|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 624 Records
-
2004 (2) TMI 703 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... satisfaction of the Special Judge, EC/NDPS, Madurai on the following conditions (1) The counsel for the appellants requested that the appellants may be allowed to stay outside the State of Tamil Nadu. We are not inclined to grant such a prayer as the respondents police authorities would not be able to ensure the timely presence of the appellants in Court; (2) The appellants shall not leave jurisdiction of the District Court, Madurai and shall report before the Circle Inspector, Karuppayurani Police Station once in two weeks for 3 months, thereafter, once in a month. (3) The appellants shall surrender their pass-port before the Court, if not already seized by the police. The Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial. Whatever the statement made regarding the merits of the case shall not have any persuasive effect on the Special Judge while finally deciding the case. 8. The appeal is disposed of. 9. T.P.(Crl) No. 316/2003 The Transfer Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2004 (2) TMI 702 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act, in unconstitutional, for want of Legislative competence, continues to be binding on the Respondents. (iii) As a consequence, it is declared that the Authorities under the Act proceed on the basis that Entry 25 is restores to Sixth Schedule of the Act by virtue of the decision of the supreme Court in ACC reported (2001 4 SCC 593). Nor can they proceed with or decide any proceeding on the basis that Entry 25 in Sixth Schedule is restores to the Act. 10. Following the said decision in GOLDEN COLOR LAB and in terms of it, these petitions are allowed. As a consequence the orders dated 14-11-2002 under Section 25A and the consequential demand notices dated 5-12-2002 in regard to assessment year 1990-91 to 1998-99 are quashed 11. In the result, (i) W. A. 3079-3096/2003 are allowed as per para 8 above. (ii) W.P.3218-3235/2003 are allowed as per para 10 above. (iii) Parties to bear respective costs. Sri B Anand, Learned G. A., is permitted to file memo of appearance six weeks.
-
2004 (2) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ccused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. As observed in Palukuri Kotayya’s case (supra) it can seldom happen that information leading to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. To similar effect was the view expressed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1962 SC 1788) The several discrepancies and shortcomings in evidence as noticed supra considerably corrode credibility of the prosecution version. That being so, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has not established the accusations against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently he is entitled to be acquitted. Since he is on bail, the bail bonds be discharged. The appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 699 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a v. Rajghat Education Centre, 2003 All LJ 587, General Manager, Modipan Fibre Co. v. Narendra Pal Gahlot, 2003 All LJ 980, G. Basi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, 2003 (2) All WC 1199 (SC) (AIR 2003 SC 1764), Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2728 (AIR 2003 SC 4325), Anil Kumar Agarwal v. U. P. Stock Exchange, 2004 (1) AWC 280 (2004 All LJ 365) etc. 8. We have elaborated on this because a large number of petitions are being filed in this Court in which the only prayer is that the High Court should fix instalments of the loan taken by the petitioner or to grant one time settlement. In our opinion the High Court has no power to do this. It should exercise judicial restraint and observe the well settled principles on which writs are issued. 9. For the reasons given above we are not inclined to fix instalments in such cases. Petition is dismissed. 10. However, if any amount has been deposited by the petitioner with the Bank it shall be adjusted.
-
2004 (2) TMI 698 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ur is regularly assessed to Income-tax. Her identity as taxpayer is not disputed. Computation of income and balance sheet of Smt. Anand Kaur was placed on record. Shri Jain submitted that Smt. Anand Kaur purchased the shop for ₹ 74,554. This was duly reflected in her balance sheet, which is appended at page 275 of paper book No. 1. She owns the assets to the extent of ₹ 4,80,340 including the shop. This shop is registered in her name. There is absolutely no iota of evidence on record to demonstrate that said purchase of shop, and in turn the investment therein was made by the assessee. The Learned Accountant Member in this regard simply agreed with the view of the CIT(A). No independent view is expressed by him on this issue. I am inclined to agree with the reasoning given by Learned Judicial Member. As such I concur with him on this count. 37. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeals in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
2004 (2) TMI 697 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It is thus clear that no notice as required under Sec.253(4) was issued to appellant or served on the appellant and copies of notice and grounds of appeal were furnished only on 3-10-2001. Therefore, the cross-objection filed on 16-10-2001 are in time. This aspect been completely lost sight of by the Tribunal. The order dismissing the cross-objection as barred by time is clearly not sustainable. 9. The cross-objections can be continued even if the appeals are withdrawn. The principle behind Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC clearly providing for the same, is applicable. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 31-10-2002 in Cross-objections 73-78/Bang/2001 (in ITA Nos1859 to 1864/Bang/92) is set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for hearing and disposal of Cross-objections No. 73-78/Bang/2001 filed by the appellant in accordance with law Registry is directed to send back the records received from the Tribunal to the Tribunal.
-
2004 (2) TMI 696 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nnected papers. We do not find any merit in the Review Petitions. The Review Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
-
2004 (2) TMI 695 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ract by vivisecting and subjecting part of it to tax. The said decision has subsequently been followed in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 322 (Tri.) 2004 (60) RLT 505 (CESTAT-Delhi). The applicability of the above decisions to the appellants’ activities is required to be examined by the authorities below. If the appellants’ activities are identical to the activities held as not serviceable by the Tribunal in the above two cases then the service tax was not required to be paid by the appellant and consequentially penalty was not required to be imposed. 4. For the above purposes I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine the various contracts placed upon the appellants by their customers in the light of the decisions referred supra and re-decide the matter. Both the appeals are allowed in above terms. Stay petitions also get disposed of. (Dictated in the Court.)
-
2004 (2) TMI 694 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts was not deductible from book profits while computing deduction under s. 115J? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the provision was towards specific debts and it is not a contingent liability and hence not includible in book profit computed under s. 115J? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that addition was a prima facie error rectifiable under s. 154?" 4. If the said amount of ₹ 5,93,514 is an ascertained liability, then the said amount cannot be added to the net profit, in view of s. 115J(1A). 5. As this aspect was not gone into by the AO, we remit the matter back to him to consider the same, giving liberty to the assessee to place necessary materials. The orders of the Tribunal is hereby set aside.
-
2004 (2) TMI 693 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... utilized in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods." 11. We find that entire credit on the disputed inputs namely hydrochloric acid and caustic soda lye was debited by the appellants much before the issue of show cause notice, therefore following the ratio of decision of Tribunal in case of Dharamsi Morarjee Chemical Co. Ltd Vs. CCE 2001 (138) ELT 164(T) , the question of demanding 8 duty on the ghee, as held by the Commissioner, does not arise. We therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner and allow the appeal filed by the appellants.
-
2004 (2) TMI 692 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Tribunal has considered all the facts and upon such consideration has come to a conclusion. Unless the conclusions or findings of the Tribunal are shown to be perverse or the order impugned suffers from a fatal jurisdictional error, interference under Article 226 and/or 227 is not warranted. No such perversity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out in this case. 7. There is another aspect of the matter. The order dated 14-3-2000 has attained finality. In fact, it attained finality because the petitioner consciously did not file any appeal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue merely because in some other matter the Larger Bench took a different view. When the Larger Bench decision came, the order dated 14-3-2000 had already become final. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it would not be proper for us to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Such a petition would not be maintainable and the same is dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 691 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 13. These grounds are not pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, on these points, the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands confirmed. 14. The ground No. 4 is as under "The ld. CIT(A) has erred legally and factually in holding that the ground regarding computation of deductions under section 80-IA is infructuous as it is linked with the grounds in connection with allowance of depreciation." 15. This ground is only consequential to ground No. 1 and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction under section 80-IA without deducting depreciation. 16. The ground No. 5 is as under "The ld. CIT(A) has erred legally and factually in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer in assessing interest earned on SBI Bonds as income from other sources." 17. This ground is also not pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee and therefore the same stands rejected as not pressed. 18. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... given a second look to its own judgment dated 24.6.1998. 26. We had suggested to the parties that, if they both consent, we would decide the mater here itself and thereby two possible further rounds of litigation could be avoided. While Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was prepared for this, the learned Addl. Solicitor General declined to accept this suggestion. Hence, despite our being satisfied that the appellant had a case for review, we refrain from deciding what relief, if any, should be granted on such review, and leave it to the judgment of the High Court. 27. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court under appeal and remit the Review Application No. 54 of 1998 to the High Court for hearing and disposal, in accordance with law. In view of the long delay, it is expected that the High Court would expedite the hearing and disposal of the application. 28. I.A. No. 3 of 2003 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the judgment of the High Court holding that the revisional power as vested in the state government under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable?
-
2004 (2) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the concerned workmen have been able to prove that they are workmen of the Society?
Whether the non-employment of the workmen referred in the reference is justified ?
-
2004 (2) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT
Legality and propriety of the order by which a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court rejected the prayer seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
2004 (2) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the notice issued by the appellant-Corporation to the workmen to rejoin duties did not sufficiently comply with the principles of natural justice and that individual notices were required to be given to each of the workmen?
the illegal strike cannot amount to abandonment of service for the purpose of Clause L-2.12 of the Standing Orders(CSO)?
-
2004 (2) TMI 685 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeal is admitted.
-
2004 (2) TMI 684 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... to be restored to its original number. To come up in the normal course.
........
|
