Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 568 Records
-
2001 (2) TMI 1040
... ... ... ... ..... al with the penal aspect of the misconduct while the proceedings under the Central Rules deal with the disciplinary aspect of the misconduct. The two proceedings do not overlap. As a matter of fact, Notification No.SRO-329 dated 23.9.1960 issued under the Central Rules and under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 4 of the Army Act makes this position clear. By this notification, the punishments that could be meted out under the Central Rules have been taken out of the purview of the Court Martial proceedings under the Army Act. We further find support for this view of ours in the judgment of this Court in R. Viswan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 658). As noticed above, in view of the fact that the appellants have not challenged the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ appeal, the same remain undisturbed by this judgment while we allow this appeal and quash the judgment of the Division Bench impugned before us. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1039
... ... ... ... ..... be made in search cases and the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission in relation thereto. By Instruction No.1962 dated 12th February, 1999, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has given instructions to all Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Directors General of Income Tax thus "It is now clarified that the term ‘case’ as defined under section 245A(b) includes the block assessments to be made in search cases. Therefore, the pending SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be withdrawn". Pursuant to these instructions, many similar appeals have already been withdrawn. In these pending matters, no instructions have yet been received but having regard to the circular, it is clear that they must meet the same fate. They are dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos.5557-5573 of 1998 Interlocutory application Nos.18 to 34 of 2001 for withdrawal of the civil appeals are allowed. The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1038
... ... ... ... ..... the reasons mentioned in the said application, which is duly supported on his affidavit. Copy of the application has been supplied to the defendants but till date the defendants have not opposed the prayer made in the said application. This application was posted in Court on various occasions. Since compromise has not been acted upon and the parties are not willing to abide by their undertaking, there is no reason why the prayer made in the application be not allowed. Accordingly, the application (IA.2760/2000) is allowed. Parties are absolved of the respective undertaking given by them to the Court on 10.1.2000 i their composite statement. As regards the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 position as it existed prior to 10.1.2000 is ordered to be restored including all interim orders passed prior to 10.1.2000. 17. The suit as well as other pending applications will now be listed for disposal in accordance with law before appropriate bench hearing civil suits on Original Side.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1037
... ... ... ... ..... ecord, subsequent fact, event or happening, which has direct bearing on the issues or relief claimed, on the facts and circumstances of this case, then the High Court committed no error of jurisdiction to permit the Commissioner report to be placed on the record and then on which to rely while exercising its revisional power under sub- section 5 of Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by us we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed with costs on the parties. Lastly, learned counsel made request to grant substantial time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question as he has been in possession of this shop for a very long time, otherwise it would affect his business adversely. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case we grant time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question by or before 31st December, 2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks from today.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1036
... ... ... ... ..... out that the controversy raised herein is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in ARAVINDA PARAMILA WORKS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (1999) 237 ITR 284, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expenditure referred to in section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has to be incurred on the maintenance outside India of a branch, office or agency for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities and that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities, but when payment is made of commission to agents outside India on the amount of turnover of the goods sold, it would not qualify for the relief under section 35B(i)(b)(iv). 9. In view of the above decision, we answer the question in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 10. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1035
... ... ... ... ..... he powers of an appellate Court under the CPC. This section provides that the Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit". The word "thereon" restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of the appeal, and the subject-matter of the appeal is constituted by the original grounds of appeal and such additional grounds as may be raised by leave of the Tribunal. The power to pass such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit can be exercised only in relation to the matters that arise in the appeal. It is not open to the Tribunal to adjudicate or give a finding on a question which is not in dispute and which does not form the subject-matter of the appeal (vide Kanga and Palkiwala on IT Act, 8th Edn). 3. In the result, the question of law is answered in the negative and against the assessee, and in favour of the Department. The IT references are disposed of as above.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1033
... ... ... ... ..... ourt could not have convicted the accused. The Serologist and Chemical Examiner has found it that the Chadar (sheet) seized in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was stained with human blood. As with the lapse of time the classification of the blood could not be determined, no bonus is conferred upon the accused to claim any benefit on the strength of such a belated and stale argument. The trial court as well as the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding this circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant." By producing positive evidence, the prosecution established that appellant Vinod was in possession of a fire arm and cartridges in a Notified Area of Delhi vide notification No.F.25(3) 87-HP dated 20.10.1987 and thus guilty of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act besides the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. We do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed
-
2001 (2) TMI 1032
... ... ... ... ..... ormed that this amount has been deposited. By an order dated 29th September, 2000 this Court permitted the competent authority to disburse the amount deposited. We have been told that the amount has already been disbursed. Mr. Sibal has very fairly stated that the competent authority need not recall the amounts disbursed from the persons to whom they have been paid. We clarify that, as the acquisition proceedings are not being set aside and the Special Land Acquisition Officer is merely being directed to refix the compensation, the amounts already disbursed pursuant to the orders of this Court will not be recalled but will be finally adjusted in the compensation which is ultimately found to be payable. We also clarify that if the acquisition has been challenged in any proceedings, this order will not affect those proceedings. The concerned court will decide those proceedings on their own merits. The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1031
... ... ... ... ..... ts. In both the statements, Punit Kumar has given detail about the seizure of the goods effected at the business premises at Gift Palace, No. 159, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for which separate show-cause notice dated 24.2.98 was issued to both the appellants (see pages 37 to 42 of the appeal of Punit Kumar) which resulted in adjudication order No. 28 dated 11.6.98 (at pages 30 to 36 of the appeal) wherein separate penalties of ₹ 50,000/- each were imposed on Rakesh Kumar Tony, and on Punit Kumar. It appears to us that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty on Punit Kumar in this case only on the ground that he was a partner in Gift Palace along with Rakesh Kumar. We, therefore, hold that there is no evidence against Punit Kumar so as to make him liable to penal action in the present proceedings. 7. In the result, we set aside the penalties on both the appellants and allow both the appeals with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1030
... ... ... ... ..... ith regard to the question regarding service of notice. He came to hold that notice was issued and served upon the assessee. In fact, the assessee had responded to the notice and had attended before the GTO. Matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal came to hold that there was valid service of notice. On being moved for reference, the question as set out above has been referred for opinion of this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of assessee in spite of notice. The learned counsel for revenue submitted that the question as to whether notice had been properly served is a question of fact giving rise to no question of law. 4. The Tribunal, with reference to record, has come to a definite finding that notice had been duly served. This finding is essentially of fact. We, therefore, decline to answer the question referred. The reference is returned unanswered.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1029
... ... ... ... ..... the assessee is of transferring the LPG from big or bulk container to small cylinders with a view to effect efficient delivery to the customers or clients. 23. Therefore, the question whether the transfer of LPG from big or bulk container to smaller containers involve its mixing with air through application of mechanical process, was neither raised by the parties before Gujarat High Court nor answered by the Court. Since like facts are not admitted here and have been found otherwise by the Tribunal, the ratio of decision in Kosan Gas Company (supra), in our opinion does not help any further for deciding the issue before us. 24. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Taxation Tribunal as well as District Level Screening Committee is set aside. The District Level Screening Committee is directed to consider case of the petitioner afresh in view of observations made herein above and make necessary orders within period of four weeks.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1028
... ... ... ... ..... missioner. On the same facts, the penalties have been cancelled for these assessment years. No distinguishing factor has been produced before us to come to a different conclusion. We accordingly uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for both the years.” At the hearing, we enquired from Shri Sawhney as to whether the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in relation to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 are under challenge before this court or the Supreme Court. In reply, learned counsel stated that no such proceedings appear to have been taken by the Revenue. In view of the above, we do not find any valid ground to entertain the prayer made in these appeals. We are further of the view that once the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had accepted the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the allegation of concealment of income, there is no scope for interference by this court. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1027
... ... ... ... ..... claim for exemption under section 11. The other additional ground is against the levy of interest under section 234B. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club 2000 164 (SC) 200 2001 247 ITR 209 (SC) is cited. So far as the first additional ground is concerned, there is not need to pronounce upon the same since we have held that the entire income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(22). As regards the interest under section 234B, there is no question of charging interest, because the assessee is exempt from tax. The addition grounds are disposed of accordingly. 18. In the result, the appeal by the Department is dismissed and that by the assessee is allowed. The assessee entitled to costs which we assess at ₹ 5,000 which shall be deposited with the Registrar of the Tribunal within 3 months from the receipts of this order whereupon the assessee will be entitled to withdraw the same on making an application to that effect to the Registrar.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1026
... ... ... ... ..... gh Courts where the piles of backlog are a stirring problem, to pick out such cases to be brought to the notice of the Chief justice of the High Court concerned so that he could take appropriate steps in the matter. The above is not an advice, but only a suggestion. If any alternative suggestion would appear better the same can be resorted to. The time is running out for doing something to solve the problem which has already grown into monstrous form. If a citizen is told that once you resort to legal procedure for realisation of your urgent need you have to wait and wait for 23 to 30 years, what else is it if not to inevitably encourage and force him to resort to extra legal measures for realising the required reliefs. A Republic, governed by rule of law, cannot afford to compel its citizens to resort to such extra legal means which are very often contra legal means with counter-productive results on the maintenance of law and order in the country. We dismiss these appeals.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1025
... ... ... ... ..... e issue at hand. But as stated above, figures of census of 1991 were not available on the first day of previous year, therefore, population of Kapra municipality, as per census of 1991 can also not come to the rescue of the revenues stand. Therefore, we hold that impugned land cannot be treated as capital asset under section 2(14)(iii)(a), for the exigibility of capital gain in the year under appeal. Therefore, we have to hold that impugned land was not hit by section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and cannot be treated as capital asset. Since impugned land was not capital asset, there was no question of any capital gains exigible to tax as a result of transfer thereafter Since we have allowed the main substantive grounds of the assessee, we do not think it proper to adjudicate upon the alternative grounds raised in the appeal memo and admission and merit of additional grounds raised in the application for additional ground. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1024
... ... ... ... ..... annot be applied to the entire income as assessed by the Assessing Officer but only to such income which could be ascribed to any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing the assessees were found to be the owners of during the course of search proceedings. Accordingly, we hold that Smt. Rasila S. Mehta could be deemed to have concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof to the extent of a sum of ₹ 7,409 only for assessment year 1988-89. Similarly, Smt. Pratima H. Mehta could be deemed to have concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof to the extent of a sum of ₹ 34,699 only. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to recompute penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of only these amounts at the rate of 100 per cent of tax sought to be evaded, or minimum imposable penalty. 24. In the result, while the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1023
... ... ... ... ..... the income-tax liability which may be payable thereon. In calculating the arrears, the Government will, of course, take into account the interim relief which had been granted and drawn by the judicial officers. The amount to be credited in the provident fund account would also be after deducting the income-tax payable. 38. The States as well as the Union of India shall submit their compliance report by 30th September, 2002. Case be listed thereafter for further orders. 39. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them. 40. Before concluding, we record our high appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae Shri F.S. Nariman, Shri, Subhash Sharma, Shri C.S. Ramulu, Shri A.T.M. Sampath and all other learned Counsel.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1022
... ... ... ... ..... nt no. 4 can apply for the grant. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.10.1997 and giving a direction to him to consider application dated 4.7.95 filed by respondent no. 4. In our view, the authorities are now required to issue fresh notice in terms of rule 72 of the Rules and consider the applications for grant of lease filed pursuant thereto in accordance with law and no application filed earlier either pursuant to previous notices or otherwise shall be considered. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While upholding that portion of the judgment of the High Court whereby lease sanctioned in favour of the appellant was quashed, we set aside other part of the judgment, directing consideration of the application dated 4.7.1995 of the respondent No. 4 and application, if any filed, by the appellant pursuant to the impugned judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1021
... ... ... ... ..... ot guilty of such offence. In view of the foregoing discussion, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the liberal interpretation given by the High Court to Section 37 is justified as it affects personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried. In our view, considering the legislative intent of curbing the practice of giving bail on technical ground in a crime which adversely affects the entire society including lives of number of persons and the object of making stringent provisions for control of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, there is no reason to accept the construction of the section which its language can hardly bear. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent on bail is set aside. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
-
2001 (2) TMI 1020
... ... ... ... ..... where additional compensation is awarded after court proceedings, the time limit of 6 months from the date of transfer for investment in specified assets, laid down in section 54E, should be reckoned only from the date on which the additional compensation is received by the assessee. It is the same purposive interpretation or the interpretation that would advance the cause of Justice that requires that in the present case also the assessee should be held entitled to the deduction. We direct accordingly and allow these grounds. 13. Ground No. 8 in ITA No. 2685/Mum./96 does not arise out of the orders of the Income-tax authorities and is hence rejected. 14. Ground Nos. 9 and 10 in ITA No. 2685 are general and require no decision. 15. Ground No. 4 in ITA No. 2694/Mum./98 which is against the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, is consequential to our order. The other grounds are general and require no decision. 16. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
........
|