|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 594 Records
-
2001 (1) TMI 986 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 80-I, deduction exigible under one cannot be deducted for the purpose of computing deduction under the other. 6. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid issue between the parties arises purely on the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A in the matter of computing deduction permissible under various provisions made therein as in a question of law the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal was in error in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act. 7. Accordingly, we allow this application under section 256(2) and direct the Tribunal to draw a statement of case and refer the aforesaid questions of law arising out of its order dated 4-8-1997 made in IT Appeal No. 347 (Jp.) of 1997 for the opinion of this Court. 8. The Tribunal is directed to submit statement of claim within four weeks with the direction to standing counsel for the revenue to submit requisite paper books along with the statement of case.
-
2001 (1) TMI 985 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the order under appeal. It is needless to mention that question of law is left open. Special Leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 984 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ge, the employer states that the services were. not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the probationer were being terminated by way of punishment. The probationer is on test and if the services are found not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to terminate the services. In the instant case, the second order which was passed terminating the services of the respondent was innocuously worded. Even if we take into consideration the first order which was passed which mentioned that a Committee which had been constituted came to the conclusion that the job proficiency of the respondent was not upto the mark, that would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the respondent. That reason cannot be cited and relied upon by contending that the termination was by way of punishment. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal as well-as that of the High Court No costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 983 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act, this much amount has been refunded to them. The petitioner, if proves that this amount has been refunded, the Assessing Authority shall pass an appropriate order in this regard. In case the petitioner proves that the entire amount of ₹ 38,45,479 has not been paid to the purchasers, it may be entitled to adjustment only such amount which it proves that it has been refunded to the purchasers. The Assessing Authority may give notice to such purchasers and make enquiry from them as well. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th January, 2001 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Assessing Authority. On production of such a certified copy of this order, the recovery of the tax in question from the petitioner shall remain stayed till the Assessing Authority disposes of the matter as observed above.
-
2001 (1) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of such promotion been on a non-existent; the superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand; This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in our considered view, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment. This position also follows as a necessary corolary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M.Bhaskar's case (supra). On the discussions made and the reasons set forth in the preceeding paragraphs the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 981 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... result would be utter confusion. The position would be equally bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that the previous decision of another single Judge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that view instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench. In such a case lawyers would not know h w to advise their clients and all courts subordinate to the High Court would find themselves in an embarrassing position of having to choose between dissentient judgments of their own High Court..." o p /o p These salutary principles appear to have been over looked by the learned Judge deciding Jai Bhansingh’s case. Thus, for what we have said above, we are not persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the High Court in the present case. This appeal has no merits. It fails and is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. o p /o p We request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the election petition. o p /o p
-
2001 (1) TMI 980 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ar Dwivedi, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 979 - CEGAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Packaging, was not made a party. Consequently, this Tribunal by Final Order No. 1360/2000 dated 7.9.2000 dismissed that appeal. As a result of that dismissal, the order impugned in this appeal also got the seal of this Tribunal. o p /o p 2. Products manufactured by two manufacturers were clubbed together for imposition of duty. This was so done to deny the exemption granted to Small Scale Industrial Units. The Commissioner did not approve the said action while passing the impugned order. While challenging that order the Revenue did not make both the manufacturers as party to this proceeding. Consequently, the appeal is ill-constituted. Further, appeal against the other manufacturer, namely, Delta Packaging has been dismissed by this Tribunal and thereby confirmed the order which is impugned in this appeal. o p /o p 3. In the circumstances detailed above, we feel that this appeal is only to be dismissed. We do so. o p /o p Pronounced & dictated in the open Court. o p /o p
-
2001 (1) TMI 978 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... do not, therefore, decide whether the Club can be made so liable. o p /o p For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court under challenge and consequently hold - o p /o p a) That the appellant-Club is not liable to be levied with or directed to pay House/Property Tax in respect of the vacant land and land and buildings put up by the lessor and owned by it and let to the Club as part of the demised property; o p /o p b) That the question of taxability of the appellant-Club in respect of buildings/structures put up by it on the leasehold land is left open; o p /o p c) This judgment relates to the levy and collection of only House/Property Tax from the Club, directly under Section 61(1) (a) and not of any other class/category of taxes which may be levied under the Act and in accordance with law; and o p /o p d) The Club is entitled to costs in these proceedings which we fix at ₹ 25,000/-. o p /o p
-
2001 (1) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... i bai were so absurd and improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for offences under Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. In our view, the High Court has committed a patent error. As noted by the High Court itself, at this stage, it was not open for the Court to weigh or assess the evidence. It was not possible for the Court, at this stage, to come to a conclusion that this evidence was absurd or inherently improbable. Prima facie at least the 5 burn injuries support the case that the boy was not just electrocuted by a live wire falling in the river in which he was swimming. They prima facie suggest direct contact with the live wire. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on the basis of charges framed by it.
-
2001 (1) TMI 976 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erred to two decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to allowance of technical know-how fees of Rs. 7,16,654 paid to WCW, West Germany as revenue expenditure. Question No. 1 referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, we find that know-how was acquired by the assessee on behalf of another company by the name of Negveli Lignite Corpn. This company had paid the assessee-company for this know-how and the assessee had further paid the amount to the German company. The know-how was never utilized by the assessee. Therefore, in our view, the assessee is entitled to allowance of Rs. 1,12,30,810 being payments as technical design fees to foreign collaborators. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference, accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 975 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filament yarn. Therefore the Tribunal arriving at the conclusion that it is a separate and distinct item has been justified. But in the case in hand, it is not so. It is the one and the same product in the different form supplied wherein there is no change or transformation into a different character nor does it undergo any other manufacturing process and no additional excise duty is attracted. Therefore, this case cited by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the case. In result, the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed with costs. The orders passed by the first respondent in Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89, dated 28-12-1989 and Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89 EC, dated 11-7-1991 are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to refund the excise duty of ₹ 6,91,585.59 ps. and ₹ 49,330.51 ps. paid by the petitioner to the petitioner within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 16042/92 is closed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 974 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o tax global income of the resident assessee. (b)Country of Source (Tanzania in our case) shall also levy tax. However, generally it will levy lower than normal tax, so that there is some scope left for the Country of Residence also to levy tax. (c)Country of Source does not give credit for taxes paid in the Country of Residence. There are two methods of eliminating double tax, viz., (i ) Credit method and (ii) Exemption method. India generally follows the credit method and the same has been followed in the Tanzanian Treaty so far as business income is concerned. Thus, if there is a PE situated in the Country of Source, that country can levy tax on the income earned by PE. At the same time Country of Residence will also levy tax on the profits earned by the PE and it will give credit for taxes paid in the Country of Source. In view of the foregoing discussion, this ground of the assessee is rejected. 32 to 65. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2001 (1) TMI 973 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ew different than the one taken by the Tribunal on the interpretation of the exemption notification. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 972 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g on the strength of Section 27 of the Act. 8. We make it clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent, but will be confined to the facts of this case, as such a course is warranted to avert serious miscarriage of justice and disastrous consequences to a citizen. 9. In order to facilitate the trial Court to afford the appellant one more opportunity as aforesaid, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him and remit the case to the trial Court for the limited purpose of affording the appellant an opportunity to adopt a defence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. We order the appellant to be released on bail until the trial is finally over. The trial Court shall specify the conditions of such bail. 10. We direct the trial court further to appoint a competent advocate to defend the appellant in the trial Court at the State expense, if he is not having any counsel of his own. 11. Despatch the records of the trial Court. 12. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 971 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court in the case of Samir Diamonds Exports Ltd. (supra). Similarly, learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Punit Commercial Ltd. (supra). However, we find that in both the above decisions there was no discussion upon Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. This Explanation was not referred to at all, perhaps both these decisions were for the period prior to insertion of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. Therefore, these decisions would not be of any help for interpreting scope of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. 10. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the authorities below on this point and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. He will decide the issue afresh as per our observations in the preceding paragraphs. He will also allow opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, revenue’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2001 (1) TMI 970 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... der has been set aside and the matter has been gone into afresh by the Tribunal. As such this appeal has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 969 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is fund that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. they act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, but we are informed that in the meantime the respondent has already superannuated. We, therefore, on the special facts of this case, do not set aside the order of reinstatement, but direct that the respondent would not be entitled to any back wages at all but he would be entitled to the retiral benefits. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2001 (1) TMI 968 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ant provision, Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is no longer in operation. He, therefore, does not press the appeal. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trial in the cases pending before them are facilitated by making appropriate arrangement to have all the accused persons in one place for purposes of trial and details should be worked out and shall be examined by the High Court of Orissa and the High Court of Calcutta on the administrative side and appropriate directions be given in that regard to enable expeditious disposal of the case. In this case, it is, therefore, not proper for us to enter upon the merits of the case so far as the splitting of the charges are concerned or refusal of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Howrah in not releasing the main accused to enable the trial to go on at Balasore. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Registrar of the High Court of Calcutta and Registrar of the High Court of Orissa for compliance with directions. Subject to the observations made above, this petition stands dismissed.
........
|
