|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1268 Records
-
1977 (12) TMI 39 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... comply with the obligation placed on him by various laws on the land. We inquired of the Deptl. Rep. as to whether it is a fact that the appellant-assessee was represented all long by the IT Practitioner mentioned by him and the ld. Deptl. Rep. conceded that it was fact. In the circumstances, when the assessee entrusts the matters to his regular IT Practitioner which, it cannot be said, is an unreasonable step taken by a man of prudence particularly as the complexity of the IT law requires expert advice and specialised knowledge and the latter fails to take the necessary steps required in this connection to ensure proper compliance, it must be held that the assessee had reasonable cause for having not filed the return within the prescribed time and the default is not on account of any wilful or gross neglect or on account of flagrant violation of law. We, therefore, cancel the penalty and direct refund of the amount of penalty, if already collected. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 38 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... member to the family. The High Court found that there was no material for the finding of the Tribunal and sent the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh finding after necessary enquiry. It, however, rejected the Department s contention that the view of the Tribunal that the assessee could validly constitute a family as known to Hindu law along with his widowed mother and unmarried daughter was erroneous because the finding was not challenged by the Department in the reference. It may be mentioned in passing in this connection that the assessee s date of birth in the present case is 1st July, 1927. 9. On a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and authorities referred to above, we are convinced that the income from the property falling to the shares of the assessee is assessable in the hands of a HUF consisting of himself and his daughter and therefore was rightly excluded from his individual assessment. 10. The appeal in the circumstances stands dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 37 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... mber to the family. The High Court found that there was no material for the finding of the Tribunal and sent the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh finding after necessary enquiry. It, however, rejected the Department s contention that the view of the Tribunal that the assessee could validly constitute a family as known to Hindu law along with his widowed mother and unmarried daughter was erroneous because the finding was not challenged by the Department in the reference. It may be mentioned in passing in this connection that the assessee s date of birth in the present case is 1st July, 1927. 9. On a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and authorities referred to above, we are convinced that the income from the property falling to the shares of the assessee is assessable in the hands of an HUF consisting of himself and his daughter and therefore was rightly excluded from his individual assessment. 10. The appeal in the circumstances stands dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 36 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... urged that when both the provisions were introduced by the same Finance Act, it could not have been the intention of the legislature to provide for an obligation in an earlier year and provide for penalty for default only after lapse of some period, i.e. not providing for any penalty for defaults in the first year. 11. In our view, however, the provisions are clear. Default has been committed on 15th March, 1970 as that was the last day by which the assessee had to file the estimate under s.212(3A).s.273(c) provides for penalty for not filing estimate. However, s. 273(c) came on the Statute Book only from 1st April, 1970 and hence on the date when the offence was committed, there was no provision for any penalty. We, therefore, accept Shri Desai s contention that the penalty could not be imposed under s.273(c) for default committed on 15th March, 1970. We allow the appeal on this ground and hence we do not deal with the aspect of the reasonable cause. The appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Excisable goods ... ... ... ... ..... Section 2(d) of the Act. We are in respectful agreement with this view. In the present case also, once this product was exempted from Excise duty, the quantity of such product manufactured by the petitioner could not be taken into account even for computing the aggregate quantity of excisable paints manufactured by it for the purpose of determining the appropriate slab rate of Excise duty. Hence, the petitioner s claim that the quantity of Paint P.U.F. Marking Black and White manufactured by it should not have been included by the Central Excise authorities in determining the total quantity of paints manufactured by it, should be upheld. 13. In the result, we allow this petition, quash the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector of Central Excise and the Central Government. We issue a mandamus directing the Central Excise authorities to refund to the petitioner Rs. 965.66 P. 14 In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Confiscation and penalty - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... Section 123 (2) of the Act, the burden of proof was on the Department to show both the foreign origin and the illicit transport of the goods. But we have noticed that Exts. P-3 and P-4 orders were rested on a discussion of the evidence and circumstances and not on any abstract notions of burden of proof. The scope of this doctrine of burden of proof and its applicability to adjudications under the Customs Act have recently been examined and clarified by the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhooramal - 1983 E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.) (AIR 1974 S.C. 859). The decision is quite revealing and instructive. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and on our analysis of the orders of adjudication Exts. P-3 and P-4 we are unable to sustain the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge. 3. We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O.P. No. 2277 of 1974 will stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 33 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... tyre and curing them, the operation is akin to the process of retreading in the case of any other tyre in the case of a tractor the lug forms parts of the tread. Under the circumstances, the Vaculag is a product assessable under Central Excise Tariff Item 16A(2). The revision application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1977 (12) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Classification - Exemption - Greaseproof paper - Mistake - Tariff ruling - Refund - Writ petition - Writ jurisdiction - Existence of
-
1977 (12) TMI 31 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.V.C. laminated wall paper ... ... ... ... ..... n Nos. 208/67 and 47/63 do not apply to the goods in question as coated paper has been specifically excluded from the purview of the notifications and laminated paper is in fact a variety of coated paper only. Government however, observe in this connection that the provisions of Notification No. 27/74-C.E., dated 1-3-1974 are applicable to the laminated paper in question and all other corresponding notifications would equally apply. Under these notification converted types of papers as specified under the notification are exempt from payment of duty provided on the base paper appropriate duty of excise or C.V.D. has already been paid. In the circumstances, Government are of the view that the P.V.C. laminated wall paper would be classifiable under Item 17(2) of the CET and would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 27/74-C.E., dated 1-3-1974 or similar notification, namely, 68/76. Subject to this modification to the appellate order, the R.A. is otherwise rejected.
-
1977 (12) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Baggage Rules - Rule 5 - Calculating machine for research purposes - Jurisdiction - Question not raised in counter affidavit - Scope
-
1977 (12) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Cotton fabrics - Term Duck ... ... ... ... ..... complaint of the Company was that the samples originally sent was not correctly examined. The Appellate Collector was, hence, justified in rejecting this report. The petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance at this conclusion. 16. It was then urged that in common parlance the fabric manufactured by the petitioner Company are called as Do-Suti and Dedh-Suti and it was not known as Duck . There is hardly any decision on this point. There are certain dictionary meanings but they did not establish this assertion. On the other hand the technical literature defining the term Duck and Canvas , which is well known to the Textile Industry show that cloth popularly known as Do-Suti and Dedh-Suti in technical terminology are not distinguishable from Duck . 17. We are, hence, not satisfied that any of the point raised by the learned Counsel who argued with ability and conciseness has any force. The petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Commissioner To Reduce Or Waive Penalty, Reduction Or Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... uation of the old firm. The learned counsel for the revenue would, however, point out that since one of the partners is common, section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, squarely applies. We do not see how the existence of a common partner, in the circumstances of the case, will attract the said section. The existence of a common partner may arise on different contingencies. But the contingency of the partnership ceasing to exist on most of the partners except one retiring from the partnership and a new partnership coming into existence with the remaining partner and others does not fall within the purview of section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this view, we have to set aside the impugned order. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Income-tax Officer to make separate assessments for the said two periods on two different entities. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (rupees two hundred and fifty only).
-
1977 (12) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust ... ... ... ... ..... hold that the revenue has an option to tax in the hands of the beneficiary under a discretionary trust the amount actually received by him from the trustees in the course of the previous year in exercise of their discretion. In this view of the matter, I am unable to subscribe to the view that the observations in the said two cases do not lay down the correct law and that the income actually received by a beneficiary under the discretionary trust in the course of the previous year is only assessable in the hands of the representative assessee. I, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the revenue. ORDER OF THE COURT In view of the majority opinion, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (12) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Cash Credits, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... While giving this finding the Tribunal also noticed conflicts between the decisions of the Delhi High Court on the one hand and the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts on the other, on the point whether the declared amounts can also be treated as income of someone other than the person who made the disclosures. The question whether the amounts standing as credits in the accounts of a firm were genuine or bogus is one of fact. In the instant case, the final fact-finding Tribunal has given a firm finding that the amounts shown as cash credits did belong to certain other bona fide investors. If, while giving such a finding, the Appellate Tribunal also incidentally decides a question of law, it does not imply that the said question of law also arises out of the decision given by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we hold that these are not fit cases in which the Tribunal should be called upon to state questions of law for our decision. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1977 (12) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e the revenue authorities and the necessary facts for giving a proper answer to the same brought on record. In the case before us, it appears that the question in this special or exceptional form was not urged before the lower authorities and the necessary material is, therefore, not on the record. Mr. Munim submitted that this would be merely an aspect of the question referred to us. But we are unable to accept such submission. It is the admitted position that the orders determining the liability of the company for payment of super-tax were not passed for either of the two companies on the valuation date which was material for the purposes of arriving at a proper valuation of these shares as far as the assessee is concerned and, in our view, therefore, such provision for a possible liability was not deductible. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner the costs of the reference.
-
1977 (12) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Full Bench, High Court, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ull Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Visakha Flour Mills 1977 108 ITR 466, which, after considering one Full Bench decision of this court, has taken a view contrary to that taken by this court. Counsel for the parties have not been able to invite our attention to any case of the Supreme Court, which has settled the point sought to be raised in this application. In view of the fact that there is conflict of opinion between the two High Courts on the question sought to be raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, which does not stand concluded by any authority of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that no statable question of law arises from out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. In the result, the application is allowed with costs. The Tribunal shall state the case in respect of the aforementioned questions of law and refer the same for the opinion of this court. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 100.
-
1977 (12) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Mercantile System, Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e assessment year 1963-64, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 21,704 paid as sales tax by the assessee was not allowable as a deduction in computing the income for the assessment year 1963-64 ? The sum of Rs. 21,704 was one of the instalments that was paid by the assessee during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64. In view of the above discussion it is evident that the quantification of the liability of sales tax was made much earlier, and not in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64. Hence, it was not an allowable deduction. The Tribunal was justified in refusing it. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... all be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, if it, in substance and effect, is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. This section was introduced into the Act with effect from 1st October, 1975. To us it appears that this section is not retrospective in its operation. It will hence not govern the return filed prior to its coming into force. Prior to the introduction of this section the legal position, as expressed by various High Courts, was that a defective return was an invalid return and could be ignored by the Income-tax Officer. This provision makes a clear departure from the pre-existing legal position. For that reason also it cannot be held that this section is retrospective in its operation. In the result we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1977 (12) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Commissioner To Reduce Or Waive Penalty, Reduction Or Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... waiver or reduction, can be given to the assessee concerned. Since the grounds given by the respondent for not exercising the jurisdiction under section 273A are extraneous to the section and are not available to him in law, this special civil application must be allowed. We may point out that Mr. G. N. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent, had urged several contentions before us regarding the scheme of section 273A and the operation of that section but since it is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment, we are not referring to those contentions or dealing with them. In the result the special civil application is allowed and the order, annexure B to the petition dated November 26, 1976, is quashed and set aside. The Commissioner will now proceed to deal with the application under section 273A on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law. In view of the special circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
1977 (12) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Appeal To Tribunal, Assessee's Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... al to the Tribunal does not alter the position that the order of assessment was the subject of the appeal. In that case, the Tribunal, disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on merits in respect of certain reliefs claimed by the assessee. Not satisfied with the reliefs granted by the Tribunal the assessee went before the Commissioner seeking some further relief. In those circumstances, the court took the view that once the order of assessment has been made the subject of an appeal before the Tribunal, the fact that the relief claimed in the application for revision was not the subject-matter of the appeal to the Tribunal does not alter the position that the order of assessment was the subject-matter of the appeal. Therefore, that decision cannot be of any assistance to the revenue. In this view, the writ petition has to be allowed with a direction to the first respondent to take the revision on file and dispose of the same on merits. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
