|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 590 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has declared income of ₹ 99,960 on the total receipt of ₹ 19,41,233 in the original return filed on 18-5-1992. In the second return filed after detection by the Assessing Officer, the assessee disclosed total receipts at ₹ 24,31,183. The Assessing Officer estimated the net profit at the rate of 6.5 on total payments of ₹ 24,31,183. The assessed income on the basis of facts seems to be very low by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has clearly concealed the particulars of income by under-stating the total amount received by it in the return of income filed on 18-5-1992. The assessee has not given any explanation with evidence and, therefore, the assessee is liable to penalty. The CIT (A) has not considered the legal provisions while cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) is reversed and the order of the Assessing Officer are confirmed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 589 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s defined in the Explanation to section 194-I. If TDS results in hardship and financial burden on the recipient, the Parliament itself has made provision in section 197 for obtaining certificate for deduction at lower rate or no deduction of income-tax. Section 197 relating to certificate for deduction of income-tax at lower rate or for no deduction of income-tax in appropriate cases has been amended to include income by way of ‘rent’ within the scope of the said section. Therefore, it is open for the 1st petitioner to make necessary application under section 197 if there is any justification or hardship for it to do so. In conclusion, we hold that the charges paid to the 1st petitioner-company by its customers like the respondents 4 and 5, for use and occupation of the hotel rooms should be regarded as ‘rent’ within the meaning of section 194-I. 21. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (6) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as mentioned in the above discussion. Therefore, the trial Court has landed in error in recording the finding of conviction which resulted in sentence against the appellant. 13. The failure of compliance of important provisions of law if taken together wholly, has resulted in failure of justice. Therefore, it cannot be said to have been proved that the appellant was found in possession of the said sabnam bag which was containing 2.5 kgs of charas. Thus, the appeal will have to be allowed and it stands allowed by passing the following order. 14. The appeal stands allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted and he be set at liberty if not required for any enquiry, investigation, proceeding or trial. No interference in respect of the order of disposal of the property passed by the trial Court. 15. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.
-
2002 (6) TMI 587 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent No. 3, specially of the notified party joining hands with applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 3 must be deprecated and nipped in the bud lest the other notified parties or judgment debtors indulge in similar tacticts to victimise creditor banks, the Custodian and for that purpose use Court proceedings i.e. process of law in such mischievous manner. I am therefore inclined to saddle heavy costs, which would include exemplary (special) costs. Taking into consideration that the final hearing went on for 9 days, I am inclined to saddle costs of ₹ 3 lakhs on the applicants. Out of the costs recovered, 2/3rd shall be paid to respondent-No. 1 G.T.B. and 1/3rd shall be paid to respondent No. 2 custodian. Applicants and rest of the respondents shall bear their costs. Applicants are given one month's time to pay the costs. The draft amendments dated 26.4.2002 claimed by the applicants are rejected. 59. Application is dismissed with the aforesaid order as to costs.
-
2002 (6) TMI 586 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... account prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act - Accounts scrutinised and certified by statutory auditors - Assessing Officer has no power to scrutinise except as provided in Explanation. In view of the above law declared by the Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal cannot stand. Hence, we set aside the order of the Tribunal passed in all these cases and remand the case back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, if necessary, remand the case back to the lower authorities. 2. The ITA and ITRs are disposed of as above.
-
2002 (6) TMI 585 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... The quantum of penalty has already been reduced by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner does not appear to have any submission to make over the amount of penalty ultimately imposed by the Deputy Commissioner. No document challenging the market value of the goods has been submitted. So the amount of penalty as ultimately imposed in revision by the respondent Deputy Commissioner is upheld. Both the issues therefore are decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 10.. We therefore hold that the order of seizure as well as penalty is valid and lawful and accordingly application should be dismissed. It is ordered that the application be and the same is dismissed on contest. Parties do bear their respective costs. Cash if deposited as per order dated January 31, 2000 in RN-23/ 2000 be adjusted against the penalty amount and the bank guarantee if furnished be invoked for the balance of amount. 11.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 584 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal when the application under section 5 was made. But unfortunately section 4A was brought by way of amendment with effect from July 12, 2000. No retrospective effect was given to the said provision as inserted by amendment by adding this new provision under section 4A. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit as claimed. 11.. Regard being had to all aspects of this case before us, we hold that the applicant had no eligibility when it filed the application praying for settlement before that forum under the Settlement Act of 1999. The order impugned dismissing the prayer for settlement as made by the designated authority as such suffers from no illegality. The order accordingly cannot but be sustained. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated September 4, 2000 passed by respondent No. 2. In the result the application is dismissed. No order is made as to cost. 12.. D. BHATTACHARYA (Technical Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 583 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of respondent No. 1 imposing penalty under section 72 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 are not sustainable in law and as such require to be set aside. 10.. The application therefore succeeds. The order of detention dated March 11, 2001 and the order dated March 13, 2001 by the respondent No. 1 imposing penalty are set aside. The cash security furnished in this case and case No. RN-142 of 2001 be returned or refunded to the applicant. This order governs also case No. RN-142 of 2001. 11.. D. Bhattacharyya (Technical Member). - I agree. 28.6.2002 Judgment is ready and delivered in open court and kept in a separate sheet along with the record of this case. The application succeeds. Later After the above order is passed, the learned State Representative Mr. J.K. Goswami prays for stay of the order to which other side has objection. We find no reason for which the operation of the order should be stayed. With due consideration the prayer stands rejected. Application allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 582 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity and character throughout the process and also in the end-product those which, as a result of interaction with other chemicals or ingredients, might themselves undergo chemical or qualitative changes and in such altered form find themselves in the end-product those which, like catalytic agents, while influencing and accelerating the chemical reactions, however, may themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent of and outside the end-products and those, as here, which might be burnt up or consumed in the chemical reactions . According to us, the above observations show that even if chemical retains its identity, it can be said to be used as raw material. 5.. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that nickel catalyst can be treated as a raw material. We set aside the orders of the authorities and direct the assessing authority to complete the assessment as per the directions in the judgment. Tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 581 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... during the concerned period. If the petitioner by force of law is liable to pay sales tax in respect of the transactions effectuated, whether before or after the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A.K. Anwars case 1998 108 STC 258, it cannot avoid that liability solely on the ground that it did not collect sales tax on the sales made by it from the purchaser. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay sales tax even in respect of sales transactions entered into between it and the exporter even before November 27, 1997, which is the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A.K. Anwars case 1998 108 STC 258. 30.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we uphold the constitutional validity of the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (4-C) of section 14 and section 20 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. We do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 580 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Akshya Industries 1996 29 VKN 142 wherein it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay penalty under section 45-B of the Act even if it has recovered tax from the customers. Accordingly we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4.. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Board of Revenue with reference to their reference No. 72-PBR/91 arising from the order dated July 19, 1991 passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 2091 of 1988. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
2002 (6) TMI 579 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctics of sitting over the files, keeping the matters pending without any reason has to be severely dealt with and therefore it is directed that the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (respondent No. 2) will personally look into the matter as to why the application for form XXXI moved by the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned officer after almost one month. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, will ensure that a decision is taken on the application of the petitioner for issuing form XXXI within two days of the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner. 5.. The Commissioner, Trade Tax (respondent No. 2) will also call for information from all the Trade Tax Officers about pendency of the application for form XXXI and if the applications have been pending for more than 48 hours in any case without any adequate reason, administrative action may be taken by the Commissioner, Trade Tax against the officers concerned. Petition disposed of.
-
2002 (6) TMI 578 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... planation IV to section 2(e) of the Act as ultra vires, it is not necessary for us to declare that part of the provision as ultra vires and that provision could be made use by the department in case such persons or bodies undertake any business activity as defined under section 2(1)(bbb) of the Act. 29.. Though the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes urged for dismissal of W.P. No. 1828 of 2002 on the ground of nonavailing statutory remedies, we are not persuaded to agree with the submission, since we have declared that the respondents have no authority to rope in the transaction of the petitioner referred to above for levying tax under the net of A.P. General Sales Tax Act. 30.. For all the reasons, we set aside the demand notices impugned in W.P. No. 3566 of 2001 and W.P. No. 1828 of 2002 and consequently allow the writ petitions in the above terms, however in the circumstances, without costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 577 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as an inter-State sale it is immaterial whether the property in the goods passes in one State or another. 27.. In the premise of the established facts, the position in law noticed above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the movement of the goods to the branches from Hyderabad were in pursuance of and incidental to the pre-existing orders received by the petitioner from the UIL. Therefore, the transactions are clearly inter-State sales and not branch transfers as claimed by the assessee. 28.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Tribunal Appeal No. 712 of 1987 dated March 30, 1990 affirming the concurrent finding of the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle II, Hyderabad, and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Hyderabad-I Division, Hyderabad, is upheld and the revision is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 576 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Central Sales Tax Act where the goods are delivered to carrier, the movement of goods shall be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery and terminate only at the point of time when the delivery is taken from such carrier. On the facts of the case, we hold that the movement of the goods from this State to the State of West Bengal did not terminate until the subsequent buyer took delivery of the goods. 9.. We also find that the ratio of the decision of this Court in Thavakkal Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 47 STC 179, would apply to the facts of the case where a similar question was considered by this Court and this Court held that a similar transaction would attract the provisions of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Following the decision, we hold that the sale effected by the petitioner was an inter-State sale and was liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. We dismiss the revision petition. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 575 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nk guarantee, etc. 12.. The circular on the basis of which demand was made is of the year 1955 (annexure-A) and this is in the field for more than 45 years. There is no allegation/pleading that it violates the provisions of Sales Tax Act and/or Rules. This measure is basically to prevent evasion of sales tax and/or for better collection of revenue. It is not understood how it violates any of the right of a person. The court has a duty to prevent evasion of taxes, it cannot put a premium on wrong doing. 13.. The Registrar General is directed to place all the matters in the next week before this division Bench so that uniform order can be passed in all the similar matters. 14.. Send a copy of this order to Registrar-General and to Advocate-General, Assam. 15. In the present case, no stay order can be passed as prayed for and as such, the prayer for stay shall stand rejected, as nothing was shown to us in the present case that demand/levy of tax is illegal. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 574 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . If on the given facts, the power under section 18 was attempted to be exercised but subsequently abandoned, it is not understood how on the same set of facts the power under section 36 can be exercised. The powers under both the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, namely sections 18 and 36 operate in two different fields and is vested into two different authorities. To permit the revisional authority to exercise power under section 36 in the facts of the instant case would be to permit the said authority to trench upon the powers of the primary authority under section 18 of the Act. Such a situation has been disapproved by the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company 1965 16 STC 875 (SC). 5.. In view of the above decision, the impugned notice dated February 5, 1996 (annexure II) and the suo motu revisional order dated April 29, 1996 (annexure III) are set aside and quashed. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 573 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ivil Rule, No. 569 of 1993, should be remanded to the file of the learned single Judge for decision afresh in the matter by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated March 29, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 569 of 1993 is hereby set aside thus remanding the writ petition to the file of the learned single Judge who shall hear the writ petition afresh and dispose of the same within a period of one month from today in accordance with law. We made this observation keeping in view the fact that the writ petition is of the year 1993. As agreed to by the learned counsel for both the parties Civil Rule No. 569 of 1993 be listed for hearing on June 17, 2002. 8.. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above order. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to do the needful in terms of this judgment and order. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 572 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... years from August 14, 2000, the petitioner is required to pay such additional differential entertainment tax. 11.. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, I make the following order ORDER (i) Order annexure S dated January 21, 2001, passed by the third respondent Entertainment Tax Officer, Sindhanur, is hereby quashed. (ii) The third respondent is directed to grant exemption for a period of three years, from payment of entertainment tax equal to the amount payable by the petitioner from August 14, 2000, in terms of the notification dated October 30, 1996, from the date subsequent to the date of passing of this order, to be fixed by the third respondent. However the third respondent shall comply with the direction given above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12.. In terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is issued and made absolute. However, no order is made as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 571 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndhra Pradesh and it is not a turnover liable to be taxed under the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act in Tamil Nadu is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has considered the assessment order made by the assessing officer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and on that basis, recorded a finding that the sale was effected from Andhra Pradesh and it was not an inter-State sale. 6.. We find that the said finding is based on material as the Tribunal has drawn its inference from the order of assessment made on the dealer under the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to hold that the sale was an intra-State sale in that State and not an inter-State sale emanated from this State. Since the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is based on material, we do not find that any question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for our consideration. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
