|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 867 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 20 lakhs under the provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that the AO. The ground is allowed. 57. Regarding the main ground taken by the Department in respect of the reduction allowed by the CIT(A) from the addition of ₹ 12,86,70,053 made by the AO on the basis of the 110 bank accounts figuring in Annexure A-3, we have only to mention that this issue has been discussed by us in detail in the context of the assessee's appeal. We have set aside the assessment in respect of the addition of ₹ 3,05,40,285 sustained by the CIT(A) and our directions given in this regard in the assessee's appeal cover this issue also. In other words, the assessment is set aside on this issue and restored to the file of the AO who may examine this issue in the light of our directions in the context of the assessee's appeal. 58. Subject to the above, the Department's appeal is partly allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 866 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... a building. 10. In the circumstances, we hold that the payments in question are not liable for deduction of tax at source under the provisions of section 194-I of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and delete the interest levied under section 201(1A) and also hold that the assessee cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section 201 of the Income-tax Act. 11. The assessee has taken various other ground but no arguments have been advanced before us. We accordingly dismiss those grounds. 12. Neither of the parties could enlighten us as to how the storage tanks in question are treated in the assessments of the said eight parties, i.e., whether they are treated as building or as plant. So we have decided the issue without the benefit of those assessment orders, relying solely on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Apex Court, as mentioned hereinabove. 13. The appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 865 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e emphasised as above depicts the disgust feature. Hindustan Petroleum's case (supra) is not a case for acquisition at all and reliance thereon thus is totally misplaced. On the wake of the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that the High Court has dealt with the matter on a totally different perspective and as such clearly fell into an error in passing the order as impugned in this appeal. Not only the length of time but the concept of approbation and reprobation has totally been ignored at the High Court stage. The appeal therefore, succeeds. The Writ Petition filed by the respondents in the High Court is dismissed and as such the I.A. No. 1/99 filed in SLP No. 19507 of 1998 also stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition by the present judgment, direction contained in the civil revision permitting the respondents to withdraw the compensation amount will obviously now be complied with. Each party however should pay and hear its own costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 864 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a period of one year or so from the date of issue and in case the form is not utilised within the said period it shall become invalid unless validated by the department again for a further period as may be prescribed form the date of revalidation. 9. For the foregoing discussions, the revision is allowed with costs quantified at ₹ 2,500/-. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to redecide the Second Appeal in the light of the discussions made above. 10. The Commissioner Trade Tax, Lucknow shall be at liberty to realise the amount of costs from the erring authorities who has failed to apply the well established law while deciding the first appeal and the second appeal. 11. A copy of this order shall be handed over by the office to Sri B. K. Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the communication to. the Trade Tax Commissioner, U. P., Lucknow. 12. Original Forms 3-C (2) produced by Sri Alok Kumar shall be returned to him.
-
1999 (12) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sssor Rule 7 were legal and valid subject to the reading down as aforesaid, the consequential directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment would obviously fall through along with the main judgment. The appellant-society, of course, will be bound to comply with Rule 7(A) in future transactions and claims of ordinary members subject to the reading down of the said Rule as per this judgment Point No.3 is also, therefore, answered in negative in favour of the appellant- society and against the respondent-writ petitioners. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The interim order passed earlier in these proceedings shall stand vacated. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondent-writ petitioners in the High Court Will stand dismissed subject to the reading down of impugned Rule 7(A) and its predecessor Rule 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as on the basis of material before them they appeared to have been satisfied that the assessee fulfilled the prescribed conditions for eligibility of relief under section 80-O and proceeded to frame the assessments in accordance with law. The perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner gives an inkling that he set aside the assessment orders by holding a view different from that of the Assessing Officers. Such an approach is not envisaged under section 263 which is not intended to be invoked merely for change of opinion. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Commissioner was in error in exercising his revisionary powers under section 263, as the conditions precedent for exercising revisionary jurisdiction, viz., the order must be erroneous as also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, did not exist. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19-3-1999 pertaining to both the assessment years involved is hereby quashed. 17. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 861 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... y provided to the builders. But for this facility the sale deed would have been registered in the name of the builder for which the stamp duty and registration charges would be payable by the builder. The builder or his purchasers would be required again to pay stamp duty and registration charges when the builder would transfer the property in the name of the purchasers. The assessee by agreeing to execute the sale deeds in the name of the builder or his nominees has the effect of saving of stamp duty and registration charges and this factor does not support the claim that the possession of the property was not handed over to the vendees. 12. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the revenue was justified in assessing the capital gain by invoking Explanation to section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No other ground of appeal has been argued before us. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 860 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post". In the face of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is supported by necessary documents as also the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act set out above, a bare denial in the additional counter affidavit filed by Union of India cannot be accepted. THAT being so, since the representation sent on behalf of the petitioner has not been disposed of by the government of India till date which results in the violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, the continued detention of the petitioner has become bad. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 29/4/1999 is set aside with the direction that the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with some other case.
-
1999 (12) TMI 859 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... k-wages from the date of his termination i.e. from 29.4.1966 till his actual re-instatement in service of the appellant-corporation with continuity of service. The respondent-workman will also be entitled to all other consequential benefits including increments in the available time scale and revisions of the time scale, if any, and also further service benefits as per the rules and regulations of the appellant-Corporation being treated to have been in continuous service of the appellant- corporation from 29.4.1966 all through out till re-instatement. The appellant-corporation shall reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service within 8 weeks from today and will also pay 50 back- wages as directed hereinabove within that period. The appellant-Corporation will also grant all other consequential benefits to the respondent-workman in the light of this judgment. Appeal stands allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case,
-
1999 (12) TMI 858 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ellant. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lant and machinery taken into consideration all aspects of valuation including the life of the plant and machinery. The valuations made both by the Enquiry Committee as well as the valuers are mostly based on the documents produced by the appellant itself. Hence, we cannot accept the argument that the valuation accepted by the Collector and confirmed by the revisional authority is either not based on any material or a finding arrived at arbitrarily. Once we are convinced that the method adopted by the authorities for the purpose of valuation is based on relevant materials then this Court will not interfere with such a finding of fact. That apart, as observed above, even the counsel for the appellant before the High Court did not seriously challenge the valuation and as emphasised by the High Court, rightly so. Therefore, we do not find any force in the last contention of the appellant also. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 856 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dence of an employee of the Jewel Hotel where the appellant had stayed from 16th November, 1990, who was proved some of the entries made in English by the appellant himself in the register maintained by the hotel. The panchnama, also contains words received copy written by the appellant. The said statement of the appellant was recorded in 1990. He retracted it in 1994. Till then he had not complained against any officer as regards the alleged beating or use of force nor he had stated that he did not know English. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted." For the foregoing reasons, Iam of the opinion that the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the statement (Ex. PW-2/A) of the appellant in convicting the appellant. The appellant's conviction and sentence, therefore, will have to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant's conviction and sentence are confirmed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 855 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned. In the light of the view taken by us, the civil appeals and W.P. (C) No. 191/99 are allowed to the extent mentioned above. W.P.(C) No. 4128/98 pending on the file of Delhi High Court which has been registered here as TC (C) No. 56/99 is withdrawn to the file of this Court and the same is dismissed. The respondent (Delhi Administration) shall pay costs in all the above matters. T.C.NO. 56/99 dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 854 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... perties which in his prima facie opinion appear to have been acquired out of such amount may also be attached by the officer. Such assets and properties may be put up to sale by him. If any objection is raised within two months of the date of attachment, the officer shall consider the same and with his views and findings place the matter before this Court for further orders. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to nominate a suitable judicial officer for the purpose. The officer should not be below the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Considering the pains taken by Mr. Dayanand Krishnan, learned amicus to assist the Court in dealing with the complex matters, it would be unfair not to direct payment of honorarium to him. Presently, let a sum of ₹ 50,000/- be paid to him by the Registry out of the surplus available from the sale of 3, Aurangzeb Road property. Call the matter after four months for further orders and directions.
-
1999 (12) TMI 853 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f First Schedule as it then stood and remanding the matter to the assessing officer to apply the correct rate of tax as per entry 188. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision which has become final. Hence, we see no point to admit the T.R.C. The T.R.C. is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 852 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n, the case of Glaxo Laboratories 1979 43 STC 386 (Guj) cannot be applied to the present case on account of this distinction. 10.. Therefore, DCP (animal feed grade), which was imported by applicant without way bills, was a taxable goods, distinct from balanced feed for cattle and pig and balanced poultry feed (vide serial Nos. 12 and 13 of Schedule I to 1994 Act), and hence the seizures and the imposition of penalties were valid. There is no reason to set aside or interfere with them. No other point was urged before us on behalf of the applicant. 11.. Accordingly, the applications in RN-34 and RN-35 of 1999 are dismissed. If the securities have been furnished by applicant in terms of our interim orders, those shall be adjusted against the penalties imposed and balance amounts of penalty may be recovered in accordance with law. No order as to cost. This judgment finally disposes of RN-34 and RN-35 of 1999. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 851 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... relaxation in the compliance has been made in the procedural aspect of the matter in which a declaration has to be procured for claiming exemption by the seller, cannot alter the nature of provision relating to period at which declaration is to be filed as well as of procuring separate declaration for separate transaction from directory, to mandatory or obligatory so as to nullify the statutory grant of exemption to certain transaction. In my opinion the amendment to which learned counsel has made reference does not make the ratio of decision redundant. The division Bench of this Court has held that the provision is of directory in nature in the sense no penalty be imposed in the absence of mens rea and has been followed by the Board of Revenue in dealing with levy of tax by way of penalty and interest in such cases. 14.. No interference is called for in the order made by the Tax Board in this case and revision is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 850 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the nation and should not be detained beyond a reasonable period. Since the action of the respon- dents is without jurisdiction and unjustified, we do not consider the existence of an alternative remedy as sufficient cause for not exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10.. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The seizure order dated November 25, 1999 and the order dated December 6, 1999 passed under section 13-A(6) of the Act by the Assistant Commis- sioner (Sahayata Kendra) Trade Tax, Naubatpur (Chandauli), Varanasi are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith. It would, however, be permis- sible to them to take samples of the oil and to take appropriate action to ensure the proper surrender of the trip sheet at the exit check-post. 11.. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 849 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r 1989 4 STC 99 no interest is leviable for the period prior to April 1, 1987 under section 11B(1)(f), this Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 11 of 1983 and 11 of 1989 has referred the question, when tax is quantified in under section 12 after April 1, 1987 though for the period prior to April 1, 1987, whether the additional amount of tax is liable to interest under section 11B(1)(f) of the Act to a larger Bench for decision. 8.. In the aforesaid circumstances the question of levy of interest in the present case shall abide by decision that may be reached by the larger Bench of the court on such reference. 9.. This civil revision stands accordingly allowed, the orders of appellate authorities are set aside and the case is remanded to assessing officer to make a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of direction stated above. Petition allowed. Obviously the case relates to Commercial Taxes Officer, Udaipur v. Nalwaya Minerals and Motor Parts 1990 79 STC 113 (Raj).-Ed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 848 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n December 3, 1988 was discussed in this order, the order is dated December 2, 1988. Considering the issue of separate notice and order, as contemplated in section 12(5) of the Act, we find that the incorrect mention of date of order will not vitiate the proceedings. 19.. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in regard to deletion of penalty and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner wherein the quantum of penalty was fixed as Rs. 1,930. 20.. In fine, the tax revision case filed by the assessee in T.C. (R) No. 167 of 1999 is dismissed and the tax revision case filed by the Revenue in T.C.(R) No. 2767 of 1997 is allowed as indicated supra. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 22nd day of December, 1999. Assessee s petition dismissed and Department s petition allowed.
........
|
