|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 463 Records
-
1998 (4) TMI 500
... ...
... ... ..... undisclosed income of the block period. However, prior to making such computation, the existence of undisclosed income as such, is required to be shown. In the instant case, there is no existence of undisclosed income at all. Hence, the question of application of different clauses of sub-section (1) of section 158BB for the purpose of computing undisclosed income for the block period cannot arise. Finally, therefore, I hold that on account of non-existence of any undisclosed income, the impugned assessment under Chapter XIV-B for the block period is liable to be annulled. I, therefore, agree with the setting aside of the assessment tantamounting to annulment of the same. In view of the annulment of the impugned assessment, the question of allowing the claims of the assessee under Chapter VI-A does not arise and the second issue as referred to in the point of difference, therefore, becomes infructuous. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is required to be allowed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 499
... ...
... ... ..... The assessment order ultimately upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the face of it appears to be arbitrary and on a much higher side. In the result, the T.R.C. succeeds and is allowed the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal with the direction that the appeal will be decided by the Tribunal afresh taking into consideration the extent of the discrepancies, pointed out on the records. Until a decision by the Tribunal as aforesaid, no tax will be realised from the revision petitioner pursuant to the order of the assessing officer. The revision petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within two weeks from today, failing which the stay order will stand vacated. A certified copy of the judgment will be supplied to the revision petitioner within two days on usual payment. Order on CMP No. 481 of 1997 in TRC No. 13 of 1997 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 498
Recruitment v/s appointment - Both in the case of direct recruits as well as in the case of promotees the final selection vests with the State Government under rules 15 and 18 respectively and until such final selection is made and appropriate orders passed thereon no person can be said to have been recruited to the service. In this view of the matter the only appropriate and logical construction that can be made of Rule 26 is the date of the order under which the persons are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. It the crucial date for determination of seniority under the said rule. Seniority would be determined with reference to the date of recruitment
-
1998 (4) TMI 497
Demand - Limitation - Suppression - Classification - Order - Non-speaking - Appeal to Tribunal - Reference to third member - Show cause notice - Lacunae - Marketability - Burden of proof
-
1998 (4) TMI 496
Modvat/Cenvat - Input - Caustic soda ... ... ... ... ..... e second purpose to which the caustic soda solution is put is in mixing with spray water in the vacuum pan to counteract the liberated sulphuric acid fumes. In this process caustic soda is used directly in the manufacture of sugar and, therefore, its admissibility becomes evident. 5. emsp The third use of this caustic soda was for descaling of evaporator and pan bodies tubes. In two judgments related to J.K. Synthetics v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 203 (Tribunal) and 1996 (85) E.L.T. 286 (Tribunal), it has been held by the Tribunal that material used for cleaning of equipment and machinery used in the manufacture of final products were treatable as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ratio of these judgments should apply here. 6. emsp Thus, on all the three counts I find the caustic soda becomes admissible inputs in the sugar industries. The appeal is allowed. Lower orders are set aside. Proper relief is ordered.
-
1998 (4) TMI 495
Exemption subject to conditions - Option to avail the benefit ... ... ... ... ..... ever, I do not consider it necessary to ask for reconsideration of the decision of the Everest Converters for the reason that I am here concerned with the conditional notification. Entry 39 of the notification exempted from duty goods such as polyethylene bags falling under Headings 39.23, 39.24, 39.26 of the tariff if they had been made out of goods falling under specified Tariff headings on which excise duty or additional Customs Duty has been paid and to credit if such duty was taken or they have been produced out of plastic scraps. The assessee may be of the view that either he may not be able to show fulfilment of both the conditions. He would therefore be within his rights not to claim the benefit of the notification. 4. emsp The respondent therefore, had a right not to avail of the notification. Hence the goods were liable to be cleared on payment of the duty. The Collector rsquo s order is therefore, unsustainable. 5. emsp Appeals allowed and impugned order set aside.
-
1998 (4) TMI 492
Debt Recovery Tribunal - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... covery Tribunal in Civil Application No. 267 of 1994. So far as the question sought to be raised about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the plea for mortgage, it has been held that the Tribunal has power and authority to entertain the same and in view of the answer in the affirmative that question does not appear to be one of germane significance. It appears that the same is directed against an order which is of final nature and which is open to appeal and statutory remedy is provided for. As such this revisional court is not inclined to interfere but if the petitioner is advised to prefer an appeal, then, pendency of this proceeding before this court may be taken into account in order to obviate the difficulties of presentation of the appeal in condonation of limitation as prescribed by statute. Subject to the same the application stands disposed of. If xerox certified copy is applied for by the parties, the office is directed to issue the same at an early date.
-
1998 (4) TMI 484
Whether the single point should be the point of first sale in the State or the last sale in the State or any intermediate sale in the State?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We do not think that the conclusion reached by the Madras High Court in the order under appeal can be upheld. The goods with which we are concerned being declared goods, they can only be taxed at a single point; that is, only one sale in the State can be subjected to tax. It is for the State to determine whether the single point should be the point of first sale in the State or the last sale in the State or any intermediate sale in the State. If the single point is fixed by the State at, say, the point of first sale and the State exempts the first sale from payment of tax, either by a general provision or a specific provision applicable to a class of seller, a particular seller or the goods sold may not be subjected to tax at either that point of first sale or any subsequent sale in the State. There is no warrant for the emphasis that would appear to have been placed by the Madras High Court on the phrase “taxable sale”
-
1998 (4) TMI 480
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... provide for the company to arrive at an arrangement with another company, the company has a statutory power to arrive at such arrangement which the Court is required to sanction. In so far as the judgment of the Chancery Division relied on by the learned counsel for the objector is concerned, in that case the Court was considering not a scheme of amalgamation or arrangement, but the company was amalgamating its business as a going concern on its own undertaking and according to the Court, if such a power is not in the Memorandum of Association of the company, it cannot enter into such an agreement. In my opinion, the law laid down by the Chancery Division in the above referred case is not applicable to the present case. It is further to be seen that this question has not been at all raised by the objector in the various affidavits that have been filed in this Court. Thus, I find no force in the objections raised on behalf of the objector. Therefore, the objection is rejected.
-
1998 (4) TMI 479
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... rrect unless proved otherwise. The objector has not placed any material on record to dispel the presumption. The statements made in the affidavit are vague and lack details. It is further to be seen that the Companies Act creates remedies for restoration of the shares to the person whose shares have been illegally transferred. According to the record of the company, the objector does not hold any share in the company. The objector has not taken any steps for the restoration of shares to him and for correction of the record and registers of the company. Filing of a criminal complaint cannot be said to be a step taken in this direction. Thus, in my opinion, in the face of the present position of the record, it can be concluded that the objector does not hold any shares in the company. In my opinion, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner to the maintainability of the objection filed by the objector deserves to be upheld. Objection is, therefore, rejected.
-
1998 (4) TMI 478
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... to the petitioner to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defence now set up by the respondent for not paying the amount which it had undertook to pay to the petitioner is bona fide and genuine. In these circumstances, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by making the following order The respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 8.98,098 in this Court within a period of three months from today with due intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit in this Court the share pledged by the respondent with the petitioner within two weeks of receipt of intimation about deposit. In case the amount is so deposited, this petition shall stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply to this Court for withdrawal of the amount and with liberty to the respondent to make an application for withdrawal of the shares deposited by the petitioner. In case the amount is not deposited, the petition shall stand admitted. SCL q APRIL 20, 1999
-
1998 (4) TMI 477
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ts debts and invoking the deeming fiction under section 434(1)(a). As stated above, there is a dispute with respect to the petitioner s claim which is a bona fide dispute between the parties and there is an alternative forum which is already invoked by the petitioner. Hence, the ground under section 433(e) read with section 434(1)(a) is not available to the petitioner. It is also stated in the petition that the company had become commercially insolvent and it was in public interest to wind it up. The submission was sought to be advanced on the basis of reports in some magazines. Mr. Nanavati has countered it by relying upon the Annual Report for 1995-96 of the company to submit that it is a strong and sound concern. On the basis of the material on record it cannot be said that the petitioner had made the submission good. Hence, the challenge is not entertained in that behalf. 27. The petition is, therefore, rejected. The parties will bear their own costs. SCL q MARCH 20, 1999
-
1998 (4) TMI 475
Winding up – General ... ... ... ... ..... he question involved in this petition, thus, becomes a disputed one and the same cannot be decided on the present material available before the court. It is well settled that while exercising summary jurisdic-tion in trying a winding up petition it was not open for this Court to go into disputed questions of fact which cannot be substantiated without leading evidence. In view of the same this Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. 5. As a result, this petition fails and is dismissed but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. It is further made clear that in case so adviced, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek its remedy before the appropriate forum and in that case obser-vations, if any made by this Court in the present proceedings shall not be taken to be final or a bar for the maintainability of the regular suit and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. SCL q MARCH 20, 1999
-
1998 (4) TMI 474
Winding up - Application for ... ... ... ... ..... te on which the amendment is carried out. 18. Shri Shelat seeks stay of this order which Shri Desai opposes. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the actual carrying out of this amendment is deferred till 20-4-1998 within which period the respondent can obtain stay of this order if they deemed it fit. The respondents need not suffer technically due to amendment having been carried out in the meanwhile. The aforesaid amendment will, therefore, be not carried out until 20-4-1998. Shri Shelat states that in view of this direction he does not press for stay of this order at this stage. 19. The applicants will of course be at liberty to carry out the amendment and file affidavit on 20-4-1998 if there is no stay of this order obtained in the meanwhile. Company Petition Nos. 244 and 243 of 1997 to come upon 21-4-1998 for further hearing. Company Application Nos. 83 and 84 of 1998 are accordingly allowed in above terms though without any order on costs. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999
-
1998 (4) TMI 450
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... only by a competent civil court. The price of the shares was to be appropriated by the owner thereof. But the actual owners of the shares have not been impleaded. On the basis of evidence that has been adduced in this case it cannot be held under what conditions the shares were alleged to have been purchased from opposite Party No. 2 and if they were actually purchased. As against the opposite Party No. 2 if it be a money claim only, the actual forum would be the civil court. If it is a case of hiring of service the exact terms of the service are required to be proved. In such circum- stances it cannot be held that there was actually any deficiency of service as against opposite Party No. 2. As against opposite Party No. 3 also there is no material to show that he is guilty of any deficiency of service. Hence, in our opinion the case has been rightly dismissed by the district forum. This papal is accordingly dismissed without any cost. Appeal dismissed. SCL q OCTOBER 20, 1998
-
1998 (4) TMI 449
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Affidavit verifying petitions ... ... ... ... ..... nstalments before this court by means of a bank draft in the name of the petitioner. The first instalment of Rs. 25 lakhs shall be deposited by May 22, 1998, the second instalment of Rs. 25 lakhs by July 10, 1998, and the third instalment of Rs. 25 lakhs by August 20, 1998. This order is being passed to test the bona fides of the respondent-company without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to be advanced at the hearing of this case. In case there is any default in deposit of any of the instalments as indicated above, the petition shall be advertised under rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules. However, if the amounts are deposited within time as indicated above, the case shall be listed for final hearing and further orders on the merits. List this case for orders on May 22, 1998 on which date the first instal ment shall become due. A certified copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges within a week.
-
1998 (4) TMI 448
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... y mentioned in these ledger accounts. No reply, much less a specific explanation, has been rendered in answer thereto. In other words I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in spite of the notice being served upon the respondent-company it has failed to pay the debts which are apparently due and payable by it to the petitioner. The dispute raised by the respondent-company is merely a dispute for the sake of raising a dispute. It has no substance and is intended only to delay the present proceedings. Consequently, this petition has to be admitted, as the respondents have neglected and have been unable to pay their debts which are lawfully due to the petitioner-company. The petition is ordered to be admitted. The notice of admission be published in the Tribune, Jansatta and Official Gazette of Chandigarh Administration. The notices so published shall give 14 days clear notice prior to the next date of hearing. List the case for further directions on July 2, 1998.
-
1998 (4) TMI 445
Persons resident in India, Acquisition by Central Government of Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... rmanently. The mere fact that the petitioner has been staying in India with her spouse for several years but for specified limits during each year under the visa granted by the Reserve Bank of India for each year does not render the stay of the petitioner in India permanent and she cannot be treated as a person permanently resident in India. (p. 199) As already noticed, the appellant had not gone to U.K. on immigration visa. He stayed in U.K. for less than one year. It cannot be held that he had gone to stay outside India for an uncertain period. In this case, there is no question of impugned notification altering any provision of section 2(p)( i)(c). The cited decision does not advance the case of the appellant. There is neither any infirmity in the impugned notification nor is appellant entitled to be declared as NRI. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. SCL q JULY 5, 1998
-
1998 (4) TMI 443
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... iew of the learned counsel for the Regional Director. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 391 requires that, the applicant company seeking amalgamation must satisfy the court that all the relevant, necessary and material facts including the latest auditor s report have been disclosed to the court by affidavit or otherwise. The latest auditor s report of the company which is required to be disclosed is the one which would be available as on the date of filing of the application. Since the application was filed on 8-8-1997, the latest auditors report would be the one relating to the financial year ending on 31-12-1996, which has been filed by the transferee-company. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to approve the scheme of amalgamation, I ordered accord-ingly the office will prepare the formal order in accordance with law. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner. Petition disposed of.
-
1998 (4) TMI 437
Directions given by the court in winding up directing the official liquidator to sell the vessel along with the appellant and to bring the sale proceeds into court.
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The appellant has a supervening priority in respect of its claims against the vessel, it has a right to sell that vessel and realise the sale proceeds. The appellant cannot be divested of this statutory right without its consent or be subject to other priorities under the Companies Act.
Looking to the overriding priority statutorily given to the appellant, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to sell the vessel by auction in accordance with the procedure prescribed by its rules and regulations. Since the appellant has no objec- tion to the official liquidator and/or a representative of the first-respon- dent (petitioning creditor) remaining present at the sale, it will be open to the official liquidator to depute its representative to remain present at the sale and the same right is given to the first respondent as well.
........
|
