|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 6415 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 886 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onance with the provisions of the Act and the rule framed thereunder. This Court also will not interfere with the opinion formed by the designated authority or the Central Government unless that opinion is either wholly arbitrary or unreasonable or no reasonable person would come to such a conclusion or it it is in violation of statutory provisions. In may opinion, in the instant case, the designated authority rightly and correctly understanding the scope of Secs. 9A and 9B and also Rule 5(1) to 5(5) of the Rules has initiated investigation proceedings on the application filed by the domestic industries. In my opinion , the designated authority has not committed any error and has not violated any of the statutory provisions, which calls for my interference. 33. In the result, writ petitions fail. Accordingly, they are rejected. Petitioners are permitted to file their questionnaire under the Rules before the designated authority within 15 days from today. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 885 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; 21,766 in 1981-82 and of ₹ 16,464 in 1982-83, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1st May, 1981, as modified by the supplementary deed dated 27-9-1982? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, part of the interest on fixed deposits from the public was liable to be disallowed under section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84?" 6. Questions similar to these questions have been considered by this Court in the case of L.G. Balakrishna & Bros. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 245 ITR 743 1 and those questions were answered against the revenue. For the reasons stated in that judgment, these questions are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 884 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also it is not necessary to place the matter before a Division Bench. 15. The petitioners also had another contention that they are discriminated since the instance is only in respect of a few items. There is also an argument that if there are erring dealers, they can be proceeded against and there need not be general direction. It is now well settled that in fiscal statutes, it is open to the State to follow its own classification and unless it is shown that there is discrimination within a class, the classification is not open to challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, as already noted from the counter affidavit, the classification is well founded and reasonable. Hence it is not necessary to consider the said contentions. The restrictions introduced are reasonable and are validly made in order to suppress evasion of tax and ensure proper collection of tax. 16. In the result, the Original Petitions are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... The ld. Accountant Member in his order has approved the action of the first appellate authority in restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer asking him to re-process the same de novo but after bringing the other legal heirs on record. This direction is in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh's case (supra) and I, therefore, have no hesitation whatsoever in confirming on the aforesaid facts and legal position the view expressed by the ld. Accountant Member. Before I part with this reference I would like to mention that six assessment years were involved but in respect of three the assessee decided to avail of KVSS, 1998 and a separate order has already been passed. The present order, therefore, pertains to those assessment years for which the assessee did not choose to go in KVSS, 1998. 19. The matter may now be listed before the Division Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2001 (12) TMI 882 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... edundant but since the Legislature avoids redundancy and every word used in the particular provision shall have to be attributed a meaning and attribution of any meaning to the word 'every' by itself would negate the interpretation as found favour with the High Court. The word 'every' has been totally ignored, which is neither permissible nor warranted. In that view of the matter the Order and Judgment under appeals cannot be sustained since the same is opposed to all norms of construction and interpretation of the Statute. The appeals are thus allowed and Judgment and Order impugned in the appeals stand set aside. Since appeals before the High Court were dismissed on a preliminary point and by reason of the consequence noticed herein before, we direct that the appeals be heard with utmost expedition by the concerned District Judge in terms of the requirement of the Statute within a period of four months from the date of communication of this Order. No costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the perspective plan prepared by the University binds the State Government qua private management or anybody else excepting the State Government applying for permission of the State Government to open a medical college; (G) That, any perspective plan prepared by the University serves as a guideline to the State Government as and when the State Government decides to set up a new government run medical college within the State and the State Government is expected to abide by the said guidelines, as far as possible; (H) That, in the present case, there was substantial compliance of the perspective plan prepared by the University; and, (I) That, the decision in the present appeal is confined to the question of establishment of a government run medical college in the State. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the present appeal deserves to succeed. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 880 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... pondent, who should go out of the Company on receipt of fair consideration for its shares. Accordingly, in terms of Section 402 of the Act, we direct the petitioner/Company to purchase the shares held by the respondent on a fair value to be determined by the statutory auditors of the Company on the basis of the Balance Sheet as on 31.3.1999 being the proximate date of the petition. The statutory auditor will compute the fair value of the shares within a period of three months from the date of this order and the value so computed shall be binding on both the parties. On determination of the value, in case the second petitioner/his group is willing to purchase the shares held by the respondent, they should pay the consideration within six weeks thereafter. Otherwise, the Company will purchase the shares and reduce the share capital of the Company to the extent of the face value of the shares. 22. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of with no order as to cost.
-
2001 (12) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law, the Tribunal would be within its power to decline the application. In that case it was found that the effect of the rectification which the Assessing Officer had effected based on the audit objection and which had been upheld by the Tribunal was to make the assessment conform to the requirement of the substantive law 6. In this case also, as a result of the rectification effected, the assessee has been granted depreciation in accordance with what the law stipulates. The rectification was made by the Assessing Officer as he had apparently not noticed the proper provision under which the assessee could be allowed depreciation for its rigs and compressors. The extent of the depreciation actually allowed after the rectification was in conformity with the law which law has been subsequently declared by the decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corpn.’s case (supra). 7. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 878 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Trade Tax and others, held that it is well settled that while considering waiver-cum-stay, the Tribunal is required to look into the prima facie merit of the case as well as financial condition of the petitioner. 4. Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner did not plead any financial strigency nor any evidence has been adduced in respect of financial strigency, hence, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application for waiver. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to consider prima facie the merit of the case also while disposing of the waiver-cum-stay application. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the waiver-cum-stay application afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment after hearing the parties.
-
2001 (12) TMI 877 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... in RG 23A Part I/Part II as they thought that it is not good to enterthe details in RG Part I/Part II as the subject matter is in dispute. They maintained that the total material was consumed during the manufacture of their final product. 5. Since the appellants could not take the modvat credit in RG 23A Part II due to the objections raised by the Department, the denial of the modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G (5) by invoking six months' time limit is not justified particularly when the receipt of 75 Kgs of allethrin was entered in Form IV Register maintained by the appellants well within one month of the date of issue of the impugned invoice. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not sustainable." 2. Since the issue has been properly considered and analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2001 (12) TMI 876 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om the date when approval was accorded under Section 23 of the MCOC Act for initiating investigation for any offence under the said Act. In the present case, accused would be entitled to bail, not on the merits of the case, but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail in the manner indicated by this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the relevant portion of which has been extracted above. As the respondent has been taken back to jail when the impugned order was suspended we direct the jail authorities to release her on the strength of the bail bond which she had executed pursuant to the order of the High Court. Such bail bond would thus revive and could be enforced as and when necessary. The appeal is thus dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 875 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Hence, this decision also does not come to the rescue of the assessee. The decision in the case of Bagree Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra), though apparently is in favour of the assessee, yet we find that in this case also the issue was not decided on merits but the appeal was allowed to maintain consistency as the claim was allowed in the past. 4.3 Under these circumstances, we prefer to follow the decision of the Delhi High Court and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Suri (supra) and J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) we hold that the Society’s maintenance charges payable by the assessee in respect of leased property is not allowable as deduction either under section 23 or under section 24 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the revenue succeeds. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 874 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of law, much less any question of law, arises out of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts and the evidence on the record and has come to conclusion. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. R & P to be returned to the Tribunal immediately.
-
2001 (12) TMI 873 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mble opinion, is the proper approach to the controversy. 11. In the result, I agree with the learned AM that the salary received by the assessee in India is taxable under Section 5(2)(a) on receipt basis and also as having accrued or arisen to him in India under Section 5(2)(b). Section 9(1)(ii) read with Explanation thereto is not relevant for the controversy. I, therefore, answer the question referred to me in the affirmative and agree with the view expressed by the learned AM that the appeal should be dismissed. 12. The matter will now go before the Bench for passing appropriate orders. M.K. Chaturvedi, Vice President 19th Dec., 2001 1. In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal who have heard this case, including those who first heard it, for the reasons stated in the order we adjudicate the issue apropos the point of difference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 2. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 872 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that without prejudice to the answer to the above question, whether the Tribunal was right in further holding that the term ‘gross receipts’ occurring in the same clause did not mean the gross realisation of the firm during the year, but only the realisation attributable to the completed pictures ignoring the part receipts for ongoing pictures? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that proviso to sub-section (2) of section 145 of the IT Act, 1961, does not apply to the facts of the case ?" 2. Questions similar to these were considered by this Court in respect of the same assessee for another assessment year in Tax Case No. 190 of 1997, decided on 22nd Nov., 2001 and the question was answered in favour of assessee. These questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appeal approached this Court. Ordinarily we would have dismissed the writ on this count but since this writ petition was pending after admission for almost 10 years, we preferred to dispose of the same on merits. While calculating the amount admittedly respondent took FOR value of originally contracted price and worked out the percentage of “cash assistance” on the basis of import policy as applicable to the petitioner. No discrimination has been caused to the petitioner by not making the notification dated 6th December, 1975 and 5th November, 1979 retrospective, rather if these notices were made effective retrospective then in each concluded contract crucial date for determining the incentive would change. It was to avoid that the Government made the operation of those notification prospective. We see no infirmity in the same. 7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in the petition. Same is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 870 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough that he satisfies the judicial mind by a preponderance of probability. ( 8. ) ON account of the aforesaid fact situation, we are inclined to believe that the small quantity of buprenorphine (Tidigesic) was in the possession of the appellant for his personal consumption and, therefore, the offence committed by him would fall under S.27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant to S.27 of the Act. We sentence him to the maximum provided under S.21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is imprisonment for six months. He is already in jail for nearly six years by now. It is not necessary for us to say that he has been in jail far beyond the sentence imposed by us. We, therefore, direct the jail authorities to release him from jail forthwith unless required in any other case. The Appeal is Disposed of in the abovesaid terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 869 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... review petition. We find no merit in it. The review petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 868 - CEGAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nts at the place of despatch (Port) and the place of receipt (appellants' premises), there was no transit loss at all. In fact, the quantity received was higher than the quantity despatched. The difference was between the quantity purported to have been unloaded from the ship in terms of survey report and the import documents, and the quantity actually despatched from the Port. The Tribunal in its decision, had further observed that under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, the remission of duty is permissible on goods lost or destroyed at the time before clearance for home-consumption. In these circumstances, the Tribunal in its Order, had observed that the demand of duty was not justified. Following the ratio of the cited decision before us in respect of the same appellants, we also hold that there is no warrant to demand any duty from them. Consequently, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Dictated in the open court.
-
2001 (12) TMI 867 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essing Authority may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State. Therefore, provisions of Section 7(3) and Rule 41(8) shall be applicable and the same shall have to be complied with while passing the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act. No defect having been found in the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 nor any notice having been served as required by Section 7(3) read with Rule 41(8) the Assessing Authority had no option but to accept the return and pass assessment order accordingly. In this view of the matter the orders passed by the authorities below for the assessment year 1996-97 also can not be sustained. For the foregoing reasons all the three revisions are hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Tribunal for fixing the tax liability of the revisionist in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.
........
|
