|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 524 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 853 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... s ranges between 15 to 20 and in contracts of private parties yielding a lower profit as applied in the instant case 12.5 was neither brought on record nor the assessee has been confronted with them. We thus are of the view that there was no reason before the lower authorities to invoke the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act for rejection of books of accounts of the assessee nor was there any occasion to estimate the profit by applying N.P. rate 12.5 against the claimed N.P. rate of 10.16 or 10.13 whenever may be correct on the basis of record before the assessing authority. We thus delete the addition of ₹ 523905 made and confirmed by the lower authorities while allowing ground nos.(i) to (iii) mentioned hereinabove i.e. ground nos.(1) to (8) of the memo of appeal. The ground no. (iv) hereinabove i.e. ground no. (9) of the appeal is consequential in nature, hence it does not need independent adjudication. (5) In result appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 852 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee. However, this Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court has been overruled by the Full Bench of the same High Court in CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 1994 205 ITR 982 . In the subsequent decision it is clearly held that section 68 of the IT Act is applicable in respect of share application money although it will be a question of fact to be decided whether the entries in the account books in this regard are genuine or not. The prima facie burden to prove them genuine will also be with the assessee. 3. In view of the aforesaid legal position the question referred to us has to be answered in negative i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. It may, however, be clarified that the question of genuineness of the entries regarding share application money shall be again a question of fact to be decided by the assessing authority on the basis of evidence available on record. 4. This reference is answered accordingly, but with no orders as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 851 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... two judgments, noticed above, and the reporting of such cases as though they constituted any precedent for future guidance. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it has been represented that the accused has remitted the sum of ₹ 20,000/- as stipulated by the learned Judge in the High Court and treating this and such cases where already orders have been passed by Courts, at least, the appropriate Government would do well to grant relief to the accused concerned. If, in any case, it is considered by the Government, in its discretion, not advisable to do so, it is always open to the Government concerned to either move the very Court or the Appellate/Revisional forum to modify the orders so as to leave the matter to the sole discretion of the appropriate Government, to be exercised in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the extent of clarifying the position of law to be followed and disposing of the same in the light of the further directions, contained supra.
-
2002 (8) TMI 850 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... etter dt. 7th Feb., 2002, has taken an addition ground which reads as under "The appellant prays that deduction ought to be granted in respect of expenditure pertaining to asst. yr. 1988-89 debited in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1989-90 amounting to ₹ 39,21,334 as per the directions issued by the Tribunal in the order dt. 9th Nov., 2001 for the asst. yr. 1988-89." 50. The issue was already considered by the Mumbai 'A' Bench of the Tribunal, in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1988-89 vide para 21 of its order dt. 9th Nov., 2001 in ITA No. 2478/Bom/92. Consequential to the direction contained in the aforecited order of the Tribunal, the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee, if the expenditure is otherwise allowable, following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681(Bom). 51. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part.
-
2002 (8) TMI 849 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed on merits.
-
2002 (8) TMI 848 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s are for more than one heads. Therefore, once the charge is framed the case will result, other in acquittal or in conviction in accordance with the provisions of trials prescribed under the Chapters 18, 19 and 20 of the Cr.P.C. The charge can be withdrawn under Section 224, Cr.P.C. only after judgment and it cannot be deleted. 5. Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 SCC (Cri) 650 (AIR 1990 SC 2158). This case is mainly on Section 319, Cr.P.C. Regarding Section 219, Cr.P.C. the only observation is that "add to any charge means the addition of a new charge. An alteration of a charge means hanging or variation of an existing charge or making of a different charge." This decision is of no help to the applicants and does not provide for deletion of charge. 6. The petition is totally misconceived. The application was rightly rejected. 7. The petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al in favour of the existing licensees, subject to their giving an undertaking to this court that they would abide by the rules and conditions relating to the minimum off-take during the current year as well as previous excise year 2001-2002 and would withdraw the writ petitions filed by them, which are pending in the High Court of Madras. So far as the minimum off-take for the excise year 2002-2003 is concerned, Mr. Chidambaram, appearing for the respondents, fairly stated that the respondents would abide by the same. But so far as the minimum off-take for the previous excise year is concerned, the same not having been there at the time of grant of the privilege and issuance of licence, but having been introduced at a later point of time, the legality of the same is the subject matter of consideration before the High Court of Madras and we expres no opinion on the same. These special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with the modulated directions, as stated earlier.
-
2002 (8) TMI 846 - CEGAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the month of July and August.,1999 against the payment of duty. The duty was paid by them by making debit entry in PLA. 16. In our view, from the evidence referred to by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order, the charge of clandestine removal of the goods by the appellant company during the disputed period, in the light of what had been discussed above, does not stand proved. It is well settled that duly on the charge of clandestine removal of the goods, cannot be confirmed against the assessee on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Rather, it can be confirmed only on the strength of tangible and cogent evidence which, in our view, is lacking in the instant case. 17. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained against the appellants and the same is ordered to be set aside in toto. All the appeals of the appellants are accepted with consequential relief, permissible under the law. Pronounced in open Court.
-
2002 (8) TMI 845 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espected by all concerned. A judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect entailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings. Subject to the above we agree with the High Court that the ex-parte proceedings before the arbitrator deserve to be set aside and the parties heard bi-parte. In view of Shri S.C. Gupta, the then arbitrator having unfortunately expired, a fresh appointment in his place needs to be made. However, we clarify that the newly appointed arbitrator shall resume the proceedings from the date with which the predecessor arbitrator had proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No. 1 after 4-10-1989 subject to the order which may be passed by Civil Court on injunction application filed by the Society. For the foregoing reasons but subject to clarification as above the operative part of the order made by the Division Bench of the High Court is maintained. The appeal be treated as disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 844 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The court held in that case that the newspaper business carried on by the assessee did not fall within the sub-section (4A). It also held that, the trust is not only for public religious purpose so it does not fall within clause (a). It is a trust not an institution, so it does not fall within (b). It must, therefore, be held that for the assessment years in question, the trust was not entitled to exemption contained in section 11 in respect of the income of its newspaper." 4. The trust here also is not a trust for religious purpose nor is it an institution. The assessee clearly was not entitled to exemption for these assessment years. The question referred to is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4. The trust here also is not a trust for religious purpose nor is it an institution. The assessee clearly was not entitled to exemption for these assessment years. The question referred to is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 843 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s that, the notification dated 12-5-1995 cannot be said to have been set aside by this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above, the impugned order dated 5-7-2002 is set aside. It is held that the erstwhile Pulluru Gram Panchayat stood bifurcated to Pulluru and Kothamangapuram Gram Panchayats, through notification dated 12-5-1995, issued by the 1st respondent, under Section 3 of the Act read with the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 17-8-1994, as they stood then. Since the elections to both the Gram Panchayats viz., Pulluru and Kothamangapuram, could not be held both in 1995 as well as in 2001, on account of pendency of various proceedings, it is directed that the respondents shall take steps to hold the elections to the said two Gram Panchayats, viz, Pulluru and Kothamangapuram, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 842 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, this is clearly a case of finding the appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct. The High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside. The next question is what relief can be granted to the appellant. Inasmuch as the appellant, a casual worker (khalasi), was in service for two years and it is more than a decade that he has been out of service. In the circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case to direct his re-instatement. In our view, interests of justice would be met by directing respondent No.1 to pay the appellant compensation equal to average salary for a period of two years within two months from today. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 841 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... it Pasayat, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . 35. The last grievance of the assessee is that the learned DCIT erred in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act in the Demand Notice without levying the same in the Assessment Order. 36. We find that the Demand Notice was issued simultaneously with the Assessment Order. Both the documents are signed by the Assessing Officer. The quantum of interest and charging section are clearly given therein. So, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT 1991 191 ITR 634 and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Khurana v. CIT 2002 253 ITR 5781, interest has rightly been charged. However, after our observations in Ground No. 1 (supra), this ground has also become consequential. The Assessing Officer is directed to charge interest, if any, under section 234B/234C of the Act, after giving effect to this Order. 37. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part.
-
2002 (8) TMI 839 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
... ...
... ... ..... otice the decision in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO 2000 245 ITR 5382 (SC) wherein their Lordships have also considered and have taken the view that by manufacture or processing of food packets, the hotel cannot be called as an ‘industrial undertaking’. Their lordships negatived the claim holding that the assessee is not entitled for special deduction as manufacturer. 5. Following the view taken by their Lordships in the aforesaid cases, the assessee is neither entitled for depreciation on building at the rate which is applicable in the case of ‘plant’ and when the assessee is not a manufacturer as it does not manufacture article or things, it cannot be taken as an ‘industrial undertaking’. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any investment allowance. 6. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e deciding the issue in terms of the old Tariff held that the Aluminium Dross was not excisable. On the new Tariff also, as stated by the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has taken a view that Aluminium Dross is not excisable. Having regard to these decisions, We waive the predeposit of duty and penalty. 4. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal was also taken up for final hearing. 5. Since the issue has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of the appellants themselves, and the description in new Tariff is almost the same and even on new Tariff, this Tribunal took the view that Aluminium Dross is not excisable, wedo not see any reason to disagree with the decisions. In the circumstances, following the decisions of the Apex Court as also of the Tribunal, we hold that Aluminium Dross is not excisable. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. Consequential reliefs, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law. Dictated in the open court.
-
2002 (8) TMI 837 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd looking to the extent of the delay and the principle of "Lex non curat de minimis" (the law does not care for trifles), the Additional Commissioner was justified in discharging the notice and in this view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise also ought not to have issued the order dated 3.7.2002 especially when the delay was very marginal and the duties were already paid by the petitioners with 24 interest. 8. Relying on the principle of "Lex non curat de minimis", we are of the view that the petitioners could not have been deprived of the facility to pay the dues in instalments under erstwhile Rule 173G(1)(e) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and under Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 on the basis of the aforesaid facts. 9. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 3.7.2002 at Annexure "E" to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 836 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s acting in concert has acquired more than 5 per cent share capital of the respondent-company and thus, there is a violation of the SEBI Takeover Code. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the respondent-company is directed to register the transfer of the shares involved in this appeal within one month from the receipt of this order. 21. There are 2 similar petitions being Nos. 36/111A/CLB/WR/2000 and 38/111A/CLB/WR/2000 filed by Sound Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and Anwesha Stocktrade Pvt. Ltd. respectively, against the same respondent-company for transfer of 10,300 and 8,200 equity shares respectively. The respondent-company has not effected the transfer of the said shares on the similar grounds. The respondent-company is also directed to effect transfer of the said 10,300 and 8,200 shares within the said period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 22. Accordingly, all the three petitions are hereby disposed of by this single common order with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 835 - SUPREME COURT
Whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court?
Whether there was negligence or not on the part of the concerned Doctors?
Held that:- In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. The object and purpose of enacting the the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, consumers were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is known fact that decision in suit takes years. Under the Act, consumers are provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the Consumer forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of a Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court.
Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including:
By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that competent persons are appointed as Members on all levels so that there may not be any delay in composition of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;
It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to
It would see that complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely;
In cases where cross-examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavits;
In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross- examine the witnesses in person, video conference or telephonic conference at the cost of person who so applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure would be helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as, Doctors.
In the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 834 - SC ORDER
Appeal against the decision in the matter of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] wherein while granting refund, HC has observed that, On the question of limitation, our conclusion is that since the claim is based on discovery of mistake, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of reversal of Modvat credit, but from the date when the mistake committed mutually of wrong reversal of credit by the parties was discovered in November, 1995. The refund claim has therefore to be held to be within time.
HC further held that, Department cannot be allowed to take advantage of the mutual mistake committed by the parties in ignorance of Public Notice clarifying the legal position on QBAL Scheme.
Procedure and the limitation for claiming such refund would be governed by the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - revenue appeal against the decision of HC dismissed.
........
|
