|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 6467 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 887
Issues Involved:
Recovery of sales tax arrears from a director who had resigned from a company.
Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction to Recover Sales Tax Arrears:
The petitioner, a former Director of a company, was issued a notice to recover sales tax arrears from the company. The petitioner argued that since he had resigned from the Directorship and had no connection with the company, the recovery proceedings against him were not legally sustainable. The Government Advocate acknowledged the lack of provision enabling such recovery from a resigned director. The court examined Section 19-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which imposes liability on directors only in cases of winding up, which was not applicable here. Similarly, Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act holds directors liable only after the company is wound up, making the recovery proceedings against the petitioner unjustified.
2. Comparison with Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act:
The court referred to a Division Bench judgment from Andhra Pradesh regarding the liability of directors of a private limited company under Section 16-B of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act. The judgment emphasized that directors become liable for tax arrears only during liquidation proceedings, which was not the scenario in the present case. The court highlighted that the conditions for invoking such provisions were absent, and recovery proceedings against directors were only permissible under specific circumstances, such as during liquidation.
3. Legal Principles and Precedents:
The court relied on legal principles and precedents to conclude that recovery proceedings against a director who had resigned from a company were not supported by law. Citing the applicability of Section 18 of the CST Act and aligning with the Andhra Pradesh judgment, the court held that the recovery actions against the petitioner lacked jurisdiction, authority, and legal basis. Consequently, the court set aside the proceedings and allowed the writ petition without imposing any costs.
In summary, the judgment clarified that recovery of sales tax arrears from a director who had resigned from a company was not legally permissible under the relevant statutes. The court emphasized the necessity for specific conditions, such as company winding up, to hold directors liable for tax dues. By analyzing the provisions of the Acts and referring to relevant judgments, the court established that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner lacked legal foundation and jurisdiction, leading to the decision to set aside the actions taken by the respondents.
-
2001 (12) TMI 886
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the initiation of anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority.
2. Adequacy and accuracy of evidence provided in the application for initiating anti-dumping investigation.
3. Jurisdiction of the designated authority to initiate anti-dumping proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the initiation of anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority:
The primary issue addressed by the court was whether the findings of the designated authority regarding the initiation of anti-dumping investigation against the petitioners were in accordance with the law and the Rules framed by the Central Government. The court noted that the designated authority had issued a notification for initiation of investigation dated 25.6.2001, which was the subject matter of an earlier writ petition. The court had previously directed the designated authority to decide the issue of its jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings as a preliminary issue.
The designated authority, after receiving objections and hearing all interested parties, justified the initiation of investigation proceedings. The authority concluded that the allegations made were not based on facts and correct interpretation of anti-dumping laws and procedures. The authority ensured that the application was complete in all respects and that the domestic industry complied with all its obligations under the rules. Therefore, the anti-dumping proceedings initiated were consistent with both substantive and procedural requirements under the law.
2. Adequacy and accuracy of evidence provided in the application for initiating anti-dumping investigation:
The petitioners contended that the application filed by the third and fourth respondents lacked sufficient evidence of dumping and injury caused. They argued that the designated authority could not have initiated any proceedings based on inadequate and inaccurate evidence. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, particularly Rule 5, which outlines the procedure for initiating an investigation.
The designated authority determined that the application was supported by sufficient evidence regarding dumping, injury, and a causal link between dumped imports and alleged injury. The authority examined the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and satisfied itself that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation. The court found that the designated authority had adhered to the requirements of Rule 8(1) and (2) and that the domestic industry fulfilled the requirements under Rule 5(3)(a) and the Explanation appended thereto.
3. Jurisdiction of the designated authority to initiate anti-dumping proceedings:
The petitioners also challenged the jurisdiction of the designated authority to initiate investigation proceedings, arguing that the applicants had not supported their application with sufficient evidence. The court referred to the relevant rules, particularly Rule 5, which provides for the initiation of investigation by the designated authority upon receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry. The designated authority can also initiate investigation suo-motu if it is satisfied from information received from the Commissioner of Customs or any other source that sufficient evidence exists.
The court noted that the designated authority had determined that the applicants, being domestic industries, had the standing to file an application and that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation. The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the opinion formed by the designated authority unless it was wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of statutory provisions. The court concluded that the designated authority had correctly understood the scope of Sections 9A and 9B and Rule 5(1) to 5(5) of the Rules and had not committed any error or violated any statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the writ petitions and upheld the initiation of anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority. The petitioners were permitted to file their questionnaire under the Rules before the designated authority within 15 days from the date of the judgment.
-
2001 (12) TMI 885
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the change in accounting method for export cash assistance. The court also answered two questions in favor of the assessee related to a deed of hypothecation trust and the disallowance of interest on fixed deposits. The judgment cited a previous case where similar questions were decided against the revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 884
Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue directions for tax collection. 2. Detention of goods at checkposts for non-payment of advance tax. 3. Reasonableness and constitutionality of the directions issued. 4. Conflict between judicial precedents on the issue. 5. Alleged discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to Issue Directions for Tax Collection:The petitioners contended that the letter (Ext. P1) issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes lacked jurisdiction. However, the court referred to Section 3(1A) of the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963, which states that the Commissioner (Board of Revenue) has the authority to issue orders, instructions, and directions for the proper administration of the Act. The court concluded that the Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the directions for proper tax collection, supported by Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Detention of Goods at Checkposts for Non-Payment of Advance Tax:Under Section 29(2) of the K.G.S.T. Act, goods accompanied by a bill of sale or delivery note can be transported within the state. The court noted that the detention at checkposts is justified only if the goods are not covered by proper and genuine documents. The court highlighted instances of tax evasion and misuse of sale bills by dealers, which justified the need for stringent measures to ensure proper tax collection. The court upheld the directions issued by the Commissioner as reasonable and necessary to prevent tax evasion. 3. Reasonableness and Constitutionality of the Directions Issued:The petitioners argued that the directions were unreasonable and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court, however, found that the directions were issued to ensure proper tax collection and prevent evasion. The court emphasized that the directions were modified to address the concerns of the dealers, making them reasonable and not arbitrary. The court also referred to the decision in M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, which supported the reasonableness of the directions in the interest of revenue. 4. Conflict Between Judicial Precedents on the Issue:The court acknowledged a conflict between the decisions in M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, and Rijo Jacob. In M.C. Johnson, Reshma Timbers, the court upheld the directions as reasonable and within the powers of the Commissioner. In Rijo Jacob, the court held that no general direction is permissible under Section 29A of the Act. The court resolved this conflict by referring to the Full Bench decision in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, which upheld the legislative intent and competency in issuing such directions for effective tax collection. 5. Alleged Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that the directions discriminated against certain dealers and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed this contention, stating that fiscal statutes allow for classification, and unless discrimination within a class is shown, the classification is not open to challenge. The court found the classification reasonable and well-founded, aimed at preventing tax evasion and ensuring proper tax collection. Conclusion:The court dismissed the Original Petitions, upholding the directions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as within jurisdiction, reasonable, and necessary to prevent tax evasion and ensure proper tax collection. The court also resolved the conflict between judicial precedents by referring to the Full Bench decision in M.R.F. Ltd., which supported the legislative intent and competency in issuing such directions.
-
2001 (12) TMI 883
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under Section 148.
2. Validity of assessments made on a single legal heir.
3. Source and ownership of FDRs and interest income.
4. Procedural compliance in issuing notices to all legal heirs.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 148:
The primary legal contention raised by the assessee was that the notices under Section 148 were invalid as they were served only on one legal heir, Shri Ashok Kumar, despite the existence of seven legal heirs. The assessee argued that for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82, the notices should have been served on all legal heirs, and similarly, for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86, the notices issued under Section 148 were also invalid for the same reason.
2. Validity of Assessments Made on a Single Legal Heir:
The assessee contended that the assessments made solely on Shri Ashok Kumar were invalid. It was argued that after the death of the assessee on 24-5-1980, no income could accrue to the deceased, and any income should have been assessed in the hands of the legal heirs individually, in proportion to their shares. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents to support this argument, including decisions from the Gauhati and Gujarat High Courts.
3. Source and Ownership of FDRs and Interest Income:
The factual issue revolved around whether the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 7,02,000, purchased in the name of the deceased, actually belonged to the deceased in his individual capacity or were withdrawals from the firms where the deceased was a partner. The Assessing Officer had added the interest accrued on these FDRs to the income of the deceased, which was contested by the assessee, arguing that the FDRs were margin money against excise duty liability of the firm M/s. S.N. Jaiswal.
4. Procedural Compliance in Issuing Notices to All Legal Heirs:
The legal argument extended to the procedural compliance of issuing notices to all legal heirs. The assessee argued that the failure to issue notices to all legal heirs invalidated the assessments. The first appellate authority, however, directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain all legal heirs and issue notices accordingly, without annulling the assessments.
Separate Judgments:
Accountant Member's Judgment:
The Accountant Member upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 against Shri Ashok Kumar, citing that he attended the proceedings and was given full opportunity to explain. The Member referenced the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in Sumantbhai C. Munshaw's case, which allowed for exceptions where legal representatives, if present and participating, could not later claim the proceedings were invalid. The assessments were set aside to the Assessing Officer to re-process de novo after bringing other legal heirs on record.
Judicial Member's Judgment:
The Judicial Member disagreed, holding that the assessments were nullity since notices were not served on all legal heirs, referencing the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's decision in Jai Prakash Singh's case. The Member emphasized that all legal heirs must be impleaded and served notices for the assessments to be valid. The Judicial Member annulled the assessments on this ground, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the assessments void ab initio.
Third Member's Judgment:
The Third Member, resolving the difference, sided with the Accountant Member, noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh's case (1996) had reversed the Gauhati High Court's decision, holding that non-service of notice to all legal heirs was an irregularity, not a nullity. The Third Member confirmed that the assessments should be set aside and re-processed de novo after issuing notices to all legal heirs, aligning with the Supreme Court's view that procedural defects do not invalidate the substantive liability.
Conclusion:
The final decision, based on the majority opinion, upheld the approach of setting aside the assessments for de novo processing, ensuring notices were issued to all legal heirs, thus aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Prakash Singh's case. The assessments were not annulled but remanded for proper procedural compliance.
-
2001 (12) TMI 882
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955.
2. Applicability of an order of 'dropping of proceedings' under Section 4 of the Act.
3. Right of the State Government to prefer an appeal against decisions of the Competent Authority.
Summary:
Scope and Ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955:
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 7, which provides for appeals from every order of the Competent Authority made under Section 4 or Section 5. The Court emphasized that the term "every order" comprehensively covers all decisions, including the dropping of proceedings. The High Court's interpretation that the Competent Authority is merely an arm of the Government and thus the State cannot appeal against its own decision was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court clarified that the Competent Authority operates as a quasi-judicial entity, and its decisions are subject to appeal under Section 7.
Applicability of an Order of 'Dropping of Proceedings' under Section 4:
The Court addressed whether the dropping of proceedings constitutes an order under Section 4. It was argued that since the Competent Authority did not find the conditions for eviction satisfied, the dropping of proceedings should not be considered an appealable order. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the termination of proceedings by recording "proceedings dropped" is indeed an order. The Court noted that the Competent Authority's decision to drop proceedings after issuing notices and hearing parties is a determination that falls within the ambit of Section 4.
Right of the State Government to Prefer an Appeal:
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's view that the State Government has no right to appeal against the Competent Authority's decisions. The Court highlighted that the statutory language of Section 7 explicitly allows for appeals from "every order" of the Competent Authority. The interpretation that the State cannot appeal against its own decision was found to be a misreading of the statute. The Court emphasized that the Competent Authority's decisions are independent and subject to judicial review, and the State's right to appeal is integral to the statutory framework.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeals and directing the concerned District Judge to hear the appeals with utmost expedition within four months. The Court underscored the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in their entirety and giving effect to every word used by the Legislature. The High Court's restrictive interpretation was found to be contrary to the norms of statutory construction.
-
2001 (12) TMI 881
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government is required to submit an application to the University u/s 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, for establishing a government-run medical college.
2. Whether the perspective plan prepared by the University under the Act is binding on the State Government when it decides to set up a government-run medical college.
Summary:
Issue 1: Application Requirement u/s 64 of the Act
The Supreme Court examined whether the State Government must submit an application to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences for permission to establish a government-run medical college. The Court held that the setting up of a medical college and medical education is governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the regulations framed thereunder. Specifically, para 3 of the Regulations mandates an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government for establishing a medical college. However, this requirement applies to private management and not to the State Government itself. The Court concluded that the State Government, being the authority to grant permission, cannot apply to itself for such permission. Therefore, the decision of the State Government to establish a new medical college is equivalent to granting itself the necessary approval and Essentiality Certificate.
Issue 2: Binding Nature of the Perspective Plan
The Court addressed whether the perspective plan prepared by the University is binding on the State Government. It was argued that Article 371 (2) (c) of the Constitution, which pertains to technical education, does not apply to medical education. The Court held that while the perspective plan serves as a guideline to indicate the desirability of setting up a medical college in specific regions, it is not strictly binding on the State Government. The State Government is expected to follow these guidelines as far as possible to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure equitable distribution of medical facilities. In this case, the Court found substantial compliance with the perspective plan, as the State Government's decision to establish a medical college in Kolhapur and other regions aligned with the plan's recommendations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- The State Government's decision to establish a medical college does not require an application to itself u/s 64 of the Act.
- The perspective plan prepared by the University is not strictly binding on the State Government but serves as a guideline.
- The State Government's decision in this case substantially complied with the perspective plan.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court was set aside.
-
2001 (12) TMI 880
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
2. Nature of the relationship between the parties (partnership vs. shareholder).
3. Termination of agreements and use of the trade name "Ultrafilter".
4. Competing business activities by the respondent.
5. Remedies and reliefs sought by the petitioners.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The second petitioner, holding 51.82% shares in M/s Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited, alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement against the respondent, who holds 26% shares. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's actions, such as attempting to gain control of the company and supporting a competitor, were oppressive and detrimental to the company's interests.
2. Nature of the Relationship Between the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the relationship between the second petitioner and the respondent is akin to a partnership, not merely a shareholder relationship. The petitioner emphasized that "each partner owes a higher degree of duty not only to the other partner but also to the Company." The court acknowledged that the company was formed based on mutual trust and confidence, and thus, the principles of partnership could be applied. It was noted that the company is "nothing but a glorified partnership between the petitioner and the respondent."
3. Termination of Agreements and Use of the Trade Name "Ultrafilter":
The respondent terminated the 'Technical Collaboration Agreement' and the 'Trade Mark Registered User Agreement,' advising the company not to use the word "Ultrafilter." The court noted that the 'Technical Collaboration Agreement' had expired, and the termination was within the respondent's rights. The court also recognized that the dispute over the trade name was the subject of a civil suit in Bangalore.
4. Competing Business Activities by the Respondent:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent started competing with the company by supporting a competitor, M/s Pace Equipment, which marketed Sabroe dryers. The court found that while the respondent's insistence on marketing Sabroe dryers was not against the company's interest, the respondent's failure to ensure that Pace also marketed the company's filters was detrimental. The court held that both parties had breached the doctrine of utmost good faith by engaging in competing businesses.
5. Remedies and Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners:
The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from interfering with the company's affairs and from competing with the company. The court directed the petitioner/company to purchase the respondent's shares at a fair value determined by the statutory auditors, based on the balance sheet as of 31.3.1999. The court emphasized that the strained relationship between the parties justified the application of partnership principles and the need for one party to exit the company.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the company is in the nature of a partnership and that the respondent's actions were detrimental to the company's interests. The court directed the petitioner/company to purchase the respondent's shares to resolve the disputes and protect the company's interests.
-
2001 (12) TMI 879
The High Court of Madras upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to limit depreciation on rigs and compressors to 15% instead of 30% for the assessment year 1987-88. The court found that rectification was required as per the substantive law established in a previous case, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 878
Issues Involved: The Tribunal's consideration of financial stringency without assessing the merit of the case in a waiver-cum-stay application.
Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad, in the case before it, noted that the Tribunal had only focused on the financial stringency aspect and had not evaluated the merit of the case. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that in waiver-cum-stay applications, the Tribunal must examine both the prima facie merit of the case and the financial condition of the petitioner. The respondent argued that the petitioner had not raised any financial stringency issues or provided evidence in this regard. After hearing both parties, the Court concluded that the petition should be allowed. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the waiver-cum-stay application, taking into account both the merit of the case and the financial aspects.
-
2001 (12) TMI 877
The Revenue's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore. The Tribunal found that the denial of modvat credit by invoking the six months' time limit was not justified as the necessary actions were taken by the appellants within a reasonable time frame. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 876
Issues Involved:
Arrest of a lady in connection with counterfeit notes, interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) on bail provisions.
Interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The respondent was arrested for various offences and sought bail as charge sheet was not filed within 90 days. The State argued that the 90-day period should start from the date when investigation under the MCOC Act began. The proviso to Section 167(2) limits detention to 90 days for certain offences. The State contended that the MCOC Act modified this provision, but failed to extend custody with proper reports.
Application of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act):
The MCOC Act modified the application of Section 167(2) of the Code, extending the investigation period to 90 days. The State's argument that the investigation period should start from the MCOC Act approval date was rejected. The respondent was entitled to bail due to the investigating agency's failure to complete the investigation within 90 days from the initial remand.
Bail Provisions and Enforcement:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's bail granted by the High Court. The bail bond executed by the respondent was to be enforced, and the prosecution retained the right to move for cancellation of bail. The judgment clarified the process for dealing with bail applications and the enforcement of bail bonds.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.
-
2001 (12) TMI 875
Issues:
- Deductibility of Society Maintenance Charges from house property income under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeal raised by the revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction of Society Maintenance Charges from house property income under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. The properties were leased to Banks in Co-operative Societies, and the assessee claimed these charges as a deduction, arguing they were exclusively for earning rental income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that repairs and maintenance deduction had already been allowed. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, citing past approvals by the Department.
2. The revenue contended that Society Maintenance Charges were not deductible under sections 23 or 24 of the Income-tax Act, referencing the Delhi High Court case of CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons [1984] 149 ITR 253. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that the charges should be deducted from the gross rent to determine the net ALV under section 23(1)(b), emphasizing the real income principle. The counsel relied on various decisions supporting the deduction claim.
3. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and precedents. It noted that the real income theory should apply, deducting the Society Maintenance Charges from the actual rent received to determine the usual rent. However, it observed that the decision in Varma Family Trust was implicitly overruled by the Bombay High Court in cases like CIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 723 and CIT v. Gopal Krishna Suri [2000] 113 Taxman 707. These cases emphasized that deductions beyond standard provisions were not permissible.
4. The Tribunal distinguished other cases cited by the assessee's counsel, concluding that Society Maintenance Charges were not allowable deductions under sections 23 or 24 of the Act. Following the Delhi High Court's decision and the Bombay High Court's rulings, the Tribunal held that such charges were not deductible. Therefore, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and reinstated that of the Assessing Officer, allowing the revenue's appeal.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue, disallowing the deduction of Society Maintenance Charges from the house property income.
-
2001 (12) TMI 874
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeals as no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT Ahmedabad's order. The Tribunal had considered the facts and evidence on record and reached a conclusion. The appeals were dismissed, and the record and proceedings were to be returned to the Tribunal immediately.
-
2001 (12) TMI 873
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the salary received by the assessee from Mogul Lines Ltd. for services rendered on a ship outside Indian territorial waters can be considered as salary received for services rendered outside India.
2. How the salary should be treated for tax purposes.
Summary:
Issue 1: Salary Received for Services Rendered Outside India
The assessee, an employee of Mogul Lines Ltd., rendered services on two ships floating outside Indian territorial waters during the relevant period. The assessee initially filed a return as a "Resident" but later revised it to "Non-resident" to exclude the salary earned outside India. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that since the contract of employment was entered in India, the services were rendered per the terms of employment, and the final settlement occurred in India, the salary should be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The CIT(A) upheld this view.
Issue 2: Tax Treatment of Salary
The Tribunal noted that the floating island theory, which treated ships as part of the territory of the state whose flag they fly, had undergone changes in international law. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 526 clarified that Indian ships operating beyond Indian territorial waters are not considered part of India for tax purposes. The Tribunal also referred to various decisions and the insertion of an Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 1983, with retrospective effect from 1st April 1979, which clarified that salary for services rendered in India is considered income earned in India.
The Judicial Member (JM) held that since the services were rendered outside India, the salary should not be considered as income earned in India. However, the Accountant Member (AM) disagreed, stating that the salary received in India should be included in the total income of the assessee, regardless of where the services were rendered. The AM emphasized that the contract of employment was entered in India, making the salary accrued or arisen in India.
Third Member Decision:
The Third Member agreed with the AM, stating that the salary received in India by a non-resident is taxable in India u/s 5(2)(a). The Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) does not apply to services rendered outside India. The salary accrued or arisen in India due to the contract of employment being entered in India and enforceable in India.
Final Order:
In conformity with the majority opinion, the Tribunal adjudicated the issue in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 872
The High Court of Madras considered questions referred by the Revenue for assessment year 1985-86 regarding interpretation of clauses in an agreement. The Court answered in favor of the assessee, citing a similar case from a previous assessment year.
-
2001 (12) TMI 871
Issues:
Mandamus sought for full "cash assistance" and "replenishment benefits" in respect of a contract placed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under IDA loan; Challenge to notifications dated 6th December, 1975 and 5th November, 1979 regarding applicability of benefits retrospectively.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, Siemens India Limited, sought mandamus to direct the Union of India to allow full "cash assistance" and "replenishment benefits" for a contract with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under an IDA loan. They challenged notifications from 1975 and 1979 regarding the retrospective application of benefits. The scheme aimed to promote indigenously manufactured goods and prevent foreign exchange loss.
2. The petitioner engaged in manufacturing and supply of electrical equipment. They submitted a tender to supply equipment for a water supply project financed through an IDA loan. The petitioner quoted lower prices considering export incentives, seeking confirmation of "cash assistance" availability. The contract was registered with the bank within the prescribed period. Changes in cash assistance rates led to disputes over benefit eligibility.
3. The government's decisions in 1975 and 1979 impacted the petitioner's benefit claims. The petitioner's contract was accepted before the 1975 notification, making it ineligible for retrospective benefits. The court found the petitioner was aware of the governing notification from 1969 and had received benefits based on the contract's conclusion date. The petitioner's claims were worked out as per the applicable policy, and no discrimination was found in benefit calculation.
4. The court highlighted that the notifications were not made retrospective to avoid changing crucial benefit determination dates in concluded contracts. The petitioner was informed of the appeal process but chose to approach the court instead. The court dismissed the petition after finding no merit, emphasizing that the notifications were not applied retrospectively, and no discrimination occurred in benefit calculations.
5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition without costs, stating that the petitioner had received benefits as per the governing policy and no discrimination was found in the benefit calculation process. The court upheld the government's decision not to apply the notifications retrospectively to maintain consistency in benefit determination dates for concluded contracts.
-
2001 (12) TMI 870
Issues involved:
The appellant convicted under S.22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenging conviction and sentence, possession of psychotropic substance, interpretation of Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985, application of S.27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, determination of small quantity for personal consumption.
Conviction and Sentence Challenge:
The appellant convicted under S.22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, sentenced to RI for ten years and fined &8377; 1 lakh. High Court dismissed appeal. Appellant filed special leave petition. Amicus curiae appointed. Arguments heard for and against.
Possession of Psychotropic Substance:
Appellant found with 110 ampoules of buprenorphine (Tidigesic), a psychotropic substance. Possession of psychotropic substance governed by Rule 66 of NDPS Rules, 1985. Rule allows possession for genuine medical requirements within specified limits. No defense taken regarding quantity during trial.
Application of S.27 of NDPS Act, 1985:
S.27 applies to possession of psychotropic substance intended for personal consumption. Small quantity defined by Central Govt. notification as 1 gram. Appellant found with only 66 mg, well below the small quantity limit. Defense raised that substance was for personal consumption.
Judgment and Conclusion:
Court considers appellant's possession for personal consumption based on quantity and circumstances. Syringes found with substance indicate personal use. Conviction altered to S.27 of the Act, sentencing to maximum of six months. Appellant to be released unless required in another case. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... review petition. We find no merit in it. The review petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 868
Issues:
Short receipt of imported goods at the factory premises, demand for customs duty, execution of bonds, applicability of exemption notification, discrepancy in quantity received, remission of duty under Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. Short receipt of imported goods at the factory premises:
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, imported Chinese Low Ash Metallurgical Coke and claimed exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. The Superintendent of Customs alleged a short receipt of 92.770 M.T. and issued a show cause notice for realizing Customs Duty of Rs. 1,94,766.00. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Execution of bonds and discrepancy in quantity received:
The appellant argued that there was no shortage in the receipt of goods at their factory premises. They contended that the quantity despatched from Paradeep was 11968.595 M.T., while the quantity received at Choudwar was 12019.230 M.T., as per actual weighment. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in their favor, emphasizing that there was no violation of the exemption notification or the executed bonds.
3. Applicability of exemption notification and remission of duty under Customs Act:
The Revenue contended that the appellants were liable to pay the differential duty due to the shortage in imported goods at their factory premises, as per the conditions of the executed bonds. However, the Tribunal noted that a previous decision involving the same appellant had established that there was no transit loss, and the quantity received was higher than the despatched quantity. Citing Section 23 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that remission of duty is permissible for goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home-consumption. Consequently, the demand for duty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that there was no basis to demand any duty from them due to the discrepancy in the quantity received and the established remission provisions under the Customs Act.
........
|
9911796707
