|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 546 Records
-
2006 (12) TMI 501
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Excise Rules cannot be accepted. ( 21. ) THE result of the above discussion is that the plea raised by the petitioners in regard to its priority of recovering excise dues or the other such like dues under the Excise Act cannot be up-held either on the applicability of doctrine or priority of Crown debts or that any such priority has been so created under any of the provisions of the Excise Act or Rules or the Customs Act. ( 22. ) AS a result, the writ petitions filed by the Union of India are dismissed. As a necessary consequence, the writ petition filed by the Financial Corporations, and other such writ petitions, seeking quashing of the order of attachment etc. are allowed. The petitioner-Centurion Bank in Civil Writ Petition No. 11831 of 2006 is given liberty to seek recovery of the amount deposited as arrears of tax on behalf of M/s. Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Limited. Petitions by U.O.I. disallowed. Petitions by Fin. Cop. and others allowed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 500
Is the material in newspaper really harmful for the minors?
Whether the minors have got any independent right enforceable under Article 32 of the Constitution?
-
2006 (12) TMI 499
Allowed/disallowed of Interest on interest-free loans - Interest on interest-free loans advanced by the assessee-company to its subsidiary and associate companies in which the directors were interested? - interest on investment in shares by the assessee company in its subsidiary and associate companies - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has followed its own decision in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment years, which view has also been upheld by this Court vide CIT v. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. on the ground that the Tribunal had only followed its view in the case of the assessee, which had become final.
We may notice that although the principle of consistency is applicable and the decision on the issue having been taken in favour of the assessee for the previous year, the same has to be followed, but each assessment year being an independent one, in view of conscious judgment of this Court on the issue after referring to other judgments and in absence of any direct judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963 (4) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT], we are of the view that the earlier order of this Court dismissing appeal of the revenue in limine cannot be taken to be conclusive.
Thus, we partly allow this appeal in relation to question No. 1 and set aside the finding of the Tribunal and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer. As far as other issues are concerned, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 498
... ...
... ... ..... h and to our mind this was not sufficient material before them to believe that the assessee has not or would not disclosed the income. 12. The decision in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That case related to re-assessment of an assessee on discovery of mistake in the assessment where it was held that if the Assessing Officer has a cause or justification to think or suppose that Income had escaped the assessment, he can be said to have a reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing warrant of authorization dated 21-12-2006 in Form No. 45 under section 132 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs forthwith to the petitioner.
-
2006 (12) TMI 497
... ...
... ... ..... erits of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The Revenue is granted one week's time to issue the assessee a show cause notice as envisaged by Rajesh Kumar. If the notice is so issued the assessee shall file its reply within 2 weeks of receipt of such notice. It is expected that the assessee shall co-operate fully with the Revenue after issuance of the notice. Mr. Jolly states that the assessee will be heard and a final decision whether or not to order a special audit shall be taken by the Department within a fortnight of submission of the reply by the assessee to the show cause notice. It is made clear that the time schedule laid down under the Act shall thereafter apply if the special audit is ordered. The time spent in prosecuting this petition shall stand excluded while computing the time for completion of the assessment. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order be given dasti to both the parties under the signatures of the Court master.
-
2006 (12) TMI 496
... ...
... ... ..... cant, it would be appropriate if the anticipatory bail application No.1315 of 2006 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court, Mumbai for disposal afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to state that it would be open for the applicant to point out that the offence alleged is bailable so also for the prosecution that it is not so. The applicant’s custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary is also an aspect which is open assuming the offence is non-bailable. All such aspects be decided and gone into by the learned Sessions Judge. He shall endeavour and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ad-interim protection granted by this court to the applicant on 27th November, 2006 to continue till anticipatory bail application is disposed of. However, the applicant to attend the concerned Investigating Officer’s office as and when summoned.
-
2006 (12) TMI 494
... ...
... ... ..... ion of delay. It shall be open to the concerned Court to deal with the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law. This shall not be taken as an expression of opinion for condonation of delay.
-
2006 (12) TMI 493
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants was taken by the recipient as claimed by the appellants." 4. The learned SDR submits that there is short levy and there is intention to evade payment of duty and that there is suppression of relevant facts. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the case records. This is not a case of clandestine removal. It is in the nature of bonafide dispute, which has arisen basically due to ignorance of change of; law effective from 1.7.2000. I also find that whatever duty was payable by first unit in respect of such inter-unit transfer was available as Cenvat credit by the recipient unit. In the light of above, I do not find any grounds to come to the conclusion that there was intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the respondents. I hold that no valid grounds has been put forth to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Accordingly, I reject the appeal filed by the Department. Dictated and pronounced in Court.
-
2006 (12) TMI 492
Addition made as Cash credits u/s 68 - Partner introduced a sum of ₹ 40,000 in her capital account, which is unexplained - Addition can be made in the income of the firm? - Deposited a sum of ₹ 30,000 in her account, received by way of gifts and shaguns at the time of her marriage - HELD THAT:- It is well-settled that whether explanation of the assessee about nature and source of the amounts credited in the books of account was satisfactory is a question of fact. In our recent order Shiv Rice & General Mills v. CIT[2006 (10) TMI 97 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], we observed:- " held that findings recorded on cash credits are findings of facts giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law being the requirement u/s 260A of the Act, for entertainment of the appeal."
We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that no case was made out for addition to the income of the firm even if deposits made with the firm by the partners were unexplained income of the partners. This view has been taken by us in our recent order passed in CIT v. Metal & Metals of India [2006 (11) TMI 630 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA].
Thus, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The reference is disposed of.
-
2006 (12) TMI 491
Whether the property in suit could be put on auction sale without initiating a formal final decree proceeding?
-
2006 (12) TMI 490
... ...
... ... ..... 002, disposed of by a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on March 2, 2006, the question before the Division Bench was whether an order passed by the Tribunal refusing to condone delay could be said to be one within the purview of Section 129B of the Act so as to maintain a reference under Section 130A of the Act as it stood earlier. While considering such question, the Division Bench held that such an order was amenable to reference under Section 130A of the Act. In our view, the said decision cannot be a guiding factor for considering the scope of Section 130 of the Act newly incorporated providing appeal to this Court against orders passed by the Tribunal. 21. We, therefore, find that the decisions cited by Mr. Basu do not help his client in anyway. 22. We, thus, find no merit in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Basu. 23. Let the matter now be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing on merit." Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J. 24. I agree.
-
2006 (12) TMI 489
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. Heard. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 488
... ...
... ... ..... ly means that he Court should see that all the material ingredients of the offence have been proved by cogent evidence. The prosecution agency is also a human agency and the Court should except accuracy standards only to the extent which can be expected from a normal human being. The court should not except super human standards from the prosecution agency in all aspects. What the court has to see is that the investigation has been done in a fair and proper manner and there is no false implication of the accused. Here, in this case, there is no reason to believe the defense that the appellant was falsely implicated after picking her from her house, in view of the fact that prosecution was not having address of the appellant and the prosecution believed the statement of appellant that she was living at S-19 Greater Kailash Part -I where in fact some other gentleman was living. 18. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no force in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 487
Whether the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband’s in-laws or other relatives?
Whether the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member?
-
2006 (12) TMI 486
Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary? - If so, whether it is true and trustworthy ?
Whether the prosecution having been failed to prove the case of conspiracy against Appellant herein, the case cannot be said to be one constituting rarest of rare cases?
-
2006 (12) TMI 485
What would be the period of limitation for raising a counter claim in respect of wrongful detention of goods?
-
2006 (12) TMI 484
... ...
... ... ..... ading Accent 6 / w LsdException Locked false Priority 72 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false Name Colorful List Accent 6 / w LsdException Locked false Priority 73 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false Name Colorful Grid Accent 6 / w LsdException Locked false Priority 19 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Subtle Emphasis / w LsdException Locked false Priority 21 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Intense Emphasis / w LsdException Locked false Priority 31 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Subtle Reference / w LsdException Locked false Priority 32 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Intense Reference / w LsdException Locked false Priority 33 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Book Title / w LsdException Locked false Priority 37 Name Bibliography / w LsdException Locked false Priority 39 QFormat true Name TOC Heading / /w LatentStyles /xml endif -- -- if gte mso 10 endif --
-
2006 (12) TMI 483
Whether the opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel will apply where an entrepreneur has altered its position pursuant to a promise made by the State, but the application thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case?
Whether High Court committed a manifest error in proceeding on the premise that the appellants were not entitled to grant of such exemption as they had started commercial production after the period envisaged in the said notification?
-
2006 (12) TMI 482
... ...
... ... ..... ervice tax to deposit with the Department has not deposited the same with the Department. Once tax has been levied, the same has to be paid in time. Therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original regarding imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 is upheld. However, he has given sufficient reasons for non-imposition of penalty imposed under Section 78 and therefore, the impugned Order-In-Original in this regard, is set aside." It can be noticed from the above reproduced paragraph that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the fact that the respondents had every intention to pay service tax liability and had given it to their consultant to deposit the same with the Government. The inaction of the consultant has resulted in damage to the respondents without any fault on their part. No contrary evidence is brought on record. In view of the above I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 481
Demand of service tax - Outward Freight service - whether the Service Tax paid by the Company on freight in respect of goods supplied to customer at Chennai which are transshipped at Chennai and subsequently delivered from the godown to the customer is Cenvatable when the price of goods is inclusive of freight meaning thereby price paid by Customer is delivered price to the customer.
........
|
