Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant who joined the Indian Railway Accounts Service on 4th November, 1957, took voluntary retirement in November, 1989 and was appointed as the Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal for a tenure of 5 years from 8th November, 1989. On completion of the tenure, the applicant retired on 7th November, 1994. His additional pension for the service as Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal was fixed at the rate of Rs. 293/- per month or 3,500/- per annum taking into account the 5 years of his service. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairmen and Members) Rules, 1989 was amended by notification No. N. GSR 185 (E) dated 11.4.96 and the amended Sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 reads as follows:- "8(2) Pension under Sub-rule (1) shall be calculated at the rate of rupees one thousand fourhundred and fifty per annum for each completed yearof service subject to the condition that the aggregate amount of pension ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal whereby the refund filed by the appellants was held to be time-barred.The appellants filed the refund claims in consequence to the orders-in-appeal passed in their favour. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claims. The revenue reviewed the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the refund claims are time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.Ld Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that as the appellants filed this refund claim, as consequential relief in view of the order-in-appal passed in their favour, the claim cannot be held to be time-barred. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Engg. Indus. Ltd. (Final Order No. A/2237-2239/00-NB(S) dated 5.12.2000). He, therefore, prays that the appeals be allowed.In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2002)74TTJ(Asr.)146
This is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, dated 27-4-1994, for the assessment year 1987-88. The grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal, read as under : "1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is against law and facts of the case.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no concealment and the additions made are purely based on estimates and more so the explanation given by the assessee throughout the assessment stage has not even been discussed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and thus the penalty has wrongly been confirmed by him.3. That even otherwise the assessee duly substantiated the explanation it gave in respect of receipts and thus the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) has also wrongly been applied." Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-doctor is a child specialist. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
1. This is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dt. 27th April, 1994, for the asst. yr.1987-88. The grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal, read as under: "1. The order of the learned CIT(A), confirming the penalty imposed under s, 271(1)(c) is against law and facts of the case. 2. That the CTT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no concealment and the additions made are purely based on estimates and more so the explanation given by the assessee throughout the assessment stage has not even been discussed by the. learned CIT(A) and thus the penalty has wrongly been confirmed by him. 3. That even otherwise the assessee duly substantiated the explanation it gave in respect of receipts and thus the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) has also wrongly been applied." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-doctor is a child specialist. The IT Department conducted a search under Section 132 of the IT Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT122TriDel
1.The revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no requirement for filing fresh declaration under Rule 57G of the Rules while switching over from full exemption to MODVAT Scheme, if the manufacturer had/earlier filed a declaration for availing the MODVAT Credit.4. The contention of the revenue is that the respondents filed a declaration for availing the MODVAT credit and they availed the benefit of MODVAT Scheme. Thereafter, the respondents opted for availing the benefit of exemption under notification no. 1/93 and thereafter the respondents again opted for MODVAT Scheme. The objection of the revenue is that the when the respondents opted for MODVAT Scheme second time, they are required to file a fresh declaration. The Tribunal in the case of standard Detergents Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 1999 (34) RLT 767, after relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (2002)83ITD1(Coch.)
1. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the CWT(A) dt. 31st Dec., 1993, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1987-88. The common ground raised for all the years in question reads as under: "The learned CWT(A) erred in cancelling the assessment, holding that the assessee is AOP and, therefore, its assets are not chargeable to wealth-tax in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sreemulam Club (Kerala Law Journal parts 7 & 8 p. 334), dt. 30th April, 1991. The CWT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment following the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of Govardhandas Govindram Family Chanty Trust v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC) and the decision of Tribunal Cochin in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1978-79 in WTA No. 76/Coch/85, dt. 9th June, 1988." 2. The issue raised in these appeals is whether the assessee-club is assessable to wealth-tax under the WT Act, 1957 for the asst. yrs.1983-84 to 1987-88. The assessee-club is a society r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.2000 made by Chairman of the Respondent, rejecting the Appellant's claim for Rs. 86, 100/- being difference between standard price and close out price in respect of purchase of the shares of Magan lndustries Ltd., in the 22nd settlement of 1995-96 of Bombay Stock Exchange.2. Factual background of the case, as reflected from the material before me, is as follows: "Magan Industries Ltd., an Ahmedabad based company (the company) made a public issue of shares sometime in 1993. Par value of the share was Rs. 10/- each. The shares of the company were listed in Bombay stock exchange (the Exchange) on 1.6.1995. On the basis of the information of the price volume data of trading in the scrip of the company at the exchange, the respondent observed that there was unusual price movement ranging from Rs 27/- to Rs 118/- within a short span of about 15 days preceding 25.1.1996. The exchange suspended trading in the scrip for one day on 5 occas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
1. These appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessees involve identical issues and hence they are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of. convenience. 2. The CWT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt the value of 28 acres of land at Bangalore Palace and land at Chamundi Vihar, Mysore, at Rs. 2 lakhs being the maximum compensation receivable from the Government, as the lands in question come under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, relying on his own decision for the earlier years. 3. The CWT(A) ought to have considered that the above decision has not been accepted and become final as the reference application filed in the case of Sri S.N. Wodeyar, in R.A. Nos. 29 to 37/Bang/94, dt. . 1st Feb., 1995 arising out of WTA Nos. 485 to 490/Bang/90 for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1985-86, have been referred by the Tribunal to High Court under Section 256(1). 4. Further, the CWT{A) failed to appreciate that for the purpose of wealth-tax, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (2001)79ITD650(Bang.)
These appeals by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessees involve identical issues and hence they are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience."1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to adopt the value of 28 acres of land at Bangalore Palace and land at Chamundi Vihar, Mysore, at Rs. 2 lakhs being the maximum compensation receivable from the government, as the lands in question come under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, relying on his own decision for the earlier years.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered that the above decision has not been accepted and become final as the reference application filed in the case of Sri S.N. Wodeyar, in R.A. Nos. 29 to 37/Bang/94, dated 1-2-1995 arising out of Wealth Tax Act Nos. 485 to 490/Bang/90 for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1985-86, have been referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. The appicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.2. In these cases, the MODVAT Credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the dealer had not produced the duplicate copy of invoice issued by the manufacturer.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the Tribunal, vide Stay Order No. S/878/00-NB(S) dated 26.12.2000 in the case of Shree Krishna Rolling Mills (Jaipur) Ltd. vs C.C.E., Jaipur, which is against the same impugned order, granted unconditional stay.He, therefore, prays that the applications be allowed.5. In these cases, the Commissioner (Appeals), disposed of 17 appeals by a common order-in-appeal and the Tribunal in the case of Shree Krishna Rolling Mill (Jaipur) Ltd. (supra), which is against the same impugned order, waived the pre-deosit of duty.5. In view of the above stay order, the pre-deposit of duty is waived for hearing of the appeals and the registry is directed to list the appeals on 14.02.2001 alongwit...
Tag this Judgment!