|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 280 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 370
... ...
... ... ..... y to proceed against the appellant for recovery of the entire amount levied under the impugned proceedings. 15. In the writ petition, under the impugned proceedings, a sum of Rs. 2,47,589-95 was levied by way of damages. 50% of the same comes to Rs. 1,23,794-97. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- instead of Rs. 1,23,794-97. The petitioner shall pay the said damages of Rs. 1,20,000/- in three equal instalments of Rs. 40,000/- each, the first instalment shall be made on or before October 15, 1977, the second instalment on or before November 15, 1997, and the third instalments on or before December 15, 1997. If the petitioner fails to pay any one of the instalments within the time stipulated, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the entire amount levied under the impugned proceedings. 16. In the result, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed in part as indicated above, However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 369
... ...
... ... ..... use transmission on any ground other than non-production of evidence of title. Therefore, the decision taken by the board to refuse registration of transmission on the ground that the petitioner is carrying on a competing business, without any such power being conferred by the articles, is invalid. Shri Datar pointed out that even if it is registered, the company would be within its right to take action under Article 25/26. In the instant petition what we are concerned with is whether the shares are to be registered in the name of the petitioner or not and not what the company would do after such registration. 12. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the company to waive the requirement of production of consent letters as well as the original certificates and register the transmission of the impugned shares in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no orders as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 368
... ...
... ... ..... the complaint-petition that these petitioners who are ladies, were incharge of the day-to-day business transactions of A-1 firm. No overt acts have been attributed to these petitioners. More over, as earlier stated, they ceased to be partners of A-1 firm by the date of the alleged offences. Further, the details of the document which were said to have been fabricated or forged are also not mentioned in the complaint. Further, the averments in the complaint make out a civil liability. The criminal proceedings initiated against the partners, in my opinion, definitely amount to abuse of process of the Court as the allegations found in the complaint do not constitute any offence against these petitioners. As such, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 442/96 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as against the petitioners herein are quashed. 10. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 367
... ...
... ... ..... roducing of goods'' have to be given substantive meaning. The humidifier he pleaded is not for processing and producing the goods as such but provides the necessary atmosphere. 4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. In our order we have examined the scope of the term process and production. The machinery which can be held to be for process and production of goods alone are eligible for the benefit of Modvat in terms of definition under Rule 57Q. The items in question must have nexus in bringing about a change in substance of goods or inputs and by direct participation. This is not so in the present case in the case of humidifiers. Just because use of an item may be a technical necessity does not by itself bring the same within the ambit of definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. The definition is restrictive in nature. In our view the question of law as formulated cannot be said to "arise for reference. The reference application is dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 366
... ...
... ... ..... judgments and ecress of the Courts below are hereby affirmed. In view of the fact that the appeal is being disposed of by this judgment, the application for taking into consideration of subsequent events is also disposed of. 25. There will be no order as to costs. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the tenant shall vacate the suit premises by the end of December, 1997 if the appellant files an undertaking within two months from this date that he shall vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord/respondnet on the expiry of the time fixed by this judgment and subject to the further condition that the appellant shall go on depositing the renet at the rate last paid in the executing Court and also shall deposit arrears of rent, if there be any, within two months from this date. 27. Let lower Court records be setn down as early as possible preferably within two months from this date. 28. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 365
... ...
... ... ..... ve character of the material derived by breaking the ship. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the business of shipbreaking activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of sections 80HHA and 80-I. The respondent is therefore, not entitled to deduction under section 80HHA or section 80-I. 19. The appeals of the revenue are accordingly allowed. The orders of the CIT(Appeals) are set aside and those of the Assessing Officer restored. 20. The other appeal is relating to levy of additional tax under section 104. The CIT(Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that section 104 is not applicable is respect of the assessee engaged in the business of manufacture. Since we have held that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacture, the decision of the CIT(Appeals) is bound to be reversed. We, accordingly, set aside his order and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 21. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 364
... ...
... ... ..... in the manner prescribed by the statute. The authority competent to impose the penalty is justified in refusing to impose penalty - even if a minimum penalty is prescribed. 10. As we have confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) on legal grounds, we do not consider it necessary to consider the assessee’s submissions on merits. However, before parting with the matter, we would like to observe that the observations of the ITAT (Special Bench) in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Gayatri Traders 1996 222 ITR 1 (Hyd.) on which the learned D.R. has strongly relied, were in different context. In that case, the applicability of second proviso was not under consideration. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the observations relied upon by the learned D.R. in this case as well as the decision in the case of Abhay Kumar & Co. v. Union of India 1987 164 ITR 148 (Raj.) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 363
... ...
... ... ..... shares. (2) Nothing in Clause (1) shall release the estate of a deceased joint holder from any liability in respect of any share which had been jointly held by him with other persons." 7. In the instant case, the shares in question are held jointly and one of such joint holders died. So, it is the survivor or survivors who is/are to be recognised as having title to the said shares. This being the position, the appellants herein, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased joint holder (the late Dipkishore Sen) cannot be the holders of the shares in question, by transmission of shares, under the aforesaid regulation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the citation of the Karnataka High Court decision in Smi. Kamalabai v. Vithal Prasad Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1993 77 Comp Cas 231, as referred to by learned counsel for the appellants, is not applicable to the instant petition. For these reasons, the instant appeal must fail and is dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 362
... ...
... ... ..... . However, during the hearing, we had made some suggestions to the bank, to provide some relief to the petitioners and the bank has now filed a memo indicating its acceptance of our suggestion. In view of this, we do not propose to pass any order on this application. 43. The third petition (C. P. No. 18 of 1996) relates to transfer matters, that the company is not registering transfer of shares impugned in the petition. This is actually an appeal under Section 111(2) and we have already held that we have no jurisdiction under this section in respect of public companies. When this appeal was filed, there was no proviso to Section 111A(2) empowering the Company Law Board to consider matters relating to refusal to register transfer of shares in respect of public companies. Now that provision exists in this regard, while we dismiss this petition as not maintainable under Section 111, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition under Section 111A if he so desires.
-
1997 (6) TMI 361
... ...
... ... ..... cheques were not issued to the drawer of the cheques and, therefore, even if the petitioner-accused had signed the cheques and even if he had refused to accept the notice, he cannot be held guilty for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was personally not responsible to pay the amount of cheques. Shakti Spinners Ltd. was responsible to pay the cheque amounts. No opportunity was given to Shakti Spinners Ltd. to pay the amount of cheques. So offence under section 138 is not committed by the company and, therefore, by the accused-petitioner. Both the complaints, therefore, do not disclose any offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the complaints are, therefore, liable to be quashed. 29. Hence, the applications are allowed. The proceedings of S.C.C. Nos. 155/95 and 156/95 filed by the present-respondent in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chopada, are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. 30. Application allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 360
... ...
... ... ..... that the contradicting stand taken by the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other, relating to various documents relied on by the petitioners, raises complicated questions of fact. We have time and again held in various cases, that if complicated questions of law or facts arise in a Section 111 petition, which cannot be adjudicated on the basis of documents made available, but could be decided only on trial by evidence, then the Company Law Board would relegate the matter to a suit. According to us, this is a fit case to do so in the face of the claim of the petitioners on the basis of various disputed documents, that their names, after entry in the register, were omitted therefrom later. The assertion of the parties relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner and requires trial on evidence. 13. Accordingly, we dismiss all the three petitions. The petitioners may move the civil court, if so advised.
-
1997 (6) TMI 359
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 26,234). So, out of the addition of ₹ 8,81,728 (Rs. 8,55,494 ₹ 26,234) made by the Assessing Officer, we uphold the addition of ₹ 53,320. 19. Regarding the levy of interest under section 217, the provisions of section 215(3), read with section 217(2) are attracted. But the enhanced interest has to be levied only till the date of the original assessment and not till the date of the reopened assessment. The assessee may also be granted relief consequential to giving effect to this order. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Regarding the appeal of the Department, the learned counsel for the assessee pleaded that local value cannot be adopted because, the assessee came to India on an International Flight and the extent of the investment cannot be in terms of the local value of the gold. We agree with this contention and dismiss the appeal. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 358
... ...
... ... ..... ard to Patel House agreed to be sold to Modi Rubber Ltd. and accordingly the Assessing Officer has to verify the claims and counter claims and after ascertaining the decision the concerned liability is to be allowed if the same amount has taken into capital formation/acquiring of the assets of the assessee." As regards the liabilities, the learned counsel for the assessee did not address any arguments whatsoever. After going through the records of the case and also after knowing what happened in the earlier years, we feel that the direction given by the CWT(Appeals) regarding verification and allowing of the liabilities under certain conditions appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence produced before us in this regard and in the absence of arguments having been advanced before us, we feel it justifiable to confirm the order of the CWT(Appeals) on this issue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee fails and is dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 357
... ...
... ... ..... Exemption Notification is also a breach of the terms of the licence, entitling the licensing authorities to investigate. But the breach is not only of the terms of the licence; it is also a breach of the condition in the Exemption Notification upon which the appellants obtained exemption from payment of Customs duty and, therefore, the terms of Section 111 (o) enable the Customs authorities to investigate. It is clearly stated that for the violations in question the customs authorities could take action under Section 111 (o). In a case like this the authorities in our view will have to consider action like wise under the Customs Act 1962. In view of the above discussions inasmuch as we find that there has been no violation of any one of the Central Excise Rules and no case has been made out for denial of the MODVAT Credit we are of the view that the learned lower authority's order is sustainable in law. We in the circumstances therefore dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1997 (6) TMI 356
... ...
... ... ..... ent of the trial court, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O. II, Madras in E.O.C.C. No. 21 of 1988. Consequently, the judgment of the first Appellate Court below in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1988 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras is hereby set aside. 30. In result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court i.e. The Principal Sessions Judge, Madras passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1988 dated 15-11-1988. The judgment of the Trial Court i.e. the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O. II in E.O.CC. No. 21 of 1988 dated 22-3-1988 is hereby restored upholding the conviction and sentence passed therein. 31. The lower Court shall forthwith order the arrest of the respondent/accused by issue of such process and remand him to Judicial Custody, immediately after the receipt of the copy of this judgment and report compliance of the same to this Court.
-
1997 (6) TMI 355
... ...
... ... ..... We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board in its order dated 16th October, 1984 on the basis of the notification dated 19th May, 1972, that gowar churi or korma is not exempt from payment of tax is erroneous in law......... we are of the opinion that gowar churi or korma is not included in gowar when gowar has been excluded from cattle feeds which are exempt from payment of sales tax. (emphasis added) That is to say, it was held that the gowar churi or korma were exempt under entry 9 of the Schedule and could not be taxed under section 5, RST Act. A notification under section 5 cannot therefore be said to override the provisions of entries in the Schedule of the Act. 16.. For the reasons given above the application for revision is accepted and it is declared that rice bran being cattle feed is exempt from tax under the RST Act and the orders of the subordinate authorities to the contrary are set aside with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. Here italicised.
-
1997 (6) TMI 354
... ...
... ... ..... 16.. The question of whether the transfer in question attracts the provisions of section 9, R.S.T. Act in my view does not arise out of the facts of this case even though the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply and therefore the petitioner in his rejoinder may have referred to it. The material on record is also not adequate to decide this point. I am therefore unable to associate myself with the views expressed by the honourable Chairman regarding the non-applicability of section 9 of the R.S.T. Act in the facts and circumstances of this case. 17.. In my view the writ petition is to be allowed only in terms of the relief sought with reference to section 11AAA, R.S.T. Act. 18.. In this view of the matter it would not be necessary to refer the case to a Bench of three members in terms of section 9 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 and the writ petition can be disposed of as proposed by the honourable Chairman subject to the above observations. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 353
... ...
... ... ..... had commenced prior to the commencement of Karnataka Act 23 of 1983. 7.. In the present revision petition, we are concerned with the year commencing on April 1, 1983. The Act 23 of 1983 had commenced on November 18, 1983. This makes it glaringly clear that the year in question had commenced prior to the commencement of Act 23 of 1983. As such, sub-section (8-A) of section 43 comes into operation to disentitle the petitioner to take the benefit of composition scheme envisaged under the Act 23 of 1983 which provided for application of the said scheme to even such hoteliers and restaurateur, who had total turnover up to Rs. 7,50,000. 8.. In the said view of the matter, in our opinion, no error of law has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the plea of the petitioner claiming the benefit of composition scheme under section 17(4) of the Act for the year in question which had commenced from April 1, 1983. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 352
... ...
... ... ..... accepted it would mean that all that a party aggrieved of an order is required to show for purposes of involving the writ jurisdiction of this Court is that the order suffers from some error regardless whether it does or does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the authority. Such an interpretation I am afraid cannot advance the cause of justice nor can it promote the hierarchical systems of adjudication of matters arising under statute dealing with special subjects including taxes and duties. 7.. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that orders passed by the assessing authority cannot be rendered without jurisdiction. Just because the same have denied to the petitioner the exemption claimed by it. It was open to the petitioner to assail the validity of the orders on their merits in appropriate appeals filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Reserving liberty for the petitioner to do so, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 351
... ...
... ... ..... ause of specific insertion made in this regard in the notification referred to above by treating such Zilla Parishads as having independent identities. From the above discussions it is clear that the Tribunal was right in holding that no benefit of reduced rate of tax could have been granted in respect of sales effected to the nationalised banks. But so far as the sales effected to the Zilla Parishads are concerned, it appears to hive fallen in error in not granting such benefit in respect of sales effected to the Zilla Parishads in Karnataka even on or after January 23, 1989, to which in our opinion the petitioner was entitled to. 9.. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed only to the extent that if the petitioner has effected any sale to Zilla Parishads, in Karnataka as envisaged in the notification under consideration on or after January 23, 1989, then such sales will be subject to levy of tax at 4 per cent as provided in the aforesaid notification. No costs. Appeals allowed.
........
|
