-
2006 (4) TMI 586
... ...
... ... ..... UR, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (4) TMI 585
... ... ... ... ..... tion under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could have been invoked in the facts of this case. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (4) TMI 584
... ... ... ... ..... r business purpose but for supplementing the cash diverted by the assessee. In the present case, there is no fresh borrowing after giving interest-free advances and hence this judgment is not applicable here. The judgment in the case of Motor General Finance Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable in the present case because in that case, adverse inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer against the assessee to the effect that borrowed funds were diverted for advances to sister concerns for the reason that the assessee did ....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 583
... ... ... ... ..... nd on a different footing than the services provided by the security agency to procure the security personnel for the client. The impugned order is, therefore, stayed during the pendency of the appeal and there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order . 4. We are, therefore, of the view that service tax is to be charged on the gross amount recovered for providing the service as service charges and not on the salaries and other benefits payable to the employees and recovered from the cli....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 582
... ... ... ... ..... rds, there were two components of the agreement. Second part related to the agreement not to execute the decree which was dependant upon the execution of the sale-deed. Undisputedly, the same has not been executed and on the other hand suit for specific performance of the agreement has been filed, and that matter is pending in appeal. 15. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the said suit. But the facts remain that there was no certificate as needed under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC. The question o....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 581
... ... ... ... ..... not expired on the date when search was conducted at the premises of K. R. Prabhu on 11-10-1996. The assessee has also paid advance tax. As held in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Goswami (supra) and in the case of Kumkum Kohli (supra), the income attributable to the extent of advance tax paid cannot be considered as undisclosed income. Accordingly, the income from film Indian cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed income. 7.1 As regards addition of unexplained cash credit, we find that such cash credits were appearing in reg....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 580
... ... ... ... ..... cifically asked to cite even a single other case of identical nature where net profit rate of 10 per cent is applied. He could not do so. Under these circumstances, we consider the orders of the authorities below for applying rate of profit at 10 per cent as highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any basis. 11. In the light of detailed facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the legal position mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that orders of authorities below deserve to be set aside. We ....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 579
... ... ... ... ..... he Revenue after verifying states that no appeal has been filed against the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, referred to above. Since the Revenue has accepted the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings between the parties and the same has become final, the Revenue is precluded from taking a different stand in the present appeals as per law laid down by this Court in a number of cases. See Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering Locomotives Co. Ltd. reported in (2003) 11 SCC 193; Ber....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 578
... ... ... ... ..... it court interfered with the matter in merit. The Division Bench ultimately held that non-response of U.G.C. or clarification regarding irregularities of a University, if any, do not constitute any offence against the persons, who are running such institute. We are not entertaining the merit herein. Therefore, we have no occasion to accept or reject the proposition of such judgment. If the petitioner/s chooses to proceed with the matter before an appropriate jurisdiction of the Court, then alone he/they can take help of su....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 577
... ... ... ... ..... ions used, in the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the one hand, and the Main Order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, on the other, yet, it has not been possible to conclude that there was any divergence/ difference in the directions recorded in their separate orders. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no occasions whatsoever arises for issuing any order in terms of Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, in so far as the present issue is....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 576
... ... ... ... ..... cations of ₹ 60 lakhs will have to be borne by the State Government. He has categorically stated that the revision of pay scales extended to the employees of State Government time and again will also be extended to all the University employees. 17. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court in W. A. Nos. 7007-55/1999 dated 8.3.2000 is not legally sustainable. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.1998 in Writ Pe....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 575
... ... ... ... ..... see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (4) TMI 574
... ... ... ... ..... bmits that the entire burden in respect of the liabilities of the Company is shouldered only on the second respondent/second accused. Therefore, the learned Counsel pleaded that the above said mitigating circumstances shall be considered by this Court, while imposing the sentence. 17. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant in respect of these aspects. 18. Considering the above said mitigating circumstances and also considering the fact that the alleged transaction took place about ten years bac....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 573
... ... ... ... ..... Amending Act of 1978, it has similarly not qualified the expression a decree or order by the requirement that it must be of any Court against the debtor. 14. Sub-section (2) of section 9 allows the creditor to serve an insolvency notice on the debtor under sub-section (3) where the creditor has obtained a decree or order against him for the payment of money . The Bombay Amendment while being pari materia in so far as this aspect was concerned, required that the execution of the decree or order has not been stayed. Sub-sect....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 572
... ... ... ... ..... not so held, the company would be regarded as a closely held company even though fifty per cent, or more of its shares are held by the public generally. 39. In view of these extracts of circulars, notes on clauses and memo explaining the objects and reasons, it is evident that the items enumerated in the definition clause are all those which are widely held companies. But as they were not finding inclusion in the definition, a need was felt to incorporate them specifically. Therefore there is no force in the submission of ....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 571
... ... ... ... ..... rt in the case Ashwini Satish Bhat v. Shrijeevan Divakar Lolienkar (supra) and the other two judgments referred to hereinabove. Nevertheless, the Division Bench judgment is relevant to the extent that it holds that a promise to pay in writing as per Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, matures into an enforceable contract, which can be enforced by filing a Civil Suit. If a suit could be filed pursuant to a promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, as contemplated by Clause (3) of ....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 570
... ... ... ... ..... titude. We do not find any substance therein. 42. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. Although, the consequence of setting aside of the said orders would have been to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the matter afresh on merit, but having regard to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant as far back in 1976, we refrain ourselves from doing so. He indisputably, have suffered a lot....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 569
... ... ... ... ..... provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2000 and 2003. It was held that the reliance on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharti s case and on L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Ltd., in which, relying upon the decision of the Laghu Udyog Bharti, it was held that the show cause notices issued in that case by invoking Section 73 of the Act were not maintainable, was mis-conceived as that ratio was not now applicable and the matter had to be viewed in the context of the amended provisions, the cons....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 568
... ... ... ... ..... ever, that the relevant show-cause notice did not care to claim that, from 01.07.2003 the assessee was availing Scientific or Technical Consultancy from their foreign collaborator. It, on the other hand, maintained that the assessee was availing Consulting Engineer's Service throughout the period of dispute. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal that providing technical know-how is not to be equated with providing Consulting Engineer's Service. Thus the assessee has prima facie case against the demand of S....... + More
-
2006 (4) TMI 567
... ... ... ... ..... r having stopped the broadcast would not be liable to pay the charges demanded in these communications. In these circumstances, nothing survives in this application and the same is accordingly disposed of. Having noticed that the Respondent had complied with its interim order by depositing the requisite amount, the High Court allowed the Appellant to withdraw the said sum of ₹ 23 lacs and also encash the bank guarantee furnished by the Appellant for another sum of ₹ 23 lacs, the High Court directed The petition....... + More
