|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 529 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... t of Italy is "Royalty" as defined in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy and hence liable to tax in India ?" This question alongwith the orders passed by the Members of the Tribunal were sent to the Hon’ble President, ITAT, Bombay. The matter was allotted to Shri Nathu Ram, Accountant Member as Third Member who heard the parties in detail and passed his own order. The Third Member was in agreement with the findings of the Judicial Member. 2. The matter was listed for hearing on 1-1-1999 for passing the order as per the majority view. 3. Now after hearing both the parties and considering the order of the Third Member, this Bench finds that the view taken by the Judicial Member is approved by the Third Member. Therefore, in view of the majority decision we allow the appeal of the assessee. The order passed by the respective Members of the Tribunal form part of this order. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 528 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he facts stated, the question referred otherwise is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C. Budhiraja & Co. (1993) 204 I.T.R. 412. The assessee company engaged in the business of construction of building will not fall within the ambit of industrial company and the question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in N.C.Budhiraja & Co.'s case (supra) was affirmed in Builders Associations of India v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 209 I.T.R. 877. The activity of construction of a dam cannot be characterised as manufacture or producing of article or articles, as the case may be within the meaning of Section 80HH(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the fact that the question referred now stands settled by the Supreme Court in N.C. Budhiraja & Co. (supra), the reference is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1999 (1) TMI 527 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 526 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llant squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Having regard to the nature of grievance expressed, we say that the appropriate remedy of the appellant in matters like this is to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution and not to file a revision before revisional authority. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting side the order of the learned Single Judge and also quashing Ext. P4 passed by the first respondent. We do so. Since the first respondent has failed to perform his statutory duty, we extend the time to the appellant for filing their objections by four weeks from today. The first respondent on receipt of the objections, shall give an opportunity of being heard either to the appellant or their counsel and decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law. The first respondent is directed to pass orders within eight weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lation enacted with a view to achieve more equitable distribution of land for common good so as to subserve the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of such a legisla-tion have to be so interpreted as to further the object of the legislation and not defeat the same. Any request on the part of the respondent for our non- interference in the present proceedings would clearly amount to defeating the object of such a beneficial legislation. Point No. (iii) is accordingly answered against the respondent and in favour of the appel-lant. No question of granting any relief to the respondent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would survive in this view of the matter. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside and the order of the Appellate Court dated 19.8.1977 passed in L.R.A. No. 707 of 1976 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 524 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... delay has not been condoned, the Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 523 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ented. The petitioners contend that their members did not agree to this increase. Nevertheless, the Traders Joint Action Committee which covered a number of other traders carrying on the same trade did agree to this increase as reasonable. It would not, therefore, be proper to term this agreed increase as excessive or as indicating that it was a taxing measure rather than a fee. The petitioners had also contended that if this increased levy is viewed as a tax then the provisions for imposing a tax under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 have not been complied with. Since we have come to a conclusion that the licence fee which is charged is a regulatory-cum- compensatory fee, and it is not a tax, we are not examining this question since it is not necessary to view this levy as a tax. We, therefore, agree with the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeals as well as the writ petition are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , commensurate with the gravity of his objectionable behaviour and did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. At the conclusion of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was repentant of his actions and that he tenders an unqualified apology and that he was willing to also go and to apologize to Miss X. We are afraid, it is too late in the day to show any sympathy to the respondent in such a case. Any lenient action in such a case is bound to have demoralizing effect on working women. Sympathy in such cases is uncalled for and mercy is misplaced. Thus, for what we have said above the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Departmental Appellate Authority of removal of the respondent from service is upheld and restored. The, appeals, thus succeed and are allowed. We, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 521 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the document in question, that is, an agreement to sell, is a document conveying right, title and interest of the flat in favour of the appellants?
Held that:- The Legislature, has, in the present case chosen to levy a rate of duty equivalent to conveyance in respect of an agreement though the transaction may not have been completed because of certain instruments arising out of such agreement being executed and possession thereof being taken prior to or simultaneous with the document or subsequently. But in the Explanation it is not clear that if the document provides that possession has to be taken without execution of the con-veyance certainly it would attract the appropriate duty. If the agreement provides that possession will be handed over on the execution of a con-veyance as contemplated under Section 11 of the MOF Act, then the Explanation shall not be attracted at all. In the present case, it is clear that in the terms of the agreement there is no provision made at all for execution of the conveyance. On the other hand, what is submitted is that the provisions of the MOF Act could be applied to the agreement and, therefore, a conveyance could be executed subsequently when it is not clear as to when the conveyance is to be executed and the stipulated time within which the possession has to be handed over. If that is so, it is clear that the document would attract duty as if it is a conveyance as provided in the Explanation. Thus we find no error in the view taken by the High Court. It is not necessary to examine in these appeals as to whether the instrument in question itself conveys a title or not. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the High Court made in this regard.
-
1999 (1) TMI 520 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e under the Act. Fiscal adjustment are inherently complex in nature therefore larger latitude are to be given to the Legislature in the matter of formulating the economic measure. In that view of the matter I do not find that the realisation of security amount to be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It has been done only as a caution against evasion of tax. Security is refunded as soon as the transit pass duly counter-signed at the last check-post is presented in the first checkpost. If that is not so done as pointed out in the affidavit-in-opposition these goods may be sold in Assam itself. If no security is taken, in case of evasion of taxes, there is no way of recovering loss of taxes, resulting in loss of revenue to the Government. 6.. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. However I make it clear that the authority will not resort to undue harassment. No costs. Writ application dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 519 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... o him to file an appeal if the assessing authority gives a findings against him. 3.. We may also point out that sub-section (3) of section 28-A which says all persons working under the control of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, shall observe and follow the clarifications issued under sub-sections (1) and (2) cannot override the decisions of the Madras High Court or the Supreme Court of India if the point at issue is identical. It is always open to the assessee to bring to the notice of the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court on identical issue which run against clarifications of the Commissioner. With these observations the Original Petition is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 12th day of January, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 518 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould be adjudicated in accordance with the explanation to section 2(1-A) by the Government. Other charges which are specifically specified are not having any ambiguity. It may be in the word and the like certain charges are included in the charges for marriage hall. But in respect of explanation to section 2(1-A) there is no illegality in conferring such a power. 10. A contention is further raised that definition of charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall has not been defined as with reference to section 3 the luxury provided in a hotel is defined under section 2(5). This contention has no force because the charge is created by the section itself, i.e., on the basis of the total collection made as charge for marriage hall per day. It was not necessary that there should have been a definition of luxury provided in a marriage hall . 11.. In view of the above, I do not consider that any case for interference is made out. 12.. Petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 517 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... I accordingly modify exhibit P8 penalty order restricting the penalty to Rs. 14,917. The orders of the authorities are sustained to the extent mentioned above. 3.. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that the records seized in the inspection conducted on September 22, 1992 are even now with the second respondent and that the same has not been returned in spite of several requests made therefor. He further submitted that the assessment for the said year is even now pending and that the petitioner is disabled from producing the same before the assessing authority. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to return the said documents, if it is no longer required for prosecution, or, at any rate, to issue photo copy of the said documents at the petitioner s expenses. The original petition is allowed to the above extent. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 22068 and 22095 of 1995 in O.P. No. 12368 of 1995-V dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 516 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ade on August 28, 1997. We are told that the first date of manufacture was sometime in January, 1998. There was an application for registration as a dealer under the Act of 1994. The appropriate authority granted the registration certificate on March 27, 1998 with effect from January 17, 1998. In terms of the provisions of rule 26 of the Rules of 1995 the applicant, who set up the manufacturing unit after making the application for provisional certificate, is entitled to a provisional certificate for the period up to only January 16, 1998. 11.. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 1 to issue to applicant No. 1 company a provisional certificate under rule 26 effective up to January 16, 1998. The impugned orders of the authorities below, namely, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dated December 2, 1997, June 30, 1998 and December 2, 1998 respectively are all set aside. 12.. Thus the main application is allowed and finally disposed of without any order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and it was detected only on verification by the assessing authority, it has to be held that the petitioner has suppressed the same. The Tribunal also found that the penalty levied did not exceed the maximum prescribed under the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner had suppressed the material facts while filing the return and it was only during reverification, the fact of sale of salvaged material was discovered and but for the reverification it would not have come to light. Thus the department unearthed the suppressed sale transaction and therefore it is not a case where a lenient view should be taken while imposing fine and the Tribunal therefore did not accept the prayer of the petitioner for levy of lesser fine. On reappraisal of the materials on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal or the taxing authorities. There is no merit in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 514 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ayment of tax. If the goods are to be inspected then providing a declaration to be carried therein cannot be considered to be an arbitrary exercise. 2.. In the petition it is stated that in respect of transfers no sale is involved. Delivery note is not needed as it is not a sale. This contention has also no force. Delivery note with regard to delivery of goods may be for sale or under agreement of sale. The other contention raised is that the forms are not issued to the extent demanded. This cannot be considered to be a ground for declaring the provision as invalid. The contention raised is not sufficient to declare the provision as invalid. In State of Bihar. v. Hariharprasad 1989 73 STC 353 (SC) AIR 1989 SC 1119, it was considered by the apex Court that the requirement of carrying form is an exercise which is incidental to the levy of sales tax and is reasonable in public interest. In view of the judgment of the apex Court, these petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed
-
1999 (1) TMI 513 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is any clause in the contract which provides for arbitration between the parties?
Held that:- In the present case the Managing Director is more in the category of an expect who will decide claims, rights, on matters in any way pertaining to the contract. The intention appears to be more to avoid disputes than to decide formulated disputes in a quasi-judicial manner. In paragraph 18.067 of Volume 2 of Hudson on Building and Engineering Contracts, Illustration (8) deals with the case where, by the terms of a contract it was provided that the engineer "shall be the exclusive judge upon all matters relating to the construction, incidents and the consequence of these presents, and of the tender, specifications, schedule and drawings of the contract, and in regard to the execution of the works or otherwise arising out of or in connection with the contract, and also as regards all matters of account, including the final balance payable to the contractor, and the certificate of the engineer for the time being, given under his hand, shall be binding and conclusive on both parties.
Since Clause 24 does not contemplate any arbitration, the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was misconceive. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed though for reasons somewhat different from the reasons given by the High Court.
-
1999 (1) TMI 512 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has been stated above. Since the controversy has already been settled by this Court and there is no authority or opinion to the contrary, I hold that the Tribunal s order treating the commodity as methyl alcohol is erroneous and the contention of the dealer that it was taxable as an unclassified item should have been accepted. 7.. The other point in this revision petition is about the levy of interest and the learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the revisionist does not challenge the levy of interest on any amount that may be found due after giving effect to this judgment. 8.. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order about the classification of water methanol mixture, it is held that the said commodity is taxable, on the admission of the assessee, as unclassified goods. The Tribunal shall pass order accordingly on the assessee s appeal in accordance with section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 511 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his Court in a decision reported in 1973 (2) Kar LJ 547 (Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka). Admittedly the court below has not taken into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore it is against the decision rendered by the division Bench of this Court wherein it is held that when the assessee contends that the tax has been fully or partly discharged, it is the duty of the court before whom recovery is sought, to take evidence and then decide whether the whole or any part of the tax assessed is outstanding. Only on this short point the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.. Accordingly, the petition is allowed directing the learned court below to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his objections filed before the court. After the evidence so recorded, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the decision rendered by the division Bench referred to above. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 510 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e only notices have been issued, the petitioners are given time till February 28, 1999 for filing objections. Such objections shall be taken note of by the assessing authorities and orders passed in accordance with law. In all cases, where orders of assessment have been made it will be open to the petitioners to file statutory appeals. The time taken during the pendency of the T.Ps. and O.Ps. shall be excluded in calculating the period of limitation for filing appeals. In all cases where no action has so far been taken, we may make it clear that there is no prohibition against any authority from taking any action under section 3-A of the Act wherever that section applies. All interim orders granted in the O.Ps. and T.Ps. shall stand vacated. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 28th January, 1999. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
