Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Decided on : Dec-29-2006
Reported in : (2008)110ITD171(Pune.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 19th Sept., 2003 for asst. yr. 2000-01. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the bona fide change in the system of valuation of closing stock made and which has support of accounting standards consistently adhered to subsequently which did not inflict any loss to the Revenue should have been unreservedly accepted by the AO and therefore, addition of Rs. 26,63,104 resulting into net addition of Rs. 4,20,596 considering the adjustment is unjustified and it be deleted. 2. He failed to appreciate that on the basis of telescopic study it transpires that this addition of Rs. 26,63,104 has in fact a double effect and it be considered accordingly. 3. He failed to appreciate that the valuation of closing stock cannot be a source of income and, therefore, the addition on this count is required to be deleted and it be deleted accordingly.2. The AO has noted in para 3 of his order that the assessee was valuing its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
B.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company represented by the petitioner No. 2, its Managing Director. It deals with manufacture and sale of plywood, board etc. The petitioner Company has a plywood factory at Tinsukia (Assam). It is liable to Central Excise duties in respect of the products manufactured in the said factory. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-L order dated 28.09.01 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong confirming the demand made in terms of the provision of Section 11(a)(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and in addition imposing the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- in terms of the provision of Rules 171Q(1) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The demand made was for Rs. 1,82,67,650.99 and the demand was made vide show cause notice issued about 21 years back. Thanks to ongoing litigation initiated at the instance of the writ petitioner, the matter has not attained its finality as yet.2. It was in 1984, to be precise, on 20.02.84 the off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Having suffered by a Decree dated 30.1.95 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 31/1977, the defendants have filed this first appeal.2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.3. The respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract dated 25.5.80 that was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 for sale of an area of land measuring approximately 421.49 acres situated in the district of Dibrugarh.4. The pleaded case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is that he having tea garden in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam and being desirous to purchase the suit land and the defendant having agreed to sell the same entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 1 on 25.5.80 to purchase the suit land, and defendant accepted a sum of Rs. 5000.00 as advance out of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR612; 2007(3)MhLj275
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All petitions may be disposed of by common judgment. These petitions may be divided in three groups. In the Writ Petition Nos. 5526/95, 1388/96, 4341/96,7648/2000, 1579/2002, 2575/2003, 9160/2003, 9162/2003,9178/2003, 847/2006, 2025/2006, 3047/2006, 377/2001, 5584/2006, 6537/2006,OSWP Nos. 407/1992,3693/1991 and 452/2005 the petitioners claim to hold either the degree or diploma of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna or some other equivalent degree awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad and some other institutions, whose degrees and diplomas are not recognised in Schedule II of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (In short The Central Act). Most of them claim to have been registered with the State Council of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. These degrees and diplomas in Ayurveda conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 and all the degrees and diplomas conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad are no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-22-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1387
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him disability element of pension in terms of Pension Regulations and the Causality Pension Awards Rules and to pay him amount of leave encashment for 135 days together with interest @ 18% per annum.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as an Infantry G.D. Soldier on 07th January, 1988. He upon completion of training was inducted as a Paratrooper and posted to serve at No. 1 Para (SF) during the year 1989. According to the petitioner, at the time of his enrollment he was medically examined and was certified to be in medical category 'AYE' i.e. fit for all duties both in peace and War theaters at all places in India and Abroad. He served in the field as well as in operational areas during his service career till he was discharged from duties in January, 2001. When the petitioner was proceeding from Liemakhong to Ukhrul for an operation alongwi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-21-2006
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD805; 2007(2)ALT566
ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. Indeed a common order was dictated in open Court after having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents was absent. The order proceeded only on jurisdictional issue. But it was not transcribed and signed. Some time after the order was dictated in open Court, the learned Counsel on record representing the respondents appeared. At his request, the matters were directed to be called under the caption 'For being mentioned' on the next date. When the matter thus appeared under that caption, both the learned Counsel were heard again afresh. After having heard them at some length on the jurisdictional issue, it was felt expedient to hear the arguments on merits and we decided to recall the earlier order. The matters were accordingly adjourned. Both the learned Counsel submitted written arguments. The learned Counsel for the first respondent by name Sri Rakesh Sanghi, who submitted writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-2006
Reported in : 2007(115)ECC1; 2007LC1(Madras)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The prayer in W.P. Nos. 24 of 1995 and 2325 of 1997 is to declare G.O.Ms. No. 762/Home, Prohibition & Excise (III) Department, dated 29.06.1990, as unconstitutional and void.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 52 of 1995 is to quash the orders of the third respondent in R.C. No. 237/94/A1, dated 17.11.1994.3. The prayer in W.P. No. 2324 of 1997 is to quash the orders of the third respondent in R.C. No. 3/96 A, dated 27.12.1996, 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the writs are as follows:4.1. The petitioner Balaji Distilleries Limited has installed its re-distillation unit at their factory for purification of rectified spirit and impure spirit to produce extra neutral alcohol for use in its Indian Made Foreign Spirit (IMFS) products. 4.2. The rectified spirit is allotted by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on monthly basis to the petitioner company and in the allotment order, the name of the distillery from which the petitioner has to buy the rectified spir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-14-2006
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the classification of "Tiger Balm", manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under CET Sub-heading 3003.39 as a Ayurvedic medicament, attracting duty at the rate of 8%, as claimed by the manufacturers and upheld by the Commissioner, or under GET Sub-heading 3003.10 as F or P medicaments other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic...attracting duty at the rate of 15% for certain period and 16% thereafter, as contended by the Revenue. The period in dispute is December 1996 to February 2000.2. According to the Revenue the assessee has wrongly claimed (he-product as Ayurvedic Medicine for the reason that the product owed its origin to Chinese traditional medicine, and the formulations, brand name, logo, product goodwill etc. had been received under licence from M/s. Haw Par Healthcare Ltd. Singapore for exclusive manufacture, marketing and sale in India. The Singapore company is also the proprietary owner of the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-14-2006
Reported in : (2007)2MLJ246
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Application No. 3783 of 2006 has been field by the applicant, mother of the minor child Raghav, praying this Court to modify the earlier order of this Court dated 1.10.2004 made in Application No. 560 of 2004, viz., instead of interim custody granted for alternative Saturday from 10.00 am., to Sunday 12.00 Noon, to grant interim custody once an a year for is days or the days as may be fixed by this Court during the annual vacation of the school in which the minor child is going to study.2. Application No. 3539 of 2006 has been filed by the applicant, mother of the minor child Raghav to permit the applicant to apply and get a passport for the minor child as the mother, guardian and custodian of the child.3. The Original Petition No. 56 of 2004 has been filed by the father of the minor child to declare the father as the de-jure guardian of the minor child and for directing the mother to hand over the custody of the minor child to him.4. By earlier order dated 1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC493; 2007(2)ALD70(SC); 2006(14)SCALE317; (2007)1SCC143
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Petitioner is a lawyer by profession. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India, respondent No. 2 is a statutory body, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are the leading national daily newspapers and respondent No. 5 & 6 are news agencies.2. The present petition involves a substantial question of law and public importance on the fundamental right of the citizens, regarding the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's grievance is that the freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the newspaper industry is not keeping balance with the protection of children from harmful and disturbing materials. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression of individual as well as press. It acknowledges that the press is free to express its ideas but on the same hand, individual also has right to their own space and right not to be exposed against their will to other's expressions of ideas and actions.3. By...
Tag this Judgment!