|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 474 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... property of the parties. Since first defendant renounced his share therein by virtue of Ex.A.1, all the other coparceners, but not merely the releasees under Ex.A.1, are entitled to the benefit of that release. In fact plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their share in the plaint schedule property. So, it is clear that plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 have 1/5th share each in the plaint schedule property, and so plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of their 2/5th share in the plaint schedule property. Since a coparcener cannot seek an injunction against the other coparceners restraining them from enjoying the joint family properties, second defendant is not entitled to seek an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from enjoying the plaint schedule property. The point is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the finding on the point for consideration, there are no merits in these appeals and so both the appeals are dismissed, but in the. circumstances without costs.
-
2003 (6) TMI 473 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. shall serve the interest of justice eminently. 19. In the result (a) this appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment is set aside (c) The respondent/accused is found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court. She is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 87,500/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr. P.C. and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. The amount, if realised, shall be released entirely to the complainant. 20. It is further observed that the direction under Section 357(3) Cr. P.C. shall not in any way affect the right of the parties to insist on accounting and claim amounts, if any, due to them on settlements of accounts between them. The learned Magistrate shall make necessary steps for execution of the sentence hereby imposed. The respondent/accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 14.8.2003 for execution of the sentence.
-
2003 (6) TMI 472 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of the accused. By applying ration of this Supreme court ruling to the case on hand it can safely be said that prosecution case as disclosed through the evidence of eye witnesses is highly suspicious." 27. We then proceeds to point out that the independent persons were available, not related to the complainant family, but was not forthcoming from the prosecution. He therefore proceeded to acquit all the accused persons. 28. In such state of affairs we confirm the finding recorded by the trial Judge. In our opinion, these findings are not perverse. In our opinion, there is no strong and compelling reason to interfere with such well balanced order of acquittal made on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. We therefore dismiss the appeal against the acquittal. We hereby confirm the acquittal, and bail bond if any executed under Section 390 Cr. P.C. stands cancelled.
-
2003 (6) TMI 471 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to furnish "list of persons who have made Term Recurring deposits of rupees fifty thousand and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses and amounts of deposits. . ." Aggrieved by these notices, the appellants had approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge. It was held that the notices were in complete conformity with the provisions of section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr. Gilbert George, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the view taken by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 332 of 2003. He submits that in view of the Division Bench judgment, the appellants have really no grounds to urge. 4. In view of the fact that the view taken by the learned Single Judge had been affirmed by the Division Bench, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 470 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal to grant modvat credit in respect of 14 items in which the assessee is claiming the modvat credit. Respectfully following the ratio thereof, the claim of the assessee is accepted by allowing their appeals. 6. In respect of Revenue's appeals, we notice that the Revenue has challenged the Modvat credit in respect of 19 items. The Counsel has filed the tabulated column showing the items and the case-law applicable to each of the items. We have carefully considered the various judgements and the items on which the Commissioner has granted the benefit. We find that the Commissioner is fully justified in granting the benefit as the ratio of the Apex Court judgment clearly applies to the facts of the case. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the Commissioner's order granting modvat credit in respect of 19 items and hence we reject the appeals filed by Revenue. All the four appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2003 (6) TMI 469 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... D 591 . No contrary decision of any High Court or the Supreme Court has been brought to our notice for taking a different view. The plea of the learned Departmental Representative that that the notices issued in March, 2001 are not during the pendency of the earlier notices issued and as such are fresh notices issued validly, cannot be accepted. The machinery for reassessment was already set in motion by the issuance of the earlier notices and if the reassessments were not completed for whatever reasons, such reassessments cannot be revived by issuing fresh notices as the time for completing the reassessments in pursuance to the earlier notices held already expired. 6. In the light of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the notices under section 148 issued in the month of March 2001 are not validly issued. Consequently the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the assessments completed on the basis of the said notices. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 468 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the alleged signature on the guarantee on which the respondent/bank is relying to be the signature of the appellant to any hand writing expert. The appellant shall also produce his original signatures on his passport, driving license and his bank opening form, which he has produced before the Tribunal with his written statement. These specimen signatures would be for the period prior to the date of the guarantee-deed. It is needless to mention that it will be for the respondent/bank to prove the signature of the appellant and in rebuttal the appellant would be entitled to rely on the opinion of the hand writing expert in addition to other evidence available to substantiate his defence. The impugned orders passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and also by the learned Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside and the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
-
2003 (6) TMI 467 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... same could be considered in the regular assessment proceedings, but it would not warrant seizure of the goods. 5. In the present case, while allowing the appeals, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding of fact that the goods were accompanied by all the relevant documents. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that merely on the basis mat the goods which were being transported were alleged to be undervalued would not be sufficient ground for seizure of the goods which were otherwise being transported on the strength of valid documents including the Form 31 issued by the department. As has already been observed by the Tribunal, the liabilty of assessment of Sales Tax shall be determined in the regular assessment proceedings. 7. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The revisions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (6) TMI 466 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ab Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2000 (37) RLT 469 (CEGAT) 2000 (118) ELT 506. 3. In the above decision, the Tribunal has taken the view following an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Easter Industries Vs. Commissioner 1999 (35) RLT 696 that where the duty is paid by making debit entries in PLA subsequent to date of clearance of goods, presumption under Section 12-B of Central Excise Act to the effect that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer will not be attracted. We find merit in the contention and applying the above ratio, the order impugned cannot be sustained. We therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (6) TMI 465 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... de on behalf of parties. Respectfully following the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. 2001 251 ITR 263 we hold that the burden which lay upon the assessee stood discharged as the assessee had proved the identity of the investors as also the genuineness of the transactions. It was pointed out that the depositors were assessed to tax and details of PAN/GIR number were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the transactions as non-genuine. On the other hand, learned CIT(A) was fully justified in holding that the assessee had discharged the burden by explaining the deposits and by proving the identity of the depositors. In view of the above, the deletion of addition to the extent of ₹ 2,97,000 is upheld by us. Consequently, ground fails. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. In favour of assessee
-
2003 (6) TMI 464 - ANDHRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... learned single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law - be it against an original or appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single Judge. 15. In the case on hand, the Motor Vehicles Act itself does not provide for any further appeal against the decree or order passed by a learned single Judge to a Division Bench. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the right of appeal available under the Letters Patent is taken away by Section 100A of the Code even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law. 17. The reference is answered accordingly. 18. The appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 463 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rent paid and in lieu of that rent excessive deposit is being made, the usufructus of the said deposit may be considered as rent. Normally the deposit is made as security of the payment of rent and the vacation of premises on the expiry of lease. Here the deposit is accepted in lieu of rent. As such, in our opinion, the revenue, authorities were correct in considering the usufructus from the security as rent. We find no infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly we confirm the same on this count. 26. Once it is accepted that the income in question is to be computed as ';income from house property'; and not as ';Business income';, then all the deductions permissible under the house property income should be given to the assessee while computing the income. We direct the Assessing Officer to compute the house property income in accordance with law, after allowing all the permissible deductions. 27. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 462 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nt/assessing authority is to follow the procedures for assessment prescribed under the statute and finalise the assessment in accordance with law and then demand the tax actually due to be paid. In this case, the respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice, but straightaway issued the demand notices without finalising the assessment. Hence, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, I set aside the notices dated May 21, 2003 and June 10, 2003, issued by the respondent and direct the respondent to finalise the assessment in accordance with law and proceed further for recovering the tax dues. 4.. In fine, the original petition is allowed in the above manner. Consequently, the O.M.P. does not survive. 5.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 6.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 23rd day of June, 2003. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 461 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... procedural law. In the present case the penalty has been levied in clear violation of the law laid down by the competent Legislature. It cannot be disputed that in the wider constitutional connotation penalty is also covered by the word tax . Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. If so advised, the petitioner and/or the driver concerned, may file his show cause within a week from today before the respondent and if a show cause is so filed the respondent will give due consideration thereby and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner wants to have the personal appearance he may make a prayer to that effect and the respondent-authority may grant the personal hearing to the petitioner. The order must be passed by the respondent within two weeks from today. 5.. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. 6.. A carbon copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on an application made before the court officer. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 460 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... looring simpliciter. As already noted, both the authorities have not referred to any material to show the nature of the contract, except to say that the assessment records show that the assessee had manufactured mosaic tiles and used the same in the execution of works contracts. Of course, the assessee had produced a piece of material, which is a sample quotation, as annexure B, which may indicate many things. Whether the contract is of the same nature, is also a matter to be considered. It is only after coming to a definite finding on the question mentioned, the legal position pointed out in this judgment can be applied. Hence, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the assessing officer concerned to consider the said question as directed in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, untrammelled by any of the observations made therein, and in the light of the legal position stated in this judgment. The T.R.C. is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 459 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1993, that is the date previous to the inspection, and that for the immediate preceding year and for all subsequent years up to 1999-2000, his books of account were accepted by the assessing authority evidenced by annexure D and annexures F to J. Though the acceptance of the books for the immediate previous years and subsequent years may be a relevant consideration, having regard to the fact that there was an inspection during this year, and the assessee had admitted the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts of its business, certainly a different consideration is required for this year. Taking into account all the circumstances, we are of the view that the addition must be limited to 15 per cent of the returned turnover. We accordingly modify the orders of the three authorities and direct the assessing authority to modify the assessment by making an addition of 15 per cent to the returned turnover. This T.R.C. is allowed to the above extent. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 458 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts, if any, has to be produced to enable the assessing authority to grant permission for compounding. The Tribunal has also erred in thinking that the production of the contract and other documents is required as a condition for grant of permission as contemplated under sub-section (7A) of section 7. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal on the question of grant of permission under subsection (7A) of section 7 cannot be sustained. We hold that the assessee is entitled to the grant of permission as sought for by it. 9.. Since we have held that the assessee is entitled to the compounding facility provided under section 7(7)/7(7A) certainly it is a matter for the assessing authority concerned to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (11) of section 7. The assessing authority will complete the assessment as contemplated under section 7 of the Act. The tax revision cases are allowed to the above extent. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 457 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essary for this Court to go into the question as to which of the views expressed by the honourable High Courts is the correct view. Insofar as the facts of the present case is concerned, the terms of the contract elaborately discussed hereinabove, lead to the irresistible conclusion that the transfer of the right to use the goods was not limited for any specified duration of time and the parties having intended such transfer for an indefinite duration of time, subject to payment of rent, as envisaged in the contract agreement between the parties, the amount of rent derived must be construed to be on account of a sale within the meaning of the definition clause contained in section 2(33) of the Act and that the said amount has been rightly included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner-company. 8.. The writ petition shall stand accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 456 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which is being raised before this Court. In this petition he submits that he had filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner and forwarded its copy to Commissioner. I think this is not the proper procedure for filing objections, before concerned authority. He should file proper objections, before proper authority. 5.. Therefore, according to this Court this petition can be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority and to file necessary objections and pray for their consideration before the concerned authority. If any such objections are filed by the petitioner it is expected that the concerned authority being a quasi-judicial authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may also pray for grant of stay before the concerned authority. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case with the aforesaid direction this petition is finally disposed of with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 455 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id not give any alarm and therefore it will not fall under item 2.10 under the caption Control and instrumentation products . Counsel for the respondent/assessee on the other hand submitted that the purpose of this item is to use it in the indicator system and that in case the automatic indicator is not switched off the alarm coming from the electronic buzzar would caution the driver to switch off the indicator. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and also perused the orders passed by the assessing authority, the order of the first appellate authority and order of the Tribunal endorsing the finding of the appellate authority. The said finding is based on the evidence produced before the first appellate authority regarding the function of the item. We do not find any ground for interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by the two appellate authorities. There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
