|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 386 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 616 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... panel has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned pursuant to the said order dated 17.4.98, we quash the said order also. Consequently, appointment of the respondent No. 7 shall also stand quashed. However, keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner has already Joined she may be allowed to continue only on ad hoc bash in the interest of the students of the Institution till an appropriate order is passed pursuant to this order. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is hereby directed to apply his mind as regards validity or otherwise of the panel strictly in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order upon considering the materials-on-record at an early date and not later than two weeks from the date of communication of this order. It will be open to the said District Inspector of Schools to give an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. This appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. ( 6. ) Sinha , J. Bhattacharjee, J.
-
1999 (5) TMI 615 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... and held that discount allowed to wholesalers in lieu of damage caused to goods during transit depending on the nature and extent of the damage was allowable deduction. Following the same view, we hold that abatement on this count has to be allowed'. We find that the facts of the case in the present appeal is identical to those considered in these orders and therefore, the ratio of these decisions squarely applies in the present appeal.” There are also other judgments cited by the representative of the respondent in respect of the same assessee as well as other assessees, M/s. Bombay Soap Factory (E/2804/90-A). In all these judgments it will be found that the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Assam Valley Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector 1983 (43) ELT 360 Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Collector 1992 (60) ELT 512 1992 (41) ECR 329 (T). Hence following the said judgment we dismiss the appeals filed by the department. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 614 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... a conclusion which is inescapable. However, the type of suspicious circumstances brought out by the Revenue in this case is in no way near to the target and cannot be said to have been substantiated. Suspicion however strong it may be cannot supplant proof. We, therefore, hold that the reopening itself is bad in law and the addition based on the reopening cannot be sustained. 15. The other decisions cited are not discussed pointedly, in view of the fact that the legal position regarding reopening was sufficiently brought out by other decisions discussed in the order. The other decisions no doubt support the case of the assessee and, therefore, in a bid to cut-short the order to a reasonable limit, we do not feel it necessary to discuss the other case law in detail and we are rest-content by observing that the case laws cited all support the case of the assessee-company. 16. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the stage of proceedings before the Tribunal. We do not know if there is any interim order passed by the Tribunal after the High Court stayed the operation of the ex parte order dated May 15, 1997. The object with which the Tribunal passed the ex parte order appears how to have been lost. We may not, therefore, interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court setting aside the order dated May 15, 1997 of the Tribunal. But that is only because of passage of time and without our knowing the stage of proceedings before the Tribunal on the application filed by the ICICI under Section 19(1) of the Act. It will, however, be open to the Tribunal to pass an interim order on the plea of the ICICI if the matters is still pending before it. While not agreeing with the views expressed by the High Court, we will not interfere with impugned judgment in view of the circumstances narrated above. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appellants shall, however, be entitled of costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tent Authority in a Court Martial Proceeding, and applying the same to the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court over-stepped its jurisdiction in trying to re-appreciate the evidence of Mrs. Nirmala Sharma and in coming to the conclusion that her evidence is not credible enough to give a finding of guilt of the respondent of a charge under Section 354. We have also perused the statement of Mrs. Nirmala Sharma and the conclusion becomes inescapable on the basis of the said statement of Mrs. Nirmala Sharma that the respondent has been rightly found to have committed offence under Section 354 by the Authorities in the Court Martial Proceedings. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and dismiss the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the respondent and affirm the ultimate order passed by the Competent Authority in the Court Martial Proceeding and this appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 611 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich a bona fide or a valid dispute has been raised. 12. Passing any order for winding up or even ordering the admission of this petition at this stage would apparently affect the proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and would foreclose the merits of the objections filed by the respondent company before that court, which are to be decided on merits by that court in furtherance to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 13. As a result of above discussion, I am of the considered view that this winding up petition cannot be admitted at this stage and needs to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner company to file a fresh petition, if so advised, upon decision of the objections by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 122 of 1998. 14. Resultantly, this winding up petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner company as aforeindicated. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontradicting a witness. When a case diary, as stated above, is summoned under Section 91(1) of the Code then the restrictions imposed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 172 would not apply to the use of such case diary but we hasten to add that while using a previous statement recorded in the said case diary, the court should bear in mind the restrictions imposed under Section 162 of the Code and Section 145 of the Evidence Act because what is sought to be used from the case dairy so produced, are the previous statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, a case diary of another case, not pertaining to the trial in hand can be summoned if the court trying the case considers that production of such a case diary is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, under Section 91 of the Code. For the above reasons, this appeal fails and the judgments impugned are confirmed though for a different reason as indicated above.
-
1999 (5) TMI 609 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his court in CWJC No. 13413/1992 filed at the instance of one Shri Ram Singh, representing some other voluntary organisation. That writ petition was dismissed by a bench of this court by order, dated 3.11.1998 holding that the State Government had made the selection in a reasonable manner and the selection made by it did not warrant any interference by this court. o p /o p 11. The case of the petitioner having been considered and rejected by the State Government in the year 1986 and the petitioner not having applied in response to the advertisement issued in the year, 1990, it is obvious that his organisation is not recognised by the State Government for the purpose of construction and maintenance of public toilets. No direction can, therefore, be issued for granting the petitioner the contract of maintenance of public toilets. o p /o p 12. For the reasons discussed above, I find that this writ petition is completely devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p
-
1999 (5) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sources. The appellant’s submissions are, therefore, rejected." In view of these facts which are not controverted by the company, it is to be held that ₹ 4,00,625 was not, in our considered opinion, correctly considered as not forming part of profits of an industrial undertaking situated in a backward area. The learned CIT(A) also held that ₹ 1,69,791 is an outstanding liability towards sales-tax and since the liability does not add to the profit of the company, 80HHC relief cannot be obtained with reference to an admitted liability. We hold that interest from distributors of ₹ 90,671 and profit under section 41(2) of ₹ 1,61,760 should be considered as profits arising from the business conducted by the company which is located in the backward-area entitled to the benefits under section 80HH. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute 80HH relief according to our above findings. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ....falling under Chapter 91..... "it can only mean com- ponents falling under Chapter 91 of the Schedule to C.T.A. If it is related to the finished product 'analog wrist watch', it would mean using a tautological expression or unnecessary expression in the notification because clocks and watches" of all types fall under Chapter 91. On the other hand, as the notes in Chapter 91 indicate, some of the parts, even if parts of watches, will not fall under Chapter 91. Therefore, in my view benefit of Notification No. 43/85-Cus. has to be confined to component parts (of analog wrist watches) falling under Chapter 91. Since the primary cell/batteries do not admittedly fall under Chapter 91, benefit of Notification 43/85-Cus. cannot be extended to the appel- lant, even though "cells" may be treated as component of analog wrist watches. 11. Various other judgments cited and relied upon by the appellants do not have any relevance to the controversy in hand.
-
1999 (5) TMI 606 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the learned Standing Counsel who placed reliance on the definition of the turnover itself and stressed that the amount of trade tax has not been separately charged. 8. We have to take a rational view of the matter and have to keep in mind the method of accounting and the method of preparing purchase vouchers by the dealer. In the bills, there is a clear indication that the sales tax is leviable on the sale of goods in question and a particular amount is mentioned in respect thereof, then in the registers the price of goods and the trade tax charged are also mentioned and these facts make it quite clear that the trade tax has been separately charged from the buyers and, therefore, such amount cannot be included in the dealer's turnover. 9. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal's order under revision, it is ordered that the dealer's aforesaid appeal on this point would stand allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The statistics given in the counter-affidavits of the Union of India to which we have already referred, show that there are other States in the country where the percentage of telephones is far less than what it is in eastern UP. The said facts are the reason for the change in the policy of the government and for giving up the notification calling for bids for Eastern UP. Such a change in policy cannot, in our opinion, be said to be irrational or perverse according to Wednesbury principles. In the circumstances, on the basis of the clear principles laid down in exp. Hargreaves and exp. Unilever, the Wednesbury principle of irrationality or perversity is not attracted and the revised policy cannot be said to be in such gross violation of any substantive legitimate expectation of the appellant which warrants interference in judicial review proceedings. Point 2 is held against the appellant. The appeal and Transfer Petition are dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with the law. This was a case under the amended Punjab Act, 1982 in which sub-sections 1,2 and 3 of Section 47-A are similar to sub-sections 2,3 and 4 of Section 47-A of the U.P. Act. Only sub-section (1) of the U.P. Act is different under which it directs the Registering Authority to refer the matter to the Collector in case the description of the value in the instrument is less than even the minimum value determined under the Rules. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the submission. Accordingly, we hold the impugned circular and the notice to be valid. Notice has already been issued to the appellants and they have an opportunity to contest the valuation prima facie fixed under the said circular and to prove to the contrary in the proceedings before the Collector. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. Costs on the parties.
-
1999 (5) TMI 603 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, on the basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer, as reduced by the aggregate of the total income, or as the case may be, as increased by the aggregate of the losses of previous years, determined... Clause (a) of section 158BB provides so where assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded, on the basis of such assessments. It is evident from the above that it provided under section 158BB that the income which has already been assessed is to be excluded for the purpose of the determination of the undisclosed income. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer of exclude the income which has already been assessed under section 143/144 or under section 147 for the Assessment years involved in the block period. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 602 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or waiver of interest or not. This is not to suggest that the Commissioner has no power under section 263 to interfere, but generally he should not, unless there is perversity in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. In absence of perversity, if the Commissioner enters jurisdiction under section 263 in such cases, it would tantamount to substituting his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer which, in our opinion, is out of the purview of section 263. In the instant cases, considering the various facts and circumstances as also the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, there is no perversity in the orders of waiver passed by the Assessing Officer He was satisfied about the circumstances and hence he waived the interest. Learned Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction and hence we quash all his orders holding the waiver orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 19. In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 601 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court. In view of what has been fairly stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is not necessary for us to enter into merits of the case, suffice it to say that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the Gauhati High Court was clearly' in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. In our considered view, the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Gauhati High Court was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the same are quashed. It goes without saying that in any proceeding in which the First Information Report or the criminal proceedings is challenged by the respondent, the case will be decided by the Court without being influenced by the observations and findings in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
-
1999 (5) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Municipal Corporation to the claimants and thereby made an effort at adjusting the equities. It cannot be lost sight of that partly the delay in release of the amount to the claimants is attributable to their failure to furnish the security as directed by the Division Bench. The claimants have been allowed interest on the decretal amount from the date of the decree though the amount of compensation was quantified only from the date of the passing of the decree. In such circumstances, the direction of the Division Bench in the matter of award of interest is also not liable to be interfered with on consideration of totality of the circumstances. For the foregoing reasons both the appeals are held liable to be dismissed. Civil Appeal No.687/86 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is dismissed with costs payable by the appellant-Municipal Corporation to the respondent-claimants. Civil Appeal No.4242/86 filed by the claimants is dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ny was, as we have already stated, exclusively based upon the amendments made by Act 28 of 1974 in the Act. These amendments have no retrospective effect. No demand for non-agricultural assessment could, therefore, have been made upon the appellant companies for any period prior to 12th July, 1974. To this extent, the demands are quashed. In regard to demands for non-agricultural assessment subsequent to 12th July, 1974, which are upheld, the appellant companies shall be at liberty to file appeals within 8 weeks from the date of this order, wherein it will be open to them to establish the actual extent of the land that was used at the relevant time for commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural purposes. Only upon such land can non-agricultural assessment be levied. What the applicable rate should be can also be canvassed and decided in such appeals. To the extent aforestated, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Orders on the appeals accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Central Government in its order dated 24.11.1984. The show cause notice will be accompanied by copies of all such documents as were relied upon against the respondent by the State of Haryana and by the Central Government. After receiving the explanation of the respondent and the objections of the appellant to the said explanation of the respondent and the rejoinder of the respondent, if any thereto, the Central Government will give a hearing to the respondent and to the appellant, and will pass a reasoned order and submit the same to this court within four months from today, after communicating the same to the appellant and the respondent and the State of Haryana. The Central Government shall also decide whether the breaches and irregularities were committed by the respondent or by Sri R.L. Sharma. The aggrieved parties can file objections thereto thereafter in this Court. List this matter on the 27th September, 1999. In the meantime the status quo as of today will continue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 597 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quantity not accounted for. The same position holds good for the remaining years also. 14. Further, it is a well settled legal position that clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be alleged and duty demand cannot be confirmed thereon, solely depending upon the use of one particular material. Other raw materials required are crown corks, sugar, and carbon dioxide. The Department has not been able to establish that the assessees have surreptitiously procured such raw materials for use in the manufacture of aerated waters. This, coupled with the fact that the assessees have further explained for the difference in quantity of concentrates purchased and quantity accounted for, renders the duty demand on account of suppression of production, unsustainable. 15. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the duty demand and penalty and allow the appeal of the assessees. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected and the appeal of the assessees is allowed.
........
|
