|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 105 Records
-
1977 (7) TMI 66 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ty of the Tribunal is to interpret each word and sentence occurring in the order of the WTO strictly. There is no scope for making any conjecture or guess work in the penalty proceedings. The WTO did not rectify his order. If it were a mistake apparent from the record and if the WTO thought that a mistake was committed by the persons who typed out the assessment order dt. 27th June, 1973, then he would have rectified that mistake without any inhibition. We agree with the assessee s counsel that the observation of the WTO supports his case and that creates a doubt. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the assessee and hold that no penalty is exigible in as much as the assessee had filed an original return disclosing the status of Individual. There is no case of the revenue that original return was not filed by the assessee in time. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds and is allowed. The miscellaneous application of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
-
1977 (7) TMI 65 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... exigible. In V.L. Dutt vs. CIT, Madras(1), the Madras High Court already held that where a person had no explanation to offer, it may be treated as a circumstancial evidence to show that it had acted without reasonable cause. Also, in a case where the explanation is so Prima-facie unreasonable, it would be open to the ITO to levy penalty on the ground that the assessees had no reasonable cause for the delay in the submission of the return. It is a case where no explanation was shown by the assessee. Even if the plea raised by the assessee s counsel that the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist is construed to be an explanation on behalf of the assessee, this explanation is wholly insufficient and Prima facie unreasonable, inasmuch as, the assessee had already filed the wealth tax return for the next preceding two years on an earlier date, i.e. 28th March, 1972. There is no warrant to interfere with the order of the AAC. 3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1977 (7) TMI 63 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 11,00,000. According to the assessee, the investment of Rs. 36,000 was adequate. The AAC held that the investment of Rs. 45,000 was enough to make the sales of Rs. 11,00,000. The Tribunal, in appeal, found that the investment of Rs. 36,000 was adequate to run the business having recorded in the Uchanti Bahi. The ITO held that a sum of Rs. 24,000 was advanced by Shri Partap Singh, but the Tribunal took the view that Shri Pratap Singh had the capacity to advance Rs. 28,300. The difference of Rs. 36,000 and Rs. 28,300 was sustained as addition on account of the unexplained investment by the Tribunal. It appears that this is all a matter of estimate. There is no cogent proof that the sum of Rs. 7,700 representing the unexplained investment was consciously concealed by the assessee. No penalty is, therefore, exigible on this item. 6. We, therefore, hold that the penalty is exigible on the assessee only to the tune of Rs. 16,500. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (7) TMI 62 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... a result of the extinguishment of his interest in proprietary asset, and therefore. In absence of any consideration receivable or accruing to the partner in transfer of a capital asset, there could be no liability to capital gains tax in light of provisions of s. 45 r/w 48 of the Act. Before we part with this case we may state that though the submission was made by Shri Kothari based on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Ansuyaben cited supra, the above contention has no bearing on controversy before us as it is not the case of the assessee to claim exemption on the ground that the stock-in-trade which was contributed in the partnership firm, would fall outside the scope of s. 2(14) of the Act as the stock-in-trade is not covered by the expression capital asset under the said section. In the above view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the decision of the learned CIT. We accordingly quash his order and restore the order of the ITO. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (7) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Prosecution - Smuggling - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... ora - AIR 1975 SC 1843, Balumal Jamnadas v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Narhari v. Pannalal - AIR 1977 SC 164. It is unnecessary to refer to the above cases individually. I would only extract a passage from the latest of these decisions i.e., Narhari case (supra), Fazl Ali, J. observed A fortiori the execution proceedings being purely a matter of procedure it is well settled that any change in law which is made during the pendency of the cause would be deemed to be retrospective in operation and the appellate Court is bound to take notice of the change in law. I am not therefore, persuaded to accept the contention of Sri Rajagopala Reddy in regard to the burden of proof. 21. Thus, I see no substance in any of the three contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. I am satisfied that the decisions of the Courts below are quite correct. 22. In the result, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner are confirmed and the criminal revision case is dismissed.
-
1977 (7) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Confiscation - Show cause notice - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... the terms of the provisions, the argument appears to be well founded, and we are inclined to accept the same. Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in A bad Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1977 Guj. 113) to the effect that the alternative remedy, in order to bar the entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226(3), must be adequate and effective, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We find it rather difficult to read this limitation into the terms of Article 226(3), having regard particularly, to the purpose and the object of the 42nd Amendment and the terms of the constitutional provision. We are inclined to accept the objection of counsel for the respondents and to dismiss the appeal and the writ petition on this ground as well. As the appellants have no case on merits, we do not wish to express our final and concluded view on the preliminary objection. 10. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 59 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation of goods sold by Co-operative Society to their members ... ... ... ... ..... id that the price at which the cooperative society sold Sodium Silicate was at an unreasonable low level. There has been no ploughing back of profits of any large order to buyers. The goods have been sold to members and non-members at the same price. Under the circumstances, Government of India allow the revision application and order that the prices declared by the applicants during the periods in question be adopted for purposes of valuation under Section 4 of the Act.
-
1977 (7) TMI 58 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Jockey pulley - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... only the bearing portion of Jockey Pulley and of other materials should be assessed to duty and not the whole Item. Government accept this view and order that the bearing portion should alone be assessed to duty.
-
1977 (7) TMI 57 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Valuation - Trade discount - Conditions for abatement - Quantity discount ... ... ... ... ..... ven outright at the time of removal of the goods from the place of manufacture. On principle the quantity discount is admissible provided it is granted as indicated above. In the case of the petitioners the quantity discount was based on a contingency and was not given outright at the time of removal of the goods. In the circumstances, the revision application fails and is rejected accordingly.
-
1977 (7) TMI 56 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Welding electrodes coated with flux ... ... ... ... ..... t whether coating with flux has been done or not. Government further observe that welding electrodes need not necessarily be coated with flux. Consequently the contention of the petitioners that since flux-coating is not done in their factory, the goods would be outside the scope of Entry 50 of the Central Excise Tariff fails and the revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1977 (7) TMI 55 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Gas stove ignitors ... ... ... ... ..... trivance for causing ignition and are portable also inasmuch as these can be used and taken from one place to the other easily. The elements required by Entry 39 of the Central Excise Tariff are fulfilled by the goods in question. These would, therefore, be covered within the ambit of this tariff entry. In the circumstances, the revision application fails and is rejected accordingly.
-
1977 (7) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Tobacco - Curer's liability - Transferee's liability. - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... the purpose of Rule 31 requiring a transport permit in the prescribed form issued by the prescribed authority the curer is not liable to satisfy the proper officer in whose jurisdiction the licensed warehouse of the transferee is located. The curer s obligation is only to satisfy the proper officer within whose jurisdiction the curing operations have been performed and to whom he is accountable for the stocks in his possession. I am, therefore, of the view that once the petitioner has satisfied the Excise Officer at Dharapuram about the transfer of ownership of the tobacco and the same has been acknowledged by that officer, his liability should be taken to have ceased under Rule 29. In my view therefore, the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Erode, demanding a sum of Rs. 2388.96 and affirmed by respondents 1 and 2 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Emulsified Hair Oil and Pomade - Affidavits - Validity in evidence - Tariff entry - Criteria for interpretation - Connotation of - Writ jurisdiction - Remand of the Case - Critarion for - - Distinction and Scope
-
1977 (7) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Tobacco - Transfer of under valid permit - Rules 29 and 31 - Applicability ... ... ... ... ..... the purpose of R. 31, requiring a transport permit in the prescribed form issued by the prescribed authority the curer is not liable to satisfy the proper officer in whose jurisdiction the licensed warehouse of the transferee is located. The curer s obligation is only to satisfy the proper officer within whose jurisdiction the curing operations have been performed and to whom he is accountable for the stocks in his possession. I am, therefore, of the view that once the petitioner has satisfied the Excise Officer at Dharapuram about the transfer of ownership of the tobacco and the same has been acknowledged by that officer, his liability should be taken to have ceased under R. 29. In my view, therefore, the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Intergrated Divisional Office, Erode, demanding a sum of Rs. 2,388.96 and affirmed by respondents 1 and 2 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Proprietary interest and `Brand name' - Connotation of. - Tariff Item 14E - Scope of. ... ... ... ... ..... the said mark as a brand mark given by the petitioner for the medicines manufactured by it. In my view, therefore, the three pharmaceutical preparations manufactured by the petitioner, which were earlier permitted to be cleared without payment of duty by the Central Excise authorities them selves are not excisable under tariff item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act and Rules. I have therefore, to accept the contention of the petitioner and hold that it is not liable to pay excise duty in respect of the three items of pharmaceutical preparations which has been manufactured by it and cleared between 19-9-1966 and 9-4-1970. 9. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to go into the other contentions raised by the petitioner on the question of applicability of R. 9 (2) and the question of limitation provided in R. 10. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned demand made on the petitioner is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Employed, Gross Total Income, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court that such an expenditure would not fall under expenditure of a capital nature and would be allowable as an item of deduction, under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. We do not consider that this decision has any application. In the light of the above we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and direct the Commissioner to make a fresh assessment order ignoring rule 19A(3) of the Rules, granting the rebate of 6 per cent. on the entire capital employed, whether it be utilising the borrowed moneys or by utilising the moneys of the assessee. We are informed that the assessee himself had claimed only rebate at 6 per cent on the sum of Rs. 54,14,383. Naturally, if that be the case nothing higher than that 6 per cent. on that amount would be allowable. We dispose of this writ petition on the above terms. We direct the parties to bear their costs, the matter being one of first impression as far as this court is concerned and being not an easy one to resolve.
-
1977 (7) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... on the assessee. The Tribunal further recorded that even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee frankly admitted that it was not possible for the assessee to adduce any further evidence apart from those confirmatory letters. The Tribunal found that there was no material on the record even to establish the identity of the creditors. It has been urged by Mr. A. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the assessee, that no reasonable man could have come to the above conclusion reached by the Tribunal and, therefore, its conclusion was perverse. We are, however, unable to accept his contention. The Tribunal has taken all relevant facts into consideration as appears from its order including the materials on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. To us it does not appear to be unreasonable or perverse. In the premises, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rental Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the land which was gifted by the assessee. The amount borrowed on the mortgage of the land was utilised for the purpose of construction of the building and the wife had no independent or other source of income for construction. The construction cost had also been met out of the advance rent realised by the wife. The income derived by way of rent from the building which was built with money borrowed on the mortgage of the land and money received by way of advance rent, therefore, arises directly and, in any event, indirectly from the transfer of the land by the assessee in favour of his wife. The connection between the transferred asset and the income is proximate and cannot be said to be too remote. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, the second question does not call for any answer. We, however, make no order as to costs. BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mitted that in respect of the two assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63 with which we are concerned, the tax had already been paid in full by L. Bansi Dhar in his personal or individual assessment. There is, therefore, considerable force in the submission of the assessee that great hardship would be caused to it if in spite of full tax having been paid by its karta in his personal assessment, the H.U.F. is asked to pay the tax over again in respect of the same income, and that too when the liability of the H.U.F. to pay the tax has not yet been finally decided. We, therefore, consider that this is a fit case in which the stay asked for should be granted, but on terms. We accordingly order that the recovery of the amounts of tax demanded in respect of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63, is stayed on the condition that the assessee should furnish adequate security for the said amounts to the satisfaction of the concerned Income-tax Officer within six weeks from this date.
-
1977 (7) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Gratuity Reserve, Reserve For Doubtful Debts, Super Profits Tax
|
