|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 7228 Records
-
2004 (12) TMI 696 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sidering the deduction under sections 80J and 80HH of the Act with reference to an "Industrial Company". The said order of the Tribunal is not applicable so far as the interpretation of "Small Scale Exporter" is concerned. 5. In view of the finding that not only the manufacturing of production is necessary but such manufacturing of production should have been done in the assessee’s own undertaking and in the present case it is an accepted position that the assessee itself does not own any undertaking where manufacturing of production activity can be done; the Tribunal committed illegality in granting weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act to the assessee. 6. In the result, we answer the above question in negative i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee and it is held that the assessee’s case does not fall under the definition of ‘Small Scale Industrial Unit’. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 695 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... ot find any reason as to why the same reasonable cause cannot be accepted for the delay in obtaining the audit reports and furnishing the same to the Assessing Officer. Since once the reasonable cause has been accepted by the Revenue and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue and keeping in view the decisions as relied upon by the learned A/R of the assessee as mentioned hereinabove, we hold that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for getting the accounts audited and furnishing the audit report to the Assessing Officer beyond the statutory period and accordingly all the grounds 1 to 3 taken by the Revenue are rejected. 15. The assessee has filed the cross-objections supporting the order of the CIT(A). In view of our decision in the Revenue’s appeals as hereinabove and in the absence of any new ground the cross-objections of the assessee are rejected. 16. In the result, all the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 694 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y amount is not verified, that amount will be adjusted towards the amount already deposited by the petitioner which is to the tune of ₹ 92,837.56 paise and then pass concequential order of refunding the amount if any amount found remaining with the respondents to the petitioner accordingly." 6. Aforesaid view of the Division Bench was followed by another Division Bench decision in the case of O.D. Industries v. State of U. P., reported in 1996 U.P.T.C. 307 and in the case of M/s. Agarwal Enterprises v. Trade Tax Officer, reported in 1997 U.P.T.C. 763 and subsequently, in the case of D.C.M. Limited, Daurala Sugar Works v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, reported in 1999 U.P.T.C. 1038 and the recent decision given by the Division Bench in the case of Pankaj Gas Cylinder Ltd. v. State of UP., reported in 2003 U.P.T.C. 499. 7. Following the aforesaid decision, the present revision have no force. 8. In the result, all the three revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Home Department (2004 Vol.2 Weekly Law Report page 1351). Reference in this connection may also be made to an interesting article by Paul P. Craig Q.C. titled 'Judicial Review, Appeal and Factual Error' published in 2004 Public Law Page 788. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and, thus, must be set aside. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter back to Industrial Tribunal for its consideration afresh but as the matter is pending for a long time and as we are satisfied having regard to the materials placed before us that the Industrial Tribunal should have granted approval of the order of punishment passed by the Appellant herein against the Respondents, we direct accordingly. The Respondents may, however, take recourse to such remedy as is available to in law for questioning the said order of dismissal. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 83(1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the judgments of the High Court are hereby set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for final disposal of the two election petitions, namely Election Petition No.1 and 2 of 2002 at an early date preferably within four months from the date of filing of a copy of this order in the High Court. The High Court shall dispose of the election petitions without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 prayed for some time to file written statement in the aforesaid two election petitions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, they are permitted in both the Election Petitions to file their written statement within a period of three weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment, and reply, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vision Bench of the High Court directing the State Government to grant the Amins the minimum pay scale of No.7 does not appear to be justified and accordingly, we allow the State appeal and set aside the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court granting the Amins the pay scale No.7. As a result of our above discussion, we allow the appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court granting pay scale No.7 to the Amins is set aside. We dismiss all the appeals filed by the private appellants but direct that the benefits which have been accrued to the Amins of all those 36 writ petitions, no recovery shall be made till the date of this judgment and all these Amins should be given the pay scale Nos.6,7, & 8 as per the qualifications and their pay shall be fixed at the appropriate stage in these pay scales and they will be entitled to further career advancement scheme. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 690 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order was obviously mis-conceived because admittedly there is no power of review under the Customs Act. We are also in agreement with a view of the learned Single Judge that the bereavement if any, that occurred in the family of the Managing Director of the Company could not have prevented from filing the appeal within time when it continued pursuing the other applications particularly those pertaining to renewal of its licences. Be that as it may, the Tribunal exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and declined to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge was right in observing that such an order cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned Single judge was therefore right in dismissing the write petition and we find no ground to interfere in appeal. 3. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 689 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... he purpose of levy of service tax on a part thereof. This decision of the lower appellate authority was based on the Tribunal’s decision in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CCE 2003 155 ELT 457 (T). Revenue, in the present appeal, states that the department has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against Daelim Industrial Co. (supra) and, therefore, the Tribunal’s decision has not reached finality. This, in fact, is the only ground raised in this appeal, all other "grounds" being only references to the facts of the case. 2. The above ground raised by the appellant stands dislodged with the dismissal of the department’s appeal by the Supreme Court. A copy of the Supreme Court’s order in S.L.P. No. 24294/2003 filed by the department against the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. has been produced by the counsel. This is an order of dismissal, on merits, of the S.L.P. 3. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
2004 (12) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r has been brought down one feet below the road level. Similarly certain alterations were made in the structure by removing pillars with a view to give a wider frontage to suit the convenience of the appellant. On the findings arrived at by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises. The High Court was therefore, justified in dismissing the Second Appeal. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that he is willing to obey the decree of the Courts below and comply with the directions contained therein. He submitted that since execution has been laid he is under constant threat and warrant of attachment has been issued. We have no doubt that if the appellant takes steps forthwith to comply with the decree passed against him, the executing Court on being satisfied about his bona fide and genuineness, may grant him time to complete the work and permit the decree to be executed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is full of ifs and buts. There is no definite finding recorded that the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. No basis has been indicated to direct re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that the respondent had miserably failed to prove bonafides. Though he took the stand that he had informed the head office about the withdrawal, no material was placed before any of the authorities to prove it. It is to be noted that on the basis of material on record, it was concluded that the withdrawal was on 6.5.1992 and not on 9.5.1992 as was claimed. The respondent-employee has withdrawn a sum of ₹ 20,000/- from the account of bank with the State Bank of India on 6.5.1992 and had withdrawn a further sum of ₹ 5,000/- from the cash. Above being the position the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained and the same is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent-employee, stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 686 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ver, revision nos. 1460 and 1464 of 1991 are dismissed. Revision nos. 1502, 1503 and 1504 of 1991 have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.04.1991, In the present case, Tribunal has deleted the levy of tax on the ground that the tax has been levied on the parchun goods while there is no goods in the name of parchun under the Trade Tax Act. It is true that under the Trade Tax Act, there is no goods in the name of parchun, but in commercial sense, parchun goods is commonly known as general merchandise goods, thus the view of Tribunal in this regard is not justified but since in all these cases also Form 34 and G.Rs have not been confronted and the revenue failed to prove that the alleged Form s34 have been obtained by the applicant and the alleged vehicles belonged to the opposite party, order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. In the result, revision nos. 1502, 1503 and 1504 of 1991 are accordingly, dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rly so as a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that supply of fuel wood to employees is for the purpose connected with the plantation, which is a later decision of the two Judge Bench decision of this Court. Further that rested tea area is a part of tea plantation was not properly projected before this Court as has been rightly contended by Mr. Salve. It is a matter of experience and on reference to authoritative text books if rested tea areas are part of the plantation. We allow the appellant to approach the State government to seek exemption under Sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. For this purpose we grant six weeks time to the appellant to apply to the State Government. the State Government shall take decision on such application in accordance with law explained above. till then the stay granted by this Court by order dated December 6, 1984 shall continue tto operate. With these observation the appeal stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 684 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... pursuant to the impugned judgment will be subject to further orders in the appeal.
-
2004 (12) TMI 683 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... tion since it appears that matter may be settled out of Court. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2004 (12) TMI 682 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... irement and subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions laid down in section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act." 14. In the case of CIT v. R.J. Shahney 1986 159 ITR 160 (Mad.), it has been held that the words "whether on superannuation or otherwise" also includes the case of resignation. It has been held that a retirement may be of various kinds. It may be on superannuation or it may be voluntary. If there is any voluntary retirement from service, the provisions of section 10(10AA) would cover only such cases where there is severance of relationship of employer and employee. 15. The next case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel. K. Gopalakrishnan v. CBDT 1994 206 ITR 1831 (Mad.) has hardly any application to the controversy involved in the present case 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the above questions referred to us in negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 681 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d maintained by the National Cooperative Union of India Ltd, New Delhi. 2. According to the assessee, this contribution is not a cess, tax, duty or fee and therefore Section 43B would not be applicable. However, before the Tribunal, the question has not been specifically raised by the revenue or by the assessee. It was submitted that in terms of Section 37, the amount of contribution to the said fund is an allowable deduction. The issue is that if section 43B is applicable then it will be allowed on actual payment basis only. If not, then it may be allowed on accrual bass. The key question is whether the contribution to the said fund is a ‘‘tax, duty, cess or fee’‘. This aspect has not been examined by the tribunal and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the tribunal to dispose of the same in accordance with law and to return a finding as to whether section 43B would be applicable or not. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (12) TMI 680 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... by the CIT through the medium of Section 263. Once the said order is disturbed, either it is modified as desired by the CIT or set aside to be redone according to law and on the basis of directions contained in the order under Section 263. Section 263 itself, contains enough clues to this effect. In our considered view, the order as passed under Section 263 is unworkable, because once an assessment is set aside it has to be redone according to law, if it is not set aside, the assessment has to be modified as directed, in which event the CIT cannot set aside an issue for reconsideration or investigation. 55. In any case, since we have, on the merits of the directions made by the CIT, held that in each of the directions there was either no error or prejudice or both, we hold that the CIT was not justified in invoking his jurisdiction under Section 263, a detailed examination of this aspect of his order is purely academic. 56. In the result the assessee's appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellants were unable to produce even a scrap of evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he had ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition?
Whether at the case projected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State?
-
2004 (12) TMI 678 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed
-
2004 (12) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the fee of the nature impugned as a matter of fact, a tax in the guise of fee and whether it is so excessive or unreasonable as to loose the character of fee?
........
|
