Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)167CTR(SC)105
ORDERBy the CourtThe High Court rejected the application of the revenue to call for a reference of two questions on the ground that no question of law arose. The Tribunal, in the revenue's application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, had noted that the questions were covered against the Revenue by its earlier decisions, particulars whereof it gave. It also stated that reference applications against those decisions had been moved and had been rejected by the Tribunal. It would appear from a statement made by learned counsel for the revenue before the Tribunal that in respect of these questions an application under section 256(2) had been moved but counsel for the revenue cannot tell us what happened thereafter. And the assessee has filed an affidavit to state that it has no information in this behalf.2. Having regard to the fact that, under these circumstances, the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the same question remain unchallenged, these appeals and the Special Leave ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)214
ORDERThe question for consideration in this appeal by the assessee against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras reads thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to depreciation and/or development rebate as claimed in respect of assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?'The High Court answered the question in the negative and against the assessee. The authorities and the Tribunal had also taken the view that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the two assessment years in question, namely, assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the previous years whereof ended on 31-3-1973, and 31-3-1974, respectively.2. Learned counsel on behalf of the assessee had placed great emphasis upon the decision of this court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]239ITR775(SC) which has interpreted the word 'owned' in section 32 broadly. It did so in the following cir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR213(SC)
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the High Court at Madras (see : [1997]225ITR214(Mad) . The High Court answeredin the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, the following question (page 215): 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression 'an assessment' to be made under Section 143(3), used in Section 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made under Section 143 and does not cover reassessment to be made under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under Section 144B and extended time limit provided in the Explanation to Section 153(1) is not available to reassessment to be made under Section 147 ?' 2. The identical issue was raised before this court in the case of R. Dalmia v. CIT : [1999]236ITR480(SC) , and, following that judgment, the judgment and order of the High Court must be reversed and the question answered in the negative and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR304(SC)
ORDER1. The question that arises in these appeals by the Revenue against the decision of the High Court of Kerala (see : [2000]241ITR374(Ker) reads thus (page 377):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the rectification order of the Assessing Officer ?'2. The assessee is a scheduled bank. It is required to buy and sell Government securities. During the assessment years in question, namely, 1979-80 and 1980-81, it deducted the interest paid for broken periods and this was originally allowed. Later, the assessing authority invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and cancelled such allowance for the reason that income by way of interest from purchase and sale of securities should be computed under the head 'Interest on securities' and the provisions of sections 18 to 20 did not permit such deduction. The matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that a debatable issue was involved and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)216
ORDERThe question that arises in these appeals by the revenue against the decision of the High Court of Kerala reads thus 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the rectification order of the assessing officer'2. The assessee is a scheduled bank. It is required to buy and sell government securities. During the assessment years in question, namely, 1979-80 and 1981, it deducted the interest paid for broken periods and this was originally allowed. Later, the assessing authority invoked the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cancelled such allowance for the reason that income by way of interest from purchase and sale of securities should be computed under the head 'interest on securities' and the provisions of sections 18 to 20 did not permit such deduction. The matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that a debatable issue was involved and that the assessing authority was, therefore, no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR306(SC)
ORDERWe have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Despite his very persuasive argument, we are, on the facts available to us, unable to take a view other than that taken by the Tribunal and the High Court.The appeals are dismissed.No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR307(SC)
ORDER1. We are concerned with the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 in this appeal against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay. By that order, the following question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right of confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the assessee, engaged in cutting and polishing of diamonds, amounts to manufacturing or production of goods and is entitled to deduction under Section 80-1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The High Court gave this answer because counsel for the parties were agreed that the issue stood covered by the High Court's decision in CIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (1.) Ltd. : [1995]213ITR517(Bom) . 3. Section 80-1 gives a deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings which, among other conditions, manufacture or produce any article or thing. The qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ1693SC; (2002)9SCC414
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 7-A read with Sections 30(a), (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to a dispute between the appellant and the respondents. The question referred for adjudication is as follows:Whether the Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., P.O. Kothagudem Collieries are justified in not paying charge allowance to Fitters and Electricians? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?2. On this aspect pleadings were filed before the Tribunal and inquiry was held and the Tribunal recorded its findings as follows:So, this is established that these people are also doing the work similar to that of Mining Sirdars, Over men and Shot Firer. So on the basis of Ex. W. 1 to W. 11 coupled with Ex. M. 14 I hold on the basis of oral evidence and documentary evidence that the Management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., is not justified in not giving the charge allowance to Fitters and El...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC457; (2001)3GLR2687; (2001)2MLJ9(SC); RLW2001(1)SC95; 2000(8)SCALE76; [2000]Supp5SCR345; 2001(1)LC131(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC241
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate, the appellant, has been held guilty of professional misconduct by Rajasthan State Bar Council and punished with suspension from practice for a period of five years. Shri Anil Sharma, advocate was also proceeded against along with Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate and he too having been found guilty was reprimanded. An appeal preferred by Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has not only been dismissed but the Bar Council of India has chosen to vary the punishment of the appellant by enhancing the period of suspension from practice to ten years. The Bar Council of India has also directed notice to show cause against enhancement of punishment to be issued to Shri Anil Sharma, advocate. The Bar Council of India has further directed proceedings for professional misconduct to be initiated against one Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate. Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate has preferred this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]104CompCas97(SC); 2000(8)SCALE139
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. As the question of law in both the appeals is common and the facts similar, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants are aggrieved of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in Company Appeals by which the orders passed by the Company Law Board have been set aside and disputes allegedly existing between the parties referred to the High powered Committee in terms of the judgment of this Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise . It is contended that the dictum of this Court in ONGC's case was not applicable to the facts of the cases under appeals, as there did not exist a genuine dispute between the parties which could be referred to the High Powered Committee.4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeals, as extracted from the Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14660, are as under.5. The appellants filed Company Petition Nos. 11/111/-95CLB& 12/111/95-CLB ...
Tag this Judgment!