|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 553 Records
-
2004 (6) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... , the reversal of the conviction on that count cannot be sustained. Therefore it has to be found that the 1st respondent had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Of course, in doing so, the 1st respondent did not have a dishonest intention to attract Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the reversal of conviction under Section 420 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge has to be upheld. 8. In terms of the recent amendment introduced in Section 147 of the Act, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In such circumstances, as it has been disclosed that the 1st respondent had paid the amount and that the appellant's counsel before the court below had received the amount, it shall have to be taken by reason of the conduct of the parties that they have compounded the offence. Necessarily, though there is conviction, no sentence shall follow. The appeal is closed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 642
... ...
... ... ..... onally, much less any factual foundation has been laid to invoke the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. Hence it is not necessary to dilate on the said principle any further. 14. In view of the above discussion, Special Civil Application No. 3103 of 1991 is rejected since the constitutional validity of sub-section (4A) of Section 47 of the Gujarat Sales-tax Act, 1969 is already upheld in the case of Ashapura Mineral Company vs. State of Gujarat Ors. (1993) 89 STC 289. Rule is discharged. Similar prayer made in Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1991 is also rejected. 15. However, Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1991 and 7578 of 1991 are allowed to the extent that the respondents are restrained from proceeding against the petitioners or their personal properties for recovery of the sales-tax dues of the respective Companies in which they are Directors. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only in the said two petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (6) TMI 641
... ...
... ... ..... re considered an amount of Rs. 1,38,115 as explained whereas balance of Rs. 35,000 was not accepted as genuine. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed by the addition. 11. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the assessee s explanation with regard to receipt of Rs. 96,000 as from different persons (to whom the assessee had claimed to have given loans previously) was properly analyzed by the authorities and it was only after assessee s failure to substantiate the receipt of Rs. 20,000 from Nitin Jain and of Rs. 15,000 from Sh. N.K. Pokharial that the addition was made. Since the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim of having received back the amount of Rs. 20,000 from Nitin Jain and of Rs. 15,000 from N.K. Pokharial, the CIT(A) was quite justified in confirming the addition. Order of the CIT(A) on this point is confirmed. 12. In the result assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 640
... ...
... ... ..... ne equally by the Minister concerned and the Director of Consumer Goods personally. As the order impugned is the outcome of extra statutory process resorted to by the Minister, and accepted by the Director without any protest, the public exchequer cannot be saddled with the liability of the consequences, arising thereof. 34. The petitioners are also at liberty to file separate suit against those respondents for recovery of damages actually suffered by them for the aforesaid ultra vires actions of the respondents. Later 35. The records of the case, kept in the safe custody of the Registrar, Original Side, be returned to the learned Advocate for the State respondents. 36. After this order is passed Ms. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, prays for stay of operation of the order. In view of what have been stated above, I refuse such prayer. 37. Xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties by June 11, 2004, if applied for.
-
2004 (6) TMI 639
... ...
... ... ..... individual to go abroad. Of course, steps have necessarily to be taken that a citizen abides by the undertaking of returning to the country given by him. It is this course, which is to be adopted in this case instead of declining permission to go abroad. Impugned order Annexure P-6, dated 25.5.2004 is, thus, set aside. The petitioner is permitted to go abroad for a month, as asked for by him, but on the condition that he will give an undertaking before the trial Judge that he would be present to face trial after a month from the date he goes abroad, as and when the same is fixed and in that connection, learned trial Judge would ensure that sufficient and proper security is taken from the petitioner so that he is unable to avoid the court proceedings. On the undertaking, as mentioned above, and on furnishing the security, as may be ordered, to the satisfaction of the trial Judge, the petitioner shall be allowed to go abroad for a month. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (6) TMI 638
... ...
... ... ..... the other points argued by Mr. U.N. Bacchawat because if it is so done, it will have the effect of making observations or giving findings which will affect the rights and title of the parties, including that of the State and may also affect the said LPA. This Court, therefore, directs that notwithstanding the order of remand being passed herein, the Circle Officer and/or other revenue authorities shall await the verdict of the said LPA and shall proceed only thereafter. (5) (P) Let it be recorded that even the learned Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand has argued and submitted that the relevant statutory provisions namely Sections 12 and 14 had not been complied with. Thus, it is only on the aforementioned short points, that this Court refrains from interfering with the order of the Commissioner. The writ petition must, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to act as per the directions made above. They shall suffer their own costs.
-
2004 (6) TMI 637
... ...
... ... ..... ened the provisions of Central Excise Rules. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, 1999 (66) ECC 40 (SC) 1999 (112) ELT 772 (SC) that "apart from the offending goods which are liable to confiscation, the person concerned with that, shall be liable to penalty upto the amount specified in the Rule. It is difficult to accept the arguments of the appellant that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. Both things are necessary - (1) goods are liable to confiscation, (2) person concerned is liable to penalty." 6. We, therefore, hold that merely because they had paid the entire amount of duty on the inputs found short, does not absolve them from their liability to penalty. The penalty is, therefore, imposable. However, interest of justice will be met if penalty of ₹ 15,000 is imposed on them. We order, accordingly. The Appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2004 (6) TMI 636
... ...
... ... ..... losses incurred by it. They also submit that issues involved in all these appeals are common, and as the matter is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, which could be decided there, all these appeals may be disposed of accordingly. 3. AS stated and as agreed by the parties, it is not necessary to go into the issue as the matter is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. In view of the above submission, these appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (6) TMI 635
... ...
... ... ..... riate case, I pass the following order - a) Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. In view thereof, this Court cannot go into merits of the case in the light of the grounds raised in the petition. b) In view of dismissal of the main petition on the ground of maintainability Notices of Motion No. 933 of 2004 and 732 of 2004 do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. c) All interim orders to stand vacated. 41. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners applies for continuation of interim orders in the above Notices of Motion for a period of four weeks from today to enable petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings to challenge this order. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 opposes this request. In my view, considering that interim order in the Notices of Motion was passed on 5th March, 2004 in the interest of justice, the said order should continue for a period of two weeks. Certified copy expedited. 42. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 634
... ...
... ... ..... that the petition is not maintainable under section 111A(3) as the petitioners do not fall under anyone of the five categories, i.e., depository, company, participant, investors or SEBI. As such, the petition is not maintainable under the provisions of section 111A(3) and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. There are no orders as to cost. Note After this order had been dictated, it was brought to my notice that the learned counsel for petitioners has filed an affidavit dated 7th April, 2004 on behalf of respondent-company which was received in CLB on 13th April, 2004 seeking respondent-company to transpose it as the petitioner in this petition. This affidavit has been filed after more than one and half months after the hearing concluded. It seems to be after thought on the part of the petitioners to throttle the proceedings with the sole object of defeating the right of respondent No. 2 who had provided inter-corporate loan. I have not taken into account this affidavit.
-
2004 (6) TMI 633
... ...
... ... ..... hanna v. Raj Kumar Kapoor, 1983 (54) Comp. Cases Delhi should have been followed and the notice should have been sent through Registered AD. I, therefore, hold the AGM of the respondent company held on 30.9.2003 as illegal and set aside the same. The respondents are directed to hold the AGM again after issuing appropriate notice through Regd. A.D. 13. In order to settle the matter, I am of the view that petitioners should be given an option to go out of the company on return of their investment in the shares, of the company after completing the formalities. In case the petitioners are willing to part with their shares, then the company/respondent should purchase their shares at the fair price to be valued by a velour to be appointed by this Board on the basis of balance sheet of the respondent company for the year ending 31.3.2002 The petitioner may file an application to this effect. 14. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. There are no orders as to cost.
-
2004 (6) TMI 632
... ...
... ... ..... lications under Section 8 were rejected. However, in Hind Samachar case, the Punjab and Haryana High court has held that the matters in a petition under Section 397/398 cannot be referred to arbitration. Thus, examining the present case in any manner, I find that there is no scope to refer the parties to arbitration. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 9. The respondents will file their replies to the petition by 30.6.2004 and rejoinder, if any will be filed by 20.7.2004. The petition will be heard on 17th August at 2.30 p.m. Note After this order had been dictated, it was brought to my notice that the respondents have filed an application seeking for dismissal of the petition and also the instant application on the ground that the petitioner has already sold its shares to a third party and as such it has ceased to be a shareholder of the company and therefore this petition itself is not maintainable. This application will, be heard separately on a day to be notified.
-
2004 (6) TMI 631
... ...
... ... ..... tioned by the petitioner While holding that the Court cannot interfere with the commercial judgment of the Board, but considering the fact that the Board had only one director, it directed him to purchase the shares held by the petitioner. Thus, this case also has no application in the present case. Thus, on an over all assessment of the allegations, I find that the petitioner has not established that by the single act of lending money and violating the provisions of certain Sections of the Act in the year 2000-2001, the company is being managed in a manner either oppressive to its shareholders or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or to public interest and that the situation in the company warrants appointment of government directors. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the Board of Directors of the company to take all steps available in law to get back the amount of ₹ 28 crores from M/Classic Credit Ltd at the earliest.
-
2004 (6) TMI 630
... ...
... ... ..... be entitled to do so by following the procedure known to law. However, as the matter stands today, the respondents have not been able to make out any case for withholding the passport of the petitioner. Being so, the petitioner is entitled for the direction for return of the passport, albeit with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action as regards the passport, if there is any ground for the same and in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. In the result, therefore, on the limited ground mentioned above, the petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to return the passport to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. At the same time, liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, if so required, in relation to the passport in accordance with the provisions of law. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Office to issue forthwith the true copy of this order on payment of usual charges. Petition succeeds.
-
2004 (6) TMI 629
... ...
... ... ..... tisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Thus, the impugned penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Super Steel Metal Re-Rollers 2004 265 ITR 82 Delhi wherein it has stated as follows "A bare reading of the provisions of section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear that it is the assessing authority which has to form its own opinion and record its satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings. Merely because the penalty proceedings have been initiated, it cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at in the absence of the same spelt out by the order of the assessing authority." 9. In view of what has been stated above, we directed to cancel the penalty imposed and sustained under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 628
... ...
... ... ..... ot be treated as consumer goods, which were restricted for import. 2. We have perused the records and heard the learned DR also. The restriction during the relevant period was in regard to import of consumer goods. Any capital goods whether for production or service were eligible for unrestricted import. The item in question cannot be considered consumer goods at all. In these circumstances, the action taken by the lower authorities in confiscating the goods can not be justified. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Fines and penalties paid by the appellants shall be returned to them immediately. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court on 8.6.2004.
-
2004 (6) TMI 627
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal E/983/97 o p /o p 9. Modvat credit on electrical insulating, fitting, electrical transformer and electrical wires and cables, and material handling equipment has been allowed by the Commissioner. This is being challenged by the Revenue. For the reasons given in para 4 above, we hold that modvat credit on these items is admissible. o p /o p 10. In view of what has been discussed, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms and the Department's appeal is rejected along with the cross objection filed by the assessee. o p /o p Appeal E/3640/98 o p /o p 11. This is a Revenue appeal. o p /o p 12. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal (Order No. 473 to 475-CE/BPL/98 dated 6.8.1998), insofar as it related to allowing credit on cables under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. As discussed in para 4 hereinabove, we hold that the credit on cables is admissible. The appeal of the Revenue is rejected. o p /o p
-
2004 (6) TMI 626
... ...
... ... ..... otherwise be bound by his own order and not expected to be aggrieved by the same. When an appeal is filed on such direction, the appellant will be the adjudicating authority himself and not the authority who gave the direction." This may not amount to discendi pleaded by the Ld. D.R., but this para in the Supreme Court's decision cannot be ignored. Even obiters of Supreme Court would be binding. We find therefore no reasons to uphold the plea being made of referring the matter to the Larger Bench in view of the decisions relied by DR, since they were arrivedat without the benefit of the decision in M. Rubber Co. 5. In this view of the matter, when we find that there is no material to sustain the revenue's case on merits, and there is no reason for us to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, as pleaded, we would uphold the order as arrived at by the learned Commissioner(Appeals), The appeals being bereft of any merits are therefore dismissed, Pronounced in Court.
-
2004 (6) TMI 625
... ...
... ... ..... and 2(n) of the Act. As no transaction of sale was involved there could be no levy of tax under the provisions of the Act on the supply of refreshments and preparations by each one of the clubs to its members.” 16. The principle of mutuality in this case is also squarely applicable, as going by the definitions of mandap, mandap keeper and the taxable service, in this case the facility of use of the premises to the members by its club cannot be termed to be a letting out nor the members of the club using the facility of any portion of the premises for any function can be termed to be a client. The services rendered by any person to his client presupposes the element of commerciality and obviously this transaction must be involved with the third parties, as opposed to the members of the club. 17. Thus, I allow the writ petition consequently I set aside and quash the notices and the registration certificate. 18. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (6) TMI 624
... ...
... ... ..... r on examination of such material decided and allowed the claim of the assessee it cannot be said that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue merely because in the order elaborate discussion is not made on certain points. In the case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers 2002 124 Taxman 615 (Guj.), it was held that since material was there on record and the said material was considered by the ITO, the mere fact that a different view can be taken should not be the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. 26. On the basis of discussion made above, I am unable to uphold the finding of the learned CIT that the order of assessment passed in this case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, various grounds taken by the assessee to assail the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act are allowed and consequently, the order is quashed. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
