|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 7259 Records
-
2006 (12) TMI 542 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filled in after the petition was affirmed before the Notary, which is prima facie not permissible. It is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the blanks are filled in the affidavit after the petition was affirmed before the Notary. Without carrying the matter any further, while allowing the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file afresh Company Petition, the petitioner is directed to pay exemplary costs, which is quantified at ₹ 7500/- for which, Shri Soparkar, learned senior advocate, has no objection. With the above liberty and with the aforesaid exemplary costs, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present Company Petition with a liberty to file afresh petition as stated above. The aforesaid costs to be deposited with this Court within a period of 2 weeks from today. As and when such an amount is deposited, Office is directed to transmit the said amount to the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee.
-
2006 (12) TMI 541 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... onfidence between the two groups. But, since it is a closely held private company, the question of an outsider purchasing the shares of either group does not arise. Since the petitioner's group holds only 1/3rd shares in the company, the question of the petitioners' group acquiring the shares of the respondents does not arise. Therefore, if the petitioners are interested in selling their shares on a fair valuation, then, directions could be issued to the company to purchase the shares of the petitioners and reduce its paid up capital. If the petitioners opt to sell their shares in writing to the company within one month from the date of this order, the company is bound to purchase the shares on a fair valuation to be determined by an independent valuer to be appointed by this Board, on an application to be made by the petitioners. 22.The petition is disposed of in the above terms reserving the right to appoint a valuer if an application to be made by the petitioners.
-
2006 (12) TMI 540 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... advance moneys and sale proceeds collected from the purchaser-respondents. All the expenses incurred and payments made from and out of the sale proceeds shall be verified by an independent chartered accountant. Towards this end, M/s. K. S. Jagannathan and Co., chartered accountants, are appointed to verify the accounts maintained by the company namely, all receipts, payments and expenses with effect from July, 1995, which shall be completed by January 31, 2007. The third respondent shall be accountable for the irregularities, if any, and shall reimburse the amount that may be quantified by the chartered accountants by March 31, 2007. The company will meet the remuneration of the chartered accountants ; (e) The parties are at liberty to apply in the event of any difficulty in implementation of this order. 23. With the above directions, the company petition and connected applications stand disposed of. In view of this, all the interim orders are vacated. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 539 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to who those persons might be. The persons mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 141 are 'any director', manager, secretary or other officer of the company. This gives an indication as to which persons would fall within the purview of Section 141(1) of the said Act. The petitioner is neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company. Furthermore, the petitioner even otherwise was not in charge of or responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business of the said company. It is another matter that as an agent, the petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India but that does not bring the petitioner within the purview of Section 141 which, in my view, is restricted to an officer of the company or a director of manager or secretary. That being the case. The summoning order, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be set aside. The same is set aside and quashed to this extent.
-
2006 (12) TMI 538 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
... ...
... ... ..... ors-in-business, Assigns or anyone claiming through or under them are restrained from publishing, placing advertisement, or in any manner, circulating or distributing any material defaming or maligning the plaintiff's product 'Aquaguard' or 'UV Purifiers' or from issuing disparaging statements about the said 'Aquaguard' or 'UV Purifiers', during the pendency of the suit. Regard being had to the magnitude of the controversy between the parties, the issue involved being a serious one, and the perceivable irreparable injury or damage to be caused to the parties concerned, it is Impressed upon the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the main suit, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. One last word. The observations made herein being at an interlocutory stage of the suit, they shall not affect the case of either of the parties on merits, nor shall the trial court be influenced by the same, in any manner.
-
2006 (12) TMI 537 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t, rest with the Settlement Commission in view of sub-section (2) of section 245F of the Act. 8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and in the absence of express direction of the Settlement Commission, the authorities below have erred in invoking the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act against the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96. The remedy, if any, available to the Department was to mate appropriate submission before the Settlement Commission in accordance with the laid down procedure. 9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the assessee’s appeal on this ground. 10. In view of the fact that we are allowing the assessee’s appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to deliberate on other issue raised in this appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. Pronounced in the open Court on 8-12-2006.
-
2006 (12) TMI 536 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... lhi-I v. J.S. Architect Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 677 (T) 2005 (188) E.L.T. 455 (Tri.-Del.) (vii) World Eye Communication v. CCE, Faridabad - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 229 (Tri.-Del.) (viii) CCE, Kolkata-I v. S. Deb & Co. - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 230 (Tri.-Kolkata) (ix) CCE, Kanpur v. Anto Mal Jain - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 651 (Tri.-Del.) (x) Mass Marketing & Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 333 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. The learned JDR justifies the imposition of interest and penalty. 4. On a careful consideration, it is seen that there is no dispute about the fact of deposit of Service Tax even before the issue of Show Cause Notice. Therefore, in terms of the above rulings, interest and penalty is not leviable. Hence, the levy of penalty and interest is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. The appellant is entitled for refund of interest paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2006 (12) TMI 535 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rity shares and therefore, they have the right to manage the affairs of the company. 13. Normally, in a closely held companies when the parties have serious disputes, I have always provided for parting of ways. However, in the present case, during the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of an undated "Terms of Settlement" signed by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd petitioner providing for joint management and submitted if the respondents were willing to abide by the said settlement, the petition could be disposed of in terms of the settlement. But the respondents were not willing. Taking into consideration that the 2nd respondent through the 7th respondent had been the prime mover for the project, I dispose of the petition with the direction that if the respondents desire to adopt and abide by the terms of the said settlement which provides for joint management, then the petitioners will be bound by the same. All interim orders stand vacated.
-
2006 (12) TMI 534 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and that a notice would have to be issued to the Petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Since this issue is no longer res integra, we need not dilate any further on this. As far as the other issues that have been canvassed before us are concerned, we reserve orders.
-
2006 (12) TMI 533 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Foreign exchange - Search and seizure - Prosecution and penalty - Statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act - foreign currency was recovered from the brief case - challenging the confiscation of the currency - HELD THAT:- Perusal of this order passed by CEGAT would show that petitioner had filed appeal against the common adjudication order whereby Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration was confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty. It was this order passed in the appeal which was challenged before the CEGAT.
Order clearly records that foreign currency was recovered from the brief case and the petitioner as well as other co -accused were not claiming the seized currency nor were they challenging the confiscation of the currency. This appeal was allowed and imposition of penalty was set aside on the ground that it was based on the solitary statement of Sunil Gulati and even when Sunil Gulati had retracted his statement.
It is clear from the above that in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner is not exonerated on merits and it would still be open to the criminal court as to whether the statement of Sunil Gulati u/s 108 of the Customs Act should be believed or not. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned trial court is valid and proper, though the discussion on the issue namely relevance of adjudication proceedings on the criminal cases may not be fully correct which is stated by the learned trial court in the earlier part of the order. Since the conclusion of the learned trial court in the impugned order is otherwise proper and meets the legal test, this petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Complaint u/s 135 - Customs Clearing Agent - filed the bill of entry himself declaring the goods - importers for the smuggling of the goods - There was nothing on record to show that he had given the description different from the one given in the import documents. On this ground the imposition of penalty was set aside. Once such a finding is given, and if these facts are taken on record, obviously the charge of abetment against the petitioner also cannot be made out as that is on the same facts on the basis of which penalty was imposed and which has been set aside by the CEGAT.
Therefore, this would be a case where after exoneration of the petitioner by the CEGAT on merits, prosecution against the petitioner cannot continue on the same allegations and facts. The impugned order of the learned trial court is accordingly set aside and the petitioner is discharged in the complaint.
Contravention of Sections 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - Chief Enforcement Officer in the Enforcement Directorate, in these circumstances, cannot maintain the proceedings alleging same violation and continue with the complaint. It would be of interest to note that Section 18(2) of the Act spells out the circumstances under which the contravention can be said to have been committed so as to attract the penal provisions in addition to proving that export proceeds have not been realised. It is also to be shown that needful is not done within the prescribed period of time or extended period of time granted by the Reserve Bank of India. Rule 8 of the aforesaid Regulation Rules empowers Reserve Bank of India to extend the period of time as prescribed in the Act for realising the export proceeds.
Further proviso to Sub -Section 2 of Section 18 in no uncertain terms stipulates that no proceedings in respect of any contravention of the provisions of the said Sub -Section shall be instituted unless the prescribed period has expired and payment for the goods representing the full export value has not been made in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. Thus, if the RBI itself has granted the extension or has ultimately waived the requirement, there cannot be any infraction of the said proceedings.
Thus, where RBI has itself waived and allowed the petitioner No. 1 to write off the realising of the export proceeds and on that basis when Department has itself dropped adjudication proceedings, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are also required to be closed. This petition is accordingly allowed. The summoning order dated 28.5.2002 is quashed and impugned order dated 19.4.2005 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed against the petitioners.
-
2006 (12) TMI 532 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ingly. He submits that it is a public sector undertaking and there is no gain on their part for default payment of service tax. He cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of N.C. Maheshwari & Company v. CCE - Delhi 2006 (3) S.T.R. 584 (Tribunal) 2005 (184) E.L.T. 321 (Tri. - Delhi). 4. Heard the learned D.R. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record I find that the appellant deposited the service tax at the old rate within the stipulated period and filed returns to the Department. I find that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and delay in payment of differential amount of service is due to bona fide error. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty is not justified and the impugned order is set aside. 6. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in open court).
-
2006 (12) TMI 531 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We accordingly hold that, in so far as the FE receipts of the assessee (for the purpose of the numerator of the multiplier) excludes the FE received on behalf of other hotels and in respect of which the assessee has issued DCs under Form 10 CCAE, the ?total receipts? in the denominator of the multiplier must also exclude the FE received on behalf of other hotels. 19. Returning to the case on hand, the CIT (A) has rightly computed the profits derived from services rendered by the assessee to foreign tourists by not permitting the deduction of the Nikko hotel receipts from the total receipts while at the same time permitting the FE receipts on behalf of other hotels (covered by certificates in Form 10 CCAE) to be so deducted. The concurrent views of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT in this regard require to be upheld. 20. Consequently questions (a) and (b) are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. These appeals are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 530 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of vanaspati ghee prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, then permit the petitioner for reprocessing within one week from the date of receipt of the report. (iii) After reprocessing of the goods, send sample of the reprocessed goods again to the food laboratory of repute for testing whether the reprocessed goods are fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of vanaspati ghee prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Laboratory shall submit report within one week on receipt of the sample. If the Laboratory submits the report in favour of the petitioner, the goods shall not be detained on this ground and shall be released in accordance with law; (iv)If either of the reports is against the petitioner, then take appropriate steps under the provisions of the Customs Act. 16. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
-
2006 (12) TMI 529 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... rvice provider and the Notification No. 41/97 dt. 5-11-97 as well as the Notification No. 49/98 dt. 2-6-98 having been rescinded by Notification No. 5/99 dt. 28-2-99 and the tax having been paid relating to the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98, which was neither leviable nor realizable from the appellant and having paid the tax under protest, that shall be refundable. However, to refund, the application dt. 4-6-04 which was acknowledged by the Department on the same date should receive scrutiny of unjust enrichment. Only after satisfaction with the requirement of the doctrine, the authorities below may pass appropriate orders. 9. First appeal order is, therefore, unsustainable and is set aside, allowing appeal of the appellant with the direction that the Ld. Adjudicating authority shall examine refund application dated- 4-6-2004 in the light of the aforesaid observations, findings and law of the land and pass appropriate orders without further delay. (Pronounced on 22-12-2006)
-
2006 (12) TMI 528 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... se of Vaneet Jain vs. CIT (2006) 205 CIT (PandH) 92. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that while there is divergence of judicial opinion, between the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court as mentioned above, Special Bench of ITAT supports the case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Special Bench (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra) we allow assessee's grounds of appeal No.1 to 5 and direct the assessing officer to allow the loss on sale of units of mutual funds incurred by the assessee to be set off against the other income of the assessee. 4. Ground of appeal No.6 is directed against the disallowance of interest and other expenditure to the extent of ₹ 1 lakh. During the course of hearing before us this ground of appeal was not pressed. Accordingly the same is rejected. 5. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 527 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... x liability, it was possible the share profit had been taken as an accommodation entry to build up capital. In our view, the order of the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for lack of inquiry in relation to share capital, share profit and production account which were required to be made on the facts of the case. The order of CIT(A) is upheld to that extent. As regards the electricity expenses and the excise duty, no error has been pointed out before us. The assessee had clearly stated that the excise duty was included in the closing stock and there is no material before us to controvert the said claim. Complete details of electricity expenses had also been filed and no material has been brought to our notice to show that any contingent liability had been claimed. Action u/s 263 on these grounds is therefore not upheld. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 5. This decision was pronounced in the open court in 29 Dec. 2006
-
2006 (12) TMI 526 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... epting such income will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, even though the assessee had declared income from commission, the matter on the facts of the case, required inquiry to find out whether it was a genuine case of commission or it was an attempt to help others to reduce their tax liability. But no such inquiry was made. The A.O. had also not examined as to why the assessee was selling goods below cost price. He only called for details of various expenses and accepted the same without conducting inquiries which in our view, were called for on the facts of the case to see whether the purchases and other expenses were really genuine. We therefore, agree with CIT that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of CIT is, accordingly upheld. o p /o p 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p 5. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 29 December, 2006. o p /o p
-
2006 (12) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long (SIC) seeking employment" See also Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 638, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, 2006 (9) SCALE 549 and Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, 2006 (11) SCALE 258 It is also not a case where the doctrine of parity of employment can be invoked. It is true that nomenclature of a term of payment is not decisive but the substance is as was held in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India and Others (2006) 5 SCC 266 , but the question has to be determined having regard to the issue involved. We are concerned herein with only one question, viz., whether the respondents are holders of any civil post. We are, having regard to the materials on record, of the view they are not. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 524 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... shortage of fabrics is due to their having been cleared without accountal in statutory record and without payment of duty. The appellants explain the shortages as due to shrinkage of fabrics during the processing. The department has jumped to the conclusion that the appellants have clandestinely cleared the fabrics without any evidence to corroborate the same. In the light of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Swati Polyster v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 985 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Arora Products v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 69 (Tri.-Del.) cited by the appellants to support the plea that the clandestine clearance can be established only on the basis of sufficient evidence, which is not present in this case, finding of clandestine removal and consequent duty demand cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. 3. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 7-12-2006)
-
2006 (12) TMI 523 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.” Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1991. In this petition, disputed questions of facts have been raised by the petitioner seven years after the date of final order of assessment. For the above reasons, we do not find any reason to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of facts in a belated petition, accordingly,this writ petition is dismissed.
........
|
