|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 772 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 832 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ithin the net several other activities like dance, drama or music per se as social functions. 2. We have heard both sides in the matter. 3. Prima facie, the activity of giving services of dance, drama or music cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘Mandap Keeper’. The prayer for waiver for the balance amount is well taken. Therefore, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit of balance of the amount and penalties and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. Appeal to come up in its turn. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (2) TMI 831 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... and the connected papers. We do not find any merit in the same. The Review Petitions are dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 830 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s or things, an issue which presently is not in dispute before us. It is also noteworthy that the assessing authority in the earlier assessment year i.e., 1995-96 has allowed the claim of the assessed for deduction under Section 80-IA. Therefore, having regard to the parity of reasoning initiated in the case of CIT v. J.B. Kharwar & Sons (1987) 163 ITR 394 (Guj) and Nu-look (P) Ltd. (supra), in our view, the assessed could not be denied the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA on the incomes represented by processing charges. Hence, in our view, the conclusions drawn by the CIT(A) do not require any interference from our side." 2. We have also perused the order passed by the AO. There is no discussion, much less a plausible evidence before the AO to show that the unit of the assessed was not involved in manufacturing activity. In any case it is a finding of fact which we are not called upon to interfere under the provisions of Section 260A of the Act. Dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 829 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aw in holding that the encumbrance created vide agreement dated 27/3/1982 would operate as a restrictive covenant within the meaning of Rule 21 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act,1957? b Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, agreement dated 27/3/1982 between the HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Nov 07 12 19 10 IST 2015 trustees of Smt. Pushpavati Kantilal Family Trust No.3 and Master Rajal Prafulbhai, one of the beneficiaries, would operate as a binding document qua the assessee, the other beneficiary, despite distribution of the assets by the Trustees ?" Registry to place copy of this order in all connected matters.
-
2005 (2) TMI 828 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... on to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 827 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... onsidering that the period not covered by the period of limitation, the products in question were exempted from payment of duty. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 826 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstance of this case, search of the bags would amount to search of the person of the respondent?
Whether search of the bag carried by the accused on his shoulder attracts Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and whether failure to give to the accused the necessary option contemplated by Section 50 before searching his bag would be in violation of the provisions of Section 50?
-
2005 (2) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT
Whether provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are ultra vires and are to be struck down?
-
2005 (2) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT
Whether an institution should be established in an area to serve the educational needs of that locality?
Whether Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of AICTE Act and it is constitutionally valid?
-
2005 (2) TMI 823 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on ordered by the Commissioner in light of the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise, arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (SLP filed against above order of Hon’ble High Court has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in default on 12-5-2005).
-
2005 (2) TMI 822 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... round alone granted occupancy rights. The High Court was not justified in holding that the writ appeal had been rendered infructuous because of the subsequent decision of the Tribunal. Correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge was being challenged in the writ appeal. Any decision taken by the Tribunal has to be per force subject to the decision in the writ appeal. Therefore, the Division Bench should have considered the matter on merits without concluding that the writ appeal had become infructuous. In the peculiar circumstances we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. Writ Appeal No. 8208/1999 shall be restored to file and shall be dealt with in accordance with law. As the matter is pending since long, High Court is requested to explore the possibility of early disposal of the Writ Appeal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 821 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... duly considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances we do not think it fit to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 820 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s. Ten Lakhs on the Director of the Company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The Appellants submit that they have paid the differential duty on their own volition and not on the instructions of the department. It was pleaded that they had paid the duty and informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities on 5.12.2001 itself and issued supplementary invoices for the amounts. It was submitted that there was no intent to evade duty and it was a case of pure oversight on the part of the Company. 3. Heard both sides. We find that the appellants had paid the amount short paid on account of incorrect valuation of the goods on their own without the department pointing out the error, which is evident from the fact that the Show Cause Notice was issued ten months after the payment of the duty. As such, while confirming the demand of duty and interest, we set aside the penalties. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms. Pronounced in Court on 21.2.2005.
-
2005 (2) TMI 819 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and is quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a genuine recompense for the lapse committed by the petitioners in not furnishing original receipt for Bill of Entry, they would deposit a sum of ₹ 5000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund for Tsunami Victims. Let this be done in two weeks. Petition stands allowed in the above terms.
-
2005 (2) TMI 818 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... l Representative carries no weight. In view of the facts mentioned by the authorities below, I agree with the AAC that the assessee-firm is an industrial undertaking and accordingly relief under section 80J was rightly allowed following the ratio of the decision mentioned in para 1 of the impugned order. His finding is accordingly upheld." This Court in CIT v. Sultan & Sons Rice Mill 2005 272 ITR 18111 had held that various processes starting from purchase of raw material and till sale of finished goods formed the integral part of manufacturing process and the workers employed in this process are the workers employed in the manufacturing process. 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in allowing deduction under section 80J of the Act. 6. We, therefore, answer the question in affirmative i.e. against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be however no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a Court can pass an interim order not to arrest the applicant, where an application under Section 438 of the Code is pending disposal?
-
2005 (2) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the date of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged offender as Juvenile offender or the date when he is produced in the Court/competent authority?
Whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the case a proceeding initiated under Juvenile Justice 1986 Act and pending when the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was enforced with effect from 1.4.2001?
-
2005 (2) TMI 815 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titioner was not aware of this question. In fact in the present case, the exemption notification came to be issued subsequently which alone determines the tax liability for the purpose of assessment by the assessing authority under the Act. In so far as the decision in the case of Wipro Infotech Limited v. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-II) 2000 117 STC 244 (Karn) is concerned, the contention was as to whether a valuation by the FAVC issued by the Industries and Commerce Department is binding on the parties. Such a question does not arise in this case, assuming it arises it is for the petitioner to seek answer before the appellate authority under the Act and not before this court in writ jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is for the assessee to take up such matters in appeal when appellate remedies are provided under the Act. No need for this court to interfere with the assessment order. Writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 814 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the case of Salem Magnesite (P.) Ltd. 1978 42 STC 285, has been distinguished by the Madras High Court itself subsequently in the case of Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruchengode, Salem District reported in 1984 56 STC 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that in the present case the sale was not effected by the transfer of documents of title after the goods have crossed the frontiers of India but in fact the sale was effected as soon as the goods were delivered on board the vessel and, therefore, the sale was not covered by the second limb of section 5(1) of the CST Act, 1956. Accordingly, we answer all the three questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Before closing, we would like to place on record the valuable assistance rendered to the court by Mr. R.A. Harpale, Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The reference is disposed of in the above terms, however, with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 813 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reening Committee cannot be questioned by the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Taxing Authority without getting correction in the certificate by following appropriate procedure by approaching the Committee itself and could not have issued notice to the petitioner on assumption that the petitioner was entitled to 60 per cent exemption instead of 75 per cent exemption. It is clear from annexure 3 that the Committee very specifically mentioned this fact in the exemption certificate itself that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from tax liability up to the extent of 75 per cent and clearly mentioned that the petitioner shall deposit 25 per cent of the tax. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes Department) Special Circle, Bikaner, is only against the exemption certificate and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice annexure 8 is quashed and set aside.
........
|
