Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)164CTR(SC)490; [2001]247ITR192(SC)
The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in an assessment made under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') it is open to the assessing authority to charge interest for default in filing return under Section 139(8) of the Act? For answering this question it is necessary to determine what is a 'regular assessment' for the purpose of Section 139(8) of the Act.Shorn of unnecessary details the facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus: For the assessment@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJyear 1984-85 the assessee, appellant herein, filed a return of income in response to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. While completing the assessment the assessing authority charged interest under Section 139(8) and also under Section 217 of the Act. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) it was contended that the assessment in the case was not a 'regular assessment' within the meanin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(73)ECC655; 2001(127)ELT14(SC); 2000(7)SCALE721; [2001]121STC294(SC)
ORDERN. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The medicinal preparation 'Mritasanjibani' manufactured by the respondent was assessed to sales-tax under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act by the assessing authorities. The challenge to the said assessment order being dismissed by the appellate authority, the respondents filed 3 writ petitions before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court which, while allowing the said writ petitions, declared the said Item 67 of the Schedule to the Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State of Assam is in appeal before us, challenging the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court made in Civil Rule Nos. 368, 369 of 1978 and 310 of 1982 dated 11.4.1990.2. The High Court while entertaining the abovesaid writ petitions, considered the following 3 arguments of the respondents and held the same against them:1. That no spirit being used in the preparation of M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : RLW2001(1)SC1; 2000(8)SCALE17; (2001)1SCC41; 2001(1)LC234(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is the tenant of a room situated on the ground floor of a building in Kandoi Bazar in the Jodhpur city of which the respondent is the landlord. The tenant was using the room as a shop. The landlord resides on the first floor of the building. He filed a suit in 1973 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the room is needed for construction of a staircase to the first floor of the building and also for his bona fide personal necessity under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short' the Act'). The tenant contested the suit refuting both the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord. 3. The trial court rejected the case of the landlord that the room was required for building a staircase; but accepted the plea of bona fide personal necessity. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the tenant. On appeal filed by the tenant the appellate court confirme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(73)ECC13; (2001)1MLJ177(SC); 2000(8)SCALE130; [2000]Supp5SCR313
M.B. Shah, J.1. Aforesaid appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 734 of 1971 filed by the deceased Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka of Bombay challenging the order No. 19 of 1971 dated 8th February, 1971 passed by the Gold Control Administrator, New Delhi. Deceased appellant challenged confiscation of gold by the custom authorities under Gold Control orders by filing writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Against that order, the aforesaid appeal is filed. Pending appeal, appellant (Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka) died on 24th November, 1985. A dispute arose - as to who is the legal heir of the deceased. Firstly, one of the daughters, Sushila Bai N. Rungta claimed under a Will dated 29th Oct., 1982 and secondly, Radheshyam Goenka claimed as adopted son and thirdly, Smt. Raj Kumai R. Goenka wife of adopted son claimed independently. Keeping the question of right, title and interest in the property open, for continuing...
Tag this Judgment!