Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 365 Records

• 2001 (6) TMI 790 - ITAT DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... come before us. We have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. After going through the facts of these cases and also the case law relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be considered as perverse. This being so, I decline to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In I. T. A. No. 3321/Delhi of 1995, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee was only a share broker and the gross receipt has reflected in the books represents dealing on behalf of the client from whom the appellant had received only commission. Therefore, he is not required to obtain any tax audit report. On this account, I fully agree with the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hence decline to interfere on this account also. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 789 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - New case

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... llants have recovered the amount of excise duty from the buyers and the same is required to be credited to the Central Government. On this, the appellants were not put to notice or show cause notice and the lower authorities had not proceeded on this basis. A new case cannot be made out by the Commissioner while recording his findings. Secondly, even this point has been rightly met by ld. Consultant by pointing out that it was a cum-duty price and the question of recovering the amounts from the consumer or purchasers did not arise as they had paid the amount and there was no question of unjust enrichment. This point is also covered by number of judgments including the Apex Court judgments in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) . In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not as per law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal, with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 788 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Manufacture - Marketability - Excisability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion that the matter has to go back to the original authority for de novo consideration. The burden of proving that items are goods and excisable goods as classifiable under sub-Heading 7308.90 is initially on the Revenue and Revenue has to first discharge its burden, that they are goods and that they are marketable and identifiable for classification purpose under the sub-heading claimed by them. Assessee also has got a right to present rebuttal evidence to show that the process carried out by them does not result into an identifiable goods and they are not marketable. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration in the light of observations made above. Assessees shall be given an opportunity in terms of principles of natural justice to produce additional evidence and also to make additional submissions in the matter. The original authority shall decide the matter with an open mind.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 787 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reference to High Court vis-a-vis rectification of mistake

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... referred to High Court. The Department, however, did not formulate any specific question of law in this application. 3. emsp I have perused the records and heard ld. DR Shri J. Singh. There is no representation for the respondents. 4. emsp Fairly enough, ld. DR submits that, after having filed the reference application, the Department filed an ROM application in November 1998 on the basis of legal advice to the effect that an ROM application was more appropriate than a reference application on the subject. Ld. DR further submits that the ROM application was dismissed by this Tribunal. On examination of the records, I find that the ROM application referred to by ld. DR was dismissed by this Tribunal as per order dated 5-1-2001. 5. emsp The Department filed the ROM application after waiving its right to press the reference application. The reference application, therefore, does not survive for consideration and the same has to be dismissed as infructuous, and I do accordingly.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 786 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... modity classifiable under 2621.00, and consequent upon amendment to notification 76/86 on 23-7-1996, withdrawing the exemption earlier granted, the cinder has become leviable to duty. 3. emsp In its judgment in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited and Another v. Union of India reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 (Guj.) 2000 (39) RLT 902 the Gujarat High Court has held that this circular of the Board and the trade notice are ldquo arbitrary, illegal and not warranted by the provisions of the said Excise Act and the Excise Tariff Act rdquo . It has held that cinder would not be excisable goods within the scope of the term ldquo Other ash rdquo under heading 26.21. Apart from the fact that this is the judgment of High Court having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant before us, the existence of any contrary judgment of any other high court has not been cited. 4. emsp Accordingly, following the ratio of this judgment we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 785 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
  

  Power to refer parties to arbitration when there is an arbitration agreement, Interim measure etc., by Court

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 784 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Public deposits

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e on the basis of the materials placed by the respective parties. 16. In regard to the competency of the complainant, it shall be stated that section 621 of the Companies Act clearly provides that the complaint can be filed either by the Registrar of Companies, or a shareholder of the company or any person authorised by the Central Government. So, the notification referred to by the counsel for the petitioners authorising some of the officers to launch prosecution would not disentitle the Registrar of Companies to file the complaint as he has been put in the first category among the competent officers to launch the prosecution. 17. Under those circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the complaint is maintainable as the same has been filed by the Registrar of Companies who is the competent officer. Therefore, the petition which is devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 7290 of 1997 is closed.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 783 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Meetings and proceedings

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... convene the annual general body meeting is a continuing default for which consequences are also provided under the Act. In such circumstances what is required to be done is to direct the first respondent-company to convene the annual general meeting at the earliest. Hence, I direct the first respondent-company to convene the annual general meeting of the first respondent-company within a period of one month from today. The annual general meeting as directed above must be held on the basis of the list of shareholders available as on 31-5-2001. No fresh nominations to the directors board will be entertained. 5. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 submitted that a direction may be issued to the Government to dispose of the representation filed by them within a time-frame. No order in that regard is required in this judgment in view of the fact that time had already been specified in the judgment in O.P. No. 15321 of 2001. 6. The original petition is disposed of as above.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 782 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Suspension of legal proceedings, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the case before their Lordships the revival package question was pending before the BIFR and the office memo which was sought to be executed provided that the pay revision and grant of other benefits will be allowed in the event the unit is decided to be revived. In those circumstances their Lordships directed the writ petitioners to approach the BIFR and adjourned the special leave petition. 7. In the present case before us, no proceeding is pending before the BIFR which has washed off its hands by recommending winding up of the appellant-company. Therefore, question of resorting to the BIFR for any relief does not and cannot arise. Section 22 does not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced no other ground in support of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Mathur, CJ. - I agree.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 781 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... be also established whether scrips involved in this case were covered under the Act or not. 17. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shah, as per the definition of lsquo securities rsquo in the Act, it is clear that the scrips which were issued by a mutual fund which is a trust, are not covered by the said Act. If the same are not covered under the said Act, would the transactions be still prohibited? Therefore, on these two issues, viz. whether the transactions involved were of ready-forward transactions or not, and whether the scrips involved were covered under the Act or not, evidence will have to be led, and merely by reading the plaint and correspondence and so also the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the plaint proceeds on the basis of a claim which is barred by law and that it does not disclose any cause of action. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the present chamber summons. Hence, the chamber summons is dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 780 - UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  

  Deficiency in service

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on in a number of cases. Thus, the District Consumer Forum erred in not considering the above aspect of the matter. The District Consumer Forum in its judgment and order has not taken into consideration the loss occurring to the complainant from the date of maturity of NSCs till the date of release of the payment. Thus, the District Forum should have also awarded in addition to the maturity value of the NSCs, the interest applicable in the Saving Bank Account from the date of maturity till the date of payment. With this modification the judgment and order of the Distt. Forum is liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order 11. The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum, Bahraich are confirmed with the modification that in addition to maturity value of Rs. 1,980 of NSCs and after maturity till the date of payment, interest as applicable on Saving Bank Account from time to time shall also be paid to the complainant.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 773 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit, of penalty - Export, over-invoicing

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... arlier year. Heading On 31-3-1999 Rs. On 31-3-2000 Rs. Reserve and Surplus 1.87 Crores 40.66 Crores Cash and Bank Balance 1.56 Crores 9.69 Crores Profit before interest and Depreciation 0.05 Crores 0.32 Crores Transfer to General Reserve. 0.27 Crores 0.66 Crores 8. emsp On careful consideration of the matter, we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards penalty amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On depositing the above sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance penalty amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. It is made clear that if the above sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- is not deposited within the period stipulated above, then the appeal will be liable for dismissal. To come-up for noting the compliance and further orders on 16-8-2001.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 770 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - MRP

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of these conditions, therefore, it is clear that unless a manufacturer fulfils these three conditions, he cannot claim and be granted the exemption. In that situation, if the manufacturer chose not to claim the exemption, it could not be thrust upon him. 6. emsp The net result that emerges therefore is that the assessable value of the goods is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and in so determining it the assessee would be entitled to any deductions on account of discount, if these are permissible in accordance with law. To determine this, the matter will have to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner. 7. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Assistant Commissioner shall, after considering the representation that the appellant may make within two months from the receipt of this order, and giving it an opportunity of being heard, pass orders on the price declaration in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 767 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
  

  Company Law Board - Power to order repayment of deposits, Appeal against orders of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d. OSA No. 2 of 2000 however succeeds and order dated 14-1-2000 made by the learned company judge to the extent the same stays the proceedings in Company Petition No. 2 of 2000 is set aside. Consequently, Company Petition No. 2 of 2000 shall be proceeded with in accordance with law. We further direct that pending disposal of an application which the RBI may move before the company judge within the next four weeks for interim directions, the company shall not pay any amount without obtaining the prior written permission from the special officer of the RBI except payment of salaries and other establishment expenses. A report regarding expenditure incurred on salaries and establishment expenses shall also be submitted to the said officer on a weekly basis. The company shall within four weeks from today pay a sum of Rs. 9,000 to Justice S. Venkataraman, former judge of this Court, towards fee for the services rendered pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22-2-2001. No costs.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 766 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
  

  Amalgamation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... its sanction to the scheme of amalgamation (vide Annexure IV) with effect from 1-4-2000 subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the said scheme as also in the order dated 22-5-2001 of the High Court of Madras. The transferor-company shall stand dissolved in, and amalgamated with, the transferee-company. The petitioner-company shall within 80 days from today file with the Registrar of Companies, a certified copy of this order. The parties to the scheme of amalgamation of any other person interested therein shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for any direction that may be necessary for carrying out the scheme hereunder. A fee of Rs. 10,000 shall be payable to Shri B.G. Nema, the learned standing counsel, appearing for Central Government, Department of Company Affairs. The scheme, Annexure IV, shall form part of this order. A formal order shall be drawn up by the Registry in accordance with law and rules. 6. This petition, thus, stands disposed of as aforesaid.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 765 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Public Deposits

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the Trial Court as well as the appellate court is not on the basis of legal evidence or inadmissible evidence. 14. Another ground taken up in the revision petition is that the finding of the courts below that petitioners 2 and 3 are lsquo officers in default rsquo is not correct. This contention is seen to have been considered by the appellate court. The observation in the judgment of the appellate court is that the second petitioner was the managing director and the third petitioner was one of the directors of the company and that the affairs of the company were managed by petitioners 2 and 3. All the statements filed by the company under rule 10 are stated to have been signed by the second petitioner. There appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the finding of the courts below that the petitioners were lsquo officers in default rsquo . There is no merit in this revision and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 764 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Suspension of legal proceedings, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the applicant did not file any such petition with the result the award became final and enforceable as a decree. Though the claim was not disputed on the merits and the award had become final, the applicant did not pay the amount awarded. The applicant waited till the decree holder issued an insolvency notice. Thereafter, the present motion is taken out by the applicant challenging the validity of the award on the same grounds which were raised before the arbitrator. This conduct of the applicant shows that this notice of motion is taken out by the applicant merely to avoid, in any case to delay, the payment of the undisputed claim. In my opinion, therefore, not only would interfering with the insolvency notice at the instance of the applicant not be in the interest of justice, but any interference with the insolvency notice at the instance of the applicant would defeat the ends of justice. 13. Notice of motion is, therefore, disposed of

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 763 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
  

  Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to the circumstances of that case, the court had granted leave to proceed with the suit, which was filed before the winding up order came to be made. In my view, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant cannot derive any assistance from the principle laid down in the case of Hazi Raunak Ali Khan s ( supra). The case of Smt. Gian Devi ( supra) relied upon by Sri Thomas, in my view, has also no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the question that came up for consideration was whether the proceedings under section 446(2)(b) were maintainable. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the view that a petition by an unsecured creditor against the company would not be competent under section 446(2)(b). That is not the position in the present case. 8. In the light of the discussion made above, this application is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 762 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
  

  Amalgamation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... egistered office of the applicant-company, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560 035. 10. The meeting notice regarding meeting of the shareholders and the creditors shall be published in The Times of India daily newspaper on or before 25-6-2001. However, the paper publication has to comply with all the requirements of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. 11. The Chairman shall issue individual notices to shareholders and the creditors of the applicant-company informing the place, date, time and subjects of the respective meetings on or before 25-6-2001 by certificate of posting. 12. The Chairman of the meetings shall file a report of the meetings within seven days (as per the rules) from the date of the meetings. 13. The quorum for the meeting of the shareholders shall be 5 (five) as per articles and the creditors of the applicant-company shall be 5 (five) as per articles. Proxies for the shareholders and the creditors are permitted to participate and vote in the meeting.

  ---

• 2001 (6) TMI 743 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
  

  EXIM - Misdeclaration - Confiscation - Redemption fine - Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... had not repatriated the foreign currency for the goods. It is seen from the bill of lading at page 6 of the paper book in appeal of M/s. Greenways that the ocean freight has been pre-paid. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that the goods have been imported in violation of the law and were sought to be re-exported in contravention of the rules and procedure with regard to re-export. 8. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case, while we consider that both M/s. Greenways and M/s. United were liable to penalty, we reduce the amount of penalty imposed on M/s. Greenways from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) and amount of penalty imposed on M/s. United from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). The amount of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- -(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) does not call for any interference and is confirmed. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

1234567........ 19