Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2005 2005 (3) 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 61 to 80 of 701 Records

• 2005 (3) TMI 770 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to prefer an Appeal. It has been held that a party may rest content by partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation. However, if he finds that the other party is not interested in burying the hatchet, then he may also like to exercise his right of Appeal which he may do by filing cross objections. It has been held that the substantive right is the right of Appeal and the form of cross objection is merely a matter of procedure. As a cross objection is in the nature of an Appeal, the High Court was wrong in holding that the cross-objection did not survive on the Appeal being withdrawn. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Judgment and remit the cross objections back to the High Court for disposal on merits. The Respondent, herein will be entitled to take up all contentions in support of the Judgment appealed against, even though he may have withdrawn his Appeal. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 769 - ITAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hed that both the parties had a common interest and the transaction was with collusion of each other than the valuation done by an approved valuer had become doubtful. Particularly when valuation was done exorbitantly at a higher price without any support of cogent evidence. The aspect of tax planning has also been examined by us and that two was found in existence when the said transfer took place. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances we are of the view that since a device was adopted to avoid tax, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly calculated the depreciation on the basis of the available figures of WDV as per the books of account. The first appellate authority has not considered all such aspects as discussed supra relevant to arrive at the right conclusion and so wrongly applied the ratio of certain precedents. The conclusion drawn by the first appellate authority is thus hereby reversed. 9. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 768 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... egal, or not and whether it can be claimed alongwith other 2 deductions mentioned supra. If it cannot be claimed then it will amount to an erroneous exercise of power by Assessing Officer rendering the same prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. But if it can be claimed or is capable of being claimed on proper accountancy method as suggested supra or any other recognized method acceptable to principle of accountancy, then it cannot be regarded as a deduction being erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 13. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in the light of what we have observed supra. Since this Court is possessed of power to remand the case and hence, it is considered proper to remand the case and get the decision afresh from Tribunal on merits before we apply our mind to the controversy involved. Let the appeal be decided by the Tribunal within six months.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 766 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nfine our conclusion and hold that to the extent that tax on first point sale of drugs, medicines or any formulation or for that matter any other commodities by a manufacturer/wholesaler/distributor to retailer where MRP is published on package, measure to which rate of tax is to be applied cannot be with reference to such published MRP, which is neither charged nor chargeable by the wholesaler from the retailer whether the tax is charged on sales or on purchase by the parties to sale under section 4A and notification, annexure 3. The additional tax collected with reference to measure provided under section 4A by the wholesalers to retailers at first point sale shall not be refunded to the dealers. In case the additional tax charged has not been transmitted to buyers, the excess tax paid may be adjusted against future liability under the Act of 1994 or any other dues to the Revenue under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 764 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ove arguments. The above classification indicates a measure or a rate of tax applied differently on different vehicles depending upon various circumstances and so long as there is competence to levy and collect the tax under Entry 57 List-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution, the levy cannot be struck down only on the ground that the incidence of the tax falls differently on different categories of the vehicles. The burden has to be distributed on different classes of vehicles or on different persons who owned the vehicles. How equitable such tax could fall on different persons is not for the Court to decide. Lastly, this matter is squarely covered by our judgment delivered today in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Krishnappan & Another Etc. Civil Appeal Nos.1869-1880 OF 2000 . For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 763 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 88 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.), allowed the Appeal with consequential relief. In our view, the manner of disposal of the Appeal is unsatisfactory. The Tribunal must decide the Appeal after hearing the arguments of each party, on their own merits, and give its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. The Tribunal must also consider all contentions of the parties and deal with each contention. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision on merits. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 762 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 4 is not applicable and the Hon'ble High Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the net weight of individual sachet was less than 10 gms. which was not sold either by weight or by measure. As in the present matter the net weight of the commodity is less than maximum weight limit prescribed in Rule 34(b) of PCR, 1977, the exemption contained therein is available to the Respondents. We, therefore, hold that the impugned products are liable to be assessed on the basis of assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and not under Section 4A of the Act. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected". 5. In the present case also we find that net weight of the commodity in question is less than 4.2 gms. hence exemption under Rule 34(b) of Standards Weights and Measure, 1977 is applicable. In view of the above discussions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed. Order dictated in the open Court.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether there exists a distinction between temporarily and permanently affected persons in the NWDT Award as well as the judgment of this Court?

  Whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectare of land as per NWDT Award and judgment of this Court?

  Whether those adult sons who became landholders since their fathers passed away, are entitled to the benefit of alternate lands, in place of the acquired lands standing in the names of their deceased fathers?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the Fast Track Courts Scheme would continue beyond 31.3.2005?

  Whether the State can deny its obligation to set up such number of courts as are necessary for fulfilling its constitutional obligation on the ground of financial constraints or otherwise?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 759 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t aside to the said extent. 17 In the result, the final assessment made on 25th May,1988 is upheld in relation to the items of royalty and interest on average stock of finished goods at depot while the same is quashed and set aside to the extent of items being 1 Interest at 1.5 per month as prices are wholesale price (prior to 8.3.77) ₹ 84,072/-, 2 Trade discount (prior to 5.3.86) ₹ 98,97,770/-, 3 Additional Cash Discount (prior to 1.8.80) ₹ 1,83,550/-, 4 Interest on receivable goods from C.S.D. & D.G.S.& D. The respondent authorities are directed not to raise demand on ₹ 84,072/-, ₹ 98,97,770/-, ₹ 1,83,550/-, and ₹ 3,15,668/- and work out the final demand/revised in accordance with the judgment and order of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 758 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... itioners to challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner by way of appeal as well as seek clarification from the Tribunal in relation to the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 15th November, 2000. Permission granted. The petition stands rejected as withdrawn.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 757 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... onclusion by the Tribunal is founded on premise which itself has been rejected as credible. The end conclusion stands vitiated. 14. However, one question does arise for consideration in these appeals that the Assessing Officer has estimated the income by resorting to NP rate in the case of country liquor but has resorted to GP rate in the case of IMFL. If the assessment is made on the basis of GP rate, when the basis available data about which there is no dispute, namely, to purchase price and stock details, why different methods have been adopted is not clear. The assessee in such event is further entitled for deductions which are allowable under the provisions of Income-tax Act before arriving at the net taxable income. However, that exercise has not been undertaken by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. 15. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. No costs.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 756 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nd outside the State of U.P. With regard to the shortage loss of sheera at 2.29 percent, it has been observed that certificate of the excise authority was filed to justify the claim of shortage. Tribunal held that no defect was found in the books of account and there was no case of suppression. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. 7. So far as export pass fee is concerned, it is the liability of the exporter to pay while getting the export permit. Dealer has neither realised the export pass fee from its customer nor it was paid by it, there was no liability of payment of export pass fee on the dealer under the Excise Act. In these circumstances, there was no question of treating the export pass fee as part of the turnover. First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal have rightly deleted the addition. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal which requires no inference by this Court. 8. In the result both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 755 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 754 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the Award dated June 12, 1987 had effectively terminated the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government on December 13, 1982?

  Whether the action of the Management in refusing duties to a large number of workers is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, what directions are necessary in this regard?

  Whether the Management is justified in closing down a large number of looms in the mill and if not to what relief the affected workers are entitled and what further directions are necessary in this respect?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of "a fee" or "tax"?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether appellant was guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 751 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether "life time tax" leviable in lump sum in advance for the life time of a motor vehicle (four wheeler) on the basis of the index of "weight-cum-value" ceases to be compensatory in nature?

  ---

• 2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis?

  Whether the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents?

  ---

12345678........ 36