|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 365 Records
-
1997 (5) TMI 394 - INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... he request of the applicant for invoking section 245E in respect of the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86, 198889, 1989-90 and 1990-91 cannot now be considered because for the assessment year 1990-91, the proceedings had not been completed as on the date of application and for the others they were reopened under section 147 before the exercise of power under section 245E by the Commission, but the Bench passing the order under section 245D(4) may make such observations as they considered proper in the light of the findings they give with regard to the rival claims of the applicant and the Department. The application of the applicant (S.A. No 5/VI/8/IT of 1991-92) will now go back to the Additional Bench of the Settlement Commission, Mumbai, for suitable orders in accordance with the principles set out above, in the facts and circumstances of the case while making orders of settlement under sub-section (4) read with sub-section (6) of section 245D of the Act.
-
1997 (5) TMI 393 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Charitable Trust, Civil Court, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... n the ratio of the decision of Kamla Town Trust s case 1996 217 ITR 699 (SC), since the decree was passed by the civil court on April 5, 1972, the same will have only prospective operation and will not affect the assessment years in question, which are prior to the date of the civil court s decree. The claim of the trust for exemption under the Act in relation to the earlier assessment years was considered and negatived in Jaipur Charitable Trust s case 1971 81 ITR 1 (Delhi), which position was affirmed in Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT 1976 103 ITR 777 (SC). Thus, we hold that the assessee s claim for exemption for the assessment years in question, namely, 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1971-72, are governed by the earlier decisions of this court in Jaipur Charitable Trust s case 1971 81 ITR 1 and Yogiraj Charity Trust s case 1976 103 ITR 777 (SC). We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative (sic) and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (5) TMI 392 - SUPREME COURT
Receipts for the various facilities extended by the clubs to their members as part of the usual privileges, advantages & conveniences, attached to the membership, cannot be said to be a trading activity - such activities claimed as " mutual concern " or " members' club " is a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade and the transactions entered into with the members or non-members alike is a trade/business/transaction and the resultant surplus is certainly profit income liable to tax - Decided in favor of assessee - against the revenue
-
1997 (5) TMI 391 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appellate authority had observed that the condition of the exemption notification No. 208/83-C.E. as amended were not fulfiled in this case because the party had availed Modvat credit for the raw materials used for the manufacture of wires and that once credit of duty paid on the goods had been availed under the Modvat rules, the items manufactured were not to be eligible for exemption. He had further observed that since the assessee had taken the credit on the inputs wires cleared outside the factory went out of the notification. It is seen that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court had held that after the reversal of the Modvat credit it was permissible to avail the exemption. 9. emsp In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur and in the result, the appeal is allowed. rdquo 5. emsp In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (5) TMI 390 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption - Loan licensees - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ision and control out of their own raw materials. Therefore, those four persons are manufacturers in their own right. 6. emsp It is not disputed in the entire impugned Order that the other four persons had fulfilled the conditions of S.S.I. Unit as laid down in Notification No. 175/86-CE. The Judgment in the case of Harts Cocoa Products (supra) relied upon by the learned S.D.R., is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because the persons whose goods were manufactured in that appellants rsquo factory, were not Loan Licensees as in the present case. Therefore, the ratio of that Judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. This case, as we have said, is fully covered by Tribunal rsquo s Judgment dated 15-10-96 in the case of N.P. Industries, which in turn relies upon the Honourable Gujarat High Court rsquo s Judgment in the case of Indica Laboratories. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants herein.
-
1997 (5) TMI 389 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Cenvat/Modvat on inputs - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... annot be denied. In the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) it has been held that amount of Modvat credit taken on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of final exempted products can be debited in the Modvat Account. On reversal of such Modvat credit the assessee cannot be said to have taken credit of duty on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of exempted final product. Consequently exemption from duty is not deniable to final product even if exemption Notification No. 69/86-C.E. stipulates a condition that exemption to final product not available where Modvat credit under Rule 57A is taken on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. We find here this Modvat credit has been reversed by them on their own. In view of this, we are of the view that once credit is reversed, they are eligible to exemption. Since this was done on their own, we do not find any case for penalty also. In this circumstance, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (5) TMI 388 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... 2(f). It has also been elaborated by the various judgments by the Hon rsquo ble High Courts and the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. It has been held that clubbing of production of the two persons can be done only if one of the person is a dummy of the other. There is no indication in the adjudicating order that the applicants rsquo /appellants rsquo Company is a dummy to M/s. Keld Ellentoft India (P) Ltd. in the sense that the entire production clearances and finances are controlled by M/s. Keld Ellentoft India (P) Ltd. The concept of lsquo controlled undertaking rsquo under IDRA cannot be brought in for the purpose of definition of lsquo control rsquo of manufacturer used in Notification 1/93-C.E.. We have to go by the definition of the manufacturer as given in the Central Excise Act. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the finding of the adjudicating authority. Hence we allow this Appeal. 5. emsp Since Appeal has been disposed of, Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
1997 (5) TMI 387 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... nts by way of sales tax for previous period. When such a situation results, the appellant will not be in a position to collect from the buyers the extra sales tax quantified and required to be paid by the appellant at a later date and these payments when made by the appellant during the succeeding period are claimed as deduction in the revised price lists but not in the price lists in relation to which extra payment is made. We quite appreciate the difficulty as presented by the appellant rsquo s representative but this is no reason to hold that assessable value of the goods cleared during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 should be reduced by any amount of sales tax paid during these years in respect of sales effected by the appellant during the previous period. Such amount has nothing to do with the assessable value of clearances made during the succeeding years. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities. 3. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 386 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 6. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submissions of the ld. advocate that the 5 ply cartons are not necessary for putting the excisable product in the wholesale market at the factory gate when it is denied by the lower authorities, 5 of the sale at the factory gate of the excisable products were packed up to 3 ply cartons. On the question of limitation also we observe that the appellants/applicants have a strong case inasmuch as a very clear declaration has been made by them separately from their buyers. The cost of protective packing cartons is not included in the price of the excisable goods declared by them in earlier column. Therefore, the charge of wilful misstatement and suppression of fact does not at all hold good against the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view that the appeal itself deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. 7. emsp Since Appeal has been disposed of, Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
1997 (5) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Notification No. 279/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... h could not have been so called if the notification to which the provisions of the Retrospective Exemption Act were given, had been in force at all material times, were liable to be refunded. It was however, provided that no such refund shall be allowed where the credit of duty of Excises had been taken under Rule 56A or as the case may be Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or where the goods on which the Duty of Excise had been paid, had been exported under the claim for rebate of such duties. Thus while on merits the appellants have a case and to that extent, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is set aside, the refund claim had to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 and will be subject to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C). The appeal is thus allowed with the above observations.
-
1997 (5) TMI 377 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... did not initiate any steps to recover the amount due from the defaulting party and the same became time-barred. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 5,069 was lost as the ex-directors did not co-operate with the official liquidator and furnish the correct addresses of the defaulting party. Similarly, no explanation has been given regarding the sum of Rs. 1,80,052 for which there is no voucher on the record of the company. In any case, these could be explained by the answering respondents by adducing evidence or even stating on oath. But for reasons best known to them, they have chosen not to lead evidence or to depose on oath. Accordingly, I accept this petition and pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,20,842 along with interest at the rate of 12 per. cent, per annum from September 22, 1983, till its realisation against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. The petitioner s claim against respondent No. 4 stands dismissed as he has not been found to be a director of the petitioner-company. No costs.
-
1997 (5) TMI 370 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... rred upon it by section 21 of the Act, 1963. The said scheme was published in the Gazette of India dated April 17,1993. Thus this scheme was framed by the UTI under the powers given under a statute. It is settled principle that the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable against a statute. If there is any agreement or contract between the parties which is against the statutory provisions that agreement is not enforceable. In view of the decision of this Commission in the case of Kumari Guatami (supra) we allow this petition and set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. For the reasons recorded in our order dated 30-5-1997 in R.P. No. 548 of 1996, we allow the revision petitions and set aside the order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. Revision Petitioners allowed. SCL q MAY 20, 1998
-
1997 (5) TMI 368 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... he petitioners. The liability is very much in dispute. The defence raised is a bona fide one and there is prima facie proof regarding the bona fides and genuineness of the dispute. Under these circumstances, the company cannot be ordered to be wound up taking shelter under section 433(e) of the Act. So, the prayer to that effect is rejected. But in view of the apprehension of the petitioners that the company is unable to meet its liabilities and in view of the stand taken by the company that it has got high liquidity, there will be a direction to the company to provide bank guarantee for a period of two years for the amount of Rs. 2,68,466.70 in C.P. No. 9 of 1996 and Rs. 10,14,628.20 in C.P. No. 10 of 1996 within a period of four weeks from today subject to further orders of this court. If the petitioners are able to substantiate their claim in appropriate proceedings, they can enforce the bank guarantee and realise the amount. The company petitions are disposed of as above.
-
1997 (5) TMI 366 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Power to issue directions ... ... ... ... ..... as the law on this point is well settled. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, Mr. Gupta himself submitted that only in the event this Court comes to the conclu- sion that the entire proceeding is not bad in law and the principles of natural justice had been violated, that the petitioners can be directed to prefer an appeal. As the principal questions relating to jurisdiction and compliance of the principles of natural justice have been found against the respondents, I have no other option but to hold that the impugned order dated 11-2-1977 is bad in law, and consequently, is directed to be quashed. The respondents or any other authority, however, may take appropriate action for violation of any statute as against the petitioner in accordance with law. 50. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed. SCL q APRIL 20, 1998
-
1997 (5) TMI 365 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Jurisdiction and powers of Special Court, ... ... ... ... ..... ousting the jurisdiction of the regular Civil Court and vesting the powers of a Civil Court in the Special Court, which is created under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transac- tions in Securities) Act, for trial of offences referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act. We, however, do not find any merit in this contention as there can always be a Common Court for both civil and criminal matters. The district Judges and Subordinate Judges, who are appointed for the trial of civil cases, are conferred powers to try criminal cases and a Judge of the High Court is a Judge for the hearing of criminal as well as civil matters, which arise out of the ordinary civil or criminal proceedings and in respect of which the High Court exercises its ordinary civil or criminal jurisdiction. 10. We find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 413 of 1997, is infructuous and it is dismissed. SCL q DECEMBER 5, 1998
-
1997 (5) TMI 350 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Inability to pay debts ... ... ... ... ..... s. The liability is very much in dispute. The defence raised is a bona fide one and there is prima facie proof regarding the bona fides and genuineness of the dispute. Under these circumstances, the company cannot be ordered to be wound up taking shelter under section 433(e). So, the prayer to that effect is rejected. 15. But in view of the apprehension of the petitioners that the company is unable to meet its liabilities and in view of the stand taken by the company that it has got high liquidity, there will be a direction to the company to provide bank guarantee for a period of two years for the amount of Rs. 2,68,466.70 in C.P. No. 9 of 1996 and Rs. 10,14,628.20 in C.P. No. 10 of 1996 within a period of four weeks from today subject to further orders of this Court. If the petitioners are able to substantiate their claim in appropriate proceedings, they can enforce the bank guarantee and realise the amount. The company petitions are disposed of as above. SCL q MARCH 5, 1998
-
1997 (5) TMI 349 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Compromise or arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... e to the shareholders and creditors of the applicant companies or to the public. 34. The objections relating to rule 85 and section 391(2) have been adequately answered by Mr. Mukherjee. Rule 85 would not apply in a scheme of merger simpliciter where the assets and liabilities of the transferor Companies stand transferred as a whole to the transferee. As to the statutory majority contemplated in section 391(2), it is quite clear that the same refers to members not only present, but also voting at a meeting convened under section 391(1) thereof. 35. In my view, no serious ground has been made out on behalf of the Central Government for refusing sanction to the proposed scheme of amalgamation and there will, accordingly, be orders, as prayed for, in terms of prayers (a) to ( k) to the petition. 36. The petition under section 391(2) and 394, is thus disposed of. 37. The costs of this application of the Central Government, assessed at 200 gms., shall be borne by the petitioners.
-
1997 (5) TMI 346 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... law as also resolutions, agreements or orders shall be obtained or passed, and (b)that on which all necessary certified copies or orders under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, shall be duly filed with the appropriate Registrar of Companies. 13.For the purpose of giving effect to this scheme, the Board of Directors of the transferee-company and of the transferor-company may give and are authorised to give such directions as may be necessary or desirable and to settle any question of doubt or difficulty whatso- ever. 14.The transferor-company and the transferee-company shall not issue any bonus or right shares at any time between the date of application to the Court and the effective date. 15.Nothing in this scheme contained shall effect the right of the credi- tors of the transferor-company or the transferee-company, nor any charge, lien or security created by the transferor-company or the transferee-company on their respective properties and assets. SCL q AUGUST, 1997
-
1997 (5) TMI 345 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... nsidering the facts and circumstances of this case, the termination order of the petitioner appears to be clearly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be given effect to. There was already an interim order passed by Ruma Pal, J. directing payment of emolument of the petitioner month by month. Since the termination is set aside, the petitioner is deemed to be in service with full benefits. 44. In the instant case, the service of the petitioner was terminated in an unfair and arbitrary manner by simply serving one month s notice pay. Rule, if any, to the effect that a permanent employee s service can be terminated by merely paying one month s notice pay must be held to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Order of termination accordingly is set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 45. The petitioner accordingly succeeds in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. SCL q DECEMBER, 1997
-
1997 (5) TMI 343 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... ing company or companies (other than shares already held therein immediately before the amalgamation by, or by a nominee for, the amalgamated company or its subsidiary) become shareholders of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amal-gamation, otherwise than as a result of the acquisition of the property of one company by another company pursuant to the purchase of such property by the other company or as a result of the distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of the first-mentioned company 3. Definition of lsquo amalgamation rsquo in the Income-tax Act is for the purpose of the said Act. It cannot be lifted and be read in the Companies Act as it would amount to interpretation by lifting. 4. In view of the above, it is held that section 391 has the effect of section 394 which includes in its fold the power to make arrangement and compromise and amalgamation of any two or more companies. The question is answered accordingly. SCL q JULY, 1997
........
|
