|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 846 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of income at ₹ 1,87,99,984 raised demand of ₹ 15,68,669 which comprised of following (a)Income-taxRs. 9,03,706 (b)Interest u/s 220(2) from 3rd July, 1982 to 3rd October, 1984 12 ₹ 2,34,962 from 1st October, 1984 to 1st August, 1987 15 ₹ 3,84,053 - ₹ 6,19,015. 28th August, 1987 - For the demand of ₹ 15,68,669, a fresh demand notice under section 156 was issued Interest under section 220(2) were charged through no demand was outstanding and a fresh demand notice was issued on 28th August, 1987. 3. The point raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. First ITO 2001 247 ITR 8211 and a decision of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SMS Schloemann Siemag, A.G. v. Dy. CIT 2001 250 ITR 972. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed subject to orders of payment so far as interest under charge under section 220(2) of the IT Act is concerned.
-
2002 (9) TMI 845 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ect of the seized diamonds. The said order shall be passed by the Assessing Officer after granting the appellant an opportunity of being heard. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions available to it in law to establish that no customs duty can be demanded from the petitioners in respect of the seized diamonds. The SLP stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 844 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the awareness that the essence of every religion is common. Only practices differ. There is a specific caution that all steps should be taken in advance to ensure that no personal prejudices or narrow minded perceptions are allowed to distort the real purpose. Dogmas and superstitions should not be propagated in the name of education about religions. What is sought to be imparted is incorporated in Article 51(A)(e), which provides "to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women" And to see that universal values, such as truth, righteous conduct, peace, love and non-violence be the foundation of education. In the result, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. IAs seeking intervention in this matter stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 843 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ariava, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 842 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Reddi, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 841 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... resent case. That the execution of bond is not an absolute necessity for provisional assessments remains well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 and the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Mardia v. CCE, Indore - 2001 129 E.L.T. 334. 34. In view of what has been stated above, I am in agreement with the learned Member (T) that Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in holding that order dated 7-2-1983 of the Assistant Collector was beyond the purview of Rule 9B and, for that and other reasons stated in the order-in-appeal, the assessments in the present case were not provisional. Revenue’s appeal merits acceptance. Sd/-(C.N.B. Nair)Member (T) MAJORITY ORDER In view of the majority order, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed by setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. Sd/-(Jeet Ram Kait) Member (T) Sd/-(S.L. Peeran)Member (J)
-
2002 (9) TMI 840 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 839 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... use as a hotel, that the income derived therefrom by way of rental as also for the hire of furniture and fixtures should be treated as business income, in the case of Sultan Bros. v. CIT 1964 51 ITR 353 . The Constitution Bench negatived that claim of the assessee and referred with approval to the observations made in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra). 5. The facts of the present case are similar to those considered in the case of East India Housing and Land Development. The fact that the assessee-company was formed with the object of acquiring certain properties in the city of Chennai and deriving income by letting those properties out, would not render that income business income. It is the income from the property and is to be assessed under that head only. The first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 6. The second question does not require consideration in view of our answer to the first question.
-
2002 (9) TMI 838 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in auauthorised occupation he is like a trespasser. A suit for ejectment of a trespasser to get back possession from a trespasser could always be filed. Such a Suit would not be on the contract/agreement between the parties and would thus not be hit by principles of public policy also. In this view of the matter the decision of the Full Bench dated 20th May, 1993 cannot be sustained and is set aside. It is held that the law, as laid down in Nanakram’s case, still holds the field. Thus unless the statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves. Consequently the Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 dismissing the Writ Petition is set aside. The matter is sent back to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition in accordance with law. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 837 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases. In view of the same it is not necessary for us to go into the respective allegations or the other arguments raised and noticed by us. 27. So far as the submission of the petitioners that the transfer forms were not in order or duly stamped, the original forms have no been filed before us as they may be in the custody of the Police authorities. The photocopies of the transfer forms which have been filed however show the same to be filled up, signed and duly stamped. In any case, no finding can be given in respect of the same in the absence of the original transfer forms or evidence in respect of the alleged forged signatures. 28. As a result, in view of what has been held above, these petitions are dismissed with the observation that if so advised, the parties might get their disputes adjudicated before an appropriate forum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.
-
2002 (9) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... courts is erroneous in law. Both the courts rested their conclusion on the fact that the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation for travelling in the vehicle containing poppy husk at an odd hour. But, the other relevant aspects pointed out above were neither adverted to nor taken into account by the trial court and the High Court. Non-application of mind to the material factors has thus vitiated the judgment under appeal. Coming to the case of the third appellant who was driving the vehicle, there is one more infirmity in the prosecution case. He would have been charged alternatively for transporting the offensive goods without permit or authorization as required by law; but, such a charge was not laid. There was not even reference to Section 8 of the Act. The result is, he too goes scot free. For the above reasons, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and allow the appeal. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are in jail.
-
2002 (9) TMI 835 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ell off the ends of Flats as waste and scrap. He points out that the Appellants have purchased the ends of flats from scrap dealers. That the Appellants have purchased from scrap dealers is not denied. In our view this also indicates that ends of Flats do not fall under Sub-Item 8. As the inputs do not fall under Sub- Item 8, the Appellant would not be entitled to exemption under the Notification. Faced with the situation Mr. Jain submitted that even if cuts of flats do not fall under the Sub-Item 8, they would fall under Sub-Item 11. He admits that this Sub-Item is also included in the Notification as an input. Such a case is being made out for the first time in arguments before this Court. The Appellants have not claimed exemption under the Notification on this basis. We, therefore, do not permit Mr. Jain to raise such a contention. We see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. We see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 834 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, which could be availed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the order is appealable, however, in the truck goods was found according to the invoices and the truck driver was carrying all necessary papers and there was no intention for evasion of the sales tax nor there was any mens rea, therefore, the penalty as appeared in annexure 7 should not have been imposed. 3.. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 4.. Even if the order under challenge is appealable, the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted. When it is admitted fact that the truck driver was carrying all necessary papers, invoices and no tax was due, the penalty of 50 per cent as per amended sub-section (10A) of section 78 was too high on the facts of the matter at hand. 5.. Consequently, the petition is accepted to the extent that if petitioner pays 5 per cent of the valuation of the goods, the truck and the goods shall be released. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 833 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed into in between the foreign buyers and the petitioner prior to the purchase of tea in auction at Kolkata. 6.. In such circumstances, we hold that in the instant case, it was not the case of stock transfer from Kolkata to Kerala, but the movement of the goods occasioned on the basis of export-contracts entered in between the petitioner and the foreign buyers. Therefore, it is not a case of stock transfer. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow this application with the direction for issuing the form 9 as prayed for. 7.. The order dated June 24, 2002 passed by the respondent hereby is set aside. Direction is given upon the respondent to issue requisite number of declaration form No. 9 to the applicant. 8.. It is noted that the vires of rules 42 and 81 were not challenged at the time of hearing of this application. The application, therefore, is allowed in part without cost. This order will form part of the order dated September 9, 2002. Application allowed in part.
-
2002 (9) TMI 832 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... l. 6.. The learned Senior Standing Counsel has relied on the decision of this Special Tribunal in O.P. NO. 544 of 2001 dated August 20, 2001 (Elgi Equipments v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2004 136 STC 215). A perusal of the order shows that a similar matter has been decided in that original petition and the learned Single Member has elaborately discussed the issues in respect of levy under section 3(4) of the Act and clarifications issued under section 28-A of the Act in detail, with reference to various Court decisions. We are in full agreement with the views expressed by him. 7.. Consequently, there is no need for any declaration as prayed for by the petitioner. 8.. In the result, the original petition is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 18th day of September, 2002. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... years 1986-87 and 1987-88 from which we find that the purchase turnover of copra has suffered tax at the hands of the assessee. We also find from the assessment orders that the assessing authority has granted concessional rate in respect of the inter-State turnover covered by C form. It will also show that the coconut or copra from which coconut oil is extracted has already suffered tax at the hands of the assessee. The only question to be considered in the circumstances is as to whether the inter-State turnover not covered by C form is also entitled to the benefit of the notification S.R.O. No. 117/66. As already noted the only condition imposed by the notification is that the coconut or copra from which oil is extracted has already suffered tax at the hands of the assessee. In view of what we have already noticed, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. We accordingly uphold the said order and dismiss these two revisions. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 830 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under section 6-A. In fact since F form itself provides for proof of despatch of goods, the form produced without being accompanied by such proof is not to be acted upon. This court has held in the decisions above referred to that form F is not sufficient to prove stock transfer and that it is the physical transport of goods what is required to be proved under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the circumstances and in the absence of any documents to prove physical transfer of goods across the boundary, we feel there is nothing wrong in the Tribunals order. At this distance of time the petitioner cannot ask for time for production of documents. The same plea was made before the Tribunal which was turned down by the Tribunal. We feel the documents which could not be produced before the Tribunal at the relevant time, could not be produced after eight years from the date when the transfer took place. Tax revision case is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 829 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nce. But here the petitioner is at fault. The petitioner was under a legal obligation to produce all the valid mandated documents, it had, before the authority, respondent No. 2, during the penalty proceeding-to avoid imposition of penalty, if any. The petitioner had chosen not to do it and suffered the penalty as a result. The petitioner also paid the amount of penalty and got release of the goods. As we peruse the penalty order, we find the rate that has been charged for the goods is the rate mentioned in the petitioners own document and therefore 30 per cent of the total value thus arrived at by way of penalty is quite in conformity with law. Therefore we do not find any ground for which the seizure and the penalty can be assailed. Both the points are therefore decided against the petitioner. The application therefore fails and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Parties do bear their respective costs. 9.. A. DEB (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 828 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers 1980 46 STC 63. There, the processing of pineapple fruit is processed into pineapple slices for being sold in sealed cans. It was held that although it has undergone a degree of processing, it must be regarded as still retaining its original identity. 8. The Tribunal, as already noted, has taken the view that account books and registers are printed materials coming under entry 97B of the First Schedule to the Act. According to us the Tribunal was right in arriving at the said conclusion. Even if the said items do not come under entry 97B still it squarely come under entry 97 of the First Schedule to the Act. Be it under entry 97B or under entry 97 the rate of tax is the same 8 per cent. Account books and registers cannot be treated as unclassified items taxable at the general rate of 5 per cent. We accordingly uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss this tax revision case. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 827 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... per cent of sucrose and therefore it definitely falls within the statutory definition of sugar as set out for the purpose of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was accordingly held that sugar candy is also covered by entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act. 9.. The other decisions relied on by the Government Pleader are also distinguishable. 10.. In the present case sugar candy does not find a place in any of the entries in the First and Second Schedules to the Act. There is no other entry in the said Schedules under which sugar candy can be brought in. Applying the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakarwala Brothers case 1967 19 STC 24, we hold that sugar candy dealt with by the assessee falls under entry 56 of the Third Schedule to the Act. We accordingly confirm the order of the Tribunal. This tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
