|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 772 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 852 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mer. It was true that without payment of the ‘Dharmada’ amount the customer might not be able to purchase the goods from the respondent but that did not make the payment of ‘Dharmada’ involuntary inasmuch as it was out of his own volition that he purchased yarn or cotton from the respondent. The ‘Dharmada’ amount was, therefore, not a part of the price, but a payment for the specific purpose of being spent on charitable purposes." (p. 61) 6. In CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (No. 1) 1995 212 ITR 420 , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court approved the view taken by the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal that the receipt on account of charity collected did not constitute business income of the assessee. 7. Following the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. The reference is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
-
2005 (2) TMI 851 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay in filing the special leave petition should be condoned and it is ordered accordingly. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent herein submitted that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to file this appeal. We fail to see how an aggrieved complainant who was a respondent before the High Court and has suffered an adverse order, which according to us cannot be sustained; can be prevented from agitating his grievance by way of this appeal. Hence we reject this contention. The other arguments of the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent in this appeal being similar to the one addressed by Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent in the above said connected appeal, we reject the same for the very same reasons recorded herein above. For the reasons stated in Criminal appeal No. 964 of 2002 and the additional reasons recorded in this appeal, this appeal also succeeds and is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 850 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax, who found that the payments of local sales tax and Central sales tax had been made in the first month of the next accounting year, i.e., within the statutory period as per the sales tax law. He accordingly deleted the disallowance/addition of ₹ 54,599 which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for revenue. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent. 5. We find that Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1997 224 ITR 677 has held that where amount of tax collected during the last month of the accounting year is paid to the State Government within the stipulated period in the first month of the next assessment year the same is allowable. We accordingly answer the question of law 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 849 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... chedule to the Presidential Order issued for such Union territory. The U.T. of Pondicherry having adopted a policy of Central Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the same cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law. o p /o p 22. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that there has been no violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision in making selection and appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained and has to be set aside. o p /o p 23. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside. o p /o p
-
2005 (2) TMI 848 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this Court. This Court in Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 525 (Three-Judge Bench) upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that the products in question are animal feed supplements and that the animal feed supplements were rightly included in Tariff Item 23.02 being preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dogs and cats food. The Bench has agreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal that even food supplements like the products of the respondents therein which are used in animals feeding would fall under Heading 23.02 This Court while affirming the decision of the Tribunal dismissed the civil appeals. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the contentions in the civil appeal are apparently contrary to the stand taken by the Department in the circulars mentioned supra and we, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal as bereft of any merits. However, we say no costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be other lubricating oils which may fall in the residuary heading "others". The sub-heading 2710.60 significantly uses two expressions. They are (i) "that is to say" and (ii) "excluding". The first expression is used in description, enumerative and exhaustive sense and to a great extent circumscribes the scope of the entry. But the second expression dilutes the pervasiveness by carving out an exception for the purpose of the particular sub-heading a particular type of lubricating oil. All other types of lubricating oil are covered by the residuary entry i.e. 2710.99. Under the Notification 120/84CE lubricating oil was exempted without reference to any tariff heading/sub-heading. Consequently, the criteria specified in the Notification were satisfied. That being so, majority view contained in the order of the CEGAT is not sustainable and is set aside. The minority view as expressed is confirmed. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 846 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... registration at the place where the service provided. Therefore, the contention of the applicants is not tenable. No other issue is raised before us and no financial hardships have been pleaded before us. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it is not a fit case for waiver of amount of service tax and applicants are directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 2.5 crores for hearing of the appeal. On making pre-deposit of the above mentioned amount, pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty amounts for hearing of the appeal will be waived and recovery is stayed till the pendency of the appeal. At this stage the applicants made a request to withdraw the amount deposited in the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 17-1-2005, the applicants are directed to withdraw the amount, with due permission, from the Hon’ble High Court and deposit the amount as stated above and report compliance on 12-4-2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 845 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the nature of ‘Consultancy’ to their clients. The learned Counsel relies on this Bench judgment (Stay Order No. 1085/2004, dated 21-10-2004) rendered in the case of Araco Corpn. v. CCE. He submits that this matter can be heard without clubbing with other matter as it is different from the other matter. He submits that the Board Circular No. B2/8/2004-TRU, dated 10-9-2004 brings the appellants within the Service Tax net with effect from 10-9-2004 and hence the earlier period of this matter is not covered by the Act. 2. Heard the learned SDR in the matter. 3. Prima facie, we find that the appellant’s contention is required to be accepted in view of this Bench earlier in the case of Arco Corpn. (supra) and the Board Circular No. B2/8/2004-TRU, dated 10-9-2004. Therefore, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amounts and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal to come up for hearing on 7-3-2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 844 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have a perception that what he is vending is an item of dry vegetable. It would be more reasonable to assume that a vendor of Soya Nuggets understands his business to be one of sale of a vegetarian food item. The common parlance test and a common-sense approach coupled with the peculiar characteristics of the product in question seems to be more reasonably pointing to the direction of Soya Nuggets being an item of vegetarian food and not an item of dry vegetable. 6. In the light of the foregoing discussions what this Court finds is that there is sufficient justification in the stand of the revenue that Soya Nuggets would not be classifiable under Item 1(b) of Schedule II but would more appropriately fall under the Residuary Item contained in Serial No. 2 of Schedule III to the Act. The writ petition, therefore, has to fail in the light of the conclusions recorded above. Accordingly, it is dismissed, however, without any cost. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.
-
2005 (2) TMI 843 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n India, and in terms of article 7 of the DTAA. It is an admitted position that S&P does not have a PE in India. In this view of the matter, the credit rating fees received by S&P was not liable to be taxed in India. We may also mention that, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT 2004 90 ITD 793 /83 TTJ (Mum.) 325, in a case the foreign recipient of an income is held to not liable to tax in respect of a certain income, the payer can also not be saddled with the tax deduction at source liability in respect of the related remittance. 6. For the reasons set out above, we hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source in respect of payment US 72,000 made to M/s. Standard & Poor (Australia) (P.) Ltd., for corporate credit rating of the appellant-company. We, therefore, vacate the orders of the authorities below holding assessee liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 842 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... espect of the mark the brand name in question. It is not in dispute that the registration if genuine covers the entire period in question. It is being made clear that if subsequently it is found that this is an incorrect statement made by the respondent, it will be open to the learned counsel for the appellant to draw the same to our attention. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 841 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ll be the amount which bears to be the profit of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover of the business bears to the total turnover. The profits of the business has been defined in Explanation (baa) and means profits of the business as computed under the head ‘profits and gains of business’. As such any disallowance or addition made to the business income shall increase the profit and gains of the business and deduction under section 80HHC will be computed on the basis of such assessed income as that is the income which has been computed by the Assessing Officer under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to the assessee under section 80HHC on the basis of profits and gains of business as finally assessed after taking into consideration the additions made in the assessment." 3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 840 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it has been mentioned that the order of the assessment made by the ITO merges in the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner only insofar as it relates to the item considered and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of our finding that in the present case the question of undisclosed purchases of zeera is concerned, it was considered and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, the assessment order made by the ITO merges in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal has rightly held that the original assessment order stood merged in the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and doctrine of merger is attracted and sub-section (1A) of section 154 of the Act does not come in the way. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 839 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... used by the appellants units in the manufacture of Clinic Plus Coconut Hair Oil, Clinic All Clear Dandruff Hair Oil and Clinic Plus Hair Shampoo, who paid duty on the labels under CETA sub-heading 3920.19, should have cleared the same by classifying them under CETA sub-heading 4901.90 attracting Nil rate of duty. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that it is well settled legal position that the excise authorities having jurisdiction over the receiver of inputs cannot reopen the classification adopted by the Officer having jurisdiction over the input supplier. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in case of Prem Cables Pvt Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, jaipur - 2001 (127) ELT 400 (Tri.Del) and Tirupati cigarettes Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1998 (29) RLT 78 (CEGAT). The ratio of the above orders is applicable on all force to the facts of the present case and following the same; we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
2005 (2) TMI 838 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... language as well as in paramedical and training courses. It is not necessary to spend any surplus money in the same year. The requirement of section 10(22) is fulfilled if the Appellant carried on educational activities for educational purposes." 3. From the above recorded findings, which are primarily based upon the appreciation of the record and are primarily finding of fact, it was found that the assessee was carrying on the educational activities in learning of the language and as such there is nothing for this Court to interfere in this finding of fact concurrently recorded by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. 4. We may also notice that for the other assessment years the appeal preferred by the Department against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has already been dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 13th September, 2004 passed in ITA No. 544/2004 relating to the same assessee. No merit. Dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 837 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mits and were agricultural land was not exigible to capital gains. 4. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has considered the report dated 19-6-1987 filed by the Income-tax Officer and upheld the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the land in question was situate beyond the municipal limits and agricultural operations were carried on till the date of transfer of the land. Therefore there was no capital gains. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the land was agricultural land and stood beyond eight kms. of the municipal limits of Saharanpur it was not included in the definition of capital assets as given in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We answer the question of law 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 836 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the pre-deposit order has been made without any application of mind. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays that the Petitioner be granted eight weeks time to deposit the aforesaid amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs pre deposit with the Customs Authorities, so as to enable the CESTAT to restore the Appeals and hear the same on merits. 2. Under these circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the CESTAT. However we direct the Petitioner to deposit the pre deposit amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs with the Customs Authorities within a period of eight weeks from today. If such a deposit is made by the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, then all the four appeals before the CESTAT shall stand restored and the same be heard by the CESTAT on its own merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 835 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pears to be no information with regard to any appeal having been filed by the Revenue for a couple of other assessment years in respect of all the three assessees. In cases where an appeal has been filed by the Revenue, it is on an absolutely ad hoc basis and without any intelligible pattern whatsoever. The fact, however, remains that the two basic orders passed by the ITAT on 4th May, 1998 and 18th May, 1998 have been accepted by the Revenue. Subsequent orders which merely follow these two orders have been challenged, without any just cause having been shown for the departure by the Revenue. Since the Revenue has accepted the two basic orders, we are not inclined to permit it to randomly challenge a subsequent order in respect of an assessee or in respect of a random assessment year. There cannot be pick and choose in this regard, without sufficient reason. 16. Under the circumstances, we decline to entertain this appeal as well as all the other connected appeals. Dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 834 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... und to review the judgment. There is also nothing to be clarified insofar as the operative part of the judgment is concerned. It is not necessary for us to express any view on the question whether the Transport Corporation employees who were erstwhile Government servants retiring after 1.1.1988 would be eligible to get the pension in addition to the salary drawn by them in the Corporation, as per the Rules and G.Os. applicable to them. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-employees that the G.Os. issued by the Government themselves contemplated such payment and in fact those who were parties to the earlier writ petitions were given that benefit. This issue cannot legitimately form the subject matter of either review or clarification. Hence the Review Petitions are dismissed with the above observations. Time for implementation of judgment is extended by four months from today. I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 for impleadment are unnecessary. The same are dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 833 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was premature, it ought to have been dismissed and there was no justification for the High Court to have made an order of remand in suit No. 3033/58 by its judgment dated 18.1.1966?
........
|
