Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 769 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 588
Duty Drawback – EOU - appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready-made garments - he got the goods manufactured in the second appellant Unit, which is 100% EOU Unit by supplying duty paid raw materials to EOU Unit – alleged that as the first appellant manufactured goods in EOU Unit and thus exported the goods, is he not entitled to Duty Drawback under Section 75 of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 587
Demand of U.P. VAT - Demand on the basis of the terms of the agreement between the parties (GSPA)and not on anything contained in the orders of this Court dated 23rd January, 2012, or 24th February, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 586
... ... ... ... ..... of ₹ 77,29,500/- as agricultural income, suffice it to say that the said question is concluded by the finding of fact. The CIT(Appeals) has considered all the relevant materials and facts and thereafter recorded the finding of fact accepting the entire income as agricultural income. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that against the judgment dated 30/3/2007 in ITA No.269/LUC/06 for A.Y.2001-02 the appeal No.610/2007 filed by the Department has already been dismissed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06/10/2010. In view of the aforesaid, there is no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. The earlier order of the Tribunal having already been confirmed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06/10/2010 (supra) no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 585
... ... ... ... ..... e time of checking, the authorities are legally bound to consider the same before ordering for the seizure of the goods. In M/s Balaji Timbers and Paints Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow 2010 NTN (43) 52 I have already held that where the vehicle was checked and the import declaration Form was not found along with the goods but was produced later-on with the explanation before the passing the order of seizure, the seizure of goods and demand of security was not justified. The case at hand is covered by the principle laid down in the above case. In view of the above as the authorities have not considered the impact of Form-38 which was produced in response to the show cause notice, I am of the opinion that order of seizure of goods is not tenable in law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 2.4.2012, 31.3.2012 and 18.4.2012 are set aside and the goods are directed to be released forthwith without any security. Revision allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 584
... ... ... ... ..... o, the business income assessable to be included in gross total income comes to Rs. ‘nil’ and gross total income consists of income from other sources only of ₹ 5,46,845/- and, therefore, Explanation to Section 73(1) is not applicable as per this judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Hence, by respectfully following this judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited by the Ld. A.R., we hold that in the facts of the present case as discussed above, Explanation to Section 73(1) is not applicable and, therefore, loss of ₹ 15,66,518/- from business of purchase and sale of shares on delivery basis cannot be considered as speculation loss and only the loss from commodity transaction business of ₹ 21,60,668/- has to be considered as speculation loss. We direct the A.O. accordingly. o p /o p 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p 12. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 583
Depreciation @ 50% on machinery claimed to have been purchased under TUFS - Held that:- Assessee is entitled for higher depreciation under TUFS
-
2012 (4) TMI 582
... ... ... ... ..... nd there is no stay of the impugned 3 order. Therefore we find no ground for early hearing. The Applications are dismissed”. The ‘CESTAT in effect and substance held that there being no stay, the Department was bound by the orders of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. However, no specific direction was given by the ‘CESTAT’ for release. The Department is still withholding the goods on the contention that the appeal in the ‘CESTAT’ is pending. After hearing the respective parties and by consent of the parties, this writ application is disposed of by directing the ‘CESTAT’ to dispose of the appeal positively within 30 days from the date of communication of this order having regard to the fact that the goods imported by the petitioner way back in 2008 are still lying detained. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (4) TMI 581
... ... ... ... ..... es and have gone through the impugned order and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chate Coaching Classes Pvt. Ltd.(supra). At this prima facie stage we are accepting the argument that the scope of the exemption under Notification 12/2003-ST cannot be whittled down by clarification. The Appellants seems to be having proof enough to contest that the value of services was not transferred to cost of books sold. This matter can be looked into during final hearing. The value actually received during the impugned period for franchisee service also requires clear reconciliation taking into account amounts outstanding to be paid. This also can be done only during final hearing. 12. On an overall appreciation of the facts we are of the view that the amount of ₹ 8,98,512/- already deposited in this case is adequate to admit the appeal. So we grant waiver of pre-deposit of balance dues and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. Pronounced in Court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 580
... ... ... ... ..... ith the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent in each of the appeals that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore the appeals once it had dismissed them as not maintainable. The limited power available to the Tribunal under Section 35C (2) is to pass any order with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record in respect of any order passed by it under Section 35C (1). Clearly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the earlier orders whereby it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable for want of authorization. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, in our considered view no substantial question of law arises for determination in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that the issue of law raised on behalf of the appellant could have been considered had there been appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting the appeals as not maintainable but no such appeal is before us.
-
2012 (4) TMI 579
... ... ... ... ..... by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record and the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent will decide the representation/application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. However, if there is any undue delay, it will be open to the petitioner to file an application before the Court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 578
... ... ... ... ..... arch of the Constitution in the Preamble and the relevant articles in Parts III and IV, protective discrimination ensures practical content applying the protective and actuality and equality in results, instead of legal equality, in favour of the disadvantaged segments of the Society." 25. A perusal of the above judgement will unambiguously show that the rules of the Institute clearly laid down a provision for reservation for filling up vacancies in the post of Assistant professor by direct recruitment or by promotion. In that view of the matter, the above judgement will not come to the aid of the applicant. 26. Having carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, we have no hesitation in repel the contentions raised by the applicant. We do so. The two questions raised for consideration are answered in the negative. 27. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 577
... ... ... ... ..... adjudication on merits. 23. Our reason for so stating is simple. 24. We have already noted herein above clause-2 of the lease deed dated May 14, 2009. It makes a clear departure from the previous lease deed dated October 09, 2006. 25. Whereas clause-5 of the previous lease deed refers to the lessor taking on the liability to pay all taxes, levies or charges imposed by any local authority or the Government, the lease deed dated May 14, 2009 clearly says that it is the lessee who takes the responsibility to pay taxes and demands imposed on the lease. 26. It is thus clear that when the lease deed dated May 14, 2009, was executed, conscious of the Finance Act 2007 having come into force, parties contracted to the contrary. 27. Being an indirect tax, it was capable of a contract between the parties on the subject as to who would ultimately bear the burden of the service tax imposed. 28. The two appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine without there being any order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 576
Duty demand - Penalty - Confiscation of seized goods - Clandestine removal of goods - Onus to prove - MODVAT Credit.
-
2012 (4) TMI 575
Whether while granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur?
Whether the claim of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur for allotment of land was clearly misconceived and was rightly rejected by the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration on the ground that he was not the owner of land comprised in khasra No. 70/2?
-
2012 (4) TMI 574
Benefit of N/N. 64/95-CE, dated March 16, 1995 - can the benefit of notification denied in respect of warehoused goods, on withdrawal of warehousing facility, when the goods are otherwise exempted? - Held that: - Our attention has been drawn to General Exemption No. 24 of the N/N. 64/95-CE, dated March 16, 1995, wherein, at Sr. No. 3, it is specifically pointed out that all goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, are exempted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (4) TMI 573
Short deduction of tax at source - Held that:- We dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that the Jammu Development Authority is in exempted category where the provisions of section 194(1) are not applicable. We also hold that exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J & K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No.39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest on FDRs of Jammu Development Authority with J & K Bank Ltd. Keeping in view the above discussions, we hold that no interference is called for in the well reasoned impugned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority and accordingly we uphold the same.
-
2012 (4) TMI 572
Whether the plaintiff has the right to possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
Whether the plaintiff and his father have obtained right of enjoyment through adverse enjoyment?
As per the averments on the defendant’s side, is it true that the plaintiff’s father in the capacity of the watchman of the suit property has been in enjoyment of the suit property?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by him?
Whether the plaintiff Association is competent to file this case?
Whether the plaint property belongs to the plaintiff’s club?
Is it right that the defendant’s father Appadurai Pillai in the capacity of a Watchman, has been maintaining the suit property?
When there is a Second Appeal pending before the High Court in S.A. No.1923 of 2002 against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif in O.S. No. 1143 of 1994 is sustainable.
Whether the defendant has acquired the right of possession in the plaint property due to adverse possession?
Whether this case has been procedurally evaluated for the court fee and jurisdiction?
Is the Court competent to try this Court?
To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?
-
2012 (4) TMI 571
... ... ... ... ..... ,00,00,000/- (Rs. 2 Crores) only, out of the demand of ₹ 6,61,96,227/- within a period of eight weeks. On the deposit being made, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and interest shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel has submitted that the demand was illegal as the Commissioner has himself demanded lessor amount. Later on, show cause notice could not have been issued. He has also submitted that the demand was impermissible. In view of the reasonings employed by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to make any interference in such matters when pre-deposit is required and substantial relief has already been given by the Tribunal for which, the reasons have been assigned in the order. We are satisfied that order is well-reasoned and shows due application of mind. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay Application No. 5784/2012 is also dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 570
... ... ... ... ..... n the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and confirm the same.” 8. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case and on the similar ground, we hold that CIT(A) has rightly reversed the order of AO and we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 9. The ld. CIT(A) further allowed a relief of ₹ 7,74,358/- being difference between total expenditure of ₹ 11,40,958/- and ₹ 3,66,600/-, the amount paid against the total determined liability. However, this amount of ₹ 7,74,358/- was neither a ground of appeal before CIT(A) nor was this an addition made by AO vide assessment order dated 16.11.2010. Therefore, ground no. 2 taken by the Department carries no force and it is rejected. 10. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.04.2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 569
... ... ... ... ..... mpany petition is required to be advertised in two daily news papers. The petition shall be advertised in Business Standard (English Daily) and Andhra Prabha (Telugu Daily), Hyderabad editions on or before 15.06.2012. 40. Post on 19.06.2012 for “proof of publication”. Date 24.04.2012 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note L.R. copy to be marked. B/o ASP/MRKR/USD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN COMPANY PETITION No.34 OF 2011 ORDER After orders were pronounced, Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the respondent, requests that advertisement, of admission of the Company Petition, be deferred for a period of one month. The advertisement, of admission of the Company Petition, is deferred till 06.06.2012. In case no application, under Rule 100 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, is filed by them on or before 06.06.2012, the petitioner shall comply with the requirement of advertising admission of the Company Petition, as aforementioned, on or before 15.06.2012.
............
|