law on different structures, submitted that the assessee has already carried the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the same is admitted. However, no orders of any higher court have been placed on record to take a different view. In view of the above, we respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case dismiss the grounds raised by both assessee and Revenue. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 20th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1169 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filed under Article 21, 22(2), 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India for illegal detention by police and compensation was claimed. It was held that the claim of the appellant that she had been illegally detained could not have been determined on the basis of disputed facts. In such a case, claim raised by such a petitioner must be determined on the basis of factual position acknowledged by respondent. High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would ordinarily not adjudicate a matter where the foundational facts are disputed. 19. Things are substantially same in the instant case. The question whether the petitioner has been illegally arrested cannot be determined on the basis of disputed facts. Since all the averments made by the petitioner require adjudication, same cannot be done in the writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to him under law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1168 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... eption Locked false Priority 31 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Subtle Reference /> <w LsdException Locked false Priority 32 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Intense Reference /> <w LsdException Locked false Priority 33 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Book Title /> / Style Definitions / table.MsoNormalTable mso-style-name Table Normal ; mso-tstyle-rowband-size 0; mso-tstyle-colband-size 0; mso-style-noshow yes; mso-style-priority 99; mso-style-parent ; mso-padding-alt 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top 0in; mso-para-margin-right 0in; mso-para-margin-bottom 10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left 0in; line-height 115%; mso-pagination widow-orphan; font-size 11.0pt; font-family Calibri , sans-serif ; mso-ascii-font-family Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family Times New Roman ; mso-bidi-theme-font minor-bidi;
-
2013 (8) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of plaintiff's land for construction of building. Thus, the same has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 8. Thus, while determining the issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on the basis of facts admitted in the written statement, the issue whether the defendants have spent money on the renovation or that the notice was defective which has not been explained as to how, have no relevance. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of possession on the basis of the admissions in the written statement. 9. Consequently, a preliminary decree is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants directing the defendants to vacate the premises and handover the vacant peaceful possession of the ground floor premises of A-27, Nizamudin West, New Delhi consisting of one dining room, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a kitchen and a servant quarter and front lawn as described in the site plan. The application is disposed of.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1166 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that interest-free loan given by the assessee-society to another society, having similar objects and registered under Section 12AA of the Act, did not violate Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act, since such loans were neither investments nor deposits. No doubt, the assessee here had mentioned the amounts given to M/s SPK MAC Charitable Trust as “deposits” in its accounts. Submission of the assessee that it was nothing but a loan given to the said Trust, for the purpose of its educational objects, has not been rebutted by the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in directing the A.O. to exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. We do not find any need to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals). 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 29th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1165 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on introducing the Compact Spinning System is Revenue in nature and is thus an allowable expenditure. 7. Since the issue in hand is similar to the one decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY. 2007-08, and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue holding the expenditure incurred by the assessee on introducing Compact Spinning System as Revenue Expenditure. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 13. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we reject the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 29th day of August, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
