|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 500 Records
-
2001 (11) TMI 1039 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rare case. 8. In view of the settled legal position and as offences have been disclosed in the FIR, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the investigation and should have permitted police to complete it. We, accordingly, hold that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the entire proceeding and ought not to have thwart the prosecution. 9. Only respondent No. 2, namely, Satya Narain Mahto has resisted the appeal. Learned counsel has pleaded that respondent No. 2 may be granted pre-arrest bail and has assured that he would co-operate with the investigation. We accept the submission of the learned counsel. We, therefore, direct that, if arrested, respondent No. 2 shall be released on furnishing a bond with adequate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. He shall make himself available for interrogation, whenever necessary. 10. Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... violation of the same by the appellant. We may further note that out of the total life of a patent of 14 years almost 11 years have now elapsed. The learned Single Judge duly considered all the aspects and we see no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order and thus there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 33. In the end we may note that learned Single Judge has also recorded that he has taken note only of the prima facie view of the factors which were considered for the purpose of interim order and has not considered all pleas and authorities cited. The same position arose before us where copious written submissions and a large number of judgments were filed but we have considered the submissions advanced before us keeping in mind the legal position and the facts on record as emerged from the orders of learned Single Judge. 34. The appeal is consequently dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000/-. 35. Interim orders stand vacated.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1037 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itioner by sending a legally valid notice under the provisions of the Act. 9. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent is right in its contention that no valid statutory notice has been issued to the respondent. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a composite notice can be sent to the respondent. Even if this proposition is accepted, the fact still remains that the notices dated 30th May, 2000 were not composite notices but were notices issued only under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I do not think that this line of argument will, Therefore, advance the case of the petitioner. 11. Under the circumstances, in the absence of a valid statutory notice having been issued to the respondent under the provisions of Section 434 of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The petitioner is, of course, at liberty to take such other action at law as may be otherwise permissible.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1036 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s who shall file their objection thereto if any within one month from the date when received. The auditors shall after considering the objections if any give final report. The auditors fees for valuation will be negotiated and paid by the company. On the basis of the valuation, the consideration worked out for the shares held by the petitioners group shall be paid either by the respondents or by the company, who shall be bound to purchase the shares. In case the respondents desire to purchase the shares, the petitioners will execute blank transfer forms and handover the same to the respondents on receipt of consideration. In case the company desires to purchase the shares, the same shall be cancelled on payment of consideration and the share capital of the company shall be reduced to that extent. The whole exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the valuation report. 19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1035 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... to the appellant to take such steps as may be available to them in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1034 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... BB cannot override section 158B(b). Income shown in return, even if filed late, cannot be regarded to be undisclosed income within the definition of section 158B(b ). Following the decisions in the case of J.K. Narayana HUF and Amar Nath Aggarwal (supra), we delete the impugned addition. 15. Addition made on account of agrl. income also cannot be sustained as agrl. income cannot be regarded to be undisclosed income within section 158B(b). Income from agrl. have been duly shown from assessment years 1992-93 onwards. The impugned addition on this account is deleted. 16. Ground No. 18 is also to be allowed in view of specific provisions of section 158BH, which state that ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to assessment made under this Chapter’. Section 88 falls under Chapter VIII of the Act, therefore, it will apply for determining income under Chapter XIV-B also. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1033 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he preceding sub-sections and if for reasons to be recorded he is satisfied after giving such person an opportunity of being heard that such goods were being so transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under this Act, he may order detention of such goods." 4. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of law shows that a finding has to be recorded by the authorities concerned that the goods were being transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. Unless such a finding is recorded no penalty can be imposed. In the instant case no one of the lower authorities has recorded any such finding. Therefore, the orders of imposing the penalty passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the penalty orders passed by the authorities below are quashed. Any amount towards penalty deposited by the revisionist shall be refunded to him.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in an properly instituted civil suit rather than by a Court exercising prerogative of issuing writs. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. It would be open to the respondent to have recourse to other appropriate remedy.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1031 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ist bona fidely believed that now there was no need for moving an application under Section 4-A of sub-section (2-B) of the Act. There is no doubt that this amendment was operative from 1st January, 1992. The benefit of it could be availed by the revisionist under bona fide belief that now there was no need of moving an application under sub-section (2-B) of Section 4-A of the Act. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered either by the Trade Tax Commissioner or the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal. 12. Having carefully considered the rival arguments. I am of the view that the order passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax cancelling the eligibility certificate of the revisionist and the order by the Tribunal in second appeal cannot be upheld. 13. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the said authorities are hereby set aside and it is held that the revisionist is entitled to benefit of the eligibility certificate granted to it.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1030 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... baa) added from assessment year 1992-93. Both the parties agreed and stated that the earlier Special Bench had held that the said explanation would be prospective and not retrospective in nature. The assessment year before us is 1986-87 and the aforesaid explanation would not be applicable. 49. Before we part with this matter, we would like to categorically observe that the numerous decisions cited at the bar by the parties have been duly considered, but these were many in number and in case inadvertently one or more of them does not find a mention in the order, it does not mean that the same has been overlooked, but it is categorically to be observed that it has been taken into account. 50. Having answered the various propositions raised before this Special Bench, we now direct the matter to be placed before the Division Bench for passing an order in conformity with the views expressed by this Special Bench as also to deal with any other ground/grounds raised in the appeal.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1029 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Kalyana Mandapam was not one of the objects of the assessee, but an activity carried on to fulfil the objects of the trust. The income derived from the Sabha was not its business income, but its property income and, therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable. 2. In this case also the object of the trust is to provide medical relief to the poor and spread education. The income received by it by letting out the Kalyana Mandapam is, therefore, income from property and not business income. The income of the assessee was, therefore, entitled to exemption under section 11 of the IT Act. 3. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of amounts received from letting out of the marriage hall to the general public, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1028 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from the suppliers and maligned the reputation of the institute. That an affidavit cannot be relied on to improve or supplement an order has been held by a Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi .when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise Equally an order which is otherwise valid cannot be invalidated by reason of any statement in any affidavit seeking to justify the order. This is also what was held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kumar Shukla (supra) The allegations made against the respondent contained in the counter-affidavit by way of a defence filed on behalf of the appellants also do not change the nature and character of the order of termination. Having held against the appellant on all counts, we dismiss the appeal but without any order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1027 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch a course was not permissible for the High Court particularly when there is no challenge to the circular relaxing conditions, as was stipulated in the circular dated 12/8/1987. The basis set forth in the circular itself is that those who have completed 18 years of service need not be insisted upon to possess postgraduate qualification for being considered to extend the selection scale. Such relaxation is a matter of policy with the Government and cannot be treated to be irrational inasmuch as in the view of the Government such teachers possess experience and need to be given due recognition. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and restore that of the Director of Education, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa dated 10/8/1993. It is, however, made clear that if any extra payments have been made to the first respondent pursuant to the order made by the High Court, the same shall not be recovered. The Appeal is Allowed Accordingly.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1026 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al’s view with regard to the deduction of loss and the sale of certain shares sold by the assessee, in a company in which the members of his family were interested. On that aspect, the Tribunal has found that there was no dispute that transactions were genuine. It is also found that there was no material to indicate that the assessee had received anything more than the stipulated sale consideration. The Tribunal has proceeded further to hold, and rightly, that though intrinsic value of the shares was more than the value for which it is sold, that by itself would not enable the assessing authority to ignore the transaction altogether. We see no error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has confirmed the order of the appellate authority regarding the deduction of capital loss from the total income by holding that the deduction made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified. 4. The questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1025 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t accepting the valuation made by the DVO as per CPWD rates adjusted with the cost index applicable for Jodhpur ? 3. allowing the claim of higher depreciation of cinema building by treating the same as a plant ? 4. holding that the remittance of entertainment tax is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee whereas the remittance of trading liability to provide assistance for efficient and profitable running of business and is not directly linked with any capital investment ?" 2. It is submitted by Mr. Bhandawat that as far as question Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the Tribunal has already made a reference. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar 1993 200 ITR 788 . The second question is also covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Hotel Joshi 2000 242 ITR 478 . Thus, no referable question of law arises, the reference application is rejected.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itted to the Tribunal. Out of such amount deposited by the Insurance Company and remitted to the Tribunal, the amount due and payable to the claimants calculated up to the date of deposit i.e. 26/2/2001 along with interest accrued on fixed deposit of such amount, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants, subject to adjustment for the amount already received by the claimants under "no-fault liability clause" and any further amount deposited by the Insurance Company under the directions of the High Court and paid to the claimants. The balance amount, if any, shall be returned to the appellant Insurance Company. 3. In the event of the pleas raised by the Insurance Company before the High Court, and available to be raised by the Insurance Company, being upheld and the Insurance Company being exonerated, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to reimburse itself from the owner and the driver. The Appeal Stands Disposed of Accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1023 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n our opinion, the construction of the rule by the High Court is fair and reasonable which calls for no interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1022 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Larger Bench reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 where in the Tribunal had elaborately examined the provisions of Rule 57Q and the various amendments bought to it over a period of time and had held that any capital goods which were brought within the coverage of the expression "capital goods " under Rule 57Q by Notifications 11/95-CE(NT) dated 16.3.1995 and 14/96-CE(NT) dated 23.7.1996 could not be held to be capital goods prior to16.3.1995 or 23.7.1996 ,as the case may be ,where such goods were covered as capital goods under the pre- existing provisions of Rule 57Q.This view taken by the Tribunals Larger Bench has been approved by the apex court in the aforecited decision. 4.According to the above view ,the material handling equipments involved in this appeal have to be held to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q in relation to the period of dispute.The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court on 7.11.2001
-
2001 (11) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal 2000 (1) SCC 722 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges. In the instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the High Court for exercise of revisional powers. It was premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trail court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent. As the impugned order has been passed against the settled position of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The order of framing the charge passed by the trial court against the accused is upheld with directions to it to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.
-
2001 (11) TMI 1020 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gar etc. True it is that the above ingredients of the "Swad" tablets are mentioned in the order of the Tribunal but that would not make it an Ayurvedic medicine unless it is shown that it is prescribed by the Physician in a particular ailment or it is beneficial in certain types of ailments. Sometimes confectionery items are produced by mixing various ingredients in order to give a special taste to the preparation. I am therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has wrongly held that "Swad" tablet is a non-schedule medicine and taxable at the rate of 7.5 per cent (10 per cent with additional tax). 23. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed. The revision is hereby allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the first Appellate Authority is restored. Excess tax, if any, deposited by the revisionist shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
........
|
