|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 608 Records
-
2004 (7) TMI 646 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed as withdrawn. There is other objection to the proposed scheme of arrangement. It may be pointed out that in the reply filed by the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs some objection was raised as stipulated in In the aforesaid circumstances and having regard to the averments made in this petition and the materials placed on record and the affidavits filed by the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Kanpur, and the Official Liquidator, I am satisfied that the prayers made in the petition deserve to be allowed. I also do not find any legal impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation. Hence, sanction is hereby granted to the above-mentioned Scheme of Amalgamation under Section 391(2) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Consequent upon the amalgamation of the companies, the Transferor Companies shall stand dissolved without the process of winding up. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
-
2004 (7) TMI 645 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oods and office equipment for the factory of the associate/supporting manufacturer/job worker of the petitioner Company is concerned. para 36.3 We also record the clarification that the exports effected by a non status holder (without any export performance in the year previous to 2003-04) through a status holder with 25 incremental growth of exports are eligible for the benefits under the Special Scheme irrespective of the fact that such exporters did not have any incremental growth in exports obviously because they had made no exports in the previous years in the first place. para 14.4 . We also reiterate the clarifications made in paras 37.4 and 40 of this judgment. 42. Subject to the above findings and clarifications given in this judgement, the rest of the prayers made by the petitioners are hereby rejected. 43. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid limited extent as indicated above. For rest of the prayers, Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 644 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 643 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rder on the eligibility to claim for concessional rate of Customs duty under Tariff Item 9801.00 as project imports and the quantum of value of offshore services contract to be added to the declared value of the equipments under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Appeal Nos. C/519/2000 and C/520/2000 52. For the reasons we have already recorded while considering Appeal No. C/601/2000, we agree with the view taken by the Commissioner that the imports relating to SPM system are to be treated as Project Import under 9801.00 entitling concessional rate of duty. The direction given by the Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner for further investigation is vacated. The Assistant Commissioner will proceed to finalize the provisional assessments on the above basis. 53. In the result, Appeal No. C/601/2001 filed by DPC stands partly allowed. Appeal No. C/519/2000 filed by DPC is allowed and the Appeal No. C/520/2000 filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 642 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2004 (7) TMI 641 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mathur, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 640 - SUPREME COURT
During what period prayer for police custody can be made?
What is scope and ambit of Section 49(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short the 'POTA')?
-
2004 (7) TMI 639 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... o reason to interfere The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (i) Oudh Sugar Mills 1978 (2) ELT J-172 (SC), (ii) AIR 1959(SC) 539, (iii) 1981 (9) ELT J-184 (Mad.) & (iv) S31 TR 508(Ker.), had come to a conclusion that the case made out by the Revenue of unaccounted production by basing calculation on atheoretical consumption of the main ingredients in the medicament,was not sustainable. 3. The ground taken by the Revenue in the appeal did not challenge these findings of the Commissioner that mere is no evidence of clandestine removal and also that merely relying upon the calculations, no duty demands could be made on an assumption and presumption of clandestine manufacture and clearance thereof. In fact, on a perusal of the grounds taken in the present appeal, it is found that there is no challenge to the reasons for dropping the demands as arrived at by the Commissioner. We find no merits in the present appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. 4. Appeal dismissed. Pronounced in Court.
-
2004 (7) TMI 637 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mathur, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the land and building of a daily market owned by a Municipality or a Gram Panchayat where notified agricultural produces are bought and sold is liable to be transferred to the Market Committee, if requisition therefor is made?
-
2004 (7) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said section. To put it differently, the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account." emphasis supplied 4.4 In the light of the ratio laid down in Apollo Tyres Ltd.’s case (supra) we have no hesitation to hold that once the balance sheet is certified by the authorities under the Companies Act, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to go into the net profit shown in the profit and loss account as reflexed in the balance sheet. 4.5 The core contention of the appellant that the assessee is entitled for depreciation only from the date of installation of usage in respect of additions to fixed assets, but not for the whole year, therefore, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised for consideration are answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 634 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 01 (134) E.L.T. 451 and in the case of Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. CC, Kochi, 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1363. In the case of Carrier Aircon Limited the Tribunal has found that the prime function of chillers being to produce chilled water for using a refrigeration circuit, it is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.18 which covers “refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, ......... other than air-conditioning machines of Heading No. 84.15” and not under Heading 84.15 which covers “air-conditioning machines, comprising a motor driven fan ……..” The present case involves similar function of chilling water for injection moulding machines, drying machines, chemical plant, etc. for process cooling. The ratio of the above decisions is therefore squarely applicable to the present case and following the ratio thereof we uphold the order of the lower appellate authority and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2004 (7) TMI 633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the supply of goods. The aforesaid revision was connected with the S.T.R. No. 1184 of 1993 and S.T.R. No. 1187 of 1993. The office has reported that both the revisions have already been decided. The counsel for the applicant placed the judgment of revision No. 1187 of 1993. The sales tax revision was filed by M/s. National Kisan Industries. This court without any discussion has remanded the matter with the following observation After going through the records in my view this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal for recording a fresh finding of fact, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The aforesaid short order is not at all helpful for deciding the controversy involved in the present revision. In the result the revision is allowed in part. The dealer is liable to pay sales tax only on the amount of the turnover with regard to the sales made to U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 632 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... utensils and appliances made other than of iron. On a plain reading of entry No. 44 of the aforesaid notification it is not possible to hold that kitchen utensils and appliances, other than made of iron are also covered by the aforesaid entry. Thus 39 tin tray 39 is an unclassified item. The Tribunal has not recorded any such finding that tin tray is a classified item. . The dealer has also treated tin tray as an unclassified item and therefore realised tax from the purchasers at the rate of eight per cent as noticed in the assessment order itself. In the result, the order of the Tribunal as indicated above cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside, so far as it relates to the question of taxability of tin tray is concerned. The rest part of the order of the Tribunal is not subject-matter of the present revision. In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal as indicated above is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored back.
-
2004 (7) TMI 631 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal that the watches were transferred by the dealer to Delhi Head Office in pursuance of the prior purchase orders from M/s. Shifco Ltd. The said finding is a finding of fact and is based on the material found at the time of survey dated November 23, 1981. Therefore the dealer-applicant cannot claim parity with the earlier assessment year 1980-81. In the relevant assessment year the department has found certain material and has proved central sales with the help of the material collected by it in the survey dated November 23, 1981. The appellate authority for the earlier assessment year 1980-81 had accepted the case of the dealer with regard to the stock transfer and the said order was set aside by the Tribunal. However, for the assessment year 1981-82 even the first appellate authority held that it was not a case of stock transfer on the basis of the material found in the aforesaid survey. In the result there is no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 630 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be showing it separately in the sale invoices/bills such amount of tax, is not collected by him as an agent of the State. Therefore, even if the bill or voucher issued to the purchaser indicates the amount of entry tax collected separately, what is collected by the dealer from the purchaser is not a tax but a part of the sale price charged by the dealer to the purchaser. In view of the above discussions, in our opinion, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained for the reason that it has erroneously decided the question of law raised and canvassed before it. In the result, these revision petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly they are allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 427 of 1997 dated November 30, 1998 and in STA Nos. 220 and 221 of 1999 dated October 25, 1999 respectively are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (7) TMI 629 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plications and direct the Tribunal, i.e., Board of Revenue (now called as M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board) to refer the case to this court under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 on the question referred infra Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no entry tax is payable on the purchase of plant and machinery even after March 31, 1995 particularly in view of amendment of section 2(bb) of Entry Tax Act with effect from April 1, 1995? Let the statement of case be submitted to this court by the Appellate Board in each case on the basis of facts involved in particular case with specific details of orders passed by the authorities in that case on the question referred supra within 3 months. The registry to forward copy of this order to Appellate Board to enable them to make reference as directed. Let copy of this order be kept in the file of each case and be treated as part of that case. No costs.
-
2004 (7) TMI 628 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n is taken in the matter of assessment as directed hereinabove. So far as the penalty is concerned, the petitioner has also got a case that the question regarding the exigibility to entry tax on these items was the subject-matter of litigation and so far as JCB loader is concerned, it was settled only by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bose Abraham 39 s case 2001 121 STC 614 2001 1 KLT 730. In view of the direction already issued the respondent will proceed with exhibit P5 only after a decision is taken regarding the assessment and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions regarding the exigibility to penalty with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore 1980 45 STC 197. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C. M. P. No. 36333 of 2000 in O. P. No. 21633 of 2000 is dismissed.
-
2004 (7) TMI 627 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me was taken into account by the Superintendent of Taxes behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, on both count, i.e., (1) nonconsideration of the returns submitted by the petitioner along with the sale statement and (2) consideration of the report of the Inspector of Taxes without furnishing the copy of the same to the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the impugned assessment order dated March 11, 1994 is not sustainable. In such a situation this court is left with no option than to set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 11, 1994 and consequential action and payment of tax. The Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati Unit-A to take fresh decision on the basis of the available materials on record by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner in the matter. This shall be done within a period of 3 months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order by the petitioner to the said authority. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
........
|
