|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 781 Records
-
2007 (3) TMI 734 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 valid?
Whether the respondents have wilfully flouted or intentionally violated the status quo order dated 10.07.2000 and 28.08.2001 passed by this Court?
-
2007 (3) TMI 733 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce it is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 13. The appellant has paid tax no respondents-4 and 5 under the Delhi sales Tax Act. In view of the fact we have now held that it is the State of Karnataka, which can levy and collect the tax, we consider it proper to direct the respondents-4 and 5 to refund the amount. Accordingly we direct the to refund the amount on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in reported in (1996) 4 SCC 230, (BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTS. & Ors. Vs. UNINON OF INDIA & Ors.). The appellant can approach the respondents-4 and 5 for the refund of the amount. If such a claim is made, the respondents-4 and 5 shall refund the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of making the claim. 14. The appellant in pursuance of the order passed by this Court gas deposited 50 of the amount. The balance amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2007 (3) TMI 732 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arned Single Judge (Coram S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) in Kuresh Taherbhai Rajkotwala v. Union of India and Ors. in Criminal Application No. 4264 of 2005 2007 (209) E.L.T. 347 (Bom.) and again in Pramod K. Shah v. Commissioner of Customs in application No. 4230 of 2006. After that I had also taken the same view in Criminal Application No. 272/2007 in Sangit Krishna Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 (219) E.L.T. 143 (Bom.) and number of other cases. Thus, as far as the Bombay High Court is concerned, it is now settled position that the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) is bailable and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 50(2) r/w Section 436 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused is entitled to be released on bail and no Magistrate can refuse to grant bail in such cases. 3. With the aforesaid observations the application stands disposed off with liberty to the applicant to move before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for grant of bail.
-
2007 (3) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT
Whether no retrospective operation could be given having regard to the fact that thereby the rights of other employees of the University could not have been taken away?
Whether termination of services of Respondent herein was appointed as a Reader in Physics in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak during the period of probation valid?
-
2007 (3) TMI 730 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court committed grave error in quashing the order of detention?
Whether the right to make a representation against the order of detention is the most cherished and valuable right conferred upon a detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and if there has been any infraction of such right the detenu is entitled to be released?
Whether the initial order of detention issued under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act can be held to be ab initio void on the ground that the authority issuing declaration under Section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act failed to intimate the detenu of his right to represent to the declaring authority?
-
2007 (3) TMI 729 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... y demand for the normal time limit would be about ₹ 1.27 crores. He fairly states that in respect of the second appellants, M/s Indian Chemicals & Minerals, no bifurcation is available. Keeping in view the fact that the decision of Coal Handlers Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) is against the appellants, and the decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro (cited supra) does not prima facie, apply to the case of the appellants, we direct the first appellants, M/s. Indian Coal Agency, to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 1.27 crores within six months from today and report compliance on 21st May, 2007 and in respect of the second appellants, M/s. Indian Chemicals & Minerals, we direct pre-deposit of 50 of the tax amount within six weeks from today and report of compliance on 21-5-07. Subject to compliance with the above direction, the pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalty, shall remain waived during pendency of appeals. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2007 (3) TMI 728 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1984 to 31.3.1985 and since the assessment was completed both under Sections 141A and 143(3) of the I.T. Act for both the tax protected and non-tax protected tax, the assessee was the agent of the non-resident company for both the years. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no reasonable clause for charging interest Under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has elaborately dealt with each and every ground raised in the appeal and we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in its judgment. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are the findings of fact and do not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the questions raised in the application are accordingly decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. 5. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal. The questions in this appeal are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 727 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 350, Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429 and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1998 229 ITR 383 . 3. It is also noted that an Explanation has been added to section 37(1) of the Act which makes it clear that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction or allowance shall be paid in respect of such an expenditure. The Explanation was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. 4. Insofar as the second question is concerned, it is common ground that this is required to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in Addl. CIT v. Rattan Chand Kapoor 1984 149 ITR 1 1. 5. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in relation to a Multi-State Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State, which government Central or State, is the "appropriate government" for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946?
-
2007 (3) TMI 725 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the legal heirs could have continued with the complaint?
Whether heirs of the complainant can be allowed to file an application under Section 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution?
-
2007 (3) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT
Whether all requisite facts had been disclosed by the landholder when he filed return in 1973-74 or there was non-disclosure of certain lands?
-
2007 (3) TMI 723 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ification Application No…../2005. We also want the Tribunal to record its findings regarding the net worth of the company. If the net worth of the company is found to be negative, then the Tribunal will consider restoration of the appeal to its file and in which event the matter will have to be decided on merits. If, however, the net worth is found to be a positive figure, the Tribunal will say so, give its reasons and dispose of the modification application in accordance with law. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 722 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad was right in dismissing the application filed under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by M/s Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. ("the Developer") on the basis of Award dated 29.3.1994 given by the Arbitrator in the above court for want of jurisdiction?
Whether application dated 12.4.1994 filed by the Developer in the trial court at Faridabad was maintainable?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Award is made the rule of the court by the trial court on 31.5.2006 in view of the impugned judgment of the High Court. We have also gone through the Award. We do not wish to express any opinion on the merits, however, the fact remains that the arbitrator entered upon the reference on 24.8.1992. He fixed the date of hearing on 5.9.1992. On 5.9.1992 the appellant appeared before him. The arbitrator was absent. The Award has been given almost after fourteen months and that too after 14.10.1993 when the appellant herein moved an application under section 20 of the Act for appointment of a new arbitrator. Taking into account the above circumstances, we set aside the ex parte Order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the trial court at Faridabad making Award dated 29.3.1994 the rule of the court. Consequently, we direct restoration of the matter to the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad in Case No. 7 instituted on 12.4.1994 titled M/s Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Jatinder Nath and anr.
The trial court will re-examine the question on merits as to whether the Award given by the arbitrator on 29.3.1994 should or should not be made the rule of the court. The trial court will have to decide whether to extend the period for making the Award or not, whether to supercede the reference or not. The trial court will proceed in accordance with law. Any observation on the merits of the case mentioned herein above shall not be treated as opinion of this Court. Further, the trial court will proceed on the basis that it has territorial jurisdiction to decide the above matter. Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 721 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t for the three years in question will be produced before the assessing authority within one month from today, we consider it just and proper that the assessment for the three years should be made afresh after giving the petitioner a further opportunity to produce its books of account in support of the returns filed by it. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders dated May 5, 2006 and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna West Circle, Patna. The petitioner is directed to appear before him along with a copy of this order within two weeks from today. The Assistant Commissioner shall give the petitioner an opportunity to produce its books of account for the assessment periods 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 by April 16, 2007 and shall then pass orders for those years by April 30, 2007 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed, subject to the observations and directions made above.
-
2007 (3) TMI 720 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ferred to in the said sub-rule. So the authorities below rightly held that the applicant contravened the provision of section 68 of the WBST Act, 1994. The section 71 B(1) of the WBST Act, 1994 provides, Where the goods are, or have been, transported by a person, dealer or casual trader in contravention of restrictions or conditions prescribed under section 68 and such goods are not available for seizure under sub-section (1) of section 70, the Commissioner, or the Additional Commissioner, shall, after giving such person, dealer or casual trader a reasonable opportunity of being heard, impose a penalty of a sum not exceeding twenty-five per centum of the value of such goods. When there was a contravention of the provision of section 68, we find no ground for interference with the impugned order of imposition of penalty and the notice of demand. Hence, it is, ordered that the application stands dismissed on contest without cost. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree
-
2007 (3) TMI 719 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d toner and developer and claimed exemption on the turnover of toner and developer as part of the photocopier machine. The claim of the dealer was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that toner and developer was not the part of the photocopier machine. However, the claim was allowed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the issue involved in both the revisions are squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Modi Xerox Ltd., Rampur reported in 2005 26 NTN 47. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this court it is held that the toner and developer are not the parts of the photocopier machine and they are not eligible for exemption. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
2007 (3) TMI 718 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd has not passed any provisional assessment order on the basis of the survey dated May 5, 1997 estimating the turnover above the taxable limit. Thus, on the facts of the present case, it appears that the applicant was under the bona fide belief that the contents of letter dated June 10, 1997 was accepted, therefore, he could not apply for the registration. The total disclosed turnover was below the taxable limit and merely because in the assessment order by way of best judgment assessment, turnover was estimated above the taxable limit, it cannot be said that the applicant was not under the bona fide belief. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant was under the bona fide belief in not applying for the registration, therefore, the penalty levied under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act is not justified. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the penalty under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act is quashed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 717 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the application under section 55 of the Act, ought to have pursued his appellate remedy instead of filing the original petitions before the Tribunal, which are now numbered as these writ petitions. However, as the petitioner in this case has been bona fidely agitating the matter before the Tribunal from 2003 and on abolition of the Tribunal before this court since 2005, this court is of the view that in order to sub-serve the ends of justice, one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, against the assessment order, if so advised. Two weeks 39 time is granted for filing such an appeal against the order of assessment, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellate authority shall entertain the appeal, if filed within the time given by this court in this order. The writ petitions are disposed off in the above terms. No costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 716 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot being such machinery or spare parts thereof as are taxable under any other item of the Schedule or under any other notification M or I Hand pump is a water pump which is being operated by hand and is 6 percent (b) Water pumps and pumping sets. M or I commonly known as hand pump. Therefore, hand pump is water pump. 4 percent There is specific entry of water pump, therefore, hand pump is liable to tax as a water pump. Hand pump can be said to be machinery on account of application of force but from the entry the machinery items which are taxable under any other items of the Schedule or under any other notification are excluded. Water pump being specifically notified in the Schedule is therefore, not liable to tax under the entry machinery . It is settled principle of law that the specific entry excludes the general entry and to be preferred. In view of the facts and circumstances, order of the Tribunal is upheld. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 715 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the automatic statutory charge has been created over the property, which has been sold by the TIIC in favour of the petitioner. Precisely, that might be the reason for the petitioner to pay the sales tax as quantified by the TIIC to the respondent. When the tax due has been accepted and paid, for the belated payment of tax, which is also a statutory due as per section 24(3) of the said Act, the petitioner will have to pay the interest. The contention that as per section 24A of the said Act, the payment of tax was demanded by the TIIC for the property for which charge has been created in the department cannot be accepted until or otherwise the tax due along with the interest under the provisions of the Act is completely discharged. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel deserves to be rejected and as such I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the authorities to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
............
|
