|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 530 Records
-
2002 (4) TMI 961 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... under challenge, we find that no interference therewith is called for. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to Costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ling satisfied with a do little in the field of procedure so as to effectuate the purpose of enactment. We do not find that the Controller has, in the present passed any order under Section 13(2)(i) proviso as aforesaid and therefore the order for eviction stands vitiated on the view of the law which we have taken hereinabove. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the Rent Controller as also of the Appellate Authority are all set aside. The case is sent back to the Controller. The Controller shall, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing, pass a provisional order under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) and afford the tenants an opportunity of making payment or tender and then proceed to decide the case afresh consistently with the law as settled hereby. The costs before the Appellate Authority, the High Court and this Court shall be borne by the parties as incurred. The costs before the Controller shall abide the result.
-
2002 (4) TMI 959 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... cise duty to their customers. There are concurrent findings by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. No interference is called for. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 958 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the commission of crime can, prima facie, be gathered from the material on record. (see Kishun Singh & Ors. v State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 . In view of the aforesaid legal position, the High Court was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that the order dated 7th April, 2001 had become without jurisdiction as a result of the conclusion of trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh. The impugned order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The High Court did not go into the other contentions as urged on behalf of respondent No.1and decided the Criminal Revision No.269/2001 only on the point aforenoted. In this view, we would remand the Criminal Revision No.269/2001 to the High Court for fresh decision to consider the other contentions urged by Respondent No.1. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The application for impleadment is, however, dismissed. The High Court would do well to expeditiously decide the matter preferably within a period of three months.
-
2002 (4) TMI 957 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ition in regard to the maintenance charges and site service charges correctly and no interference is called for therewith. The Civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 956 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alse Priority 32 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Intense Reference / w LsdException Locked false Priority 33 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Book Title / w LsdException Locked false Priority 37 Name Bibliography / w LsdException Locked false Priority 39 QFormat true Name TOC Heading / /w LatentStyles /xml endif -- -- if gte mso 10 endif -- MR. JUSTICE U.C. BANERJEE AND MR. JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL For the Appellant Mr. Harish Salve, SG,, Mr. N.K. Bajpai, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Adv., Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv., Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. O R D E R We are not inclined to entertain I.A.2 by reason of the fact that the point in issue as raised in this I.A. was never raised before any court at any point of time. As such, this I.A. is dismissed. This order of dismissal, however, shall not prevent the applicant from taking other steps in accordance with law, if available. I.A.No.3 is allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 955 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d. Their statements have been recorded. The additions had been made only on the ground that they were not in a position to save to sum of ₹ 19,300, ₹ 19,000 and ₹ 18,500. We are of the opinion that even a person with meagre income can save such petty amounts. These are not big amounts. Therefore, no addition is called for in the names of these persons. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 22. As regards the cash credits of Rs.. 18,000 and ₹ 15,000 in the names of Ram Nath and Ladu Lal, respectively, we find that these persons could not.be produced before the AO only on the pretext that they were out of station and no specific reasons had been given by the assessee. These are cash payments. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 18,000 in the name of Ram Nath and addition of ₹ 15,000 in the name of Ladu Lal are hereby confirmed. We direct the AO to do accordingly. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
2002 (4) TMI 954 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s. 3521-25 of 1990 (Collector of Central Excise v. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd.) 1997 (95) E.L.T. A65 (S.C.) passed on 29th March, 1996. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 953 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... expenditure has to be considered from the assessee's point of view and not from the Revenue's point of view as held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Voltamp Transformers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 23 CTR (Guj) 312 (1981) 129 ITR 105(Guj). Accordingly, we decline to interfere and uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A). This ground also fails and is dismissed. 20. The last ground reads as under "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,425 being 50 per cent of society charges which was to be reimbursed by the company as per arrangement between the assessee and the company." 21. After hearing both the parties, we find that the learned CIT(A) has rightly observed that the addition of ₹ 2,425 has been made "on mistaken facts". Accordingly, we decline to interfere and uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A). 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 952 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... support that this entry really represent cash of ₹ 60 lacs. There is no such evidence found by the revenue in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. In such a case, the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be rejected. In that view of the matter, I concur with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member. 16. In view of the above findings, I do not consider it necessary to go into the various decisions cited before me. 17. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 1. The Hon’ble President sitting as Third Member, by his opinion dated March 7, 2002, has agreed with the view taken by the Accountant Member that the addition made of ₹ 60 lakhs by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was not justified. In conformity with the opinion of the majority, this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (4) TMI 951 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ITO v. Ponkunnam Traders 1976 102 ITR 366 (Ker.). (ii) CIT v. Sham Lal 1981 127 ITR 816 (P&H) - The Hon’ble High Court has held that only the correct course open to the Tribunal was to annul the order passed by the ITO. In this case the incertain reassessment against the assessee, the ITO had included certain amount in his income on the basis that he was a partner in a firm. The ITO had relied upon certain material which had not been put to the assessee, for coming to the conclusion that he was a partner. (iii) R.B. Sreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission 1989 176 ITR 169 (SC) - The Hon’ble Apex Court has held the "(ii) that the earlier order passed by the Settlement Commission on 24th Aug., 1977 was a nulity because it was made in violation of principles of natural justice." Thus, the appeal of the revenue in respect of the above issues are rejected. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 950 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... illegality, which called for correction by exercise of review jurisdiction. It is relevant to note here that the deceased was holding the post of supervisor in women and child welfare department, government of Karnataka at the time of her death and she was aged about 48 years at that time. The salary drawn by the deceased, as evident from the salary certificate produced as additional evidence was ₹ 2,570/- p.m. The multiplier, which had been accepted by the division bench in the previous order, was 10. In the circumstances of the case, multiplier of 10 was rightly taken. Thus on merit also no interference with the order was called for. 6. For the reasons set forth above, both on the ground of maintainability of the petition as well as on merit the order reviewing the judgment is unsustainable. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, The order under challenge is set aside. The judgment passed by the division bench in LPA No. 176/1999 dated 9.8.1999 is re stored. No cost.
-
2002 (4) TMI 949 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that if despite notice, the arrears are not paid, the tenant is said to have committed a wilful default and he will be liable to be evicted forthwith. It has been further held that where the landlord chooses to issue two months notice and the rent is not paid that would be conclusive proof of the default being wilful unless the tenant proves his incapability of paying rent due to unavoidable circumstances. Needles to say, it is not the case of the tenant that there were any such unavoidable circumstances which had rendered him incapable of paying the rent. For the foregoing reasons, no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court holding the tenant guilty of wilful default in payment of rent and hence, liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. As there has been no appearance on behalf of the landlord-respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 948 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ed related persons is the same as sold to the other purchasers. Therefore, there being any depressed price in favour of the related buyer will not arise. This being a question of fact we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. . 10. The transit fee under Rule 5 is clearly regulatory and, thus, it was not necessary for the State to establish quid pro quo. The High Court was in error in holding that transit fee is invalid in absence of quid pro quo. As a consequence the penalty would also be valid. The penalty was held to be invalid by the High Court in view of its conclusion about the invalidity of the transit fee. The penalty, however, cannot be beyond what is permissible in the Act. That aspect, however, is not under challenge in these appeals as the State Government after the impugned judgment of the High Court realizing its mistake amended the Rule so as to bring the provision of penalty in accord with the provisions of the Act. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals and hold that the levy of the transit fee is valid and the judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 946 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hs. Further, as noticed earlier as well, even if corroboration was to be required, though not necessary in the present case in view of the confessional statement of the accused, then too, it would be sufficient if there is a general corroboration of the important incidents and not that the corroborative evidence itself should be sufficient for conviction. We see no reason to discard the confessional statement of Nishan Singh and of the evidence of PW-3 and of course the confessional statement of the appellant and as such the conviction deserves to be maintained. Looking from any angle, the conviction of the appellant does not deserve to be disturbed. We, however, place on record our appreciation for the pains taken by Mr. Murlidhar in marshalling the facts and preparation of the same and it has been a very able presentation before this Court. But in view of the discussions noticed above, we find no illegality in the judgment under appeal. As such the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or understood as including Rectified Spirit. The Rectified Spirit does not fit in Entry 7 and does not match with Class heading of Class I. In these circumstances, we are of the view that Rectified Spirit does not fall in Entry 7 of Class I of the Schedule. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the Rectified Spirit falls under Entry 37 of Class III. Rectified Spirit is an input in the industrial use of making potable alcohol. As the phraseology of the Entry shows ("fuel, lighting, washing"), it is inapplicable to inputs. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Rectified Spirit falls under residuary Entry 86 of Class IX of the Schedule attracting octroi duty 2 . Given the facts and reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order and hold that the appellant was liable to pay octroy duty 2 on the Rectified Spirit imported. The respondent is entitled to recover the difference of octroi duty. No costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ring of the first appeal or by assigning a false cause for his non-appearance at the time of hearing. Valuable rights of the parties in an immoveable property are involved. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have been taken a liberal, and not a rigid and too technical a view of the issue before it and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and concentrated on examining whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law worth being heard by the High Court. In our opinion, a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court is made out. 4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is restored on the file of the High Court. The delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. The appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation shall now be taken up for hearing in accordance with law. No order as to the costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 943 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te, be taken away, though the Claimant would not be entitled to recover any amount at both the ends. The amount paid by the Commissioner would stand reduced to the extent of payment by the Commissioner. The filing of the Civil Suit thus is not barred as has been contended by Mr. Anand that once the claim stands paid, though partially, question of proceeding with the suit would not arise. It is in this context, we concur with the findings of the Bombay High Court in Oriental Coal Co. Ltd.,Calcutta v. M/s Mohanlal Kisanlal & Anr. (AIR 1984 Bom. 174) and record our approval and similar concurrence also goes to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Barakar Coal Co. Ltd. v. N.C. Mehta 81 Cal WN 380 AIR 1977 NOC 198 (Cal) . In the premises aforesaid, we are unable to record our concurrence with the judgment under appeal and the same is thus set aside and the decree as passed by the learned Single Judge stands restored. Each party, however, will pay and bear its own costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to a period already undergone. 3. Learned Counsel for the Customs Department submits that the minimum sentence prescribed under the Section is one year, which can only be modified by the Court concerned, assigning special reasons. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to me that twelve years of agony of trial is a punishment sufficient enough to teach the petitioner a lesson. Coupled with that he has also deposited ₹ 10,000 as fine. The gold which he brought into the country, without declaring the same has also been confiscated and the petitioner has faced the ordeal of two months incarceration in prison as well. In these facts and circumstances, I deem it proper and in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to a period already undergone. 5. With this modification Crl. R. 165/2002 is disposed of. 6. The petitioner who is in judicial custody shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
........
|
