|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 807 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... objection that there is no pleading that the plaintiff is seeking an injunction for restraining the extended Bank Guarantee. It appears to me too technical that it does not merits any consideration, in the circumstance of the case. 16. In view of this as I found earlier that there was no acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff, the obligation of the tenderer is over on 15-9-1999 and the Bank Guarantee ceased to operate and the first defendant has no any manner of right to invoke the Bank Guarantee. In that circumstances the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a). Prayer (a) That pending the hearing and final disposal this suit the Hon'ble Court may be pleased by its order and temporary injunction restrain the Defendants from encashing the Bank Guarantee No. 353/99 dated 7-1-99 for ₹ 30 lacs issued by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant and copy whereof is annexed a Exhibit "B" to the plaint. Motion is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 806 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... of the fact that the assessee-bank has to comply with the various norms and guidelines prescribed by the RBI, in respect of rural advances and matters relating to credit policy, accounting standards and reporting system, we are unable to find any merit in the reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) in toto and that too in the light of the clear finding given by the learned first appellate authority on the very same issue in crystal clear terms to the effect that the assessee is entitled to deduction at 5 per cent of the total income and also at 2 per cent of the advances made by the rural branches "in accordance with the provisions of this section" Emphasis supplied . 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that the impugned order is liable to be cancelled on ground of jurisdiction as well as on merits. We order accordingly. 23. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 805 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act in good faith and it must act reasonably." 51. In my considered opinion, the legal situation as projected by the Delhi High Court and the apex court would fully apply to the present case also. 52. In the light of the above principles, if we look at the facts of the present case, I take the view that the respondent has acted in good faith and reasonably within the limits of the authority through the mandates given to the respondents and the regulations framed thereof. 53. Therefore, I do not find merit in any of the contentions urged by the counsel for the applicant and, consequently, the application in O.A. No. 75 of 2000 is dismissed and A. No. 851 of 2000 is allowed. 54. However, it shall be stated that the observation of mine made above would confine to the disposal of this application alone; and it may not have any bearing on the decision to be taken by the court at the time of trial on the basis of the issues to be framed in the suit. 55. O.A. 75/2000 dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , Mr. Mangukiya, learned Advocate requested the Court to stay implementation and operation of the judgment for eight weeks. The request is rejected. The judgment cannot be stayed. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the appellant may be protected for some time or till he is able to obtain the orders from higher Court. It is directed that the building erected shall not be demolished for a period of four weeks from today. However, the appellant shall maintain status quo and shall file an undertaking in this Court that he shall not carry out further construction. He shall place on record the photographs of the building as on today. Mr. Mangukiya states that ten days time may be granted to file the undertaking and to produce the photograph. Time is granted. It is however directed that the Municipal Corporation shall not regularise the construction merely because the petitioner is directed to maintain status quo. All other directions except with regard to demolition shall be carried out.
-
2000 (6) TMI 803 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r The outstanding balance of ESI is amounting to ₹ 2,94,607/- which is shown in Schedule E as it was old one. Apart from above, a sum of ₹ 1,83,913 has been shown in Schedule C as preferential creditors of statement of affairs. 2. This matter was placed for hearing on 21st July, 1998, 29th August,1998, 1st July, 1998, 4th February. 1999, 4th March, 1999, 11th March, 1999 and also on 2nd May, 2000 and 20th June, 2000. Mr. Desai learned advocate for State Bank of India has requested for adjournment. As far as State Bank of India is concerned, Mr. Desai has filed affidavit on 26th June, 2000. Mr. Buch learned advocate appearing on behalf of ICICI has filed an application to be joined as party which has been granted by the separate order. The Official Liquidator will give list of secured creditors including Textile Labour Assoication. If they desire to file an affidavit, they may file by 6th July,2000. In view of the same, matter be kept for hearing on 11th July,2000.
-
2000 (6) TMI 802 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... duct in question. We do not find any merits in the contention of Shri Roy that after having been informed about the opinion of the department in the year 1994 that the pipes fall under chapter 39, it was the duty of the appellants to file a classification list accordingly instead of contesting the said opinion of the Superintendent. The appellants were within their rights to contest the stand of the Revenue and if the Revenue was not convinced about the classification of the goods being under chapter 84, they were at liberty to issue the show cause notice for the differential demand of duty within a period of six months. As such it cannot be said that by contesting the classification as opined by the Revenue in their letters of 1994 the appellants had suppressed or mis-stated the facts from the Revenue so as to justifiably invoke the extended period of limitation. As such we hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. Appeal is allowed on merits as also on limitation.
-
2000 (6) TMI 801 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 61. While rejecting assessee's claim for specific performance, Court held that the assessee was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, and accordingly at p 36 of 195 ITR, the Court held that the right acquired by the assessee was a mere right to sue. 11. In the case before us, as in the case of Vijay Flexible Containers (supra) and unlike Dehgamwalla's case (supra), there was a claim for specific performance but by way of consent terms dt. 19th Aug., 1994, assessee relinquished the claim for specific performance. As in Dehgamwalla's case, there is no such Court order decreeing that assessee has no claim for specific performance. Hence, Dehgamwalla's case cannot apply to the facts of the present case but the case of Vijay Flexible Containers will squarely apply to the case before us. 12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother. 13. The appeal of the assessee, therefore, stands dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 800 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hip. In our opinion, much cannot be made of the fact that at the point of time the contribution was made by the transferor he was still a member of the society. The stark fact is that the contribution is made on the eve of cessation to be a member. Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly laid down in Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd.’s case (supra) that the essence of mutuality lies in the return of what one has contributed to a common fund. In the present case there is no return to the contributor. The return to other members is for no particular contribution made by them but for reason only that they continue to be members. On these facts, we are of the view that the principle of mutuality falls flat in the ground. 17. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the authorities below rightly treated the transfer fee of ₹ 3,00,000 received by the society as its revenue receipt chargeable to income-tax. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
-
2000 (6) TMI 799 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ing part of Navneet Manufacturing Co. In any event, whatever be the intention, there has, as we have seen, been no inclusion in the specific charge. 13. The Collector's order demanding duty on fabrics cleared from this unit or denying any benefit of exemption to it is therefore clearly outside the scope of the notice and cannot be upheld. 14. The conclusion that follows from this discussion is that the benefit of the notification could not have been denied to these units and therefore, to M/s. Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. on the assumption that these units comprised part of this company. In view of this, we have not considered necessary to record in detail or dealt with the arguments raised by both sides as to whether these units were or were not part of M/s. Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. 15. Penalty is also not imposable on M/s. Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (6) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... age subsists. This is also not a case of remarriage of a surviving spouse. Thus, we are of the firm view that Explanation (a ) to section 64(1A) is applicable to the instant case in which event the income of the minor children has to be included in the hands of the assessee herein. Having regard to the language of Explanation ( a) i.e., "in the income of that parent, whose total income is greater", the income of the assessee is greater inasmuch as the other parent, i.e., late Subramaniam cannot be said to have earned any income during this year and thus the income, however negligible, earned by the other parent would automatically be greater as compared to the nil income of the late Subramaniam. Since the income of the assessee is greater, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to club the income of the minor children in the hands of the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 797 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... personal gift for his personal qualities as a token of personal esteem and veneration, the receipt cannot be subjected to tax. Accordingly, we hold that the amount of ₹ 1,00,000 each received by the assessee in the two assessment years under consideration is not taxable as compensation as contemplated under s. 17(3) as profit in lieu of salary and hold that this is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. 9. The assessee has taken one more ground in the asst. yr. 1991-92 with regard to levy of interest under s. 220(2) amounting to ₹ 2,715 which the learned CIT(A) had not decided. No such interest has been levied in the assessment order and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly did not entertain this ground. The learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground at the time of hearing. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1990-91 is allowed and that for the asst. yr. 1991-92 is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 796 - CEGAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... no justification to deny the modvat credit for procedural lapses. The respondent's Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Limited vs CCE , Jaipur reported in 1998 (78) ECR 583 ( Tribunal ). 3. I find that the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that modvat credit should not be denied for merely the reason that the invoices were not pre-printed but were hand written. Since the issue has been property appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals), I am not inclined to interfere with his order. Thus, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court).
-
2000 (6) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... its income the same income cannot be charged again in the hands of the members individually and vice versa. The trust income cannot be taxed in the hands of the settlor and also in the hands of the trustee as well as the beneficiary. These principles are, of course, subject to any special provision enabling double taxation in the statute." (p. 55) 14. In the present case, upon the completion of the assessment of the assessee-employee, nothing prevents the department from passing reassessment order under section 147 after including above two items in disputes and recover tax, penalty and interest from them such absurd reasons resulting in double taxation must be avoided. Accordingly, the third argument raised by Shri Vyas also requires to be accepted. 15. In view of the above, it is held that the order passed by the ITO under sections 201(1) and (1A) is hereby quashed as being bad in law and without jurisdiction. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 794 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and starts paying duty at the normal rate?” 2. Vide the Final Order, the Tribunal held that deemed credit under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) order dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to the respondents which is a SSI Unit even after it had exceeded the exemption ceiling of ₹ 75 lakhs, following the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Shri Venkateshwara Steel Industries reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 446. 3. On hearing both sides and noting that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has recently held in its decision in the case of Digambar Foundry and Others reported in 2000 (38) RLT 435 that deemed credit will not be admissible to Units after they cross the exemption ceiling, I am of the view that a question of law requiring reference does arise and hence refer the question as framed to the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for its considered opinion. 4. The application is hereby allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 793 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... record that cost of bottle in comparison to price of IMFL was substantial enough from which even implied sale of contract for sale of bottles could be inferred. 57.. For the reasons already discussed above, since the Revenue authorities have failed to decide the question about the sale of packing material by establishing that the transfer of property in packing material has taken place for consideration referable to the transfer of property in packing material, no tax can be levied where there is a single transaction of sale of the commodity for one sale price by splitting up the sale price by splitting different items of expenses which goes to make the sale price of the commodity. 58.. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of assessment levying interest and penalty thereon as affirmed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal are set aside. 59.. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 792 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... esult in the liability to deduct the tax at source at the increased rate unless the relevant rule is amended. The wording used in section 5-H ...an amount calculated at such rate as may be prescribed has evidently been ignored by the first respondent while issuing the impugned memo. The percentage of tax deduction at source is specified in rule 17-I(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. Unless and until the said rule is amended, it is clarified that, the deduction of tax at source shall be done at the rates specified therein, depending upon the nature of the contract. The above clarification shall be kept in view while passing the bills of the petitioners. It is open to the respondents concerned to insist on the production of sales tax registration certificates before passing the bills. 2.. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly with the above direction, after hearing both the counsel at the stage of admission. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 791 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot precluded or barred from initiating the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the information that is given in his notice. 3.. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met by directing the first respondent to proceed with the assessment strictly in accordance with law without in any way being influenced by the directives given by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further made clear that irrespective of the objection raised by the Accountant-General, the relevant issues should receive independent consideration in the hands of the assessing authority, which is a statutory quasi-judicial functionary. This clarification will be sufficient to safeguard the interests of the petitioner. The assessing authority is directed to act in accordance with the above clarification and to decide the matter objectively and independently. Two weeks time is granted to file 4.. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (6) TMI 790 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... aim was allowed and there is no case to interfere. 5.. We have considered the contentions carefully and on perusing the records we find that the assessee purchased aluminium bits in the form of scrap from the Electricity Board in auction. Therefore, the bits of aluminium scraps cannot be considered as the same goods, namely, aluminium conductors. Therefore the order of Appellate Tribunal in treating the sale of scraps as aluminium conductors so as to allow exemption is not in order and on that basis, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the tax revision cases are allowed on the following turnover 1982-83 .... Rs. 3,31,599 at 5 per cent 1983-84 .... Rs. 2,04,453 at 5 per cent 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 23rd day of June 2000. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 789 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vision before the Deputy Commissioner under section 35 of the Act to look into the complaint filed and find out whether injustice has been caused to the assessee. This, according to us, is a right that is vested in the assessee at the time when the assessment orders were passed. Now by the amendment, this right has been taken away and now the power under section 35 of the Act is available only with regard to those matters, which are prejudicial to the Revenue. This, according to us, affects substantive right of the assessee. 13.. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the tax revision cases are dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider and dispose of the revision petitions filed by the assessee on merits. Writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. Exhibits P3 and P5 orders are quashed. The second respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of exhibit P2 revision on merits. Petitions dismissed and appeal allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 788 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... eds could be covered by entry 6(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has mentioned the botanical name of cotton seed as mentioned in item 6(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as Gossypium Spp. As the genetic name of the cotton seed is not relatable to silk cotton for which the botanical name is Bombo malabarioum , it was held that silk cotton seeds are taxable at multi-point and not at single point. The reasoning given by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, having regard to the botanical name of cotton seeds, is quite in order and we find that there is no case to interfere and accordingly, the tax appeal is 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 13th day of June, 2000. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
