|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 649 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 1311 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Arijit Pasayat, JJ ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1310 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the case law cited, ld. Advocate submits that the payment of duty made during the pendency of the assessee’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was a payment under protest and, therefore, the time bar provisions of Section 11B were not applicable to the case. 6. On examination of the above submissions and the case law cited, I find that the issue involved in this case stands squarely covered by the cited case law. Admittedly, the duty was paid during the pendency of the assessee’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such a payment will be deemed to have been made under protest for purposes of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. When the payment is under protest, the time bar provisions will not be applicable. Therefore, the refund claim filed after the period of six months from the date of payment of duty was liable to be allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in law and the same is upheld. The present appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1309 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lowed from income worked out at the rate of 10 per cent on the contract receipts. The Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. It is submitted by Mr. Bhandawat that the Tribunal has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that when income was determined by applying a net profit rate, all such deductions are treated to be allowed. It is also submitted that the claim in this regard cannot be considered to be covered by the provisions of section 40(b) as in the instant case provisions of section 145 were invoked and the income was not determined according to the provisions of sections 28 to 43C. 4. The question of law sought to be referred is concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jain Construction Co. 2000 245 ITR 527 , wherein it is held that in case of estimation of income, depreciation should be allowed separately. 5. In our view, no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The reference application is rejected.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1308 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suance of the order of the board of revenue which had attained finality. In the consolidation proceedings, the collector is also the district deputy director of consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act and is authorised to correct any wrong entry continued in the consolidation record in that capacity in the exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Merely because a wrong provision was quoted by the collector for exercising his power while deleting the name of the appellant from the revenue record would not invalidate the order if it is shown that such an order could be passed under other provisions of the Act viz. under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the collector. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1307 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
... ...
... ... ..... f the director of the company was also not produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the genuineness of the credit standing in the name of Suresh Kumar Golecha could not be examined and the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. In view of this, the Assessing Officer added both the cash credits as not proved. The finding has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. 2. It is contended by Mr. Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the applicant-assessee that the Assessing Officer has committed error in relying on the statement of Ms. Pramila at the back of the assessee for the purpose of making addition in the income showed by him. The genuineness of a credit is a question of fact and on the facts, it cannot be said that there was unconvincing material to establish the genuineness of such credits. In our view, no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference application is rejected.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1306 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to between the assessee and TUL. The assessee was to refrain from soliciting and/or engaging TUL’s employees, as stipulated by the covenant, for a period of three years starting 1-4-1990, id est, one day after acceptance of his resignation. The agreement itself is dated 26-2-1990. 24. The law quoted by the assessee is squarely applicable the conclusive pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Best & Co. (P.) Ltd.’s case (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. It was, inter alia, held therein that a restrictive covenant was an independent obligation which came into operation only when the agency (service in the present case) came to an end and that part of the compensation which was attributable to the restrictive covenant was a capital receipt and hence, not taxable. 25. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, finding no infirmity with the order under appeal, the same is hereby upheld. 26. The appeal, consequently, stands dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1305 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ariava, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the submissions, the fees paid to the Chartered Accountant for preparing and filing the return, in our view, is in no way wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or earning income, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the view taken by the Tribunal. 4. The question referred at the instance of the revenue is as to whether the expenditure incurred on the customers can be allowed under section 37(2A) or (2B). In this context, Mr. Mehta brought to our notice the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. 1981 130 ITR 868 wherein the question has been answered in favour of the assessee. 5. Considering these facts and submissions, in the result, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The question at the instance of the revenue was answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1303 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... inancial stringency. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Walford Transport (Eastern India) Ltd. v. CIT 1999 reported in 240 ITR 902 (Gau.) held that where the transaction is found to be genuine and the identity of the payee is established a liberal view of compelling and mitigating circumstances should be taken. In the case before us assessee had made the payment to labour contractor and no single payment is exceeding ₹ 10,000. It is well known that labour needs the cash urgently and contractor was required to pay the same in cash to avoid labour problems. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,37,956 out of total disallow¬ance of ₹ 1,52,956 made by Assessing Officer under section 40A(3). We accordingly delete the addition of ₹ 1,37,956. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticle 22 6 of Constitution of India, cannot re-write the provisions of the Act. o p /o p 24. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition has to fail and consequently the Writ Petition is dismissed. Connected W.M.P., will stand closed. o p /o p 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Co-Operative Society and that it caters to the needs of only the workers and that the Government itself thought it fit to grant exemption and in fact granted exemption from 1990 onwards, and in those circumstances, the Court may be pleased to clarify that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of Government granting any relief by virtue of powers conferred on it. We examined the request of the petitioner and heard the respondent as well. We make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of Government granting relief by virtue of powers conferred on it under law. o p /o p
-
2002 (1) TMI 1301 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... authority. But, at the cost of repetition, we would like to point out that Annexures D and E were vital documents which were likely to influence the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority either way and that being so, in view of the four decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above, their non-placement before the detaining authority has vitiated the detention order on the vice of non-application of mind. And since they were vital documents and their copies were not furnished to the detenu, the detenu's fundamental right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity, guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was also impaired. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu - Javed Abdul Aziz Shaikh alias Javed Munniruddin Shaikh be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute. Petition allowed
-
2002 (1) TMI 1300 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1299 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER The civil appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1298 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ing paras are sufficient to hold that the accretion to the Canstar does not give rise to capital gains and the same is to be treated as “income from other sources”. Before we part with this ground, however, we would like to observe (i) the decision rendered by us is with reference to the facts of the Canstar Scheme and cannot be laying down the law for all the schemes and mutual funds operating in the country ; (ii) the numerous decisions cited by both the parties have been duly considered although not individually discussed ; and (iii) nothing on record has been adverted to on behalf of the Revenue to justify their case being endorsed by us and the specific reference would be to the letter obtained by the assessee from the Canstar, but which in our opinion, does not turn on anything. We would in conclusion agree with the view of the President and direct listing of the matter before the Division Bench, for passing an order in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1297 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e, AG, Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. As no question of law is involved, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1296 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s between technical aspects like the effect on depreciation, multiplying factors, etc. In the given set of facts, the dispute revolves around intricate problems of localities where the price varies not only from one building to other but in the same building depending upon various factors like the floor, access, nature of building, etc. Besides, the issue address itself in diverse ways regarding valuation of land and building method, sale instances, comparison method, etc. We are of the view that this issue can be decided in conformity with the principle of natural justice if the matter is referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. We accordingly deem it fit to set aside the issue and restore it back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO and then take an appropriate view in accordance with the provisions of law. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1295 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... y condoned The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1294 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... erwise the meaning, of export remains the same as it was. 8. Coming to the assessee's case, the Department has not disputed the fact that the leaving of goods does not involve clearance at a custom station as defined in Customs Act, 1962. Though some possible misuses have been pondered over by the lower authorities, nevertheless the dominant and avowed object of the assessee is to cater the meals to foreign bound aircrafts under the supervision of custom stations and get the money as regarded as convertible foreign exchange in accordance with Banking Regulations Act. We see no reason to hold that the assessee's activity does not amount to export. We are of the view that the assessee's activity amount to export and the goods having been supplied involving clearance at custom stations as defined in Customs Act, 1962, is export within the meaning of s. 80HHC and is entitled for benefit of deduction under s. 80HHC. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1293 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... f law is no excuse and the appellants under the self-removal procedure were duty bound to start paying the duty on the brass rods w.e.f. 13-10-97, when the exemption was withdrawn. As such I am of the view that the appellants do not have a prima facie case in their favour. However, the appellants have also pleaded financial hardship and have submitted that their factory is closed w.e.f. 1999, though no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the appellants. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case I direct the applicant appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand) within a period of eight weeks from today. Subject to deposit of the above amount, the pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance and for final disposal of the appeal on 11-3-2002.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1292 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed specifically in 1997. This being the position the principle of estoppel, apart from anything else, would clearly be applicable in a case like this. A person who gets an advantage, namely, of a sanction to go abroad on service on the condition that he will come back within two years and if he does not come back, his lien will automatically be regarded as being terminated he then cannot turn around and challenge the said condition on the basis of which sanction to go abroad was granted. Of course, if there is a dispute with regard to the question whether he had in fact come back within the stipulated period or an extension had been specifically granted an inquiry may be necessary but where the facts are not in dispute the inquiry would be an empty formality. In any case principle of estoppel would clearly apply and the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant wherein he had challenged his termination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
........
|
