|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 652 Records
-
2006 (8) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd consequently, there was an obligation on the part of the tenant to send an intimation under Section 32F(1A). None of the cases related to a widow-landlord who had terminated the tenancy during her lifetime and taken possession of a portion of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said decisions will not apply. 16. As a consequence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and those of the authorities below and hold that the appellant-tenant continued to be the tenant of the land which remained with him after delivering half of the land to the landlord Anusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated 30.6.1960 made on her application under Section 31(1) read with Section 29 of the Act. The appellant shall be entitled to restoration, if he has been dispossessed by the respondent from any part of his land in Gat No. 332 in pursuance of the order of SDO/Revenue Tribunal/High Court. Parties will also be entitled to seek benefits/reliefs referred to in para 14 above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 677 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... preciation and investment allowance. In a given case, a computer kept in the office of a manager for his personal use or for some other purpose, then, such computer would not be entitled to investment allowance and/or additional depreciation. In the present case, the words "office premises" though would be covering office but, industrial premises would not come within office premises if the said premises are used for data processing. In the present case, undisputedly, the office premises are used as industrial premises for production of the data processors. The submission of the learned Counsel is based on a narrow interpretation of the words "office premises", which we are unable to concede. 10. In view of the above referred discussion, question No. 1 deserves to be answered against the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, question Nos. 2 and 3 will also have to be answered against the interest of the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of. No costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 676 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . P/13) of (the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, on the whole turnover of the petitioner relating to processing and exposing of colour photographic film, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. in particular in paragraph 49 thereof at page 32 of the said decision as reported in the SCC. He further submitted that the petitioner has already paid the service tax on 30% of the turnover which represents the services to the customers of the petitioner, the remaining 70% being transfer of property in goods. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Sumit Nema, we direct that the demand of Service tax for the period from 16-7-2001 to 31-3-2005 in dispute in the writ petition shall remain stayed till the matter is taken up again in presence of Mr. O.P. Namdeo, counsel appearing for respondents. 8. The writ petition be listed on 30-8-2006. C.C. as per rules.
-
2006 (8) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot possible to accept the plea of mala fide raised on behalf of the appellants. 15. It is lastly submitted that the State Government had acted in a discriminatory manner in de-notifying some of the lands which had been earlier included in the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act and whosoever was in a position to approach the concerned authority of the State Government, his land was exempted from acquisition. It has been urged that survey No. 9/4 which was earlier included in the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act was specifically de-notified. We are afraid that this plea cannot be examined by us for want of sufficient details. The acquisition of the appellants' land cannot be struck down on the ground that some of the land which was initially included in the notifications issued under Section 28 of the Act was de-notified. 16. For the reasons discussed above, there is no merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 674 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 143, but before the expiry of the time-limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-s. (2) of s. 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice." 3. We have perused the above referred amendment, which is squarely applicable to the facts in the present case. Even though counsel for the assessee made strenuous efforts to support the order passed by the Tribunal but could not possibly controvert the factum of amendment having cured the technical defects for which the orders were set aside by the Tribunal. 4. As the CIT(A) accepted the appeal filed by the assessee on the technical ground and also deleted the addition on merit, we remit the case back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. 5. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 4th Sept., 2006.
-
2006 (8) TMI 673 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, EASTERN REGION BENCH, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned shares by the petitioner has been established from the documents attached with the petition, the only issue for consideration is whether the company should be directed to register the transfer. Since the 3rd respondent has not shown any interest in spite of notices, I direct the respondent company to register the impugned shares in favour of the petitioner on the authority of this order. However, two months’ notice should be given to the 3rd respondent asking him to produce a restraint order from a competent court of law in case he has any objection to the registration in favour of the petitioner. In case the respondent company does not receive any response from the 3rd respondent within two months, the company shall register the shares in the name of the petitioner and shall pass on all the benefits like dividend, bonus shares etc. which have been withheld by the company. 5. The petition is disposed of with the above directions with no order as to costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 672 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as relied upon and on the basis of which he has concluded that the summons was received by the appellant indicates that it was addressed at the old address. A copy of the postal acknowledgement is on record of this case and it is seen that it was received by someone on behalf of the appellant who has also put the appellant-company’s rubber stamp on it. Apparently, the summons was issued by the Board to the appellant’s last known address and sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. It appears that these summons though bearing the old address had reached the appellant-company and it was received on its behalf by a person who had not only put his signature but also affixed the rubber stamp of the company. In view of the above facts we cannot hold that the adjudicating officer had erred in concluding that the summons was received by the appellant. 8. In the above view of the matter, the appeals fail and the impugned orders are upheld. 9. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 671 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay be, that the Tribunal did not give detailed reasons, but the reasonings are decipherable as above. This is one aspect of the matter. 7. The other aspect of the matter is, as fairly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revenue, by showing us the judgment of this Court, in CIT v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udhyog 2006 269 ITR 399, which in turn considered all previous judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so also the Courts of England and Scotland, and held, that the consideration received in the circumstances like the present one, is not includible in the taxable income, as 'capital gain'. 8. In our view, even without going into the aspect about existence of the provisions of taxability of 'capital gain' in the year 1993-94, in view of the judgment of this Court, in Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udhyog's case (supra), the question, as framed, is required to be, and is, answered against the revenue. Resultantly the appeal has no force and is dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT
Inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code - Challenged the Order passed by High Court - quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged - Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') to register the FIR - commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 168, 177A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') - HELD THAT:- If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.
Coming to the pivotal stand of respondent no.1, as has been rightly submitted by leaned counsel for the appellant, there is no notification revoking the earlier notification. The letter on which great emphasis has been laid by the respondent no.1 and highlighted by the High Court, the authority to write the letter has not been indicated. It has also not been established that the person was authorized to take a decision. In any event, the same does not meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even conceptually a notification. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that there was a notification rescinding earlier notification.
The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 669 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... 03) 11 SCC 129. Apart this, there is an inordinate delay of 305 days in filing the special leave petition for which no cause much less sufficient cause has been shown. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. In SLP (C) Nos. 7678-7682 of 2003 List on 21st August, 2006.
-
2006 (8) TMI 668 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... igning any reason would also contribute to the order of detention being bad since the non-supply of documents renders the detenu incapacitated in making an effective representation as is envisaged in the second facet of Article 222(5) of the Constitution of India. 40. Having arrived at the conclusion that the order of detention is bad on the grounds stated above, there is hardly any necessity for us to deal with each and every point raised by the parties. Consequent to our discussion above, we quash the order of detention dated 15.12.2005 bearing No. F. No. 673/22/2005-Cus. VIII passed by Shri R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Rule is made absolute. The detenu, who is in detention, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2006 (8) TMI 667 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... lsquo;a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in clause (d)(i) to (iii) of the Notification’ is exempted. It is his submission that the Commissioner has not given any reason for denying the exemption except to say that the Notification is not applicable. He submits that the notification clearly exempts them and after the withdrawal of the Notification, they have been discharging the service tax. He submitted that they cannot be burdened with tax when the exemption notification is in existence. 3. The learned JDR reiterates the Commissioner’s findings. 4. Prima facie, we are of the view that the benefit of Notification is applicable. Hence, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery till the disposal of the appeal. JDR to call for reports on the submissions made by the appellants in the stay application and in the appeal. Appeal to come up in its turn. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2006 (8) TMI 666 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... office a class III officer was brought to our notice. But the prefatory note to Vol. I of the Code says, "The revised Chapter XVII and revised Appendices I and XII will be printed later for inclusion in this edition. Till such times these are printed, the rules and provisions contained in Chapter XVII and Appendices IV and XVIII in the 1951 Edition (Re-print) as amended from time to time shall continue to apply." In State of Karnataka through CBI vs. C. Nagarajaswamy (2005) 8 SCC 370 , it was held "Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. It is desirable that the question as regard sanction may be determined at an early stage." When a sanction is granted by a person not authorized in law, the same being without jurisdiction, would be a nullity. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the sale made on the very day or immediately after the receipt of the goods not led to the conclusion that it was inter-State sales. This Court in the case of M/s Packar Times Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T. reported in 2004 NTN (Vol. 24), 38 held that unless there is material that there was a pre-existing contract with buyer and the movement of the goods were in pursuance thereof, the despatch of the goods cannot be treated as inter-State sales. 9. In the present case, Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the goods were not moved in pursuance of any prior contract of sale and were despatched by way of stock transfer to the consignment agent, M/s Rakesh Kumar Deepak Kumar, Delhi and the sales were made by consignment agent to the various parties after the receipt of the goods at Delhi. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and the same is accordingly upheld. In the result, revision fails is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 664 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... interest into a funded interest loan treating the same as interest payment ?” Admittedly the issue raised in this appeal has been considered by this Court in case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Auto Gas Ltd., 261 ITR 481, whereby the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and the Tribunal has followed the same decision. No case is made out for admission of this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.
-
2006 (8) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and the powers of Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act have been invoked casually in a routine manner without application of mind in as much as there was no material on record to justify the urgency. 45. Since we have already quashed the notification under Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 23.05.2006 being consequential in nature automatically falls to the ground and is also quashed, 46. Accordingly the writ petition Nos. 37767 of 2006 Sahab Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 37770 of 2006 Niranjan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 37852 of 2006 Hazari Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 37853 of 2006 Smt. Pooran Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 37854 of 2006 Rakesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. also stand partly allowed on the same terms and conditions as above. 47. Copy of this judgment and order be kept on all connected writ petitions mentioned above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 662 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ordance with the AppendixI i.e. the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible. The trailers and loaders are motor lorries. The Board's Circular No. 609 dated 29th July, 1991 clarifies higher depreciation will also be admissible on motor lorries used in the appelllant's business ... ..... the net expenditure after deducting the transportation income of ₹ 12,50,639/by way of running the subject vehicles on hire. Since the appellant's contention is supported by an evidence in the form of transportation income reflect in the profit and loss account, depreciation @ 40% is admissible to the appellant.” When there is no dispute to the fact that income is earned by giving the trailers and loaders on hire, the assessee is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 40%. Considering this admitted fact, we see no reason to interfere. Nothing has been shown that the finding is perverse. No substantial question of law does arise. The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 661 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sue in paragraph 7 of it's order, which is reproduced below “ We have heard the rival contentions of the parties. We find that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Fertilisers (259 ITR 526), wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that the investment allowance is allowable on actual cost as enhanced due to fluctuation in exchange rate of foreign currency. Once subsection (1) of Section 43A comes into play and increase in liability is taken as actual cost within the meaning of Section 43A(1), the effect is that such actual cost has to be taken as actual cost for all the purposes and investment allowance would have to be based on such adjusted cost. We respectfully following the same, allow the appeal on this ground.” When the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Fertilizers (supra), no substantial question of law does arise. The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 660 - ITAT CHENNAI
Condonation of delay in filing of the appeal by 310 days - No cogent reasons produced - Condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal - Addition of excise duty and sales-tax to the turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC - Disallowance made under Section 43B in respect of PF and ESI.
Addition of excise duty and sales-tax to the turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Sundarm Fasteners Ltd [2004 (10) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In this case, it was held that excise duty and sales-tax have to be excluded from turnover for the purposes of Section 80HHC. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- The reason for the delay has been attributed by the Department that there were some administrative reasons for this small delay. Considering the circumstances and hearing the counsel, the appeal is condoned.
Disallowance made under Section 43B in respect of PF and ESI - HELD THAT:- In this case, the payments were made within the grace period allowed under the respective enactments. The same is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Shri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. [1999 (2) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Condonation of delay in filing of the appeal by 310 days - No cogent reasons produced - HELD THAT:- There was a difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Bench and the following question was answered by the Third Member:
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation?
The Hon'ble Vice President, Shri M.K. Chaturvedi sitting as Third Member vide his order dt. 11th Aug., 2006 has concurred with the view of the AM. Therefore, in accordance with the majority view, the issue is decided against the assessee and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to be read in its entirety and every part thereof has to be given effect to keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Non-issuance of letter of posting and consequent non-joining by the petitioner are events which caused serious impediment in the way of the petitioner in seeking actual promotion. The decision to take disciplinary action was taken as back as in January, 2005 thereafter various correspondence was exchanged between the departments directly concerned with such disciplinary action. It is not possible to ignore the fact that number of officers both from Army and GREF were involved and it was likely to take some time before the anticipated action could actually culminate into issuance of a chargesheet which was issued on 7.12.05. 10. For the reasons aforestated, we are unable to find any merit in this writ petition and as such the same deserves to be rejected. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
........
|
