|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 217 Records
-
1980 (2) TMI 77 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Pencil Line Filter Driers ... ... ... ... ..... reply sent by them vide their letter dated 18-10-1978 where they had confirmed that the application of Pencil Line Filter Drier having silicagel and/or molecular sieve is in refrigerators and room conditioners only to arrest the moisture in the cooling line. 4. Government of India have carefully considered the written and oral submissions. Government agree that there are different types of pencil with different uses and accept the petitioners contentions that in so far as the impugned goods are concerned their predominant if not exclusive use lies in refrigerating and air-conditioner and this is evident not only from their pamphlet but also from the letters of the D.G.T.D. and Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, New Delhi. Government accordingly order that the Pencil Line Filter Drier in question manufactured by the petitioners and which find predominant use in refrigerators and air-conditioners are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 29A, Central Excise Tariff.
-
1980 (2) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Sensitised Paper - Tariff Item 37C - Scope - Carbon Tissue paper ... ... ... ... ..... r ammonium dichromate for photo-mechanical engraving etc. The developed photographic paper board on cloth actually fall under Chapter 49, Section 11 of CCCN. The basic fact thus remains that after treatment with Dichromate solution the photo-gravue pigment paper becomes a distinct product which is sensitive to light. The applicants argument that the paper acts as a career because the paper is thrown away after the impugned product is exposed and developed, cannot be accepted on the ground that the development is a subsequent stage of processing of impugned product. Hence the process of separation of the film and the paper after the stage of exposure and development cannot be taken into consideration for this purpose. 6. Government therefore hold that the impugned product has been correctly treated as sensitised paper under Tariff Item No. 37C(2) and the order-in-appeal is maintainable in law does not warrant any interference. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (2) TMI 75 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Chapter X procedure - Buyer - Liability as to excise duty ... ... ... ... ..... ve a copy. His contention was that if the petitioner or the consignee had been informed of these formalities earlier they would certainly have complied with those formalities. He, therefore, prayed that a realistic view of the matter may be taken so long as there was no evidence that the petitioners had mala fides. 4. Govt. observe that the Asstt. Collector has not controverted the fact of filing the classification list dated 3-6-1974 by the petitioners. So long as the requirements of Chapter X procedure are followed in substance to the satisfaction of the authorities, as seen in this case, there is no reason why the petitioners should be denied the benefit of Notification No. 154/70 for which they qualify having record to the use to which the impugned goods are put. In any case the liability of the manufacturer cannot be passed on to the user. In view of the above, order-in-appeal is set aside and revision application is allowed with consequential relief to the petitioners.
-
1980 (2) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Distribution cost and Equalised freight - Exclusion of post ... ... ... ... ..... ve to be substantiated by the Petitioners before the appropriate authority, if necessary, by producing the account books or such other evidence that the Petitioners may desire to produce in support of their contention that Rs. 1.50 was the freight uniformly charged to the wholesalers and the retailers. 9. Both the parties agree that the matter may be remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who will now go into the quantum of the freight which, according to the Petitioners, was charged to the wholesalers and retailers. The Petitioners will then be entitled to a deduction of the amount so determined, subject of course to their right of appeal, if any for the purpose of determining the assessable value on which the Petitioners will be liable to pay excise duty. 10. Rule absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition except that no order for refund of the amount is possible in the view we have taken. The Petitioners would be entitled to the costs of the petition.
-
1980 (2) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Estate Duty Act, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... he licence. In the circumstances, the right to carry on such a business did not create a goodwill, any share of which could, on the death of a partner, pass on to his heirs or legal representatives. Goodwill is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of business. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that in a case where the business was being done under a licence or under an agency agreement which was not transferable and which was for a short period and which could be cancelled at the sweet will of the grantor, there was no such benefit or advantage which a person carrying on that business derived because of the good name, reputation or connection in the business and, as such, the two firms did not have any goodwill. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. As no one has appeared on behalf of the accountable person, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 72 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Question Of Law, Right To Receive, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... 49, under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, of the State of Madras. Another case on the point which may be noted is Joyanarayan Panigrahi v. CIT 1974 93 ITR 102 (Orissa), wherein it was observed that if income has accrued during a particular year, it is not open either to the assessee or the ITO to take that income into consideration in any other year. This was a case of interest on compensation for acquisition of land and the interest was paid for a number of years in one lump. In these circumstances, it was held that the interest accrued in each year. As already stated above, interest accrued to the assessee in the present case also in each year under sub-s. (2) of s. 26 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be well-settled, and no useful purpose would be served by calling for a reference. Accordingly, this application is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, IAC To Levy Penalty, Penalty Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, enlarging the period of limitation to two years commencing from the end of the finacial year in which the assessment order was passed. It was held that the prescription of the period of limitation being a matter of procedure, any amendment in this regard will be retrospective in the sense that it will apply to all those matters which are pending and which had not become closed or dead on the date the amendment takes effect. The assessment order was passed on 1st of March, 1972. It will be the amended provision of s. 275 which will apply. The filing of the return on 26th of February, 1971, was immaterial. In the result, we answer the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee and the second question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (2) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, Litigation Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... of the Indian Companies Act was allowed in part, it was held that there was hardly any justification for the company feeling that its very existence was threatened by some of the shareholders by filing an application under s. 153C. The company s continued existence was not in jeopardy. The expense cannot hence be held to be an allowable one except the expenditure incurred in the audit directed by the court or the holding of the meeting which was also directed to be held by the orders of the court. This decision is inapplicable to the present case. Here the finding is, with which we agree, that the effect of the litigation was to put the conduct of the business affairs of the company in jeopardy. In order to save the business the company was obliged to defend the suit. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Transport Business ... ... ... ... ..... ery. It only refers to the user of the plant, etc., in the business. This also indicates that so far as the allowance for normal depreciation allowance is concerned, it does not depend upon the actual working of the machinery. It is sufficient if the machinery in question is employed by the assessee for the purposes of the business and for no other business and it is kept by him ready for actual use in the profit making apparatus the moment a need arises. The test is satisfied in the present case. For the reasons abovementioned, we are of opinion that the assessee in the present case was entitled to grant of depreciation in respect of the four buses which were kept ready for use throughout the previous year although they were not actually used for more than 30 days. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1980 (2) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Original Assessment
-
1980 (2) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Export Business, Import Entitlements, Mercantile System, Previous Year, Set Off
-
1980 (2) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Purchase Price, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he Govt. was prepared to sell the property to the assessee. The original lease deed has not been produced and there is nothing to show that the lease deed itself contained a clause whereunder the assessee was entitled to purchase the land with a liability to pay interest for delay in paying the price. On the other hand it seems that the Govt. agreed to sell the land only in 1959-60 and that the payment in question, though described as interest, is only part of the price at which the Govt. was prepared to sell. I would, therefore, express no opinion on the question, (a) whether, if the payments were in the nature of interest on purchase price, they would be disallowable, and (b) what effect the fact mentioned to us by the counsel for the assessee at the hearing and not forming part of the case, that eventually the whole transaction of sale has fallen through, would have on the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest on accrual basis. Question answered in the negative.
-
1980 (2) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Gratuity Reserve, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e of opinion that the receipt of annuity by a person, as the karta of an erstwhile family, is a receipt by a depositor within the meaning of s. 280D. In either view, it is a repayment due under the provisions of the Act or Scheme that has been received and it is chargeable in its entirety in the hands of such depositor in view of s. 2(24)(viii). However, having regard to the partition that has taken place, it is only the amount referable to the assessee s share on partition that has been assessed here and, hence, he can have no real grievance against the assessment. We are, therefore, of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the negative and by saying that not only the interest element but also the principal element of the annuity to the extent of the share of the assessee in the family deposits was taxable in his hands. We answer the question accordingly. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Question answered in the negative.
-
1980 (2) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Market Value, Rent Control ... ... ... ... ..... r a total consideration of Rs. 9,16,980. This was as against the amount of Rs. 6,92,600 which the transferee had spent in acquiring and renovating this property and getting its user converted into commercial one. There was of course a profit gained of over Rs. 2,20,000 within about a period of one year. However, it cannot be ignored that at that time the transferee had succeeded in obtaining vacant possession which naturally raised the value of the property considerably. Furthermore, the sales were to 20 different parties of small portions therein. Naturally such parties would have been willing to pay better price for small portions than a single buyer effecting purchase of the entire property. Here it may be mentioned that it was not shown from the side of the revenue that those sales to different buyers were also sought to be acquired under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The result, therefore, is that we dismiss these appeals leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Fair Market Value, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Valuation Officer
-
1980 (2) TMI 62 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Foreign Company, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... gone to the extent of calling for reconsideration of the decision in Ricketts case 1925 10 TC 118 (HL). Hence, if the decision in Ricketts case can be distinguished by the House of Lords itself in England, there is no reason why it should continue to dominate the thinking on this particular subject in India. In any event, once we come to the conclusion that the living allowance was by way of reimbursement to the assessee,the further question does not arise. In view of our conclusions set out above, it is clear that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in both cases were correct but the reasoning which has appealed to us is different from the reasoning which appealed to the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (2) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... case is ex facie distinguishable. Similarly, the decision of the Bombay High Court in K. C. Tiwari Sons v. CIT 1962 46 ITR 236 is inapplicable. The assessee had admitted service of notice. He had appeared and asked for an adjournment. Thereafter he was debarred from pleading lack of service. No such situation has arisen in our case. In C. N. Nataraj v. Fifth ITO 1965 56 ITR 250 (Mys), it was held that service on the clerk of the assessee s father who was not an authorised agent, was invalid. We are satisfied that delivery of the notice on Sri R. K. Rastogi was not a valid service of the assessment order on the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal was within time. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department, while question No. 2 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (2) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Gratuity Reserve, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... as reserve but the case did not concern a gratuity reserve .These two decisions no doubt give a wide meaning to the expression known liability but, for reasons already discussed, we do not think this is justified in the context of the Super Profits Tax Act. For the above reasons, we would follow the majority of decisions on this subject and hold that the amounts set apart by the assessee to meet its liability for gratuity will be a reserve, as such setting apart has not been the result of an ascertainment by it of the present value of such future liability. The Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3,35,000 represented reserves which should be treated as part of the capital for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. But, having regard to the fact that the reference involves a difficult issue, we are of opinion that the parties should bear their own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Mercantile System, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... ich the assessee had deposited had been forfeited in the previous year on account of the breach of contract by the assessee. Thus, although the assessee in that case had contested the liability and took proceedings for recovery of security amount, that was inconsequential, for, the loss has already been suffered by the assessee by forfeiture of the security in the relevant previous year. Such is not the case here, for, the demand made by M/s. Escorts Ltd. during the relevant previous year did not fructify as it was resisted by the assessee, and it was only when the previous year had run out that the claim was admitted for the reduced amount. The deduction, as such, could not have been allowed as the liability did not arise in the relevant previous year. We, accordingly, answer, the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1980 (2) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... was whether the ITO ought to have allowed the claim during the course of assessment proceedings even if the same had not been made initially in the return. In the present case, the situation is different. Here, rectification under s. 154 was claimed. In Vithaldas v. ITO 1969 71 ITR 204, a Bench of this court observed that if a mistake has been brought to the notice of the officer by the assessee, it is the duty of the officer to rectify. it. There can be no quarrel with the proposition but here no mistake apparent on the face of the record was committed by the officer. The mistake, if any, was by the assessee in not making the claim. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prayed for a certificate under art. 133(1) read with art. 134A of the Constitution. In our opinion, no substantial question of law, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, arises. We, accordingly, reject this prayer.
....
|
