|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 787 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ns Hotel Dwaraka was certainly not available after their stopping business. The appellants as lessees, if at all should have applied for approval once again to the Department of Tourism. That being optional and the appellants not having applied for approval it is impossible to accept the case of the Revenue that the appellants can be brought within item 150 of the First Schedule. The reasons given by the Joint Commissioner for accepting the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are not acceptable. For the foregoing reasons we set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner dated May 29, 1991 and restore that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated March 4, 1987 for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The appeals are accordingly allowed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on June 26, 2000. Appeals allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 786 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... dmitted, the entire sales turnover relating to the tanned hides and skins had been assessed at 1 frac12 per cent under item 7(b) and the sales turnover was assessable only under that item. Only if the whole or any part of this turnover had escaped such assessment, the whole or any part of the turnover can be said to have been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which the same was assessable so as to attract the provisions of section 16(1)(b). 9.. Mere raising of questions of law will not entitle admission of a tax revision case. Questions of law decided wrongly or prima facie requiring reconsideration will alone entitle admission. There are no such doubts in this case. The tax revision cases are dismissed at the stage of admission. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 30th day of June, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 785 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... that the agent was liable to be assessed and if that is so there is no question of making an assessment against the principal also in respect of the very same transaction. As rightly contended by the petitioner the respondent could have made an assessment against the agent and if tax was not recoverable, they could have proceeded against the principal for recovery of tax. That is not the position before us. The respondent had missed the bus in not assessing the agent and therefore, they are proceeding against the Karnataka principal, which in our opinion, is not permissible in law. In this view of the matter we allow the tax revision cases and set aside the orders of the assessment made against the petitioner for both the assessment years. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 7th day of June, 2000. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 784 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , as indicated in the memorandum of appeal. Further, as indicated earlier, the exemption claimed in respect of bus body could not be granted both in terms of section 5(3) of the Central Act and G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue, dated January 17, 1972. Similarly, the tax levied on extra fittings and accessories to the tune of Rs. 34,870 at 15 per cent was also proper. In such circumstances, we find no case to interfere with the order of the Joint Commissioner. 33.. In fine, the tax appeal case filed by the assessee in T.C. (A) No. 1841 of 1997 and tax revision case filed by the State in T.C. (R) No. 2169 of 1997 are dismissed and tax revision case filed by the State in T.C. (R) No. 1997 of 1997 is partly allowed, as indicated supra. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 6th day of June, 2000. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 783 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... his turnover. 17.. As a result, the application is allowed. The orders dated October 9, 1998 passed by respondent No. 1, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Durgapur Circle, reopening the deemed assessments made under section 9A(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 for the periods of four quarters each ending March 31, 1989, March 31, 1990, March 31, 1991 and March 31, 1992 are all set aside. We uphold the applicant s contention that the deemed assessments for the four periods should not have been reopened in the manner it was done. Before us, the applicant never raised the contention that in any of the four periods he had paid as turnover tax an amount larger than what was legally payable by him, and hence we have no reason to decide whether any turnover tax paid by him in respect of the four periods should be refunded to him or not. 18.. The application is thus disposed of without any order regarding costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 782 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of Tamil Nadu v. Hindustan Motors Ltd.) The division Bench held that the right to file an application is a vested right, but the law relating to condonation of delay in filing the application is not a vested right, but relates to procedure. Therefore, it was held that the law obtaining on the date a revision petition is filed, has to be applied for purposes of condonation of delay and not the law obtaining on the date of the commencement of the proceedings out of which the revision petition arose. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that all these petitions deserve to be dismissed because the petitions to excuse delay beyond 90 days is not permitted by the proviso to section 38(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 14th day of June, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 781 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... E(2) which is not specific as regards the non-payment of TOT or interest, and that this Tribunal in exercising the jurisdiction akin to the one under article 226 of the Constitution of India may permit the reopening to set right the wrong done by the assessee. If in terms of the plain language of section 11E(2) the assessee comes within its mischief, this Tribunal has to affirm the order of reopening but if he does not, this Tribunal is not to supply the deficiency in the language of the section. 9.. In the result, the application is allowed in part. The impugned order dated November 19, 1998 of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Howrah Circle (respondent No. 1) reopening the deemed assessment for the period of four quarters ending on March 31, 1991 is set aside. The revisional order dated April 14, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 is also set aside. However, we make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed in part.
-
2000 (6) TMI 780 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y seen, the Supreme Court held that cast iron and cast iron castings are not two different commodities. At the same time, the Supreme Court did lay down that the cast iron casting in its basic or rough form only must be treated as cast iron. Cast iron pipes cannot be regarded as cast iron castings, it was specifically ruled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the clarification in the aforementioned G.O. does not lead the petitioner anywhere. At any rate, on the basis of this clarification, no promise can be spelt out that the cast iron pipes and other finished products would be subjected to tax as cast iron only. There is no scope to bring in the concept of promissory estoppel or the principle of contemporanea expositio. We therefore find no substance in the second contention advanced by the learned counsel. 11.. In the result, the T.R.C. is allowed partly and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority in so far as the first item is concerned. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 779 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessee-Surendran was brought to our notice. It shows that the assessee has offered to conduct a restaurant in the hotel premises known as Hotel Amrutha and for that purpose requested the first party to allow him to make use of the said movable for the running of the restaurant and the first party having agreed to give the said movables for the use of the second party on certain conditions. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee-Surendran is running a restaurant within the hotel premises of Hotel Amrutha making use of the movables belonging to Hotel Amrutha. What is necessary under entry 57 is that cooked food should have been sold or served in a bar attached hotel. There is no dispute in this case that the assessee-Surendran is selling cooked food in Hotel Amrutha, which is a bar attached hotel. 12.. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is correct. Hence, the revisions filed by the assessees are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 778 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the smooth and safe functioning of machineries are nothing but accessories of machineries and therefore would fall under entry 81 of the First Schedule to the Act as rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal. It is significant to know that safety valves add to the convenience or effectiveness of the machinery in the petroleum and chemical industries and they are manufactured specially for use in the processing industries so as to regulate the flow of liquid or gases. In such circumstances, we find that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal in classifying the safety valves as falling under entry 81 of the First Schedule to the Act is quite in order and there is no case to interfere. Accordingly, the tax revision cases are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 7th day of June, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 777 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ellate Tribunal s orders in his own case for previous years. On the facts of the case under consideration there is no justification of imposing penal interest on the basis of the decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. s case 1994 94 STC 422 (SC). The question formulated by me in the beginning of this judgment has to be answered in the negative in favour of the assessee. Imposition of penal interest in such case can no longer be justified on the basis of the Full Bench decision in P.C. Abdulla s case 1992 86 STC 259 (Ker). The ratio laid down in that case is no longer applicable in a case where the assessee bona fide files return along with admitted tax in time and pays differential tax without delay as and when subsequent demands are made on provisional basis or on final assessment in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetic s case 1994 94 STC 422. Therefore, I allow the original petition and set aside exhibits P6, P7 and P9. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 776 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... merely because it is printed or is of a smaller size than what could be used for the printing of newspapers. So long as any paper, even waste paper, can be used for any purpose for which paper is normally used, it will continue to be paper. Thus even by applying the user test laid down in Kores case 1977 39 STC 8 (SC), the waste paper in question will be paper . 12.. Entry 3 of Part P of the Second Schedule to the Act includes blotting paper, waterproof paper, ammonia paper, stencil paper and carbon paper, which are not used for writing, printing or packing purpose. Further the said entry specifically includes paper of all kinds. Hence, it has to be held that even if waste paper is not capable of being used for writing, printing or packing, it would still fall under entry 3 of Part P of the Second Schedule, so long as it is paper . 13.. In view of the above, the decision of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. This petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 775 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... cases. A boiler and a dryer may serve two different functions but the principle of conservation of energy in both the ldquo fluidized bed type heat boiler rdquo and ldquo fluidized bed type heat dryer rdquo is the same. Depreciation at the rate of 100 is provided on these types of plants on the consideration that they consume much less energy than the normal ones. In our view, a fluidized bed type heat boiler as well as a dryer of the same both working on the same principle, have got to be categorised as energy saving devices and that is why depreciation at the rate of 100 percent should be applied to a ldquo plant rdquo under our present consideration also. Furthermore, this issue stands clearly covered by the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Warren Tea Limited (supra) in favour of the assessee. Following the said line, therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 774 - ITAT MUMBAI
Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession ... ... ... ... ..... units was a speculative transaction. No delivery has taken place. The account has been settled only by crediting the difference which is duly reflected in the profit and loss account. No other activity has been carried out by the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, and also respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra, we hold that no turnover was effected at all by the assessee and hence was not liable to get the accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act and hence the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is deleted. 13. In the case of Growmore Exports Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5893 (Mum.) of 1995 and Aatur Holdings (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5896 (Mum.) of 1995 , the CIT(A) has followed the order in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, following our order in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra) penalties levied in the other two cases are also cancelled. 14. In the result, all the appeals by the respective assessees are allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 773 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... already been allowed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal rsquo s decisions relied upon by the ld. consultant are to the effect that where re-export is allowed, no redemption fine is imposable. As such we allow the appellants rsquo request to re-export the goods and set aside the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner. 6. emsp As regards the personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs, we fully agree with the submissions of the ld. consultant that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of inferences and surmises and not on the basis of any evidence on record. The Commissioner has himself observed that there were no contemporaneous imports and as such value cannot be fixed under the provision of rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. No evidence has also been placed to reject the transaction value. As such we find that the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon the appellants was not justified. The same is accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
2000 (6) TMI 772 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Valuation - Demand - Dummy units ... ... ... ... ..... e the demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. Penalty under Section 209A has been imposed on appellant Nos. 1 and 3 of its officers. The Commissioner has discussed the liability of these appellants to penalty under Rule 209A in Paras 73.03, 73.04 and 73.05 of the adjudication order. The learned Counsel has not rebutted these findings. Since the ingredients of Rule 209A are applicable to the three employees of M/s. Kores India Ltd., we uphold penalty imposed under this Rule subject to reduction as under 1. emsp Shri S.K. Thirani Rs. 3 lakhs 2. emsp Lt. Col. Harbhajan Singh Rs. 1 lakh 3. emsp Shri S.S. Bhandari Rs. 1 lakh The penalty imposed under this Rule on appellant No. 1 is set aside in view of our finding that it is this appellant who is the manufacturer of the staple pins on which the duty demand has been confirmed against this appellant while Rule 209A is not applicable to a manufacturer. 27. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (6) TMI 771 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Director – Disclosure of interest by, Penalty where no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the act
-
2000 (6) TMI 769 - PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... the passbook Ex. C-4, also show deposit of Rs. 6,600. As per the entries in the account, i.e., passbook Ex. C-4, the scheme was to mature on 29-9-1998. The opposite party had not paid the amount on maturity and that fact was not disputed. Thus, there was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount. 7. The next plea of the opposite parties that SEBI had issued guidelines for making repayment of the investors and the opposite parties had already submitted proposal in respect of which approval was still awaited, does not come in the way of the complainant. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that it was not a case of allotment of shares and the opposite party was bound to refund the amount due to the complainant irrespective of the proceedings pending before the SEBI. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, which is hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 767 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... of justice to hold an inquiry into the offence alleged to have been committed by the managing director of the company under section 193 read with sections 191, 199 and 51 of the Indian Penal Code and also to direct an officer of this court to make a complaint under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since this Court is not in a position to take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the managing director of the company under section 629, the petition has to be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner herein to file a separate petition alleging commission of offence in respect of which inquiry can be conducted for filing a complaint under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. The application is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner herein to file a separate petition alleging commission of offence in respect of which inquiry can be conducted for filing a complaint under section 340.
-
2000 (6) TMI 766 - HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Applicability of Act, Deficiency in service - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... ying due. The opposite party has not controverted the case set up by the complainants. The facts set up by the complainants are supported by their respective affidavits that they have deposited the amounts by way of fixed deposits with the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has not denied that the amounts were not deposited by the complainants. The non-refund of the maturity amount of the FDR rsquo s amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the complaint by directing the opposite party to refund the principal amount deposited by the complainants alongwith interest at the rate agreed upon between the parties w.e.f. the date it has fallen due and remained unpaid. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation. This order is to be complied with positively within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. Complaint allowed with costs.
........
|
