Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2008 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 9344 Records

• 2008 (12) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether order of the Summary Security Force Court dated 8.9.2002 whereby and whereunder a sentence of dismissal from service was imposed incorrect?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... far as the assessment year 2002-03 is concerned, the petitioner filed a return claiming the benefit of Section 80HHBA and the same was processed under Section 143(1). The learned counsel for the assessee / respondent submitted that in view of these circumstances alone, following the rule of consistency, the order passed by the Tribunal ought not to be interfered with. He, however, submitted that on merits also he had a strong case. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to verify the aforesaid facts. Renotify on 11th December, 2008.” 2. The learned counsel for the appellant / revenue has verified the facts. She is not in a position to deny the veracity of the statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee on 25.11.2008. Thus, following the rule of consistency alone, although the learned counsel for the appellant sought to raise the issues on merits, we feel that the order passed by the tribunal ought not to be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the High Court while quashing an order of transfer passed against the appellant was correct in directing that he would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed till the date he again joined his duties at the original place?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Dr. Mukhtar Nabi Khan, appointed as Principal of Muslim Minority Post Graduate College had been made out against the said respondent of having committed various acts of misconduct?

  Whether it is not a fit case where the High Court should have refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the writ application?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y this Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. (Supra). 10. In the circumstances we permit the appellants herein to withdraw the Civil Appeals with liberty to file proper writ petition, if so advised. We make it clear that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition originally filed by the petitioners. Subject to above, Civil Appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. We make it clear that if a proper writ petition is filed giving requisite data to the satisfaction of the High Court, then any observation made in the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the appellants. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open. 11. Similar order was passed in a group of cases i.e. Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.( i.e. Civil Appeal No.1177 of 2006 etc. disposed of on 28.11.2007). 12. Subject to the above, the Civil Appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 730 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether increase in levy made by the State of Himachal Pradesh inter alia on import/ transport of rectified spirit and/ or potable alcohol is constitutionality valid?

  Whether the State has the jurisdiction to impose any restriction on the movement of industrial alcohol and/ or Malt Spirit of over proof strength?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the demand notice dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents 2, and the demand notice issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and therefore be strike down?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 728 - SC ORDER
  

  Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Union of India has indulged in taking a ground which was not available to it - Article 136 of the Constitution of India

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 727 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether an award dated 9.8.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Hyderabad in Industrial Dispute No. 183 of 1993 to the extent it denies the full back wages to the respondent isnacceptable?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 725 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 instead of dismissing the appeal it should have proceeded slowly. Since it is evident from the order dated 27th November, 2008 that the Tribunal was aware that the writ petition challenging the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 is pending, the order dated 27th November, 2008 cannot be sustained and is also set aside and quashed. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to hear out the application for recalling the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 afresh after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. 7. Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidavits controverting the allegations, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by them. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, after dismissal of the suit, defendant has right to file appeal?

  Whether, the property in dispute is Joint Hindu Family Property?"

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether pleadings can be directed to be amended after the hearing of a case begins?

  Whether the trial had commenced or not?

  Whether the documents should have been called for or not by the court without there being the amended written statement before it?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 722 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Clearance of Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) to 100% EOU - clearance for captive consumption - demand of NCCD - N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the period spent on pursuing a writ petition should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in filing a suit in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 720 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the review petition have rightly not been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice?

  Whether application of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in regard to territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal was wrong?

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 718 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... events, as appear from the records, raises reasonable suspicion about the actual date of the order shown to have been passed on April 30, 2007. In any event, the said purported order was passed without issuing any notice and affording any opportunity to the petitioner and as such the said order dated April 30, 2007 cannot also be sustained. Under the circumstances we set aside the appellate order dated November 12, 2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Siliguri Circle and also the purported order dated April 30, 2007 passed by the designated authority rejecting the petitioners application for settlement under the provisions of the SOD Act. It is made clear that the petitioners application for settlement under the SOD Act is to be taken up first in accordance with law and only if the said application is rejected on any lawful ground the appeal will revive and only thereafter the appeal can be taken up for hearing. The application is allowed. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 717 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dure laid down in rule 251(1) is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. If procedure is laid down for exercising a power, such power can be exercised only in that prescribed manner. Under no circumstances the appellate authority can avoid the issue of show-cause notice in form 54 to the petitioner while the decision of the appellate authority will adversely affect the petitioner. We, therefore, on cumulative consideration of the Act and Rules and facts of the case, set aside both the appellate and revisional order dated September 25, 2006 and June 13, 2008 with a direction to the appellate authority to rehear the petitioner as per the provisions of law. No notice in form 54 is required to be served on the petitioner because now the petitioner is aware of the reasons for which gross sales were enhanced. The application is allowed but under the facts and circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. PRADIPTA RAY J. (Chairman). - I agree.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t this is a hand-in-glove operation between the partner and the family members to avoid tax liability. We do not think we should recognise this arrangement and help evasion of tax. Further, when gold jewellery is purchased from individuals who are only users, it should be taken as old gold jewellery and not new gold jewellery as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, no evidence was made available by the petitioner to establish their case which would have involved sales tax liability for the individuals who contested liability before the Tribunal. We do not think that the stand taken by the suppliers who are close relatives of one of the partners will advance the case of the petitioner to get exemption from payment of purchase tax. The view taken by the suppliers that they are not engaged in first sale of new gold ornaments or dealers under the Act will support the case of the Department. Accordingly, this tax revision filed by the assessee is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 468