Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC432
1. All the six appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Patna vide which he has absolutely confiscated copper slabs and M.S. Scrap owned by Shri Bimal Kumar Gupta and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 upon him. The adjudication authority has also confiscated the truck transporting the copper slabs in question with a option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs in additon to impsoing personal penalites upon the Transport Agencies, Faridabad and Raxaul of Rs. 20,000 each. Personal penalty of Rs. 30,000 has been imposed on Shri Bhanwar Singh, employee of Shri Bimal Kumar Gupta and of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed on Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, a person found siting in the truck alongwith copper slabs. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on Shri Shanti Kumar Ramsesaria, owner of one found M/s A-One Batteries Pvt. Ltd. to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC236
1. In these three appeals, the facts in brief are that on 5.11.98 the police officers got an information that truck No. MP-07 B/7064 which is loaded with potato was at Barhni Dihwa near Noman's Land and preparation is being done for exporting potato to Nepal. On receiving this information, the police officers reached at the spot and they found the truck there and labourers were opening patra of the truck. On seeing the police officers, they ran away towards Nepal and police could not chase them because of darkness. But they found the truck driver there and asked his name and address. He told his name as Ram Lal, resident of Civil Line, District Badaun. When he was asked for the documents for the goods, he stated that there is no document with him and he told the police officers that he was taking these goods from Badaun to Nepal. Police party accordingly detained these goods and arrested the driver. The truck along with the goods was handed over to the custom officers. The custom offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in their own factories situated at different locations. They also get medicines manufactured on job work basis from various job workers who have their own manufacturing facility approved by FDA. They supplied raw materials and packing materials to the job workers who manufactured medicines in accordance with specifications given by them. The job workers availed credit of duty paid on raw materials and packing material. Medicines so manufactured are cleared by the job workers on payment of duty on the basis of cost of raw materials plus manufacturing expenses including manufacturing profit as per the Supreme Court decision in Ujagar Print's case. The present case pertains to medicines manufactured on job work basis by M/s Niramay Pharma (NPPL) having its factory at Nashik. They were however issued show cause notices alleging that M/s Glenmark Pharmaceutica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1.1 During the period January-March 1998 it was observed by SEBI that there was spurt in the price and volume movement in the scrip of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NBL'). It was also observed that the scrip was attracting unusual interest and movement in price and volume. Preliminary investigations conducted by SEBI reveled that the scrip was attracting unusual interest and there was abnormal movement in price and volumes during January to March 1998. An analysis of the price volume behavior revealed that the scrip which was being traded around Rs.56/- on 15.1.98 moved up to Rs.91.90/- on 25.3.98. This price rise was coupled with increased volumes. On 18.2.98, a total of 2,54,400 shares were traded on BSE as against volume of only 15,000 shares traded in the month of January 1998. 2.1 On the basis of the preliminary findings, formal investigation was ordered on 01.07.98. The analysis of trading details from BSE revealed that Enpee Enterpises, Member BSE (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)47ITD58(Kol.)
1. Controversy in this assessee's appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 1 lac received by the assessee as gift through banking channels from a resident of Nepal is to be considered as income of the assessee from some undisclosed sources and assessed to tax.2. The pertinent facts giving rise to this controversy are that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 the assessee received a gift of Rs. 1 lac by way of bank draft credited to the assessee's bank account in Union Bank of India. It was contended by the assessee that she received a gift from one Shri R.N. Agarwal who was his dharambhai for over two decades and he, out of natural love and affection for her, made a gift of the said sum from out of the moneys brought by him from Nepal Bank Ltd., Kathmandu drawn on Chartered Bank, Calcutta. The assessee also filed a sworn declaration by the donor, Shri R.N. Agarwal of Kathmandu, Nepal in which he stated as under : (1) that he gifted Rs. 1,00,000 to Smt. Bhagwati Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.)/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the search was invalid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)111ITD9(Delhi)
1. These two appeals of the revenue in the case of the aforesaid assessees were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned DR and the learned Counsel for the assessees. Therefore, we find it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. In this appeal, the revenue has taken only one ground to the effect that on the facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that salary and bonus received by the assessee outside India is not taxable in India Under Section 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, specially when as per terms of employment, his office was based in New Delhi and he was responsible to Delhi office even though, he rendered services outside India.3.1 On perusal of the order of the DCIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi (herein after called the AO), passed on 6-01-2003, it is seen that the assessee's status during the relevant previous year was not ordinarily resident (NOR). The assessee received salary amounting to Rs. 45,29,212/- and bonus amounting to Rs. 9,83,246/- totaling t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Foster v. Pryor - 189 U.S. 325 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Foster v. Pryor, 189 U.S. 325 (1903) Foster v. Pryor No. 173 Argued and submitted February 25, 1903 Decided April 6, 1903 189 U.S. 325 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus When the difference is deep and radical between two domains in which the same kind of property may be situated, the law which makes them one district for taxation, so that all the property of the same kind in the same district must be taxed alike, and no reasonable distinction be permitted, must itself be so plain and urgent that no other intention can be suggested. There is no provision in the act of Congress of 1890 organizing Oklahoma, or in the territorial act of 1886, which was violated by the act of 1899, p. 216, Session Laws of Oklahoma, which provides that only taxes for territorial and court funds shall be assessed, levied or collected in any unorganized country, district or reservation attached to any county...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Cr. Revision No. 614 of 2002 --------- Against the judgment dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1999 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Dhanbad on 22.11.1999 in G.R. Case No. 875 of 1996. --------- Manoj Yaswantrao Ingle, S/o Yaswantrao Kushalrao Ingle, R/o Sant Ravidas Society Waghpur, P.S.- Yawatmal, District- Yawatmal, (Maharastra). ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. G.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ---------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- R. Mukhopadhyay, J.: Heard Mr. G.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in C...
Tag this Judgment!