|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 155 Records
-
1981 (11) TMI 75 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... ded case are manifestly distinguishable from the facts of the case of the assessee which I shall presently briefly notice. 4. The articles which the assessee sold were only 4 thalis, 12 katories, 8 glasses, etc. i.e. a doing set for 4 people weighing about 10 Kgms. They were sold for Rs. 13,452,45 but in the voluntary disclosure made earlier by the assessee and accepted by the department it is stated that they had been purchased at is stated that they had been purchased at about Rs. 340 per Kg. The accounts of the assessee show that his capital was well over Rs. 3 lakhs and it is stated that the assessee and his other members of the family also were liable to pay wealth tax. In this situation it is acceptable that the articles in question were being used by the assessee and members of his family dependent on him in the absence of any material for holdings to be contrary. I hold accordingly. It follows that the contention of the assessee is accepted and the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 74 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the provision of section 24(3) of the Madras General Sales tax Act which the earlier Bench found to be comparable in language and scheme with section 36 of the Bombay Sales-tax Act. According to the Madras High Court decision, as stated in the earlier order of the Tribunal, the proper way of looking at the amount is to treat it as a liquidated sum for damages for the period for which the State is kept out of the money to which it is entitled. If this is the understanding, it is clear that the amounts are not levied for any infraction or violation of law and hence, it is deductible as arising in the course of or incidental to carrying on of business and/or was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. 5. In view of the above decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee, I conclude that the expenditure in question is allowable as revenue expenditure. The disallowance of Rs. 8,500 is, therefore, deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 73 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... ial value on the assets for claiming an inflated cost for the purpose of depreciation allowance. It may be another matter if the consideration was more than the market value itself, but this is not alleged in the orders of the authorities below and when we specifically requested the learned departmental representative whether it is suggested that such was the case, he has not suggested that such was the case nor has he brought to our notice any material to show that such was the case. Nor is there any other material to suggest that the transfer was made for the purpose of reduction of the income-tax liability of the transferee. We find that the provisions of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) are not applicable. It follows that the contention of the assessee must be accepted and we direct that the actual cost of the assets in question shall be adopted at the amounts paid by the transferee as the consideration for transfer of the respective assets. 8. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 72 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... -D for the valuation of unquoted shares even for the purpose of levy of gift taxes for the ED Act. We would prefer to follow the Mysore High Court decision in preference to the Calcutta High Court decision relied upon the Deptl. Rep. There is no dispute between the parties before us that the assessee had correctly valued the shares at Rs. 1,272 per share by any method other than W.T r. 1-D. In the circumstances, once it is accepted that this valuation at Rs. 1,272 per share has been properly made under WT r. 1-D, we are of the view that that should be the valuation for the purpose of the present Gift-tax assessment. Even, on merits, therefore, the Revenue has no case. 12. We have also considered the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Maneklal Harilal Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 24 (Guj) relied upon by the Deptl. Rep. But that decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 71 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... 978) 144 ITR 822 (Ker) where Their Lordships categorically held that the business of fishing and selling these after processing is nothing else than an industrial under-taking. The facts of this case are identical with that of the case decided by the Hon ble Kerala High Court. Therefore, following it with respect, we hold that the business of the assessee is an industrial undertaking and when this is so, then, it is entitled to relief under s. 80J of the Act, on the basis of industrial undertaking. Now, the question arises of the quantification of the relief, which has to be computed by the ITO and being so, we set aside the orders of the authorities below, on the issue, and direct the ITO to compute the relief under s. 80J of the Act, keeping in view its amendment vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1980, on providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the law. 24. In the result, the appeal shall be treated as partly allowed, for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (11) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... of his close relation with the occupants did not confer any legal right of residence on him. Similarly, the fact that the income from the house was included in the income of the assessee u/s 64 did not entitle the assessee to reside in the house as matter of right. Again, it is also not in dispute that no part of the flat was set apart or reserved for the assessee whenever he visited India. It cannot, therefore be held that the flat was maintained or caused to be maintained for the assessee during the relevant accounting period. The flat was maintained by the maintenance charges for their own residence and needs and the assessee stayed there merely because of his close relation with them. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly held that the provisions of s. 6(1)(b) are bit applicable to this case. He has, assess the assessee in the status of Resident . The impuged order is accordingly, confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 69 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... nd to reason that a person will purchase a non-winning ticket after the draw is held together with remaining three winner tickets. The evidentiary value of this ticket is not impaired by the fact that three out of these four tickets were winning tickets. If any aspersion by the fact that three out of these four tickets were winning tickets. If any aspersion is to be cast as we observed earlier it is to be reserved for the Karnataka State Lotteries which employs a procedure or a technique of drawing the winners that three out of four consecutively serialled tickets were the winning tickets. Therefore, we have no doubt left in our mind that the finding of CIT is liable to be uphold. We uphold his finding that ITO was not justified in other holding that the appellant had not won the prize in question and in assessing the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 alongwith supposed premium of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources. 5. In the result, appeal files by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 68 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Reassessment, Information ... ... ... ... ..... t suggest any interpretation of section 40(b). This is also clear from the fact that the audit invited the attention of the ITO to various case laws mentioned at pages 511 and 512 in the commentary by Kanga and Palkhivala referred to above. We, therefore, find no merit in the first contention of the assessee and hold that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was in accordance with law. 9. The facts available on record are not sufficient to decide the second contention of the assessee that even on merits, the disallowance was not correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) unfortunately has confirmed the disallowance in a summary manner by only relying on the decision of London Machinery Co. In our opinion, the issue requires somewhat detailed consideration at his hands. We, accordingly, set aside this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 67 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... . Rep. was that the order u/s 215 is not appealable and the interest was levied u/s. 215, there is no provision of appeal against such order. The CIT (Appeals) was justified in not entertaining the claim of the assessee. 14. We heard the rival contentions. During the course of hearing it was pointed out by the counsel of the assessee that the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in saying that the assessee has admitted the liability for the interest u/s. 215 of the Act. In fact, the assessee is not liable to pay interest u/s. 215 in view of these facts of the case. In our view when the assessee has not admitted the liability for the payment of interest chargeable u/s. 215, the CIT (Appeals) should decide the issue on merits. Accordingly we direct the CIT (Appeals) to hear the assessee and decide whether he is liable to pay interest or not and dispose of the matter accordingly on this issue. For this issue we remit the matter to the CIT (Appeals). 15. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 66 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Dividend, Accrual Of ... ... ... ... ..... ct or the Companies Act. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), namely, in the cases of E.D. Sassoon and Topandas Kundanmal clearly support the view of the authorities below and which we are taking in the instant case. The decision of the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon s case relied upon on behalf of the assessee as also Topandas Kundanmal s case, as rightly pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals), does not advance the case of the assessee any further. The scheme of the Income-tax Act postulates attraction of tax at the first stage of accrual, which in the instant case is on declaration of dividend and these aspects of the matter is fairly clear if we looked to the provisions of section 8 which by fiction of law provide that the income from dividend is income of the previous year in which the same is declared. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities below. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Prosecution of Partner - Complaint - Offence ... ... ... ... ..... sed the point that the petitioner is individually responsible for the alleged offence and therefore the prosecution should be allowed to proceed but the said contention is not warranted by the averments made in the petition of complaint and the evidence already disclosed goes to show that according to the prosecution case the alleged offences were committed by the Partnership firm and the petitioner is but one of the partners. I cannot therefore accept the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party. In view of the finding on the point that the prosecution is bad in law without the partnership firm being impleaded as an accused and cannot proceed, it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 5. In the result, I find that the application succeeds. The proceeding pending against the petitioner in Case No. 1807-C of 1972 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Howrah is quashed and the Rule is made absolute.
-
1981 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund of duty paid under mistake of law — Limitation for recovery of excise duty — Refund — `Reasonable diligence' — Estoppel — Writ jurisdiction — Limitation Act — Powers of High Court — Writ petition — Words and phrases — `Coercion' — Affidavit — Precedent
-
1981 (11) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Heat resistance stainless steel strips in coils of 48" width — Liability to duty —Classification & interpretation - Fiscal statutes
-
1981 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Match units misusing bona fide certificate ... ... ... ... ..... - In accordance with the advice of Government of India, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, has decided to procure with immediate effect 100 matches produced by the Cottage Match Units to whom the Commission has issued bona fide certificates (Contd..... 12) 2. All the certified Cottage Match Units are therefore advised to hand over their entire production to the Commission s procurement centres through their respective Associations/Institutions. 3. With this decision of the Commission no matches produced by the Certified Cottage Match units shall be marketed by the units directly outside the procurement channel of the Commission. Sd/- Director 29-1-1980 Though this circular is differently worded, the effect is the same as in the other writ petitions (mentioned above) and for the reasons stated by us, this writ petition is also allowed and the circular is quashed. But it is made clear that this order would have effect only for the period prior to 31-3-1980. No costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Exemption notification - Two constructions possible - Counter affidavit ... ... ... ... ..... f inner slide made out of card board is not generally resorted to for the reason that it is too thin and therefore too flexible. Of course, the learned counsel would not concede this. But having ourselves seen the inner slide, we think that that might have been the reason for the Government making such distinction between the use of card board for inner slide and the use of card board for outer slide. Any way, the reason may be anybody s guess. But the notification is plain and it does not cover the cases of outer slide alone being made of card board for exemption. Accordingly, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and they are dismissed. The rule nisis are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. 4. Though the interim injunctions granted pending the writ petitions will lapse along with the writ petitions by way of abundant caution, we vacate all the interim injunctions granted in these cases. The writ appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Valuation - Fan/Ceiling Fan - Trade discount - Uniformity not necessary - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, this contention deserves to be rejected. 12. In the circumstances stated above, the writ appeal is allowed to the extent of excise duty levied in respect of freight and cost of packing material and trade discount and the order in the Writ Petition is quashed to this extent. The order of the learned single Judge sustaining the levy of excise duty on the cost of regulator is hereby confirmed. The writ appeal is allowed partly. As the writ appeal is allowed substantially, the appellant will get costs. Advocate s fees Rs. 250. 13. Order The learned Counsel for the respondents moved an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave is granted to the extent the judgment is against the Central Government. Refund of excise duty is stayed for a period of three months. 14. Likewise, the learned Counsel for the appellant also moved an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave is granted to the extent of levy of excise duty on regulators.
-
1981 (11) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Water proof drawing ink - Liability to duty - Precedents - Tax Laws - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... on the basis of the Appellate Collector s order on the understanding that water proof drawing ink was non-excisable and even though respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioners for the subsequent period, the same has been set aside by the Appellate Collector by his order dated 16th October, 1979. 27. For the reasons stated above, the order issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division K, Bombay, on dated 5th May, 1978 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 77,434.43 P. filed by the petitioners in respect of the excise duty paid by them on their water proof drawing ink under Tariff Item 14-I(5), for the period from 11th February, 1966 to 2nd February, 1974. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 77,434 43 P. within a period of six weeks from today to the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, allowed and rule is made absolute with costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Value of clearances of goods manufactured - Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of alternate remedy
-
1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 and the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 are violative of the equality clause contained in art. 14 of the Constitution?
Held that:- The immunities provided by the impugned Act are clearly for the benefit of those who have acquired the bonds with black money. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s. 3(1) provide for these immunities "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ". Clause (a) states that no holder of Special Bearer Bonds shall be required to disclose for any purpose the nature and source of acquisition of the bonds. Clause (b) forbids commencement of any enquiry or investigation under any law against a person on the ground that he has subscribed to or otherwise acquired the bonds. Under cl. (c) the fact that a person has subscribed to or otherwise acquired the Special Bearer Bonds shall be inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into account in any proceeding relating to any offence or to the imposition of any penalty under any law. None of these immunities is required by a person who has paid "white" money, that is, money that has been accounted for, to acquire the bonds. To a person who has disclosed the source of acquisition of the bonds, these immunities are of no use. Section 4 makes it clear that the immunities conferred by the Act are of use only to those who have acquired the Bonds with unaccounted money.
Having held that the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981, and the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981, are invalid on the ground that they infringe art. 14 of the Constitution, do not find it necessary to consider whether the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981, is outside the Ordinance making power of the President under art. 123 of the Constitution.
-
1981 (11) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the hand, penalty cannot be imposed in respect of the share income from firms, where the assessee has disclosed in his return his interest in those firms. We may also point out that in case the wide interpretation convassed for by the counsel for department is accepted, all assessees, who are partners in firms, and who file their returns before the accounts of the firms are made up, may be caught in the net of cl. (iii). Such an interpretation would run counter to the intention of the Legislature as envisaged in s. 155(1) of the Act, which specifically talks of rectification on completed assessment of partners, on the assessment or reassessment of the firm. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee, and against the department. We may indicate that this will in no way affect the liability of the assessee for penalty in respect of his income from M/s. Anand Yarn and Co. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 250.
|
