|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 486 Records
-
2003 (4) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appeal is allowed, but, with no order as to costs. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that some of the juniors working under the same scheme have been retained in service and the services of the respondents were terminated. He also submitted that the respondents having served the Corporation without any complaint for about three years, their services may be availed of as and when such opportunity arises. We are of the view that the question whether juniors to the respondents are retained in service or not, does not arise for our consideration in this appeal. As far as the request that their services could be availed of for some other project, all that we can say is that it is for the respondents to approach the Authorities and if the Authorities find them suitable and it is permissible in law to assign them such work, it is open for them to do so, but we cannot give such a direction in that regard.
-
2003 (4) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been occasioned under a covenant or incident of that contract. The authority has based his order on mere generalities. 7. Supreme Court criticized the procedure followed by the authority in rejecting the claim in wholesale on general observations. The further observation is that a duty has been caste upon the Taxing Authorities to assess the tax in accordance with law and they are bound to examine each and individual transaction and then to decide whether it constitute inter-State sale liable to tax under the Taxing statute. The said judgment has been followed in 1993 U.P.T.C. 527, M/s. Indo Bulger Foods v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. Following the aforesaid binding pronouncements, the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal under revision is set aside. The revision is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the assessee afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. 8. There will be however, no order as to costs.
-
2003 (4) TMI 589 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that he has not applied his mind to the question whether the appellants are in occupation of the properties on the basis of the right created by the defaulter subsequent to the attachment or whether the appellants are in possession of the property in their own right. 11. Consequently, we hold that the order of the Recovery Officer is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Though learned Single Judge directed the appellants to avail the alternative remedy by way of appeal, since the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in ordering actual possession of the property and the order suffers from mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order passed by the Recovery Officer is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order of the Recovery Officer is quashed. Consequently, the common order of the learned Single Judge made in both the writ petitions is set aside. The writ appeals stand allowed. No costs. Connected applications are closed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 588 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... c. v. Rainforest Cafe and Ors., . I am unable to find any similarity in the facts. The dispute in that case was whether the Defendant was entitled in law to open a restaurant named Rainforest. It was my opinion that the public recollection would be linked to the Defendant's restaurant with the Plaintiff's international chain which I found to be misleading and, therefore, impermissible. However, if the public has a recollection which is erroneous on essential facts, no action would lie where this erroneous recollection is sought to be removed. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had gone to the extent of submitting that even if Dettol Soap was not efficacious for what it is held out to achieve, if the public perceives it to be so, it is not open to any person to remove this mistaken belief. The argument must be unequivocally rejected as devoid of merit. 10. For these manifold reasons, I find no merit in the application and it is dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2003 (4) TMI 587 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 100A of 2002 Act would become operational. In other words, Section 100A of 2002 Act would not affect the accrued right of appeal vested in a suitor who has actually filed the appeal before 1.7.2002 but those who are yet to file the appeal on or after 1.7.2002 would not be entitled to maintain the same. 19. In view of the above discussion, our answer to question No. 1 is in the negative and it is held that no letters patent appeal would lie against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge arising from an original, appellate decree or an order. Our answer to the second question is that the letters patent appeals filed before 1.7.2002 would not be dealt with and decided by applying the provisions of Section 100A of 2002 Act. Having answered the reference on two significant questions, the case be listed before the Letters Patent Bench for deciding the same on merits because the instant letters patent appeal has been held to be maintainable. Order accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 586 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... representation have been stated in the second representation, except for the difference in language and the manner of presentation. Having not found any new ground or fresh material or any subsequent event justifying a consideration of the second representation of the detenu, we are not persuaded to hold that in these circumstances the Central Government was bound to consider the second representation and pass a separate order disposing of the same. In fact all the grounds stated in the second representation were also stated in the first representation which was rejected by the Central Government after obtaining opinion of the Advisory Board and after due consideration. There was, therefore, no obligation on the part of the Central Government to pass a similar order again on the basis of the second representation which did not contain any new or fresh grounds justifying a fresh consideration. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he third proviso to section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable in respect of the plant and machinery which cost below ₹ 5,000 00 since such assets are covered specifically under the first proviso, and that the entire cost is to be allowed by way of deduction?"
-
2003 (4) TMI 584 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... material has been filed to show as to whether as a matter of fact something adverse to the applicant was detected or the department has taken any departmental proceeding against any such officers. 9. I have carefully gone through all the three orders of the authorities below except making that there appears to be collusion of the officials with the traders, no material in support thereof has been discussed or mentioned. This Court in 1984 U.P.T.C. 889, M/s. Ramjimal Govindram v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, has held that the Tribunal has committed illegality by giving a fresh inning to the Sales Tax Officer by remanding the penalty proceeding to pluck the loop hole that have already arisen in the penalty order. 10. Following the aforesaid judgment both the revisions are allowed and the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal so far as it remands the matter back to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration, is set aside and it is held that no penalty is leviable on the applicant.
-
2003 (4) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct can be pressed into service for deleting the land and building once notified to defeat the very purpose and object of the Act of preserving open space and whether issuing of notification to diminish the preserved area will be ultra vires of the provisions of the Act when the laudable object of the Act is to preserve parks in open spaces to create and maintain healthy and eco- friendly atmosphere, in our view, require to be left open. We have reservations in accepting the views of the High Court expressed in this regard in the impugned judgment. Since we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we do not propose to examine these questions in this appeal any further. In the result, for the reasons stated above, while declining to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, we leave the questions of law open to be decided as and when occasion arises in future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly in the above terms. No costs.
-
2003 (4) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... istant Commissioner keeping in view the past history of the case as also the order of the Tribunal, deleted the addition of ₹ 19,486. The department filed appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. It was contended that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in deleting the addition. The contention was not accepted by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed. The matter has been referred under section 256 of the Income-tax Act for opinion. 5. Similar question was raised and decided in CIT v. Development Trust (P.) Ltd. 1991 198 ITR 766(All.), where it was held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the estimated liability of development expenses was not a contingent liability but a liability in praesenti and hence an allowable deduction. 6. In view of the above decision our answer to the question is in affirmative and against the department. The reference is accordingly disposed of. 7. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
-
2003 (4) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on disregarded by that court as being per incuriam, See Nicholas vs. Penny (1950) 2KB 466, 1950 2 All ER 89. Morvelle Ltd. vs. Wakeling (1955) 2 QB 379 (1955) 1 All ER 708 C. Bryers vs. Canadian Pacific Streamships Ltd. (1957) 1 QB 134, (1956) 3 All ER 560 CA Per Singleton LJ, affd. Sub nom. Canadian Pacific Streamship Ltd. versus Bryers (1958) AC 485, (1957) 3 All ER 572. 1. A. and J. Mucklow Ltd. vs. IRC (1954) Ch. 615, (1954) 2 All ER ; 508 CA, morelle Ltd. versus Wakeling (1955) 2 QB 379, (1955) 1 All ER 7 08 CA, See also Bonsor versus Musicians Union (1954) Ch.479, (1954) 1 All ER 822 CA, where the per incuriam conten tion was rejected and, on appeal to the house of Lords although the House overruled the case which bound the Court of Appeal, the House agreed that that court had been bound by it; see (1956) AC 104, (1955) 3 All ER 518 HL. Williams versus Glasbrook Bros Ltd (1947) 2 All ER 884 CA (1944) 1 KB 718; (‘1944) 2 All ER 293 AIR 1960 SC 936 (1960) 3 SCR 378
-
2003 (4) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... repair of roads and bridges is a hilly area. By pointing out these facts, it cannot be said that the Legislature was overruling the decision rendered in M/s Yashpal Garg's case. This only makes it clear that levy of road tax was compensatory. Competence of legislature to pass such law is not at all challenged and cannot be challenged. Hence, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding the H.P. Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1991 (Act No.10 of 1991) as ultra vires is quashed and set aside. It is also held that as the 1976 Act does not survive because of its repeal and by enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (On Certain Goods carried by Road) Act, 1991 (Act No.10 of 1991), no further declaration is required to be granted. Ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. IA No.28 of 2001 in CA NOs.3545-3562 of 1991. In view of the order passed above, the intervention application is rejected.
-
2003 (4) TMI 579 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inbefore, in terms of clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 86 the State is required to specify a date in the notification on which date all the liabilities created by the Scheme shall come into force, and furthermore in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 86 a Town Planning Scheme shall have effect as if it were enacted in the said Act. The contents of the Scheme, there- fore, will prevail over any policy decision taken by the Corporation or by the State. Having regard to the aforementioned provisions; particularly having regard to the fact that it is not the contention of the appellant that the State lacked inherent jurisdiction in approving the Scheme in terms of Section 86 of the Act, the Scheme became part of the Act. o p /o p 35. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, and it is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p (N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed. o p /o p
-
2003 (4) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, this judgment is also not relevant to the facts of the present case. 55. In view of the discussion above, we find that the sale of NOCIL shares by the assessee-company to M/s Arvi Associates, the firm in which the assessee-company is also a partner, is genuine one and, therefore, the provisions of s. 45(3) are applicable to the sale transaction by the assessee. The disallowance made of the loss of ₹ 21,33,53,989 is, therefore, deleted and these grounds of appeal are decided in favour of the assessee. 56. The grounds of appeal pertaining to the deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) are not pressed by the learned counsel, the same are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. The ground of appeal pertaining to penalty proceedings is not the subject-matter of the appeal and, therefore, the same is dismissed treating the same as infructuous. The additional grounds filed by the assessee are also dismissed as not pressed. 57. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 577 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... al's decision in the case of Arunoday Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Shillong, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 426, wherein it was held that credit was admissible to the appellants on inputs received in their factory under cover of invoices showing Inspector of Works, Railways as the consignee because the goods were purchased by the Railways and supplied directly to the appellants for manufacture of goods under a contract with the Railways. The Tribunal has distinguished the Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer & Lawrie Vs. Commissioner, 2000 (36) RLT 666 (CEGAT-L.B.) RLT (L.-B.-CEGAT) - 1403 2000 (116) ELT 364 on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which M/s. Arunoday Construction Company (P) Ltd. availed credit were not endorsed invoices. I, therefore, hold that credit of ₹ 91,519.54 is admissible to the appellants. 3. The ld. counsel does not press the issue relating to availment of credit on original invoice. 4. The appeal is disposed of as above.
-
2003 (4) TMI 576 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deductible as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. In our view also the interest, which was required to be paid by the assessee on account of delayed payment on the demand of income tax, partakes the character of the income tax itself, it being the accretion to the income-tax on account of default made by the assessee in payment of the tax demanded and the interest being payable under section 220 of the Income-tax Act. It being the part and parcel of the income-tax, deduction is not permissible under the provisions of section 40(a)( ii) read with section 2(43 ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and we hold that the interest paid on delayed amount of the demanded income tax is not allowable deduction as business expenditure or otherwise under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. The appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (4) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns issued therein. The application filed by 1st Respondent will stand rejected. 26) We however clarify that it will be open for the trial Court to follow the procedure indicated by the High Court in the Order dated 7th February, 2000 viz. to call for the originals and compare the same with what is produced in evidence, unless of course it is admitted that the copy in Court is correct. 27) Before we part with the Order, we must record what happened in Court. The 1st Respondent, during his submissions in Court, refused all reasonable offers for settlement and said, in so many words, that he was bent on teaching the Appellant Company a lesson. It was clear that the 1st Respondent is acting out of vengeance. We must also record that Mr. Sibbal made, what we considered, to be very fair offers, including giving to 1st Respondent 50 shares in the Appellant Company. The offers were rejected outright. 28) The Appeals stand disposed off accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (4) TMI 574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation Officer will complete Part II of Form MTG, and return to the applicant and shall at the same time enter in the Registration Certificate the date of its surrender. On the receipt of application in Part III of MTG, the certificate of registration, token and any other documents surrendered will be returned to the applicant, and the Taxation Officer after satisfying himself that the vehicle actually remained off the route, shall issue a certificate to the owner to this effect." 42. A reading of rule 25 clearly shows that there is a requirement regarding production of proof regarding production of the tax till date, token, permit Part A & B. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the D.T.O. Thus no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 43. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the bunch of special appeals and the writ petitions. Consequently, all the special appeals and the writ petitions stand dismissed. No order as to cost.
-
2003 (4) TMI 573 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... upon the tax auditors and allowing the guest-house expenses of ₹ 32,166 without first deciding as to whether the premises in question were used for business purposes." "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for disallowing the claim for interest, it was necessary to establish the nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances and consequently deleting the disallowance of ₹ 96,166." "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances shown by the assessee the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,928 made under s. 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" The Tribunal is further directed to refer these questions within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The reference application filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... original seniority to the appellant and assigning seniority from a subsequent date i.e. 14.12.1980. Once the expulsion order was set aside it has no existence in the eyes of law and cannot be taken notice of for depriving him of his original seniority. The Managing Committee of the society had also passed a resolution on 3.6.1991 to the affect that the four members including the appellant may be asked to submit requisite documents and make payments of their dues as paid by other members on account of cost of land, development charges and interest etc. In this resolution nothing was said about disturbing the seniority of the appellant or assigning him seniority from a later date. The appellant having deposited the entire amount demanded by the society, is entitled to restoration of his original seniority. All the aforesaid appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellants' original seniority shall be restored.
........
|
