|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 558 Records
-
2000 (9) TMI 1052 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... holding the "interest income" as "business income". The case of the revenue is erected on the edifice of fact that the assessee was not regularly engaged in money lending activities and also no license was obtained for this purpose. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT 1975 101 ITR 234 has held that in order to constitute a business there should be a course of dealings in terms of frequency and activities. From the facts placed before us it is patent that the assessee is regularly engaged in the money lending business since 1980 and earning interest income therefrom Albeit the assessee had not obtained money lending license, yet the regular course of dealings in money lending cannot be brushed aside. Taking into consideration the conspectus of the case, we hold that the interest income is taxable under the head ‘Business income’. 13. In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1051 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Harrying India Ltd., reported in 1988 U.RT.C. 1343 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. S/s. Bulaki Das, reported in 1987 U.P.T.C. 154. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal was not justified in limiting the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) to decide the appeal in the light of the aforesaid two decisions only. Subsequent, to the aforesaid decisions, this Court had considered the cases of Harrying India Ltd. and S/s. Bulaki Das, and had held that in the absence of any intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty cannot be imposed. Thus, the directions given by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, is directed to decide the appeal afresh de. novo without being influenced with any observations made by the Tribunal. 8. Widi the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1050 - CEGAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... It would be irrational to accept only on the view that of the Commissioner, without any support whatsoever that they could be marketed without packing. Marketability is an essential criterion for determining the liability of goods to excise duty and the process of rendering goods to market is a manufacture. The denial of the credit for this reason therefore cannot be sustained. 4. Further decisions of the Tribunal confirmed in the decision of the larger bench in Jawahar Mills vs CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (32) RLT 379 (CEGAT-L.B.) RLT (L.B.-CEGAT) - 1274 1999 (108) ELT47 that machinery which are not directly required for manufacture but without which the manufacture of the machinery cannot takeplace such as weighing equipment etc. are to be considered in terms within the meaning of Rule 57Q. I therefore hold that the machine and its spares were capital goods and the duty on the men titled to be taken as credit. 5. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order set aside. Dictated in Court.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1049 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... K. Sabharwal “Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.”
-
2000 (9) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e quantum thereof would warrant considerable reduction. 36. We summarise our findings as below (i) The orders of absolute confiscation of the Zinc Residue etc. under 111(b) are upheld. (ii) The orders of absolute confiscation of the containers are set aside. These are ordered to be released to M/s. CMB Transport Agency. (iii) The orders of confiscation of the Vessel CMB Medal are set aside. (iv) The penalty imposed on CMB Transport is reduced from ₹ 25 lakhs to ₹ 2.50 lakhs. (v) The penalties imposed on the following persons are remitted in full - 1. Mr. Lehman Hans Arnold - Captain of the Ship M.V. CMB Medal. 2. Mr. Kleesse Hans Arno - Chief Officer of the said vessel. 3. Captain Ashok Dhawan - Regional General Manager, CMB transport. 4. Mr. K. Chakravarthy - Regional Manager. 5. Mr. Ashok Patel - Manager. 6. Mr. Amit Dalal - Asst. Manager (working in Import Dept.). 7. Mr. P.P. Mohan Kutty - Asstt. Manager. (vi) Appropriate consequential relief is ordered.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vising the fee structure by adopting slab rates. But the decision does not set out the slabs so as to find out the exact scaling down of the fee. No notification has yet been issued and no time is appointed within which such notification shall be issued, further the statement made by the Government does not make it clear whether it will be prospective or retrospective with effect from the date of the impugned enhancement. In such circumstances the information contained in the aforementioned is of little avail for deciding the case. On the discussions made and the reasons set out in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeals are allowed, the judgment under challenge is set aside and the revision of licence fee introduced by GOMs No. 154, E and F Department, dated 26-7-1994, is quashed. It is made clear that this judgment will have only prospective operation and no amount collected as licence fee under impugned Government Order shall be refunded. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1046 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority before the issuance of the detention order. The relevant material namely the detenu's reply dated 5th March, 1984 certainly had a bearing and would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other before issuing the detention order and such relevant material was not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority at the appropriate time and this in our view would go to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority." 7. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated since the sponsoring authority failed to place before him the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the detenu. 8. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 13-4-2000 (Annexure A) is quashed and set aside. The detenu be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1045 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the joint venture constitutes an AOP within the meaning s. 2(31)(v) so as to become liable to tax under the IT Act, 1961, or each party of the joint venture is liable to tax on its own profits ?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the rationale behind the provisions of s. 44AB would be applicable in the case of the applicant and a sum equal to ten per cent of the contract amount as and when paid shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" ?
-
2000 (9) TMI 1044 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sment made by the Joint Screening Committee, the orders passed by the State and Central Government refusing to grant him supertime scale and in rejecting the appeal of the appellant and we further direct as follows. 90. In the special and peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to grant the appellant the benefit of the supertime scale from the date on which the appellant's junior Sri P. Kandaswamy was granted supertime scale. The respondents arc accordingly directed to pass an order in this behalf within eight weeks of the receipt of this order and to give him all consequential benefits attendant thereto. The said benefits shall also be reflected in his pension and other retiral benefits. They shall be worked out and paid to him within the time aforementioned. 91. The Civil Appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above directions. We also award costs of ₹ 10,000 in each of the two writ petitions to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1043 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eady to meet the grounds taken up in the memorandum of appeal because the court has to deal with application for condonation of delay as a condition precedent. Barring the above objects, we cannot find out from the rule that it is intended to operate as unremediably or irredeemably fatal against the appellant if the memorandum is not accompanied by any such application at the first instance. In our view, the deficiency is a curable defect, and if the required application is filed subsequently the appeal can be treated as presented in accordance with the requirement contained in Rule 3-A of Order 41 of the Code. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The matter shall now go back to the High court for disposal of the application to condone the delay in filing the second appeal. If the explanation was found satisfactory to the High Court the second appeal will have to be disposed of in accordance with law. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1041 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, therefore, concur with the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on the scope of the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Auction Rules. It means that Excise Commissioner has no authority to permit shifting of a foreign liquor shop from one range to a totally different range. Consequently the order passed by the first respondent Excise Commissioner in favour of the appellant is without authority of law and it has been rightly struck down by the Division Bench of the High Court. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly made a plea that the amount deposited by him pursuant to the bid, should be refunded to him as the appellant was not able to operate the foreign liquor shop mainly on account of the unauthorised order passed by the Excise Commissioner. It is open to the appellant to make the application for such refund. We direct the Government to pass orders thereon within one month from the date of such application.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1040 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cement of the retraction made by Sowkath All would not have affected the conclusion as petitioner's confession stood unsullied, cannot be accepted by us. The detaining authority had relied on different materials and it was a cumulative effect from those materials which led him to his subjective satisfaction. What is enumerated in Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act cannot, therefore, be applied on the fact situation in this case. 10. In this context it is to be mentioned that the detention order passed against Sowkath Ali was quashed by this Court when he challenged that detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution vide A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India . 11. We are therefore unable to sustain the detention order passed against this petitioner and accordingly we quash the same. We order petitioner to be set at liberty if his further detention is attributable only to the detention order challenged in the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1039 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the Bank of Maharashtra in so far as the said injunction precluded the Bank of Maharashtra from reimbursing the appellant-Federal Bank It Is clarified that me said injunction will not come in the way of the Bank of Maharashtra from complying with its obligation to reimburse the Federal Bank. The Appeal is allowed. No costs. Before parting with the case, we may state that we are now living in ap era of advanced technology of e-mail and internet. It is possible that in the near future we must take greater pare and impose less rigorous standards of proof of fraud for otherwise plaintiffs might find it impossible to make out a serious liable issue or prima facie case. Indira Carr says that documentary fraud is on the increase and more so, due to electronic data transfers. She says there is a case for a fresh reassessment of the narrow exception of fraud (Principles of International Trade Law, 2nd Ed,, 199 p.298).
-
2000 (9) TMI 1038 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is inclined to convict, pass an order of imprisonment or even fine.- The impugned order passed by the High Court in the present interlocutory proceedings is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court, namely the Vlth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, as stated above. We also record the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that if the amount deposited is permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent, then the 1st respondent will not press before the Appellate Court for a conviction or for a sentence be it for imprisonment or fine. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court will consider whether the conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition of fine is to be passed, in the light of the stand taken by the counsel for the 1 st respondent. We direct the Court in which the deposit has been made, to allow the 1st respondent to withdraw the amount accordingly. With the above directions the appeal is disposed of.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1037 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... asis on which actions under section 11E(2) of the 1941 Act were to be taken, then it could be said that this decision of the Calcutta High Court has ratio in this case. Since that is not the case, the present case is distinguishable, and there is no reason to deviate from the stand so long taken in such cases regarding the retrospective applicability of the Supreme Court decision in respect of REP licences. 8.. In the result, the application, which relates to reopening of assessments deemed to have been made under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member). - I agree. 9.. After the judgment has been delivered Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the applicant prays for staying the operation of this order. Heard also Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative. We find no ground for staying the operation of the instant judgment. Hence, the prayer is rejected. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1036 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessment proceedings under section 7(3) of the Act are only procedural irregularities which can be set right by setting aside the assessment orders and directing the parties to be given an opportunity of hearing. Recently the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. R.P. Dixit Saghidar reported in 2002 127 STC 337 (2000) 7 JT SC 547 has also held that where the principles of natural justice are stated to have been violated it is open to the appellate authority in appropriate cases to set aside the order and require the assessing officer to decide the cases de novo. This is precisely what has been directed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and confirmed by the Tribunal in the present cases. Thus there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. No other point has been pressed. I do not find any force in all these revisions. The revisions lack merit and are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1035 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the trade mark Aavin . Therefore, as rightly found by the authorities below that the goods sold need not have been sold with packets over which the registration trade mark was printed. As the goods were sold in the premises of the petitioners of the bunk shops where Aavin products are sold and the bunks also contained the trade mark Aavin naturally this trade mark is applicable and identifiable with the commodity sold to the consumers. Therefore, the authorities below have concurrently held that the milk products by the assessee falls under entry 103 of the First Schedule to T.N.G.S.T. Act taxable at 10 per cent. We find that the findings are correct, requiring no interference from this Tribunal. Therefore, the revisions are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 28th day of September, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1034 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ders and question of any chemical change in LPG does not arise. Mr. Bose neither disputes this, nor does he want to put the applicant s bottling plant on a footing separate from other bottling plants. So the story of adding E.M. gas falls through. The ratio of the decision in the case of Abdos Oil Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell 2001 121 STC 166 (WBTT) (1999) 33 STA 95 (WBTT) does not have any application to the instant case. 11.. In the result, we are of the opinion that the process of bottling LPG at the plant of the company does not amount to manufacture. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the impugned orders of the Commercial Tax Officer and the first two revisional authorities. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Durgapur Zone being out of jurisdiction is not taken into consideration at all. Therefore, the application is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1033 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... possession of forms at the time the stay application was taken up. But we feel that should not have been taken to be the determinative factor regarding crucial question as to whether the forms produced were acceptable or not. It is true as contended by learned counsel for revenue that forms produced at a later stage cannot be accepted as a matter of course. Such a question has to be examined by the appellate authority on the factual position of each case. As the forms are in the possession of the petitioner, in the circumstances, we feel that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal without insisting on further deposit being made in respect of the disputed demands particularly when the amount directed to be deposited by the first appellate authority has been deposited. We make it clear that order in the present case shall not be construed to be expression of opinion about acceptability of forms by the Tribunal. Petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
