Rudra Appellant(s) versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Respondent(s) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 166 — claim petition under — the Tribunal concluded that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded total compensation amounted to Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. — the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,48,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. — appeal for enhancement of compensation — the doctor assessed whole body disability at 29% and also stated that the nature of disability is such that the appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other manual work — the impugned judgment of the High Court modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/- with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum — appeal allowed — no costs.
Merely because the shares had been purchased from borrowed funds obtained on high rate of interest would not change the nature of the transaction from investment to one in the nature of an “adventure in the nature of trade.
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availment of service tax paid on the insurance service availed by the appellant to cover the damage or loss to the goods exported by the appellant, in as much as the said policy is for covering the goods in the foreign countries except India, lower authorities have held that the same cannot be considered as input services.
Demands for service tax with interest as applicable has been confirmed against the appellants and equal amount of penalty has also been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant one non profit organisations registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and is engaged in providing service of health club/sports activities to its members. Though separate orders have been passed, issue involved is same. Hence a common order is passed.
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Calcutta High Court)- When the Board of Directors of the assessee had thought it fit to spend on the foreign tour of the accompanying wife of the Managing Director for commercial expediency, the reasons being reflected in its resolution quoted by us, it was not within the province of the Income-tax Authority to disallow such expenditure by sitting over the decision of the Board, in the absence of any specific bar created by the Statute for such expenditure.
whether Jaljira which is a product manufactured by the respondent herein is only an appetizer and is not a masala and therefore liable to sales tax at the rate of 10% and not 16% ….. There is no doubt that Jaljira is a drink. The contents of Jaljira is put into water and taken as digestive drink but when we look into the manner and method of preparation of the product Jaljira, we find that it is a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing. Therefore, it is nothing but a Masala packed into packets of different nature/quantity and sold to the consumers. It would, therefore, for all practical purposes would come within the Entry No. 184 and it cannot be said that it would come under the residuary entry as held by the High Court.
Views expressed by smaller bench of a Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan on tax avoidance are binding on the High Courts because it has interpreted the decision of the larger bench in the case of Mcdowell & Company. Accordingly, the transactions was not a colourable transaction.
As per clause (a) of Rule 49, an ‘authorized income-tax practitioner’ is any authorized representative as defined in clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 288 for appearing before this Tribunal.
M/s Varun Developers Vs CIT, Bangalore (Karnataka High Court)- In view of the submission made to consider whether the calculations have to be made on completion of the project after registering the plots in favour of the intended purchasers or customers, who had invested the amount from time to time, or as and when the amount is paid and accrued to the benefit of the petitioner for each assessment years and, also to consider the deductions available as per Section. 801B(10) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer by quashing the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Revisional Authority. All the contentions are left open to be urged, Petitions are accordingly allowed.
The Bombay high court last week quashed the office memorandum / press release dated November 11 and policy circular dated December 22 last year as they were not issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, and, therefore, the restrictions contained in them were contrary to law.
