|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 559 Records
-
2004 (10) TMI 601 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ellant set up a totally false plea of his having sent the rent through cheques to the landlord. Apart from pleading that he had sent the amount through cheques, he pleaded no other fact which could be taken into consideration by the Rent Controller for exercising discretion in his favour. It may be noted that the premises are commercial and are situate in Karol Bagh, which is a prime business area of Delhi and the rent is a paltry sum of ₹ 30/- per month. But the appellant did not pay even this small amount of rent, which is virtually a pittance, and has remained in arrears for a long period of time. There is absolutely no ground on which any discretion could be exercised in his favour. The High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal and restoring that of the Rent Controller. o p /o p 8. For the reasons discussed above, the appeals are dismissed with costs, which we quantify at ₹ 10,000/-. o p /o p
-
2004 (10) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r is a workman wearing the mask of an apprentice, is raised the appropriate authority/Labour Court will have to apply mind to the nature of his work. The veil has to be lifted in order to find out the reality. But such a question cannot be decided merely on the basis of apprenticeship contract or on the basis of the label, which a person wears." does not appear to be correct, particularly for the reasons that the High Court has failed to consider that Section 20 of the 1961 Act provides for settlement of disputes. Furthermore, as observed hereinbefore, such a contention has to be specifically pleaded and established. Moreover in terms of Section 22 of the Act, the employer has no statutory liability to give employment to an apprentice. We are, therefore, are of the considered view that non-registration of the contract of apprenticeship would not render the same nugatory. Subject to the foregoing supplemental reasons, I respectfully concur with the judgment of Mathur, J.
-
2004 (10) TMI 599 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rtue of The Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2004 by which the levy of entry tax on furnace oil has been removed retrospectively, nothing survives in these Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. We, however, clarify that the impugned order of the High Court shall not be used as precedent in any other matter.
-
2004 (10) TMI 598 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aced to show that such amount included freight charges and even if included, it cannot be said to have been separately charged. 9. As per the dealer own case, it relates to the expenses towards maintenance of Depot, sale promotion etc. which shows that the amount charged towards the distribution charges were relating to predelivery expenses. However, price fixed under the Vanaspati Price Control Order was FOR destination. Even if amount charged may include cost of freight or delivery, it would be part of the turnover in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills, 43 S.T.C. 13 (SC) and Cement Marketing Co. of India Lid. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes India Ltd., reported in 1983 U.P.T.C. 633 (SC) and in view of decision of this Court in the case of dealer itself reported in 2000 U.P.T.C. 149. 10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. 11. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2004 (10) TMI 597 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... for the purpose of levy of Service Tax with effect from 16-7-2001, was not a part of the pre-existing "Consulting Engineer Service" prior to the said date. In other words, "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service" was a new service introduced on 16-7-2001. Counsel has referred to section 137 of the Finance Act, 2001, which provided for the levy of Service Tax on 15 new items. "New Services" is an expression used in section 137 and the first item in the list of 15 new services is "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service". Ld. Counsel has convincingly argued that "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services" having been introduced as a "new service" for the purpose of levy of Service Tax w.e.f. 16-7-2001 only, cannot be treated as part of the pre-existing "Consulting Engineer Service". 6. In the result, the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed and the appeal of the revenue is rejected.
-
2004 (10) TMI 596 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee." 9. That under s. 80HH of the Act, deduction has to be allowed to the extent of 20 per cent of the profits and gains from industrial undertaking. Sec. 80HH does not envisage to reduce the deduction allowable under s. 32AB, while working out the necessary relief under s. 80HH of the Act. Each unit has to be treated as separate unit for the purpose of relief under s. 80HH. So, the deduction under s. 80HH has to be given as per the profit in the P&L a/c of that industrial unit and, hence, deductions under s. 32AB should not be taken into consideration while computing relief under s. 80HH. In other words, the deductions under s. 80HH at 20 per cent of the profit arrived at are to be allowed before allowing deduction admissible to the assessee under s. 32AB of the Act. 10. Therefore, the question of law formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (10) TMI 595 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the case as also the applicable legal position. 19. We find that it is an undisputed position that the canteen expenses were incurred for the purpose of staff members and managers of the company but the objection is taken by the revenue that the outsiders being provided the tea and snacks from the same canteen cannot be ruled out. The revenue has failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee is lesser than what is required. In the earlier years also, no such additional disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has also confirmed the disallowance in a somewhat mechanical manner and without marshalling out the relevant facts. Keeping in view all the factors, as also entirety of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additional disallowance of ₹ 22,800. The assessee will get relief on this issue also. 20. Ground No. 3 is thus allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2004 (10) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the land holder preventing him from developing the land or alienating it, merely because the authority chooses to act under one Act instead of the other. This again, would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution, not only on account of discrimination, but also on account of arbitrariness. 20. We, therefore, see no good reason as to why the provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984 should not be read into an acquisition under Chapter VII of the M.R.T.P. Act, to the extent not precluded by M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. Section 11A being one such section, it may have to be applied to the acquisition under Chapter VII of the M.R.T.P. Act. 21. For these reasons, in our considered view, the decision in Sant Joginder Singh (supra) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. 22. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions in the matter. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (10) TMI 593 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... spondent is entitled to exemption keeping in mind the aspect as to whether the goods have or have not been manufactured from raw material produced or manufactured in India. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... authority gave detailed tentative decision before seeking explanation from the appellants, it enabled them to give an effective representation and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and it cannot be said that the appellants were not being heard in the matter. Lastly, it was contended that the punishments imposed on the appellants are disproportionate as there was no evidence at all to prove that these appellants received any illegal gratification, it was prayed that the appellants are innocent and the drastic punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed on them. In view of the present day situation of rampant corruption in public life, the High Court rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal on erring officers. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court as the High Court considered all aspects before imposing such a penalty on the appellants. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 591 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
... ...
... ... ..... owance received by him as a technician was exempt from income-tax as per Notification No. S. O. 143(E) dated February 21, 1989 (see 1989 176 ITR (St.) 132 ). On appeal by the Revenue to the hon’ble Supreme Court the judgment of the High Court was affirmed. In the light of the above discussions we rule on (1) Question No. (b) in AAR No. 562 of 2002, question No. (a) in AAR No. 563 of 2002 and question No. (a) in AAR No. 565 of 2002 that the amounts in question are taxable in India ; (2) Questions Nos. (e) and (f) in AAR No. 562 of 2002, questions Nos. (b) and (c) in AAR No. 563 of 2002 and question No. (b) in AAR No. 565 of 2002 that the amounts specified in the said questions are not taxable in India ; (3) Question No. (e) in AAR No. 563 of 2002 and question No. (d) in AAR No. 565 of 2002 that in view of our rulings on the aforementioned questions, these questions do not arise. Pronounced by the Authority in the presence of the parties on this 18th day of October 2004.
-
2004 (10) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erving remaining period of detention in view of passage of time. As was noticed in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors. (2000 (3) SCC 409), it is for the appropriate State to consider whether the impact of the acts, which led to the order of detention still survives and whether it would be desirable to send back the detenu for serving remainder period of detention. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed within two months by the appellant State. Passage of time in all cases cannot be a ground not to send the detenu to serve remainder of the period of detention. It all depends on the facts of the act and the continuance or otherwise of the effect of the objectionable acts. The State shall consider whether there still exists a proximate temporal nexus between the period of detention indicated in the order by which the detenu was required to be detained and the date when the detenu is required to be detained pursuant to the appellate order. Appeals are allowed.
-
2004 (10) TMI 589 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ring this process the assessee received some dividend. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee is dealing in the transactions which is exempt from tax. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable. If the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee had made investment for the purpose of earning dividend, then onus was on him to prove the same, which the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, I allow the ground of the assessee and delete the addition of ₹ 42,237. 5. Regarding the addition of ₹ 3,500, I found that this amount was paid as additional fee asked by Registrar of Companies. Therefore, the additional fee cannot partake the character of penalty. Fees or additional fees paid to R.O.C. is allowable expenses under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, I delete this addition of ₹ 3,500 also. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (10) TMI 588 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... No. Name of the item Income included under the head ‘other income’ Ruling (Rs.) 4. Hire charges of heavy vehicles 24,713 Should be excluded 5. Medical charges 2,77,011 Liable to be reconsidered by the AO in light of above discussions. 6. Sale of scrap 8,39,021 Liable to be reconsidered by the AO in light of above discussions. Question No. 3 in AAR/533/2001 as follows S. No. Name of the item Income included under the head ‘other income’(Rs.) Ruling 1. Hire charges of machinery 3,80,367 Should be excluded 2. Income from Railway siding 7,18,245 Should be excluded 4. question No. 4 that allowing deduction under section 80-I on further sum of ₹ 51,51,289 in AAR/532/2001 and ₹ 1,21,33,914 in AAR/533/2001 on account of miscellaneous income detailed in column 8 of the applications will abide the result of reconsideration by the Assessing Officer of each item, in light of above discussions, as represented by Ms. Shumana, DCIT before the Authority.
-
2004 (10) TMI 587 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY
Whether the income arising to the American company, a company incorporated in and resident of the USA (referred to above as " the American company" ) from transactions entered into by it with the applicant under the International Transportation Service agreement dated October 30, 2000 would be taxable in India both under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the USA?
-
2004 (10) TMI 586 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... record, the allegations against the respondents could not be said to have been proved much less beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned Single Judge therefore rightly allowed W. P. No. 1767 of 1982 and as a consequence thereof, dismissed W. P. No. 1768 of 1982 as not pressed. We do not find any cause to interfere. The writ appeals fail and they are dismissed." 8. In the instant case, the respondent No. 3 while passing the order was not beyond doubt whether there was short-landing. In case of imposition of penalty, the allegations must be proved beyond and reasonable doubt. Since doubts persisted, penalty could not be imposed. Hence, the respondent No. 3 erred in passing the order under challenge. Thus, the order dated 6.10.95 is set aside and quashed. 9. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties on priority basis.
-
2004 (10) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 to the extent of its retrospective application valid?
-
2004 (10) TMI 584 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal admitted.
-
2004 (10) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of blood stained balwa and tangi upon the disclosure statement of accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala by credible evidence?
Whether the conviction and sentence of appellant, accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala and Silbestor Dungdung are set aside and all of them are acquitted of the charge?
-
2004 (10) TMI 582 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n given, as stated at the Bar by Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, but so far no order is passed by the respondent authority. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Mr.Dave learned counsel for the petitioners agrees to appear in person before the concerned authority in support of his case and requested to grant permission to withdraw this petition to which learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Malkan for the respondents has no objection. The petitioners or their representative may personally remain present before the concerned authority at first instance on 22.11.2004. On that day the concerned authority i.e. Commissioner, Central Excuse and Customs, Surat-II may fix the date of hearing and after hearing the parties, including the petitioners, he may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, permission to withdraw this petition is granted. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.
........
|
