|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 257 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 323 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntly the order of the learned Single Judge directing the Revenue to refund the amount of ₹ 1,69,75,724.79 to the Mills must automatically fall. The learned Single Judge was in error in directing the department to refund the duty which was voluntarily paid by the Mills. The department is entitled to recover the balance amount due from the Mills. 12. The appeal preferred by the Mills claiming that the learned Single Judge should have directed the department to refund the amount along with interest does not survive for consideration. In any event the Mills could have never claimed interest on the amount of duty voluntarily paid. Accordingly W.A. No. 1769/91 preferred by the Revenue is allowed and Order dated March 25, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17545/86 is set aside and the petition stands dismissed. Cross Appeal being W.A. No. 2066/91, preferred by the Mills is dismissed. The Mills shall pay costs of the department throughout in both the appeals.
-
1995 (8) TMI 322 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd rent expected to be received under the relevant Rent Act. The view taken by the authorities is, therefore, clearly illegal. It is contended by the respondent that in view of the admission by the appellants in their letter that they are prepared to pay the tax on the basis of the actual rent received from the Bank, they are estopped to go back from the admission and the respondents are right to adopt that as a measure of assessing ratable value. We fail to appreciate the contention as there is no estoppel against the statute. When the statute prescribes particular mode to determine the annual rental value, it has to be done in that manner. Admission wrongly made by the landlord or the owner would not be a ground to deny the statutory benefit. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the assessing authority and the appellate authority are set aside and they are directed to determine the annual value, to determine the amount of tax, as indicated hereinabove. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . This appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order dated March 24, 1995 pending writ appeal. As stated hereinabove, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the Authority and held that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cannot levy any property taxes upon the property held by the Authority. The Municipal Corporation preferred an appeal against the said order wherein the Division Bench directed the Authority to pay a part of the demand pending disposal of the appeal. It is that order which is questioned in this appeal by the Authority. Having regard to our decision in the matters relating to Delhi and Calcutta, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed herewith. It is evident that the writ appeal pending in the Bombay High Court is liable to be allowed in the light of this judgment. It is open to the Bombay Municipal Corporation to bring this judgment to the notice of the High Court and have the appeal disposed of no costs
-
1995 (8) TMI 320 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the relevant files by the "interested parties",and "but for the intervention of influential persons", the Government would not have stayed the entire proceedings as it did on 3.5.1965. We are constrained to observe that the hands of the interested parties seem to be still active, and the intervention of such influential persons has not disappeared (AIR 1974 SC 1888). A laudable and noble cause is delayed for more than 3 decades, under one pretext or the other. We express our anguish in the entire episode. We, therefore , direct the State of Bihar, its officials, the authorities and other persons concerned who are seized of the subject matter of the instant land acquisition proceedings, to complete the proceedings in the quickest possible time. We further direct the appellants in these appeals to pay costs of ₹ 10,000/- in each of these appeals, towards the Advocate's fees for the Society. 13. The appeals are dismissed with costs as aforesaid.
-
1995 (8) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rving the public purpose. The land is needed by them for convenient enjoyment of the residence and the staff quarters. The Parishad is acquiring land for urban development; it would also become a part of its duty to see that the appellant corporation should have comfortable enjoyment of properties for its officers and staff. The appellant has submitted before us a plan, marking the land in yellow which is necessary for it to enjoy the land and which needs to be exempted from acquisition. We find the request is genuine. We, therefore, direct the Parishad to submit, within three months from today, a proposal for the State Government to withdraw the proposed acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres of land in plot Nos.41/1 and 41/2 and instead acquire land of plot No. 41/4, shown in red in the plan, as offered by the Corporation. The State Government is directed to issue required notifications within a period of two months thereafter. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s more to be blamed than the recepient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts other to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite. 11. We, therefore, call upon respondent No.1 to make an enquiry and inform the Court within three months as to who are the officers who had made the unauthorised allotment and permitted unauthorised construction. On knowing about this, such further orders would be passed as deemed fit and proper. 12. Put up after three months.
-
1995 (8) TMI 317 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... The appeals are admitted. Issue notice.
-
1995 (8) TMI 316 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the loan was not adequately secured and the interest charged was also adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was no violation of the aforesaid provision of law and the trust was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act. 4. As is evident, the findings of the Tribunal about the adequacy of the security and the interest are findings of fact. It is not the revenue's case that these findings are not based on any material. These findings are, therefore, binding on us in proceedings under section 256(2) of the Act. On the aforesaid findings, we answer to the question as referred by the Tribunal saying that the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 13 are not applicable in this case and that the assessee-trust is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. We answer the aforesaid question accordingly in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1995 (8) TMI 315 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
... ...
... ... ..... of section 115A of the Act, such profits will be computed as mentioned above but will be charged to tax at 30 per cent. on the amount of royalties and fees for technical services included therein and, at the rate applicable to a foreign company, on the balance thereof, if any. (c) However, in either of the above events, the provisions of sections 44D and 115A shall not be applicable in respect of that part of the receipts of ABC which represent payments in consideration of services under the agreements referred to at (f) and (g) of paragraph 5 (page 495) supra which relate to construction, assembly or like project with the result that only the net amount of such part of the receipts (after deduction of expenses permissible against them under sections 28 to 44C or section 57 of the Act) will be assessable to tax and that such net amount will be assessable not at the rate of 30 per cent. but at the rate of income-tax applicable to such income in the hands of a foreign company.
-
1995 (8) TMI 314 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... an, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 313 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... i, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed
-
1995 (8) TMI 312 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY
Whether on the stated facts of the case, exemption under section 10(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be available ?
Whether on the stated facts, I would be considered as a "technician" for the purpose of section 10(5B) ?
-
1995 (8) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arty" because that witness's evidence is hostile to him. The proviso obviously protects the right of the "adverse party in the first proceeding" and not the right of the person who produces and examines the witness. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is an adverse party in the first proceeding and he had the right and opportunity to cross-examine Kurian who was examined as P.W.1 in the previous proceeding by the respondents; and the evidence becomes admissible since Kurian died pending proceeding. Its acceptability is a matter to be considered by the trial court but at this stage it is not proper for us to go into that aspect of the matter. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is reversed and the order of the trial Judge is set aside. The trial Judge is directed to mark the evidence of Kurian examined in the previous proceeding as P.W.1 on behalf of the appellant and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 310 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ian Aluminium Co. Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.). In view of the said decision, the present appeals are without merit and must fail. The Civil Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the aided institutions, abide by all the rules and regulations of the aforesaid authorities for recognition and affiliation including such of those rules and regulations in the matter of recruitment of teachers, staff, their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and discipline. In this context, the Bar Council of India Rules, Part IV, standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law or admission as Advocates, should be the guiding factor; F. Government should further ensure that a high standard is maintained in legal education and in that behalf, Government of Maharashtra shall, with the concurrence of the concerned University, the Bar Council of India, Bar council of Maharashtra and other competent bodies or persons, as the case may be, take all necessary steps, so that excellence in legal education is achieved. This shall be done expeditiously; and G. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. The appeals are disposed of, as above.
-
1995 (8) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vitiated and the same is, therefore, quashed. It would however be open to the respondents to proceed against the appellants even under the TADA in accordance with law. 17. Insofar as other offence is one under Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act is concerned, no contention has been advanced to deny bail to the appellants. We, therefore, order the release of the two appellants on bail on each of them furnishing a bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The appellants shall observe the following conditions also after release on bail (1) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by police as and when required. (2) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to police. (3) They shall not leave the State of Gujarat without the permission of the Designated Court. 18. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uires that the order of stay should be passed by a court. In any event a stay in respect of proceedings pertaining to an adjacent land cannot be availed of by the respondents in calculating the period of three years wihin which the declaration under Section 6 is required to be made in respect of the appellant's land. In the premises, the appeal is allowed and the directions of the High Court regarding a fresh enquiry under Section 5A and a declaration under Section 5A and a declaration under Section 6 to be issued within six months of the impugned judgment if the Government decides to proceed with the acquisition, as also the direction that the award shall be passed within four months thereafter, are set aside. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. In view of the above findings nothing now survives in the contempt petition No.262/94 taken out by the appellant in these proceedings. There will, therefore, be no order on the contempt petition.
-
1995 (8) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ments from businessmen, traders and professionals. We are, however, of the view that the appellants cannot publish any "list of telephone subscribers" without the permission of the telegraph authority. Rule 458 of the Rules is mandatory and has to be complied with. The appellant shall not publish in the "Tata Press yellow pages" any entries similar to those which are printed in the 'white Pages' of the "telephone directory" published by the Nigam under the Rules. We make it clear that the appellant cannot print/publish an entry containing only the telephone number, the initials, the surname and the address of the businessmen, trader or professional concerned. We allow the appeal in the above terms and set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. While holding that Rule 458 of the Rules is mandatory, we dismiss the suit filed by the respondents. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 305 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Whether the applicant will not be liable to pay income-tax in India on the income from the three categories of assets set out in the question?
Whether the interest on the fixed deposit will be liable to income-tax in India if it is received, or the right to receive it is exercised, in India?
Whether if the factual foundations mentioned in the question are fulfilled, the transaction will not attract any income-tax in India?
Whether no income-tax will be payable in India on the interest from the fixed deposits with the State Bank of India and the Indian Bank for any assessment year if, in respect of the relevant assessment year, the conditions set out in section 10(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are fulfilled?
Whether the income from the units of the Unit Trust of India [item (d) in paragraph 7 of annexure “I”] will be exempt if the units had been acquired out of funds in a non-resident (external) account with any bank in India or out of funds remitted to India in foreign exchange in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the rules and orders made thereunder?
Whether the interest on the fixed deposit with Lloyds Finance in India [item (e) in paragraph 7 of annexure “I”] will not be exempt from tax in India but the applicant can avail of a concessional rate of 20 per cent. on the gross amount of the interest under sections 115D and 115E read with section 115H on complying with the procedural requirements of section 115H?
-
1995 (8) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecessary implication are entitled to the payment of the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of taking over the possession for loss of enjoyment of the land. A different situation may arise where the claimants themselves may question the notification and its invalidity is upheld by the court. Thereunder, the claimants may not be entitled to the additional compensation since they are not willing to surrender the possession under the notification and the State did not in law come into possession under the notification referred to in s. 23 (1A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that though the notification under s. 4(1) was issued after taking possession of the acquired land from the owners of the land, the owners of the land would be entitled, in the case at hand, to additional amount at 12 per cent per annum of market value from the date of taking possession though notification under s. 4(1) was published later. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
........
|
