|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... 56. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in respect of the turnover relating to dies, tools, etc. The present revision is against the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. 2.. Learned Government Advocate tried to suggest that there was, in fact, a turnover which was created by the sale and, therefore, the finding of the appellate authority was incorrect. In our opinion, the argument is basically incorrect because the transaction cannot be said to be a sale much less within the parameters of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as there is no movement of the goods at all. The goods have remained with the assessee alone because they are the dies and tools and it is from those dies and tools that the finished products are manufactured. Since such dies never moved out of the factory premises of the assessee, there will be no question of tax liability. The order of the Tribunal is absolutely correct. The revision has no merits and it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... nsel again invited our attention to the decision on which the appellate authority had relied upon. That decision being Hercules Rubber Co. case 1983 54 STC 85 (Mad.). However, the major factual difference is that in the reported decision there was no link found between the assessee in Madras and the buyers in Andhra Pradesh whereas, in our case, there is a direct link between the assessee and the Balaji Mill Stores where two partners are common. The sale of identical goods of identical quantity for same price by the Chittoor branch of the assessee to Balaji Mill Stores would further establish the link and again the Chittoor branch not having any transaction with anybody excepting Balaji Mill Stores would drive the last nail on the case of the assessee. In that view, we are of the opinion that the appellate authority could not have relied upon this decision. 9.. In the result, the appeals fail and the orders of the Joint Commissioner are confirmed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... ents that the assessee s books of account were seized by the income-tax department and therefore, he was not in a position to file any material evidence in support of his claims. We are unable to understand as to how is it that the assessee should have failed to take advantage of three years of pendency of the matter before the assessing authority. In these three years, he could have done everything, including also, collecting the C forms from the purchaser. There is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that he acted as a commission agent of an agriculturist and thereby the whole transaction was exempt from any tax. All these would be pure questions of fact and in our opinion, all the three authorities below have properly dealt with the materials before them. We do not find any error having been committed by any of the authorities. There is no question of law involved in this revision. The revision is therefore dismissed without any orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 755
Whether looking at the nature of requirement pleaded by the landlord- respondents in their applications the forum of Rent Controlling Authority was available to the respondents under Chapter III-A of the Act or whether they were required to have recourse to the jurisdiction of Civil Court by filing suits for eviction under Section 12 of the Act?
Whether the landlords have succeeded in making out case of bona fide requirement of the suit premises within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 23-A of the Act?
Held that:- There is no merit in the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that the three respondents, one widow and her two major sons, could not have initiated proceedings for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority. We have carefully perused the two applications for eviction filed by the respondents. The bonafide requirement pleaded is of the widow landlady, the respondent no.1, who requires the suit premises for Govinda, respondent no.2 for starting his business and that of another son Hemant, the respondent no.3 for continuing the business which presently he is carrying on in rented premises. Respondents 2 and 3 being major sons of the widow respondent no.1, such requirement clearly falls also within the purview of Section 23-A (b) of the Act. The proceedings initiated before R.C.A. do not suffer from want of jurisdictional competence.
To be an alternative accommodation relevant within the meaning of Section 12(1)(f) or Section 23-A(b) it must be 'of his own', that is, the one 'owned' by the landlord. There is no evidence adduced by the appellants to show that in M.T. Cloth market shops are also situated on first floor of buildings and attract the same business as the shops on ground floor do. The High Court and the R.C.A. have held none of the premises pointed out by the tenant-appellants such alternate accommodation as may defeat the respondents' claim. We find no reason to take a different view. Between the years 1987 and 1989 late Krishna Das, the then sole owner of the building, had sold three shops but that was an event which had taken place in the life- time of late Krishna Das and cannot have relevance for denying the claim of the respondent-landlords filed in the year 1995. Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 754
Whether the tender offered by the appellant with the rebate could have been accepted?
Whether such acceptance would affect the interests of any other party?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Now the appellant made his offer of concessional rates along with the tender while Respondent No.5 made such offer after opening of the tenders. It is difficult to conceive that the Respondent No.5 who is a prudent businessman would not be aware of commercial practice of giving rebate or concession in the event of quick finalization of a transaction. What the appellant offered was part of the tender itself while the Respondent No.5 made such offer separately and much later.
There was nothing illegal or arbitrary on the part of Railway Administration in accepting the offer of the appellant, which was made at the time of submitting the tender itself.
-
2002 (7) TMI 752
... ...
... ... ..... es of theappellant and its affiliates. The income or assets of the trust,after paying the taxes distributed, it is not possible to say thatthe same amounts to distribution in favour of the appellant. Further,the trust has been validly created under the Trust Act as well asunder the Companies Act and IT Act. Such a trust is created by everycorporation and this mode too well-known, cannot be treated as aconduit. Further, s. 161 r/w ss. 164 and 166 governs the method oftaxation of representative assessee and the beneficiaries. Such aprocedure has overwhelming judicial approval. In view of this we holdthe trust is not a conduit. 7.5 We refrain from dealing with the issue of valuation, as wehave already cancelled the orders under s. 201(1) and 201(1A . Hence,the issue of valuation of shares, need not be addressed at thisjuncture. 7.6 Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in favour of theappellant and the orders of CIT(A) are set aside. In the result, all these appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 751
Unexplained investments ... ... ... ... ..... as a non est report and could not be relied upon. (iii)The assessee rsquo s books of account having not been rejected, no addition was called for on the ground that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was not correct. (iv)If at all the valuation was to be determined it should have been determined on the basis of the State P.W.D. rates and not the Central P.W.D. rates. 12. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusions, I am of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the case there can be no addition under section 69 of the Act either as a whole or on proportionate basis in any of the assessment years, i.e., 1990-91 and 1991-92, on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer and, consequently, I answer the question referred for my opinion in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee rsquo s appeals are accordingly allowed. 13. The matter will now go back to the regular Bench for passing appropriate orders.
-
2002 (7) TMI 750
Unexplained investments ... ... ... ... ..... sidered view that the cost of construction as worked out by the CIT(A), hereinabove, is reasonable keeping in view the relevant facts of the present case. We do not find any material on record to controvert the above findings of the CIT(A). It is also relevant to point out that the certificate issued by the Inspector, Food and Supplies Department dated 16-11-1998 has not been controverted by the Department. It is also a factual position that 10 rebate is generally allowed on account of self-supervision. Thus, considering the entire facts of the present case, we do not see any justification for infering with the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the same. 8.2 Before parting with this case, we may also state here that the Department has also filed appeals in the case of co-owners and those appeals have already been disposed of considering the tax effect. In other words, in those appeals no decision has been given on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 749
Penalty - For failure to comply with provisions of section 269T ... ... ... ... ..... 1997 90 Taxman 138, the position emerges that for violation of section 269SS. It necessarily requires involvement of transfer of money which was not in the assessee rsquo s case. There being no deposit as per the mode prescribed under section 269SS, violation of the said provisions could not be accepted even assuming that the assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS, the penalty could not be sustained because there was nothing to show that the violation of the provisions had been done by the assessee knowingly or in stark defiance of the provisions. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in cancelling the imposition of penalty under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in view of the decisions of Hon rsquo ble ITAT, Cochin Bench and Ahmedabad Bench as referred to above with which we agree. 5. As a result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is treated as dismissed and in view of the same, the assessee rsquo s Cross Objection also stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 748
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc ... ... ... ... ..... ces made to the company. These two amounts apparently included Rs. 27,100 which is reflected in the balance-sheet. Learned senior counsel also submitted that it cannot be said that the amount shown in the balance-sheet was towards advances which the appellant had made to the company. The official liquidator has to determine this question. Out of Rs. 1,10,000 Sh. Satbir Singh had received Rs. 50,000 from Lakhani for the machinery and his real liability is only Rs. 60,000 out of total amount of Rs. 1,10,000. It is trite now that a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is a distinct entity separate from its members. (Refer (1) Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1964 34 Comp. Cas.458 AIR 1965 SC 40, (2) H.C. Shastri v. Dolphin Canpack (P.) Ltd. 1998 93 Comp. Cas.201 (Delhi) and (3) Purna Investment Ltd. v. Bank of India Ltd. 1984 55 Comp. Cas.737 (Cal.)). Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 747
EXIM - Bank guarantee - Non-fulfilment of export obligation - Invocation of - Fraud ... ... ... ... ..... be in the fitness of the things to direct the 2nd respondent to decide that application, after hearing the petitioner or its representative as the case may be, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. emsp However, before parting with the judgment, it must be said that there could not have been any stay of the invocation of the bank guarantee because there was no question of fraud involved in all these matters for obtaining the bank guarantee at least none is pleaded in the writ petition. The apathy on the part of the particular authority could not be spelt out as a fraud so that the said authority could not have invoked the bank guarantee. Therefore, even if the writ petition succeeds partly, the interim order would stand vacated. However, the petitioner may take such steps to persuade the 2nd respondent to take any other view of the matter. 11. emsp With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P. No. 22817 of 1995 is closed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 746
Valuation - Freight and insurance - Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s), through the common Order-in-Appeal. 3. emsp The issue as to whether freight and insurance charges collected by the appellants from the buyers were to be added in the assessable value or not, already stands decided in their favour by the Tribunal in the case of JBM Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 379 (Tri. - Del.) 2002 (50) RLT 747. In that case, it has been ruled by the Tribunal that the said charges are not to be added in the assessable value of the goods. That was identical case wherein cylinders were supplied to the oil companies and freight and insurance charges collected from the buyers were not included in the assessable value of the goods, by the appellant-company. The ratio of law laid down in that case is on all fours and completely covers the case of the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are accepted with consequential relief, if any permissible under the law.
-
2002 (7) TMI 745
Demand - Clandestine removal - Demand - Clandestine removal - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... . seeking to challenge the order of Regional Director Company Law Board in regard to change in the registered names, etc. The subject-matter covered in the said Writ proceedings does not in any way affect the proceedings before us, as it is a different matter altogether which has been dealt with in the Writ petition. Similarly the appellants have also submitted a copy of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu in the matter of dispute relating to conditions of service of workmen, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workmen and the Management of Macneill and Magor Limited (now known as Williamson Magor and Co Ltd.) and Kilburn Electricals Ltd, Madras. These proceedings are not relevant to the case before us. 12. emsp In view of our findings above, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the lower authority and we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 744
Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default ... ... ... ... ..... section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, against the petitioners. 13. As regards this question also, we have differed in our opinion in our judgment delivered in Suresh Chand Gupta rsquo s case (supra) and have referred the said case to a larger Bench. In the circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct this case to be listed after final decision in Suresh Chand Gupta rsquo s case (supra). 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is directed to be listed after the decision in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002, Suresh Chand Gupta rsquo s case (supra). The interim order dated May 2, 2002, is however, modified to the extent that it shall be open to the U.P. Financial Corporation to proceed against the petitioners either under the provisions of sections 29, 31 and 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, or under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
-
2002 (7) TMI 743
Restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... t, therefore, on perusal of these documents, it would clearly go to show that the transaction in question was a genuine transaction between the parties and referable to the contract. 17. Accordingly, in the first place, the appellate authority has not considered the entire materials which it was obliged to consider, whereas on considering the entire materials with reference to the charges in the said show-cause notices, it is possible to take the view that the breach is a technical breach and has occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellants. In which case, there would be no case for imposing any penalty. In this view of the matter, the appeal should succeed even with regard to show-cause notice Nos. 38 and 39. 18. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the action against the appellants in the subject Show Cause Notices is set aside. No costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 742
Special courts, Powers in arbitration matters ... ... ... ... ..... arbitration agreement has been signed for and on behalf of respondent No. 2, Parekh, being the person behind the company the arbitration agreement should be taken to be signed by him. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (d )(iii) against respondent No. 1 and dismissed against respondent No. 2. Prayer clause (d)(iii ) reads as under (d) That in the event of it being found that the first respondent has failed to acquire the said shares, pursuant to the said agreement dated January 19, 2001, this honourable court be pleased to (iii) Order and/or grant an injunction restraining the respondents from any manner alienating transferring, selling and disposing of its properties and assets. It is made clear that this judgment will not affect the rights or any other financial institutions such as the Bank of India, etc., represented by Mr. Nitin Thakkar, learned counsel for the Bank of India. P.A. to give ordinary copy of this order to the parties concerned.
-
2002 (7) TMI 741
Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default ... ... ... ... ..... he date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before him along with the objections. 35. Till the decision of the said question by the tehsildar, the recovery proceeding as against the petitioner will remain stayed provided a certified copy of this judgment along with the objections is filed before the tehsildar (respondent No.4) within a period of 15 days from today. A certified copy of this judgment will be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 36. Per S.R. Singh J, I agree subject to what I have said in my separate judgment in Suresh Chand Gupta v. Collector Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2002 that the writ petition be allowed and the recovery proceeding against the petitioner be kept in abeyance till the decision by the tehsildar on the objection that may be filed by the petitioner within 15 days from today along with certified copy of this order.
-
2002 (7) TMI 740
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration - Procedural lapse ... ... ... ... ..... AT-LB) , took note of the amendment carried out in Rule 57G with effect from 9-2-99 and the Board rsquo s Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23-2-99 reported in 1999 (31) RLT-M-61 and has, laid down that the Board rsquo s Circular and the amendment provision would apply to the pending cases which may be at the appeal stage. The said amendment is to the effect that the Credit should not be disallowed on the ground of minor procedural lapses on the part of the assessee in filing the declaration, if the Assistant Commissioner is otherwise satisfied about the receipt of the duty-paid character of the inputs. Inasmuch as there is no doubt in the present matter that the inputs were received by the appellants and the same had discharged the burden of duty, I find no justification for denial of Credit on the ground that the exact description of the input was not given by the appellants in their 57G declaration. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2002 (7) TMI 739
... ...
... ... ..... to every application thereof, accompanied by a definite indication of the goods having been made or produced in a place beyond the limits of India, and, (b) emsp The country in which that place is situated is indicated in letters as large and conspicuous as any letter in the name of trade mark in the English language. rdquo 5. emsp The adjudicating authority after relying upon the above mentioned clause of notification held that the Country of Origin of the said goods was not indicated on the individual item. 6. emsp The Clause V of the Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 was omitted by the Notification No. 61/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 10-10-2000. The order was passed on 25-10-2000 i.e. after issuing of Notification No. 61/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 10-10-2000 where Clause V of Notification No. 1/64-Cus. is not in existence, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Appellants are entitle for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2002 (7) TMI 738
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants rsquo contention that there is no evidence on record to reflect upon the clandestine activities. Apart from the fact that entries made in the note-book being maintained by the proprietor of the firm as also by the Supervisor of the firm, have been detected by the Visiting Central Excise Officers, there are statements of the Proprietor and the Supervisor, which are corroborative with each other. In the said statements, the appellants have admitted their duty-liability and removal of the goods without payment of duty. A mechanical retraction of the said statements by the deponent, has been rightly rejected by the authorities below as an after-thought. As such, I do not find any merits in the appeal and confirm the demand of duty against them. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand). But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
........
|
