|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 772 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 873 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es to demand proof of licit origin from a person in possession of the goods and on the failure to establish it, to draw the inference that the goods must have been illicitly imported.” 2. The bare reading of the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act clearly shows that burden of proof is on the person having possession of the goods but only if the goods are specified goods under that Act import of which is not permissible or is permissible with sanction of the authorities and in accordance with law. In the present case, it is not disputed before us that goods in question, i.e., ball bearing is not a specified item under Section 123 of the Act. As such, the burden was on the Department to show that the goods were smuggled in the country. Having failed to discharge their onus, the mere suspicion could not take place of proof and it is so rightly been concluded by the Appellate Authority. 3. There is no merit in the appeal. 4. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 872 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e society engaged in- (i) to (iii) (iv)the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agricultural for the purpose of supplying them to its members." 9. Thus, the interpretation placed by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable for interpreting the provision of clause (iv). 10. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the apex society supplied/sold gypsum, seeds and fertilizers to its members. These goods were intended for agricultural purposes and, therefore, benefit of section 80P(2)(iv) of the Act was available. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 12. We accordingly answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Article 14 of the Constitution. For this reason, the petitioner cannot succeed in relation to the decision as regards the Chittorgarh tender. We, Therefore, dismiss WP 18680-81/2004. 60. In view of the findings and conclusions reached by us as regards the interpretation of the experience criteria in the tender, as well as the fact that the NHAI cannot refuse to give effect to the certificates issued by it, the petitioners are entitled to relief in WP 18730-31/2004. We accordingly direct the respondents to process the pre-eligibility application/ bid of the petitioners, in relation to the East-West Corridor tender (which is subject matter of these proceedings) by inter alias taking into consideration the experience certificates relied upon by them, and proceed further, if their bids/ applications fulfill other requirements. 61. The writ petitions and all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of in view of the light of the above orders, with no orders as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 870 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring the accused No.1 appellant herein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for setting aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court of issuance of process and the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and of the Magistrate. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the question of inordinate latches on the part of the complainant himself. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any good reasons to maintain the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court confirming the orders of the Magistrate. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.02.2004 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 932/2000 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is set aside.
-
2005 (2) TMI 869 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... E.Vahanvati, SG , Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv., Mr. Preetesh, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(Civil) No. 25635 of 2004.
-
2005 (2) TMI 868 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... procedure for trial of warrant cases by Magistrate as laid down under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not at all applicable to trial of the cases before the Special Court under the provisions of the Act. Viewed in this perspective I find that the contention raised by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner regarding applicability of the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report, as laid down under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure to trial of the instant case before the Special Court under the Act is devoid of merit. 9. For the foregoing reasons I find no ground to interfere with the order impugned. There being no merit in the revision application, the same is bound to fail. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Court below forthwith. 11. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
-
2005 (2) TMI 866 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the present case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting an addition of ₹ 1,22,13,750/- (or such other amount as computed by A.O. Received in cash by the assessee) made by the Assessing Officer on account of booking of vehicles in the bogus names and premium on sale of these vehicles?” Paper books be filed within time as per rules. To be heard in regular course.
-
2005 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... O has already allowed claim for depreciation in full, then the direction given by the learned CIT(A) to the AO to allow full depreciation is not perverse or uncalled for. Ground fails. 74. Ground No. 1(ix) relates to deletion of addition of ₹ 20,77,406 made by the AO towards machinery spares and repairs and identical issue was before the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for asst. yr. 1990-91 and Tribunal vide its order dt. 23rd Dec, 1993 in ITA No. 1288/All/1993 has already decided this issue in favour of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) has also taken note of the fact. As the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of the Tribunal, there is no infirmity in the order and we also confirm the view taken by the learned CIT(A) which is based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for just preceding year. 75. Ground Nos. 1(x) and (xi) are already discussed in ground Nos. 1 to 1(v) above. 76. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 864 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is allowed time till 31.12.2005 for vacating the suit premises, subject to the following conditions - (i) that the appellant shall clear all the arrears of rent (calculated upto the date of deposit) at the rate of ₹ 700/- per month, on or before 31st March, 2005, by depositing the same in the executing court; (ii) with effect from 1st April, 2005 the appellant shall continue to deposit rent calculated at the rate of ₹ 700/- per month on or before 15th day of each month for payment to landlord; (iii) on or before 31st December, 2005, the appellant shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession over the suit premises to the landlord and shall not in-between part with possession to anyone else or create third party interest; (iv) that an undertaking on affidavit, incorporating the above said terms, shall be filed in the executing court on or before 31.3.2005. No order as to the costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 863 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 32A of the Act on the value of the plant and machinery leased by assessee company?" 2. As far as question no. 1 is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the issue is covered by judgment of Division Bench of our Court in CIT v. Aorow India Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 325 (Bom.). In view thereof, the first question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As far as the third question is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the question is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC). In view thereof, the third question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2005 (2) TMI 862 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... also, while his records would show that the amount received was much less. It is being submitted that there was actually no short payment; but only higher figures being mentioned in the return by mistake. The appellant also submits that his office record would bear this out and he had explained the position before the lower authorities also. According to the appellant, no penalty was required to be imposed since the delay in making the payment was only on account of error made in the entries in the half yearly return and not on account of any concealing of receipts to evade tax. 5. A perusal of the record would show that the short levy demand has been made based on the entries made in the return filed by the appellant himself for the half year October, 2000 to March, 2001. There is no other evidence indicative of suppression of receipt. In these circumstances, imposition of penalty was not justified. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
-
2005 (2) TMI 861 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a Division Bench of this Court in Kurian Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1990 (1) KLT 14 and held that in the case of arrears of due any transaction effected to get over the recovery proceedings would be illegal. The said decision was followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 1998 (2) KLJ212. The learned Judge held that eventhough the transfer of the property is effected much before the service of demand on the defaulter, still if the transfer is effected to a close relative and it would be a transfer with intend to defeat or delay the creditors unless the contrary is proved. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that Exts.P1 and P2 were executed to defeat the claim of the sales tax authorities as against the defaulter. Section 26A of the K.G.S.T. Act has given ample power to the assessing authorities to proceed against the properties as well. Under such circumstance the Writ Petition lacks merits and the same would stand dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 860 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pecial features which would have made the case of Yogendra Pal clearly distinguishable. We need not go into the question about the applicability of Yogendra Pal’s case (supra) on the sole ground that there was no challenge to the policy decision in the petition filed before the Tribunal or before the High Court. Therefore, it was not open to the High Court to dismiss the application on the additional ground that the policy decision was unconstitutional, overlooking the fact that the respondentapplicant was seeking relief under the policy decision. We have, therefore, not expressed any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the policy decision providing for 10 special quota to a particular group of candidates. We set aside that part of the order of the High Court which invalidates the policy decision. Other part of the order which deals with lack of merits stands affirmed as there is no challenge to it by the respondent. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 859 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s interest on borrowed capital deductible from income from house property under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The issue raised in this question had come up for consideration by this Court in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma 2002 254 ITR 1031, wherein it was held that the interest portion on the instalments paid to the Notified Area Committee is allowable as a deduction under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The action of the Tribunal, in allowing the relief to the assessee is, therefore, in conformity with the decision in Sunil Kumar Sharma’s case (supra). Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 858 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty and the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - 251 ITR 99, wherein the Supreme Court after distinguishing Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd.’s case - 1987 168 ITR 705, and after noticing the Explanation appended to Sec.271 of the Act, had held that if an addition is made and if there is no proper explanation for such addition, it would amount to concealment of income and the authorities under the Act are justified in levying penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 19. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudadnan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - 251 ITR 99, we are of the opinion that the question of law referred for our opinion requires to be answered in the negative. 20. In view of the above, the question of law referred by the Tribunal is answered in the negative i.e in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... than and was going to Uttaranchal and was not intended for import inside the State of U.P. The provision of Section 28-A of the Act is not applicable. The inference of an intent to evade tax is based on suspicion and merely on surmises and conjectures and on irrelevant consideration. Therefore, the check post officer has erred in refusing to issue transit pass and seizing the goods and the Tribunal has erred in confirming the seizure of the goods. 9. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2005 and the seizure order are quashed. Check post officer is directed to release the goods and to issue transit pass forthwith. Check post officer is also liable to cost for the arbitrary seizure of the goods, which caused harassment and financial loss. The cost is assessed to ₹ 10,000/-. which is payable to the applicant within a period of one month. This Court be informed about the compliance of the order. 10. List on 14.03.2005 for compliance report.
-
2005 (2) TMI 856 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... med. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. Hence, it is clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate re-assessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion." (p. 2) 5. In CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries 1989 180 ITR 3191 , a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal cancelling the order of re-assessment on the premise that the grounds on which the proceedings for re-assessment were initiated were non-existent. 6. Following the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (2) TMI 855 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We may make it clear that from the order of the assessing authority as also the Tribunal it is not clear as to whether the amount of interest claimed had accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question or whether it related to the liability of interest of earlier years also. It is made clear that only that amount of interest which accrued during the previous year in question is liable to be allowed. So far as second question is concerned, we find that this Court in ITR No. 196 of 1985 decided on 30-9-2004 which is inter parties had answered the similar question in favour of the assessee. 4. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 3,96,000 out of the payment of interest. We accordingly, answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 854 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... uction under section 80P(2) as allowed in the assessment order and penalty shall be computed only in regard to the remaining amount. While doing so, the Assessing Officer shall allow a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. I order accordingly. This ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed. The same view was also taken in the case of Star Co-operative Society (supra) and the decision in that case equally applies to the facts of the present case. 6.2 However, before parting, I would like to mention that the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Charanjit Singh Samrala v. ITO IT Appeal No. 234 (Chd.) of 1999 for the assessment year 1996-97 is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in the assessment order itself. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.3 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 853 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... judgments and orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner are set aside; and these appeals are remitted to the Commissioner, Mumbai for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. All contentions on both sides are kept open. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
