|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 737 Records
-
2008 (4) TMI 773 - SC ORDER
Sale of seized vehicle by Dept. in auction, during pendency of appeal - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR Versus HARINDER SINGH [2007 (8) TMI 185 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 772 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Dismissed only on the ground of delay.
-
2008 (4) TMI 771 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... received from the Director concerned. At the bare minimum it would have to comprise the two mandatory elements as explained by the Supreme Court in Neeta Bhalla I. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint when read as a whole does not satisfy the requirement of the law in this regard as far as the petitioner is concerned. 20. For all the aforementioned reasons the petition is allowed. The Petitioner stands discharged in the complaint case titled Chief Enforcement Officer1Ratan Exports and Industries and Ors. pending in the Court of the learned ACMM, New Delhi. However, the complaint will continue against the other accused, excluding Rajan Bagaria who has already been discharged by this Court by the order dated 8th February 2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 5094/2006. 21. The petition is accordingly allowed with no orders as to costs. The pending application also stands disposed of. A copy of this order will be sent by the Registry to the court of the learned ACMM immediately.
-
2008 (4) TMI 770 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third party interest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds in question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is subjudice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All parties must cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. Respondents must also furnish sufficient security before the learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees One Crore. 25. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are dismissed subject to the observations and directions made hereinbefore. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 769 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... interest accrued to the assessee has to be spread over on an annual basis right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of order of the Court on the time basis. In IT Appeal No. 579 of 2007 (supra) on similar facts, it was held by this Court that the matter relating to enhanced compensation and interest was still in dispute and the same was a highly debatable issue as two views were clearly possible on the said issue and thus the claim of the assessee was based on one possible view (although the said claim was not accepted in the quantum proceedings on a difference of opinion) and therefore, such claim made by the assessee could not be treated as concealment of income by the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income so as to attract the penal provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal being without any merit, is dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 768 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... The Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2008 (4) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der para 22(v) are "warning or censure or adverse remark being entered, or fine, or stoppage of increments/reduction of basic pay or to condone the misconduct and merely discharge from service". The setting aside of the removal by the High Court and the relief of consequential benefits is thus sustained. The matter has, therefore, to go back to the appellate authority for considering imposition of one or the other punishment in para 22(v) other than dismissal without notice." 29. As the respondent has merely been found to be guilty of commission of procedural irregularity, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly in view of the fact that the respondent has now reached his age of superannuation, and the appropriate authority of the appellant would be entitled to impose any suitable penalty upon him. 35. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 766 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/ or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefore in terms of the Act but he cannot not exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that the Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view." In so opining the Court followed Kailash Nath Kothari (supra). The legal principles as noticed hereinbefore, clearly show that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 765 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l. 17. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the findings of the Tribunal, there is no infirmity in law so as to enable the High Court to take a different view of the matter. It is an admitted position that proceedings for asst. yr. 1985-86 were pending on the day the additional ground was raised before CIT(A) and that the amount was otherwise allowable as deduction is not in dispute. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that CIT(A) should have entertained the additional ground with regard to expenditure of ₹ 4,14,955 on account of payments made to the suppliers of skimmed milk regardless of the fact that the assessee had claimed the said amount for asst. yr. 1986-87 because the said claim for asst. yr. 1986-87 had already been disallowed. 18. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2008 (4) TMI 764 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Increase in the rate of interest in terms of s. 26C of the Act, thus, has a direct nexus with the statutory impost. The action on the part of the appellants in rounding off of the interest, thus, was wholly unjustified. Once it is held that increase in interest in a justifiable manner pertains to passing on the burden of tax, the contention that the same had been done by the bank in exercise of its contractual power must be rejected. A taxing statute must be construed reasonably. Nothing can be realised by way of tax or akin thereto which has not been authorised by Parliament." And the Revenue seeking to rely on the last sentence of the said passage is not tenable. The assessee has not collected any amount which were not authorised or expressly prohibited. 16. We, therefore, are of the firm opinion that the appellant has not made out any case on merits. The appeals are hence dismissed. The questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2008 (4) TMI 763 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Pending the hearing and final disposal of the matter, the impugned order is stayed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 762 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nowledge and hence he is liable to be penalized under the said Rule 209A. Accordingly, we find that the conciusion reached by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also correct and does not require any reconsideration. 10. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraph, that the Larger Bench had taken to consideration, the meaning of the word "Any person" specifically as was sought to be argued by the Jt. CDR. After noting the words used "Any Person" in the rule, the Larger Bench held that provisions of Rule 209A would be applicable only to an individual person and not to the firm. 11. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Vice President is a correct conclusion and concur with the same. Reference to the third Member is answered accordingly and the registry is directed to place the file before the referral Bench for further disposal. Pronounced in Court on 15.4.2008.
-
2008 (4) TMI 761 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for final use, when the different product has come out, then it cannot be said that it is the same goods, as the raw goods could not be used without the processes under which the goods of the assessee have gone. Therefore, once it was allowed after seeing all these facts and when there was no concealment of facts for deduction under section 10B of the Act, we see no justification in issuing notices under section 148 for reopening of the assessment. The reason which has been taken for reopening of the assessment is that 20 old machinery has been used for manufacturing of the valves. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 20 of the old machinery was purchased in the year 200304; that is not before us. In so far as assessment year 200203 is concerned, the appeal of the assessee is pending before the Tribunal. Considering all the aforesaid facts, which are not disputed, we quash and set aside the impugned notices for reopening of assessments. The petitions are allowed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me was a ’service’ under Section 2(1)(o)." 22. Several other earlier decisions were also referred to, where a similar view has been expressed. 23. We are not also able to appreciate Dr. Padia’s submission that the cases of the respondents should not be considered as they had applied at the fag end of their careers for correction of their dates of birth in the appellant’s records, which practice had been strongly discouraged by this Court. The aforesaid principle cannot apply to the case of the respondents as their dates of birth had been correctly recorded in the records of the company, including the respondents’ service records, on the basis whereof they had retired from the company’s services. 24. We, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the orders passed by the National Commission. All the six appeals filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner are accordingly dismissed. 25. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (4) TMI 759 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. reported in (2005) 3 SOT 572. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. On due consideration of the matter, we delete the disallowance. In the case before the Delhi Bench, it has been observed that several High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have taken a uniform view that such membership enables the directors and executives to socialize and develop contacts with various persons for promoting company's business interests. Several judgment (s) were relied upon by the Delhi Bench, notable amongst them being Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. in 195 ITR 682, CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. in 240 ITR 335 and several others. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of ₹ 75,000/-. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced in the court on 25-4-2008.
-
2008 (4) TMI 758 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... draws my attention to the findings of the original adjudicating authority which are to the effect that there was proper endorsement on the bill of entries. Bill of entries have also been produced on record and the declaration therein show that the same stand duly endorsed in favour of the appellant. As such, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are factually incorrect. I also note that in terms of Hon ble Mumbai High Court’s decision in case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. Vs. UOI, as reported in 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom.), where the goods were duty paid and were received and used in the assessee s factory and where the importer has not availed the modvat credit, the credit cannot be denied to the appellant only on the ground that the bill of entry was not endorsed in the name of the assessee claiming credit of duty. 4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (4) TMI 757 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t. Time and again various Courts have held that the primary onus to prove genuineness of cash credit lies on the assessee and not on the AO to prove that such cash credit is not genuine. The Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the AO is entitled to look into the genuineness of cash credit even in respect of issue of shares or the amount having been received by way of share capital. This is later on approved by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (supra) whereby Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered all the judgments on issue including that of CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 287 (2001) 251 ITR 263(SC) as approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of cash credit or even prove the creditworthiness of the creditor, the addition is sustained. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 756 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iable to pay at the time of provisional assessment, he cannot be absolved of the liability to pay interest on the differential amount when the final assessment is made. In the case of short payment, the person is always liable to pay interest on the differential amount as if he had never paid correct duty. As is well known, interest is paid as a measure of compensation to make good the loss for the delayed payment. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest following the month in which the assessments were finalized, cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the aforesaid part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the original authority for quantification of the interest in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 15th day of April, 2008.
-
2008 (4) TMI 755 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the light of the foregoing discussion, we admit the additional evidence and restore the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the allowability of the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Besides the material which is already on record and the additional evidence now admitted, the assessee shall be at liberty to place any other material or evidence also on record. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee to put its case forth and shall decide the issue judiciously in accordance with law keeping in mind the material on record as well as the judicial pronouncements that may be brought to his notice. 9. Since we are restoring the major issue for reconsideration, the issue relating to the allowability of the expenses on ESOPs is also set aside for fresh consideration. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the court on 25-4-2008
-
2008 (4) TMI 754 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt on similar lines is proposed to be made in s. 18 of the WT Act. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2003. (Clauses 97 and 106)" 4. Having regard to the nature of the amendment in s. 271, which has been extensively quoted hereinabove, and having regard to judgment of this Court in the case reported in 1985 (4) SCC 608, we are of the view that the point laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (supra) needs reconsideration. 5. Accordingly, the matter is directed to be placed for appropriate directions before the learned Chief Justice. 6. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Addl. Solicitor General, states that even if the Department were to succeed ultimately before the Larger Bench, they would not demand penalty from the assessee Ramanlal C. Hathi as the Department is primarily concerned with the authoritative decision on the question of law concerning interpretation of s. 271(1)(c) as amended by Finance Act, 2002.
........
|
