|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 473 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 642 - COMPANY LAW BOARD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ating the price per share that they are willing to offer. The Block which offers the higher price, will purchase the shares of the other at the price and the consideration for the same should be paid within two months. The Block purchasing the other will also ensure that the other is relived of all their financial commitment/obligation, whatever may be the nature, in the company within the same two months period. For any reason, the Block quoting the higher price fails to purchase the shares of the other Block quoting the higher price fails to purchase the shares of the other Block within two months, the other Block will have the right to purchase the shares of the defaulting Block within the next two months at the price quoted by the other Block. 21. Both the petitions are disposed of in the above terms, reserving the right to pass necessary consequential order on 2nd January 2003 when both the Blocks will present their offers quoting their price per share in closed covers.
-
2002 (12) TMI 641 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tered post; (4) That the petitioners do advertise with in 14 days from this date a notice in the prescribed form of making of this order in one issues of “Times of India” and “Prajavaji” daily newspaper; (5) That the petitioners do server a certified copy of the order on the Register of Companies not later that one month from this date; and (6) That the petitioners in each of these petitions shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5,000/- with the official liquidator. The applications filed in Application No. 154/2001 filed in Co. Pet No. 205/2001 for directing the respondent to return the property that supplied by the petitioner, is rejected, reserving liberty to make similar application after advertisement of the winding up order. Co. Appln. No. 155/2002 filed in Co.Pet.No. 205/2001 seeking an order restraining the respondent from alienating the assets of the company do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is rejected and having become infructuous.
-
2002 (12) TMI 640 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects. We are, therefore, of the view that for the afore-mentioned reasons, the common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and we, accordingly, do so. We remit the cases to the trial court for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the basis of the averments in the plaint, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law. The civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 639 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imed under section 80P(2)(a)( iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the receipts from its members by way of interest ?" The facts of this case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in CIT v. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri 2002 125 Taxman 767. 3. Following the said decision the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2002 (12) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year." ( 5. ) The assessing officer could assess or reassess such income which has escaped assessment as the case may be for the assessment year concerned subject to the provisions of Sections 148 and 153 of the Act. ( 6. ) In our view, therefore, the High Court erred in quashing the show-cause notice only on the basis of Section 147(a). The show-cause notice must be restored. We make it clear that the assessee's contention that the statement of its Chief Executive was incorrect or in any event has been misunderstood is left open for being decided in the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act as may be commenced on the basis of the impugned notice. ( 7. ) The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside, The proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 1986-1987 are, accordingly, revived. ( 8. ) There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 637 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... shna, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 636 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the prosecution proceedings referred above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against orders Annexures 6 and 7, the CIT (Appeals) dismissed its appeal vide Annexures 8 dated 7-3-1990, however, learned Tribunal has accepted the second appeal vide order dated 11-12-1997, for both the assessment years, deleting the penalty referred above. A copy of the order dated 11-12-1997 has been filed today, with the prayer that when penalty itself has been quashed criminal prosecution should also be set aside. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Singhvi Bros. SAW No. 128 of 1990 dated 14-11-2002 has held that if penalty is quashed, prosecution need not continue. 4. Learned counsel for the Department is not in a position to controvert the Division Bench judgment referred to hereinabove. 5. Consequently, there is merit in this petition and the same is accepted and Annexures 11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 635 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hna, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mpermissible for the learned counsel for the Revenue to refer to the said document. 10. Learned counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal so that the Appellate Tribunal may consider the question, for such course of action the counsel for Revenue did not object. Hence, we return the reference without answering the question of law referred to us. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the question afresh in the light of the principles laid down earlier and in the light of the decisions referred to by us in our judgment. It is made clear that it is open to the parties to let in fresh evidence before the Appellate Tribunal. It is also made clear that it is open to the Appellate Tribunal to remit the matter to the lower authorities for fresh consideration. 11. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of without answering the question, but with a direction for fresh hearing. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 633 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nsel appearing for the appellant started his arguments at 2.45 p.m. and concluded at 3.35 p.m. Thereafter Mr. B.B. Ahuja, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents started his arguments and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matter remained part-heard.
-
2002 (12) TMI 632 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal was correct in holding that the subsidy given by the State Government is capital receipt and not liable to tax. In view of the answer given to the first question, we are of the view that it is not necessary for us to answer the second question. Accordingly, we are not answering the second question. 3. As far as the third question is concerned, it is fairly submitted that the said question is to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the earlier decision of this Court in CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 1998 229 ITR 285, wherein this Court has considered a similar issue and held that the amount transferred to Molasses Storage Fund under a statutory obligation did not form part of the assessee’s total income. Following the said decision of this Court, we answer the third question of law referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the circumstances of the case, there will be no order was to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 631 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law of the country in which the arbitration is agreed to be held. There is nothing in the contract or correspondence between the parties to rebut the ordinary presumption and spell out an intention of the parties that they intended proper law of India to govern arbitration in spite of the place of arbitration having been agreed to be at New York. 6. So far as the language employed by Parliament in drafting sub-section (2) of s.2 of the Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the language is clear and unambiguous. Saying that this Part would apply where the place of arbitration is in India tantamounts to saying that it will not apply where the place of arbitration is not in India. For the foregoing reasons it is held that the petition under s.11(4) of the Act is not maintainable before the Chief Justice of India or his designate. The Petition is Dismissed. 7. The appreciation of valuable assistance rendered by Shri V.A. Mohta, the learned Senior Advocate is placed on record.
-
2002 (12) TMI 630 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ishna, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 629 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lls short of three years. The operation had to be stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations contained in the mining lease consistently with the G.O. issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a little higher revenue can be earned by the State Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing the obligation of the State Government which it has incurred in accordance with its own policy decision. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned order of the High Court, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the appellant shall be allowed to operate mine for a full period of three years subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. The appellant shall remain liable to pay royalty and make other payments to the State Government in accordance with the terms of the lease.
-
2002 (12) TMI 628 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade by the assessee to the effect that since the Assessing Officer himself has computed the profits from the business at ₹ 65,28,776, after allowing the full deduction of Rs, 2,50,00,000 under section 33AC, 25 thereof should be allowed as deduction under section 80-I. This claim also cannot be accepted because this figure not only includes the profits from the ship "Prabhu Das" but also includes the profits of the ship "Prabhu Gopal" which is not eligible for deduction under section 80-I. The deduction can be given only from the profits of "Prabhu Das" and in the absence of anything to show what amount of profits from "Prabhu Das" are included in the said figure, even the alternative claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. 16. We therefore uphold the orders of the departmental authorities, with regard to the assessee’s claim under section 80-I and dismiss the second ground. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 627 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iness, however, the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive would not form part of income from the business assessable to tax under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act. Since a consolidated amount is referred to in the question, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to determine which part of the amount would represent the purchase price and which part of the amount would represent excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive which is not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Though we technically answer the question of law referred to in paragraph 2 of the judgment in favour of the Revenue, we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and determine the question which part of the amount would represent the purchase price which is taxable under the Income-tax Act as business income and which part of the amount would represent the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive which is not taxable under the Income-tax Act. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 626 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... er. The Managing Director has filed detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining the discrepancy. The discrepancy explained is acceptable and they have not been taken into consideration by the authorities below. Since there was no other evidence available on record even in the terms of the facts noted by the original authority on physical verification there was no excess raw material, there was no excess of production of electricity or payment of wages or excess of production of goods to any private party. The invoices of the consignee tallied with the register. The revenue has not been able to collect evidence of excess manufacture and sale without payment of duty. The two pieces of evidence are not sufficient for supporting the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods without payment of duty. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. Dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-
2002 (12) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC when common inputs are used by manufacturer in the manufacture of duty paid as well as exempted goods, and the manufacturer has to pay an amount equal to 8 of the price of the exempted goods, the Learned Member took the view that Rule created an exception in respect of inputs used as fuel and, therefore, modvat credit is not liable to be reversed. Nor a demand of duty at the rate of 8 of the price can be made. On reading the third proviso we are included to accept the contention raised by the assessee that inputs used for generation of electricity or steam for the purpose of manufacturing non-dutiable item would also be taken in the term "for any other purpose within the factory of production". We therefore hold that for the period after 18.5.1995 the assessee is not liable to reverse is credit taken on furnace oil. The order impugned is modified to the above extent and the appeal stands allowed as above. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2002 (12) TMI 624 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecree of the first appellate court on a finding of fact, which was based on proper and objective appreciation of evidence. The High Court was also wrong in treating the scribe of the Will, Raikar, as an attesting witness without any basis. Further, the High Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate court did not indicate as to any substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties to deprive the suit properties to the only daughter of deceased Honaji Dama Kadam. o p /o p Under these circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. In this view the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained. Hence, they are set aside. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are restored. In the result, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2002 (12) TMI 623 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he amount to the appellants. Thus, the amount of excise duty paid by the appellants after 7.5.2001 must have been processed by the Department but not refunded to the appellants. We instead of directing the refund of the amount to the appellants the excise duty paid to the Department after 7.5.2001 till date, we feel that it is in the fitness of things to direct the Central Excise Department to credit this amount to the respective accounts of the appellants concerned and the future excise duty/tax which the appellants may be required to be paid to the Central Government may be adjusted from this credited amount, so that the appellants as manufacture of the goods need not pay excise duty on their goods till the entire credit/outstanding in their respective accounts in this connection gets exhausted. It is however made clear that from the date of this judgment the appellants/ petitioners shall be entitled to exemption on excise duty as per the notification dated 8th July, 1999.
........
|
