Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]254ITR553(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, in our opinion, a question of law does arise, especially in view of the fact that the Madras High Court in CIT v. Balaji Enterprises : [1999]236ITR589(Mad) in a case of the respondent relating to a similar claim for deduction had allowed the application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of service charges amounting to Rs. 1,82,03,470 or any part thereof ?'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)254; (2002)173CTR(SC)300; [2002]253ITR798(SC)
ORDERLeave is granted.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Civil Revision Application No. 884 of 1999 dated 7-8-2000, declining to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge, Amalner, dated 16-3-1998, dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 21 of 1997. The appellant made that application for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the appeal against the order of the trial court in Special C. S. No. 5 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge, S. D. Amalner.3. A perusal of the order of the learned civil judge shows that he found fault with the appellant on two grounds: (i) the judgment under appeal was delivered on 30-4-1997, but the application for certified copy was made on 5-6-1997, and (ii) in regard to the averment in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, her illness was given as a reason for the delay ; it was pointed out that while she was still il...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2606; [2001(90)FLR867]; JT2001(5)SC534; 2001LabIC2805; 2001(4)SCALE418; (2001)9SCC108; 2001(3)SCT809(SC)
Rajandra Babu,J.1. A writ petition bearing No .C.W.P.No.1218/89 was filed in the High Court by Atul Kumar Sharma calling in question the validity of the amendment made to the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointments and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972 to the extent it amended the Rules excluding the Junior Translator from the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistants, Caretaker and Junior Reader.A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said writ petition holding that the High Court should follow the rule which provided promotional avenues to the Junior Translator also to the post of Assistants, Caretaker and Junior Reader.The promotions were to be effected on the directions issued by the High Court though monetary benefits were excluded in order to adjust the equities in the matter.2. The question was whether the respondent would get the notional promotion to the post of Senior Translator and if so, whether the written test for promotion to the post of Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2603; JT2001(5)SC545; 2001(4)SCALE425; (2001)6SCC112; [2001]123STC577(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1.The question for decision in these appeals is whether the sales tax authorities can raise demands on the assessee on the basis of reassessment orders when the original assessment orders for the same assessment years and for the same turnover have been held to be valid. The facts relevant for the appeals are:2.The assessing authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') passed assessment orders levying on the appellant purchase tax under Section 9 of the Act for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78 on the dispatches made by the appellant of its manufactured goods to various depots outside the State. The assessment orders were made between the year 1979 and 1981.3.The assessment orders were made under Section 9 of the Act read with a notification dated 19th July, 1974. Section 9 of the Act provided that where a dealer purchased goods within the State and used them in the manufacture of other goods which were then exported from the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2582; 2001(132)ELT15(SC); JT2001(5)SC608; 2001(4)SCALE506; (2001)9SCC106; [2001]3SCR1053; [2002]125STC375(SC); 2001(2)LC1481(SC)
ORDER1. Leave is granted.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Civil Revision Application No. 884 of 1999 dated August 7,2000, declining to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge, Amalner, dated March 16, 1998 dismissing Misc.Civil Application No. 21 of 1997. The appellant made that application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal against the order of the trial court in Special C.S.No. 5/95 on the file of the Civil Judge, S.D.Amalner.3.A perusal of the order of the learned Civil Judge shows that he found fault with the appellant on two ground: (i) the judgment under appeal was delivered on April 30, 1997 but eh application for certified copy was made on June 5, 1997 and (ii) in regard to the averment in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, her illness was given as a reason for the delay it was pointed out that while she was still ill she fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2607; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)287; 2001(5)ALT27(SC); 2001(49)BLJR2371; JT2001(5)SC539; RLW2002(1)SC55; 2001(4)SCALE420; (2001)6SCC163; 2002(1)LC37(SC)
ORDERD. P. Mohapatra, J.1. One Dattatraya Agnihotri died in April 1961 leaving behind his widow Laxmibai, sons Vishwambhar and Digamber, and daughters, Indumati, Usha, Mangla and Shobha. The suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Dattatraya Agnihotri. At the time of death of their father Vishwambhar and Digmber were minors. Laxmibai was managing the properties left by Dattatraya Agnihotri as guardian of the minors. On 14.11.1967 Laxmibai executed a sale deed in favour of Laxminarayan transferring 4 acres 13 guntas of the suit land for the sum of Rs. 6000/- and delivered possession to the purchaser. Again on 24.10.1974 she executed another sale deed in favour of Vijay Kumar son of Laxminarayan in respect of 4 acres 13 guntas, a part of the suit land for the sum of Rs. 9000/- and delivered possession to the purchaser. The sale deeds were executed without any legal necessity and without obtaining permission of the Court as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]251ITR660(SC)
ORDER1. The entire basis of the order that has been made by the Appropriate Authority is the calculation of the FSI of the property under consideration as compared to that of the sale instance property, but there is not a word in the order as to what that FSI was and how it has been calculated. A speaking order must speak for itself, and a reference to the show-cause notice is uncalled for. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]251ITR780(SC)
1. No interference with the judgment and order of the High Court (see is called for. Having regard to the first question, considering how that question is worded, it is properly answered. As to the second question, the relevant material in regard to the cash incentive for exports does not appear to have been placed before the Tribunal. Without that material, it is not possible to decide that the contention of the Revenue is correct. 2. The civil appeals are dismissed with cost. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]251ITR781(SC)
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and read the judgment and order under challenge. We have also read the rule, which the High Court (see : [1999]239ITR851(Mad) , has construed. In our view, the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable. 2. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC737; [2002]254ITR212(SC); JT2001(10)SC142; (2002)9SCC685; [2002]120TAXMAN889(SC)
ORDERC. A. Nos. 4294-4303 of 2000 : 1. These appeals by the Revenue arise upon a certificate of fitness given by the High Court of Kerala (see : [1999]236ITR722(Ker) ). The High Court answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assesses-trust the following question (page 725): 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is a charitable institution whose income is exempt under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assesses-trust is a public charitable trust. It was constituted under a trust deed dated April 14,1975. The settlors of the trust were certain Muslim residents of Kerala. They constituted the trust 'for the purpose of constructing and establishing at Palghat a Shadi Mahal and other institutions for the educational, social and economic advancement of the Muslims and for religious and charitable objects recognised by Muslim law...' Within a few days of the creation of the trust, i.e., on April 20, 1975, a special general body meeting...
Tag this Judgment!