|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 509 Records
-
1998 (8) TMI 629 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... s of the company ; (iii) petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 will continue as directors on the board ; (iv) the 680 shares of non-family shareholders transferred to respondent No. 3 shall be transferred to respondent No. 1, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in equal proportion and they shall also pay the consideration for the shares as was originally paid by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 ; (v) transfer of 1,015 shares from first respondent to second respondent stands cancelled ; (vi) the board consisting of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 will meet within a week from the date of this order and decide on these directions we have given on the shares and also on the allocation of responsibilities among themselves ; (vii) the bank accounts of the company will stand frozen with immediate effect and the company's bankers will act as per the decision of the board that comes into being in terms of this order. With the above directions, we dispose of this petition. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (8) TMI 628 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is discretion of the Court to decide any issue as preliminary issue. 11. In Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishna Chandra and others AIR 1979 Pat 34, the question was whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and such issue be decided as a preliminary issue, it was held that it was not obligatory on the Court to try the issue as a preliminary Issue as sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV leaves discretion on the Court to try an Issue as preliminary issue. In Usha Sales Ltd. v. Malcolm Gomes and others AIR 1984 Bom 60, the Court held that it is not obligatory on the Court to decide issue relating to the jurisdiction or legal bar to the suit as a preliminary issue. 12. The orders of the Courts below. In considering that the preliminary issues are to be decided after taking evidence along with other issues do not suffer from any manifest illegality. There is no merit in the writ petition and, it is, accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 627 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to him is far more superior to the known technology, but he cannot say that the known technology is bad and harmful or that the product made with the known technology is bad and harmful. What he can claim is only that his product and his technology is superior. While comparing the technology and the products manufactured on the basis thereof, he can say that by reason of the new superior technology available to him, his product is much superior to others. He cannot, however, while so comparing say that the available technology and the products made in accordance therewith are bad and harmful. 25. In the instant case the object of the advertisement was to convey to the customers of the blue including those of the plaintiff that if you use blue to whiten your washed clothes you will get washed clothes with blue patches. This could not be done. In those circumstances the orders passed by me on this application are confirmed and the same will continue until disposal of the suit.
-
1998 (8) TMI 626 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... its fresh disposal in the light of the circulars/directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India with regard to charging of rate of interest from the landlord loanees, whose buildings are taken on lease/rent by the concerned bank and calculating the interest at quarterly rests. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The complaint is remanded to the learned Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad, for its fresh disposal in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Since, we are remanding the complaint for its fresh disposal on merits, we have refrained from expressingh any opining on the effect of various circulars/directions and notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India on the subject under consideration were not placed before the learned Ombudsman earlier, the same shall be permitted to be brought on the record by the learned Ombudsman and the parties given an opportunity to have their say in regard there to. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
-
1998 (8) TMI 625 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of compound wall 16,750 (3) Expenditure on demolition of office structure and construction of temporary office 47,775 (4) Expenditure on security, salaries and other expenses 60,000 It is stated that the Assessing Officer disallowed the above expenditue except for ₹ 4,500 paid for demolition of old structure. It is also claimed that the CIT(Appeals) has not dealt with the relevant grounds raised before him in respect of the above expenditures. CIT(Appeals) disposed of the above grounds stating that they were not pressed. It is mentioned before us that the assessee only wanted the above grounds to be disposed of on the basis of written submissions and the CIT(Appeals) was not correct in remarking that they were not pressed. In the circumstances, so far as the claim of the assessee for these expenditures is concerned, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for considering the grounds raised before him. 14. Subject to the above, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 624 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt. Further these are matters for inquiry and trial by the competent Court of jurisdiction. 20. "For all the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible for this Court to accede to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. The petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 21. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that all the petitioners need not be present during the, course/ of hearing of the case and one of the Directors may be permitted to represent them during the course of enquiry and trial. The petitioners shall file an application to that effect before the Trial Court, which shall be considered by the Trial Court permitting one of the petitioners to represent others on all the dates, except oh the dates on which their presence is required for the purposes of enquiry and trial.
-
1998 (8) TMI 623 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... debarred from being allowed that deduction. Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. 9. The above observations really clinch the issue. The accrual of income has to be determined with reference to contract between the parties and about the terms and conditions, no dispute has been raised by the Revenue. The retention money did not accrue under the contract and it could not be assessed merely on the view of the matter which the assessee had taken inadvertently or otherwise. The retention money accrued in the period relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 and should be assessed in that year. It is directed to be deleted from the assessment of the year under consideration. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 622 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s from the quarry owners. In doing so, it shall be open to the Sales Tax authorities, if so advised, to reject the bills of the quarry owners produced by the appellants because, according to them, these bills did not comply with the provisions of Rule 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. If the Sales Tax authorities do so, it shall be open to the appellants to contend otherwise in proceedings taken to challenge the orders of the Sales Tax authorities. 2. Learned counsel states that MR. Miglani shall file an affidavit to the above effect within two weeks from today. 3. The order of the High court under appeal as also the orders of the tribunal and the authorities below are set aside. Orders of interest and penalty passed consequent to these orders are also set aside. The matters shall now stand restored to the assessing authority who shall pass appropriate orders having regard to what is stated hereinabove. 4. Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (8) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o p /o p It cannot be a tax on professions or calling. Professional tax does not depend on the exercise of one’s profession but only concerns itself with the right to practice. It appears that in the instant case also on tax can be levied or is leviable under the impugned Act if on mining activities are carried on. Hence, it is manifest that it is not related to land as a unit which is the only method of valuation of land under Entry 49 of List II, but is relatable to minerals extracted. Royalty is payable on a proportion of the minerals extracted........ o p /o p ................................... o p /o p ......................... o p /o p For the reasons stated above, we hold that the High Court was not right in quashing the demands, which were rightly calculated and levied. The impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the O.J.Cs. filed by the respondent stand dismissed. o p /o p The appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
1998 (8) TMI 620 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... to 31.3.1996 in invoking the larger period. In this case, the appellants have clearly contended that the demands are barred by time as the department itself was not sure about the classification of the product and it is only on the basis of doubt, they issued the circular dated 27.3.1997 to hold the item to be excisable and dutiable. In the circumstances, it is very clear that the appellants held a bona fide belief that such activity did not amount to process of manufacture and such a Kit was not goods known commercially also, hence the demands are barred by time. In this regard, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Tamilnadu Housing Board v. CCE as and that of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE as would be clearly applicable to the facts of the present case and hence on this ground also the appellants are entitled to succeed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed. Pronounced in open Court on 25.8.1998.
-
1998 (8) TMI 619 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee." As can be seen from the above, the Tribunal should also always exercise their discretion in favour of the assessee and allow him to raise additional grounds where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, especially when consideration of such question of law is necessary to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above, I admit the additional grounds. I also admit the claim of the assessee and direct that the sum of ₹ 19,116 is to be deducted towards the rebate allowable on agricultural income while computing the tax demand. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of Tansi Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (17) RLT-437 wherein it was held that cutting and punching of duty paid angles and channels not amount to manufacture and the resultant product not excisable. Tansi Engineering Works has referred to the earlier decisions namely C.C.E. Vs. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd., (1987-28-ELT-352), Pratap Steel Rolling Vs. CCE, (1990-48-ELT-539), R.S. Steel Works Vs. CCE, (1993-64-ELT-469) and Dodsal Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, (1993-67-ELT-138), while arriving at the decision and following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1995 (7) RLT 1 (SC) 1995 (76) ELT-241 (SC). 4. In these circumstances, following the decisions referred to above, we hold that the process adopted by Haryana State Electricity Board does not amount to manufacture and the products resulting from these processes are not excisable. Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (8) TMI 617 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... he detenu is on bail at the time of the passing of the detention order the bail application and bail order are vital documents and their copy has to be supplied to the detenu. For the said reasons, in our view the failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place the bail application of the detenu before the detaining authority has not only vitiated the detention order since the same was passed without application of mind on the part of the detaining authority but the non-supply of its copy to the detenu has trampled upon his right of making a effective representation as mandated by Article 22 (5) of The Constitution of India. Hence, the detention order would have to be quashed. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed, and the impugned detention order is quashed. Rule is made absolute. In case an application is made by the learned counsel for the parties, for a certified copy of this Judgment, the same shall be issued within four weeks from today. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng dealer will be liable to pay market fee to the Market Committee on the transaction of Ghee, but he will be entitled to pass on the burden to his purchaser. In that context learned Judges stated thus "Apropos the Market Committee, however, the liability will be of the manufacturing dealer." The aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench makes the position clear that the Market Committee is fully entitled to collect the market fee from the seller and it is for the seller to pass the burden on the purchaser if he so chooses. It is not the look out of the Market Committee to see that seller gets the amount of fee paid by the purchaser. Thus the appellants cannot shirk the responsibility to pay the market fee to the Market Committee when the transaction falls within the purview of sub-clause (3) of Section 17(iii) (b) of the Act and then it would be open to them to recover the same from the purchaser - Government. For the above reasons we dismiss these appeals.
-
1998 (8) TMI 615 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... so binding on this Court and in support of it he has produced the copy of the order and the petitioner also has admitted that the case was decided by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all these grounds were not urged before this Court and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by these petitioners. Therefore, there is no bar for this Court to consider this petition, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition came to be rejected. However, in view of my finding that there is no irregularity or illegality in issuing notice to these petitioners for the reasons stated above, I refrain myself from delving on this argument. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that there is no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed reserving liberty to these petitioners to urge all these contentions before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage notwithstanding the fact that this petition is dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 614 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rights, title and interest in the goodwill of the firm, the retiring partners had received ₹ 80,000. The facts that the consideration was not adequate was by itself not a circumstances to show that what was conveyed was not relinquishment of a pre-existing right, title and interest. When the payment was made, it was not incidental to the carrying on of the business but was incidental to the reconstitution of the business by the remaining partners. The consideration was paid to acquire a capital asset and was capital expenditure." 16. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and also the clear verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. (supra), we are of the view that the payment of ₹ 3,75,000 is towards acquisition of goodwill and is in the nature of capital expenditure and as such, the assessee is not entitled for deduction of this amount. The ground is rejected. 17. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 5.2.96 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand quashed. It is true that out of 9 officials of the company who are the accused persons in the criminal case only 7 of them have preferred this special leave petition and R.K. Sharma, Whole Time Director, s well as Capt. G.P.S. Choudhary, Director of the company have not preferred the special leave petition. But in view of our conclusion, allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence against any of the officers of the company it would be futile to allow continuance of the criminal proceedings so far as the said two officers of the company are concerned. In the premises, as aforesaid, we quash not only the cognizance taken by the Magistrate of the offences as against the 7 appellants but also against the said two officers of the company, namely, Shri R.K. Sharma and Capt. G.P.S. Choudhary. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 612 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... unsel that consequent upon the setting aside Assessing Officer repeated the addition in his order dated 26-3-1993. The CIT(A), for the second time, restored the matter back by his order dated 30-4-1993. The Assessing Officer, still repeated the addition. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the addition by his order dated 1-5-1998. Copy of the said order giving effect to this order of the CIT(A) is placed on record, on perusal of which we find that the addition is deleted by the CIT(A). Nonetheless, in the present appeal, we are concerned as to whether CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the issue. In our opinion, simply because assessee did not produce accountant of the lender company, may be because of long distance, it was not fair for the Assessing Officer to straightway conclude that it was assessee’s income without further enquiry. Hence CIT(A) was justified in restoring back the matter for readjudication. 21. In the result, the appeal of the department is partly allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 611 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ct Taxes in connection with the deduction of interest allowable under section 24(1)(vi) in its Circular No. 28 dated 20-8-1969 F.No. 8/8/69-IT(AI) that if the second borrowing has actually been used merely to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as a deduction under section 24(1)(vi) of the Act. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that if it is established that the second borrowing has been used merely to repay the original loans, which were utilised in purchasing the preference shares as claimed by the assessee, the interest should be allowed as a deduction to the assessee. For this purpose, we set aside the orders of the departmental authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee if the necessary materials are brought on record as aforesaid. 6. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1998 (8) TMI 610 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... nsideration accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. The benefit can be extended to assessee only if the assessee appropriated the sale consideration of the old asset received/accrued towards the acquisition of the new asset. 12. In the light of the above facts and the position of law, the decision relied upon by the counsel does not fit in the case before me. In the interest of justice, taking the facts and circumstances of the case, I remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to adduce an evidence to show that the sale proceeds were appropriated towards the acquisition of the new asset; ordered accordingly. 13. The appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 674/Nag/1997 14. Since I have allowed the assessee’s appeal as above for statistical purposes, this appeal arising from the order under section 154 of the IT Act is dismissed as infructuous.
........
|
