|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 150 Records
-
1992 (6) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Import policy - Woollen/synthetic rags - Demurrage charges - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... attributable to the importers, the practice is to issue detention certificate by the Customs Collector and upon such certificate being issued the custodians have to consider the question of waiving the demurrage charges. It was also pointed out that such certificates have also been issued by the Customs Collector, Calcutta. In this view of the matter, when the writ petitions have been partly allowed and it is found that the imported items were detained by applying the standards of pre-mutilation, as contained in the Public Notice which has been declared to be illegal, the concerned Customs Collector may issue the detention certificates and thereupon the custodians may consider the question of waiving the amount of demurrage either wholly or partly depending upon the facts and circumstances in each case and taking into consideration the fact that the matters were pending before this Court. 29. The writ petitions are partly allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a party) held that, when a question has been decided in favour of the assessee or the Department by the High Court, the mere fact that a special leave petition from the judgment of the High Court is pending before the Supreme Court, will not, by itself, be a ground for allowing an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Because, until the question is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court would be ordinarily bound by its own earlier decision. It was pointed out to us that in Income-tax Application No. 277 of 1991 and Income-tax Application No. 274 of 1991, a rule which was issued under section 256(2) has been made absolute. These, however, are not speaking judgments and, therefore, it is difficult for us to treat them as precedents. In fact, Income-tax Application No. 277 of 1991 was decided ex parte as the assessee did not appear at the hearing of the application. In the premises, the rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the assessee within the meaning of section 60(2) of the Act read with the second proviso to section 34 of the Act. We are fortified in this view by the Full Bench decision of this court in Jacob v. Addl. Deputy Commr. of Agrl. I T. 1986 158 ITR 596. In this view of the matter, we hold that these two original petitions are not maintainable. They are dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners, Dr. K. B. Mohamed Kutty, prayed that the dismissal of these two original petitions shall not in any way affect or prejudice his right to assail the orders passed in revision under section 34(2) of the Act in a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. We make it clear that the dismissal of these petitions shall not in any way act as a bar or preclude the assessees from assailing the revisional orders in appropriate proceedings, including a petition that may be filed under article 226 of the Constitution. We make this position clear.
-
1992 (6) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... that, in all cases, though a similar question of law has been answered in an earlier case in a particular way, an identical question of law, arising in a later case would cease to be a referable one. In the light of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that no referable question of law arises out of the common order passed by the Tribunal. It may be that the question of law formulated is one governed by a Bench decision of this court. Even so, unless it is demonstrated that the decision on the question of law formulated is merely academic, or governed by any decision rendered by the Privy Council, or the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of India, it continues to be a referable question of law. In this view of the matter, we allow this batch of three original petitions and direct the Tribunal to refer the questions of law formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petitions, extracted hereinabove, to this court. The original petitions are allowed.
-
1992 (6) TMI 26 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 30, 1976, is correct. In the result, we answer the questions as follows (i) Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is correct. (ii) Question No. 2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this behalf is correct. (iii) Question No. 3 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) and the decision of the Tribunal in this behalf are correct. (iv) Question No. 4 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner and the decision of the Tribunal in this behalf are correct. The reference is disposed of as indicated above. A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. W. A. SHISHAK J. -I agree.
-
1992 (6) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Appeal To Tribunal, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... , it was unnecessary to conduct investigation to see whether the land is agricultural in nature. Question No. 2 This question is academic. Even if it turns out that the land transferred is agricultural land, since it is situate within the corporation/ municipal limits, the assessee cannot escape from the liability to pay tax on capital gains. We answer question No. 2 in the negative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3 On this question, we are of the view that, if the capital gains arose to the assessee on the sale of lands by him, which are situate within the municipal or corporation limits, it is certainly exigible for the levy of the said capital gains tax. We answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The references are answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... ove the source of the amounts of the cash credit entries made in January/March, 1980. Counsel for the assessee contended that the findings rendered by the Tribunal are findings of fact based on the evidence in the case. Counsel for the Revenue would, however, contend that the said findings of fact have been arrived at by misplacing the burden of proof on the Department. In the view that we have taken, it is unnecessary to go into this question and decide whether the findings rendered are mere findings of fact not liable to be challenged in a reference under section 256(1). No other points are raised before us. We are in agreement with the Appellate Tribunal in the view taken by it regarding the source of the cash credits in question. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... furnished the bank account. There is no statement that the bank account has not been produced and it is also not stated that there is no evidence before the first respondent, or the revisional authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner availed of a loan from any bank and that the amount has been given by way of loan to the private limited company. Therefore, exhibit P-2 in so far as it rejects the claim of the petitioner called for interference. I, therefore, quash exhibit P-2 in so far as it rejects the contention of the petitioner in respect of Rs. 1,20,000 added by the Income-tax Officer as deemed dividend in the income of the petitioner for the year 1984-85. The first respondent will take on file the revision petition of the petitioner, No. RP. 25/S. 264/87-88/ CIT(C) and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for exclusion of the income, namely, Rs. 1,20,000 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Original petition is allowed as above.
-
1992 (6) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ) or under section 28(iv). No definite finding has been rendered under either of these provisions. There has been no adequate consideration of the ingredients of the two sections or as to whether those ingredients have been satisfied justifying the Income-tax Officer s action in bringing the amount of Rs. 10,17,371 into the net of taxation. In the absence of any clear finding on these aspects under section 41(1) or under section 28(iv), we are not in a position to answer questions Nos.1 and 2 and leave the matter to be dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal afresh. We, therefore, decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 2. We answer question No. 3 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal shall deal with the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... s arose when old and unyielding rubber trees were sold. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. When it is held that no capital gains arose when old and unyielding rubber trees were sold, it is unnecessary to consider whether, when rubber trees were sold, it could be considered to be transfer of a capital asset so as to attract section 45 of the Income-tax Act. We are of the view that the said question is academic and we need not answer the said question since, on the larger canvas, we have held that when old worn out rubber trees were sold, no question of capital gain arises. We decline to answer the only question referred to this court at the instance of the assessee. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature o the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y error of law. We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative to the extent we hold that, on the language of section 251(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the first appellate authority has no power to set aside the order appealed against and order a remit with directions. The order passed by the Tribunal interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated December 30, 1983, is valid and justified. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and hold that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was infirm and that he has no power to set aside an order levying penalty with a direction to pass fresh orders. Both the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The income-tax reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Appeal To AAC, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... tified in holding that the appeals filed from the rectified assessment orders are maintainable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in holding that the appeals are not maintainable. We, therefore, hold that the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and remitting the matter, for fresh disposal. We answer both the questions referred to this court in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Before this court, the respondent/assessee was not represented. We requested Mr. Roy Chacko, advocate, to, assist us as amicus curiae. Counsel took enormous pains to find out authorities and place them before us. We place on record our appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Roy Chacko. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Kerala Agricultural Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum.
-
1992 (6) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... wards valuation of its properties is one wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and hence an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The matter was considered by this court at page 497 of the report. It was held that the amount having been expended on considerations of commercial expediency and sound business principles should be held to be expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Since the very decision relied on by the Appellate Tribunal has been upheld in the Bench decision of this court in Commonwealth Trust Ltd s case 1979 120 ITR 491 at page 497, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... 22 ITR 283 was followed by a Bench of this court in CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. 1984 149 ITR 112. The Bench decision aforesaid was followed by another Bench in CIT v. Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. 1987 165 ITR 174. What is more, the decision rendered in Simpson and Co. s case 1980 122 ITR 283 (Mad) has been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 378, dated March 3, 1984. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer was in error in cutting down the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act proportionate to the number of days worked in the accounting year. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The reference is answered as above.
-
1992 (6) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Firm, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... We heard counsel. A Bench of this court in CGT v. T. M. Luiz Kannamally 1989 180 ITR 257, had occasion to deal with a similar matter. In the said decision, it has been ruled that when a partner retires from a firm, there can only be readjustment of the rights between the retiring partner and the continuing partners in the assets of the partnership and no element of transfer is involved in the transaction. It was held that the transaction does not amount to a gift and no gift-tax is leviable. In the light of the above Bench decision of this court, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no deemed gift under section 4(1) read with section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. We answer the question referred to this court, in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Registrar shall send a copy of this Judgment, under his signature and seal of this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. 1990 185 ITR 398 and so the very foundation on which the Tribunal rendered the decision in these two cases has become non est. We are of the view that, in so far as the earlier decision relied on by the Tribunal, rendered in I. T. As. Nos. 243 to 248/(Coch) of 1977-78, has been set aside or not accepted by this court in I. T. Rs. Nos. 446 to 451 of 1985 ( 1990 185 ITR 398 ), the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in the present cases cannot be upheld. We decline to answer the questions referred to this court by the Tribunal, but, at the same time direct the Tribunal to restore the appeals to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law and the decision of this court in Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. s case 1990 185 ITR 398. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (6) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ject of sub-clause (iii) of clause (m) of section 2 is to eliminate indulgence to a defaulter under the tax law. The Legislature disapproves such conduct on the part of a taxpayer. Therefore, conformably with the object of this provision, the action of the Wealth-tax Officer warrants support. But such intention-seeking construction is not possible here in view of the words which clearly exclude the scope of such construction so as to bring into the net of the provision even a defaulter withholding the money of the public exchequer collected by way of tax deduction. If we are to attribute to the provision, as worded, such intention, we have to add to or alter the language of the provision. The said sub-clause as worded does not admit of such intention-seeking construction. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to this court by the Tribunal in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1992 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not approved by the House of Lords in Cassell and Co. Ltd. v. Broome 1972 1 All ER 801, wherein the House of Lords disapproved the judgment of the Court of Appeal treating an earlier judgment of the House of Lords as per incuriam. Lord Hailsham observed (at page 809) It is not open to the Court of Appeal to give gratuitous advice to judges of first instance to ignore decisions of the House of Lords in this way. It is recognised that the rule of per incuriam is of limited application and will be applicable only in the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, when learned single judge or a Division Bench doubts the correctness of an otherwise binding precedent, the appropriate course would be to refer the case to a Division Bench or Full Bench, as the case may be, for an authoritative pronouncement on the question involved as indicated above. The above-said two questions are answered as indicated above. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... adopting only the yield method ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is not mandatory ? These questions are to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue following the decision of this court rendered in CWT v. S. Jindal 1992 194 ITR 539. Mr. Ramabhadran, learned counsel, is permitted to file his vakalath within a month from today.
-
1992 (6) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads, drains and culverts ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of subsidiary should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of determining depreciation and investment allowance ? The second question is covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 23. Following the said decision, the second question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The third question is also covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Diamond Dies Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. 1988 172 ITR 655. Consequently, the third question is also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In view of the above answers, the first question has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
....
|
