|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 3273 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... ties free of basic customs duty and additional customs duty. The respondents received the imported yarn from M/s. Deluxe India Exports. If, for any reason such as breach of the conditions in Notification No. 117/78, the additional duty of customs initially leviable on the goods is recoverable, it would be recoverable from the importer of the base yarn and not from the respondents who were not the importers. Even if it is assumed that the real purpose of the notice is to recover excise duty equivalent to the additional duty of customs leviable on the imported base yarn, it cannot, in our opinion, be recovered from the respondents since the imported yarn is not excisable and no excise duty could, therefore, be demanded on it. On this short ground alone, the notice is liable to be discharged and it is not necessary to consider any of the other contentions put forth by either side. 10. In the result, we discharge the show cause notice dated 18th May, 1982 and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 116 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bail in Economic offences ... ... ... ... ..... ser amount, there is every apprehension that the petitioners would be tempted to jump the bail in the event of their release. The imposition of cash security by the learned Special Judge under the special circumstances directed by him is just and correct. The revision for relaxing the conditions imposed by the Court or for modifying the conditions, cannot be entertained. The proper course is to file an application for relaxing the conditions and that the revision as such is not maintainable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan v. State of Bihar (AIR 1985 S.C. 1666) will not cover the facts and circumstances of this case. The revision is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 115 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Wholesale sales not being effected ex-factory but from depots situated in different regions ... ... ... ... ..... hed correct information under the law. If the duty payable as determined by the lower authorities in view of above is found to be higher, in view of what we have observed, under the law extended time limit of five years would be available for raising the demand. So far as the date of service of the show cause notice is concerned we would like to observe that the appellants pleaded that the same was received on 18-6-1981 and the Revenue has not been able to show that this was not so and that the show cause notice had been served at an earlier date. We hold that for the purpose of proceedings the receipt of show cause notice as stated by the appellants should be taken to be the correct date. We, therefore, allow the appeal by remand and direct the lower authority to decide the matter de novo in the above terms. We also direct the Collector while deciding the case will take into consideration the plea made in regard to the sales made to certain class of buyers on contract price.
-
1987 (12) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Grey fabrics cleared after calendering and shearing ... ... ... ... ..... hough it was limited to cropping (shearing). The principle, however, would apply to calendering as well. It was held that it is not necessary for the purpose of Notification No. 80/76 to consider the question whether cropping was a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of cotton fabrics. What the notification said was that unprocessed cotton fabrics when subjected to the finishing processes specified therein in the same factory where the unprocessed fabrics are produced are not eligible for the exemption. It was further held that in this view of the matter, the demand for differential interest in terms of Central Excise Rule 49A which provides that where cotton fabrics are cleared after processing, 3 of the duty payable on the yarn shall be payable by way of interest on the amount of yarn duty, was justified. 6. In the light of the above decision, the appellants rsquo contention is untenable. The impugned orders are upheld and the appeals dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... that Handloom cess which, in law, was leviable on the goods, had not been levied and he sought to correct this mistake by raising demands for the cess not levied, by appropriate directions noted on the returns. 8. The question, therefore, is whether the action of the Superintendent in raising the demands in the aforesaid manner was correct. It appears to us that having regard to the provisions of Rule 173B, the action was not in order. The proper course would appear to have been to issue a notice for recovery of the non-levied amount of Handloom cess by recourse to the procedure set out in Central Excise Rule 10, that is to say, issue of a show cause notice followed by regular adjudication proceedings. This not having been done, the demands raised against the assessee on the RT-12 returns when the payment of duty had been in accordance with the approved classification list, was not in order. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow this appeal.
-
1987 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Income, Foreign Company, Foreigner, Drilling Machines, Oil Well ... ... ... ... ..... n the first date of assessment year has to be applied for that year, still before applying such law we must also find that the income has accrued or arisen to the assessee in the taxable territories during the previous year relevant to the assessment year before it can be taxed on the basis of the law as on the 1st April. We have already held that the Exclusive Economic Zone was not part of taxable territories during the previous year relevant to this assessment year. Thus, it cannot be said that any income has accrued or arisen to the assessee in the taxable territories during the previous year so as to bring it to tax for the assessment year 1983-84. Hence, the salary income earned by the assessees prior to 1-4-1983 cannot be chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the assessment year 1983-84. 51. In the result, the orders passed by the CIT (A) in all these cases on this point are confirmed and the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 91 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... algamating company having come into existence only after 1st Jan., 1964, were not available before 1st Jan., 1964 and, therefore, the option provided for in s. 55(2) of the IT Act was not available, does not simply arise. This, I thought, is the layman s approach without getting embroiled into the semantics. It cannot be the case of the Revenue that the provisions of s. 49(2) would have no application to the amalgamated shares. If s. 49 (2) applied, there is no option other than to apply s. 55(2)(i). On the basis of the logic, I consider, the assessee is entitled to succeed in so far as valuing the shares sold, which were existing prior to 1st Jan., 1964 by substituting the fair market value of those shares as on 1st Jan., 1964. There may be some difficult in arriving at the fair market value as on 1st Jan., 1964, but that has been dealt with separately, which I think is quite proper on the facts in this case to adopt. I entirely endorse all the other reasons and conclusions.
-
1987 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... algamating company having come in to existence only after 1-1-1964, were not available before 1-1-1964 and, therefore, the option provided for in section 55(2) of the Income-tax Act was not available, does not simply arise. This, I thought, is the layman s approach without getting embroiled into the semantics. It cannot be the case of the Revenue that the provisions of section 49(2) would have no application to the amalgamated shares. If section 49(2) applied, there is no option other than to apply section 55(2)(i). On the basis of this logic, I consider, the assessee is entitled to succeed in so far as valuing the shares sold, which were existing prior to 1-1-1964 by substituting the fair market value of those shares as on 1-1-1964. There may be some difficulty in arriving at the fair market value as on 1-1-1964, but that has been dealt with separately, which I think is quite proper on the facts in this case to adopt. I entirely endorse all the other reasons and conclusions.
-
1987 (12) TMI 87 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... it was a continuing default though the return was filed under s. 139(2). This particular ruling would have no applicability to the facts of the present case, reason being that the notices that were served on the assessee on the basis of which penalties were to be imposed clearly indicate that the assessee is being asked to provide his reasons for delay in filing of the return in response to notice under s. 148. In the case law referred to by the assessee of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal reported in 1985 Tax World s. 4 page 271 this very issue was considered and it was concluded that since the intention as per the notice was to levy the penalty from the date of s. 148 notice only and not earlier, delay of the earlier period cannot be taken into consideration. We, therefore, accept this argument of the assessee and quash the penalty for 1978-79 and 1979-80. 6. In the result, appeal for asst. yr. 1977-78 is partly allowed while for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 are allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 86 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... or the purpose of making an assessment issue a notice to the assessee under s. 16(4) requiring him to produce such documents as he might have required since the assessee was served a notice under s. 14(2). However, there is a sharp distinction between s. 16(2) and s. 16(4), viz., that under s. 16(2) an assessee is required to produce such evidence as he thinks fit and proper in support of his case. On the other hand notice under s. 16(4) requires the WTO to specify such documents which he requires to be filed by the assessee. There is no material to indicate that in the notice under s. 16(4), such documents were specified in particular and not in general. Mere mention in the notice that the assessee is required to file documents showing the description and value of his wealth is not proper notice under s. 16(4). The penalty under s.0 18(1)(b) is, therefore, uncalled for. It is cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeal No. 54 is partly allowed and appeal No. 55 is fully allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 85 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ich obtains in the instant case, it is difficult to accept Mrs. Kolah s contention that the payments that were made to the two directors of the assessee-company and the four salesmen in question should have been allowed as a deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Act . In our view the facts of the case dealt with by the Bombay High Court are near to the facts on hand and so the ratio laid down in the Bombay High Court broadly applies to the facts of our present case. In the case before us, after going through the whole record and also after considering the case law, we are of the opinion that the assessee was not able to discharge its burden to prove that the commission payment made by it to the three alleged commission agents was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and in our opinion the disallowance made by the ITO is quite justified. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... 7 standard holdings. We have already adverted to the High Court rsquo s order declaring that the illatom son-in-law had half share in the total holdings held by Shri Adinarayana Reddy under the terms of illatom adoption deed dt. 25th May, 1970. In view of all the above it is easy for us to conclude that the gifts made are reasonable and they are in consideration of the promises made at the time of marriages of the daughters of Shri Adinarayana Reddy. Therefore, they must be considered to be family settlements and hence they are exempt from Gift-tax as held by the AP High Court noted above. The gift in favour of wife was already exempted by the GTO, whereas, the gift in favour of the second son-in-law was held to be taxable and it was confirmed by the first appellate authority and no appeal was preferred against that portion of the order. Hence the gift in favour of the second son-in-law was held to be taxable. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 83 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ender 1.217 standard holdings. We have already adverted to the High Court s order declaring that the illatom son-in-law had half share in the total holdings held by Sri Adinarayana Reddy under the terms of illatom adoption deed dated 25-5-1970. In view of all the above it is easy for us to conclude that the gifts made are reasonable and they are in consideration of the promises made at the time of marriages of the daughters of Sri Adinarayana Reddy. Therefore, they must be considered to be family settlements and hence they are exempt from gift-tax as held by the AP High Court noted above. The gift in favour of wife was already exempted by the GTO, whereas, the gift in favour of the second son-in-law was held to be taxable and it was confirmed by the first appellate authority and no appeal was preferred against that portion of the order. Hence, the gift in favour of the second son-in-law was held to be taxable. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 82 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... in Annexure No. 3 under the notification was duly filled up and presented to the Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad on 29th March 1984. In our opinion the issue of the Bond should be deemed to be the date of receipt of subscription in cash or by demand draft and the wealth tax exemption was available to the assessee from the date of subscription for the Bond and not from the date when the Bond was actually issued to him. The date of issue of the Bond may be relevant only for purposes of computation of interest and for no other purpose. A fiction which is specifically available for particular purpose should not be extended for other purposes apart from the intended purpose. In the result we are of the opinion that the revisionary orders of the learned CIT dt. 12th March, 1987 cannot be supported under law and hence they are set aside. The appeal of the assessee trust is allowed. The original assessment order dt. 8th Feb., 1985 passed by the WTO for asst. yr. 1984-85 is restored.
-
1987 (12) TMI 81 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... l rightly directed the allowance of such expenditure while computing the income for, asst. yr. 1973-74. Here in this case whether the payment of interest on any hire purchase instalment was admitted or disputed is not known. The very fact that it is not being claimed on actual basis in the earlier assessment years would clearly give doubt that in all probability either this should not have been admitted or deduction was being claimed on payment basis for this single transaction. If any view of the matter the quantification of interest was made only on 29th Mar., 1982 and the assessee also admitted its liability to pay the amount and debited the same in its accounts. Therefore, following the ratio of the above three High Court decisions it would appear to us that this amount is an allowable expenditure even though the said amount represents interest of earlier assessment years. In the result the appeal is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities set aside on this point.
-
1987 (12) TMI 80 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ulated with reference to the rent capitalisation method, would give a much higher multiplier than usually applied for determining the fair market value of properties. The ITO should have in all propriety considered if it was proper to make a reference to the valuation officer. In any case he should have either himself collected the exemplars with all the necessary details or should have enforced the attendance of the assessee rsquo s registered valuer even if the assessee was not willing to produce him. We are, therefore, of the view that none of the two authorities can be said to have properly as on 1st Jan., 1964 and the matter should, therefore, go back to the ITO for a fresh determination of the issue, after giving the assessee proper opportunity of hearing. We set aside the assessment made by the ITO and direct the ITO to make a fresh assessment keeping in view our observations made above. 6. For statistical purposes both the appeals shall be deemed to have been allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 79 - ITAT DELHI-D
Business Expenditure, Encashment Of Leave, Mercantile System Of Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 53. In this judgment the Hon ble Court in this context has observed that when the liability under a scheme of gratuity in respect of the accounting year is set in the profit and loss account, in the absence of any challenge by the workmen to the correctness of the method of valuation and in the absence of a challenge that such liability cannot be estimated at any fair standard, the amount claimed according to the profit and loss should be presumed to be genuine and allowed. We find in the case before us that the amount has been claimed in a reasonable and fair manner. It has been debited to the profit and loss account, and there is no challenge to it by any one. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the asst. year 1983-84 is admissible. It was erroneously disallowed by the authorities below. We set aside their orders in this regard and direct the ITO to allow this claim in the computation of total income for the asst. year 1983-84. 10. Appeal allowed for 1983-84 only.
-
1987 (12) TMI 78 - ITAT DELHI-B
Hotel, Donations ... ... ... ... ..... e. It surprises me, now it is here, to realise that we did not have it prominently, because the world today is so constituted that there can be no escape from international cooperation, except, well disaster. This International Centre will, of course not change the nature of the world, but it will held in the process, which is very essential today. The Govt. of India by notification u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, has notified India International Centre for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1987-88. The notifications have been filed before us and they are on record. He also find that the Commissioner, New Delhi-II has registered the Centre u/s. 12A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the donations to the centre are exempt are exempt u/s. 80G as per certificate issued by the CIT. On such facts, we do not find any justification for the action by the ITO. The CIT(A) rightly cancelled the assessment made by the ITO. His order is upheld. 7. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 77 - ITAT DELHI-A
Time Limit For Application For Reference, Service Of Notice, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... s recorded in the Commissioner s office as to what orders tenders were accepted and what were refused. We have in the peon books maintained by the registry of this Tribunal, entries showing that the copy of this order was, along with several other copies, dispatched to the Commissioner through a peon and the Commissioner s nominees received certain copies and refused to receive others which included the copy of the order in question. It is, therefore, not possible to accept that the copy of the order was not served on1-8-1985and8-8-1985. 15. The copy of the order having been duly tendered to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax on1-8-1985and8-8-1985, the present application is barred by time by more than 30 days. This Tribunal has no power to condone delay of more than 30 days and the Commissioner has also not applied or could not have applied for condonation of delay. 16. The application thus being beyond the time prescribed is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 76 - ITAT DELHI-A
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appeal To ... ... ... ... ..... efusal of its admission is not proper. We therefore admit the evidence, direct the Commissioner (A) to examine it thoroughly and them arrive at the conclusion afresh whether the payment of the commission could be allowed or not. At this stage we wish to record a suggestion made to us that the total value of contracts obtained from Punjab State Electricity Board was of the order of Rs. 1.31 crores, the highest ever orders obtained and although the supplies made in the year were to the tune of Rs. 29 lakhs, the balance of the orders were executed in the subsequent years. With the procurement of orders from Punjab State Electricity Board, it as pointed out that the supplies to Rajasthan State Electricity Board got diminished. The Commissioner (A) will bear these facts in mind and assess their relevances in coming to the fresh conclusion as to whether the claim for the deduction of the commission could be accepted. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
