|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 85 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... India weighted deduction is permissible on advertisements in India. The nature of the agents commission is also not brought out in the order of the CIT (Appeals). It is not clear whether any part of it included commission on exports. As regards the other expenses, they are of general nature and it could not be possible to bifurcate the expenses for export and other expenses. We would, therefore, consider it proper to set aside this part of the CIT s order and direct him to ascertain the nature of expenses by way of advertisements and by way of agents commission and to find out such expenses on which weighted deduction has to be allowed in terms of the provision of s. 35B. In respect of other expenses, however, a proportion has to be worked out. In our opinion, it should be reasonable to allow a proportion of 9/300 in respect of other miscellaneous expenses. The CIT (appeals) is directed to work out the details accordingly. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1981 (7) TMI 84 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... . 16. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Bombay Bench in this connection. With respect we have to note that the above aspect of the matter as contributions towards the betterment of the land over the time was not taken into account in that case nor was the question of mutuality under consideration. These receipts in our opinion cannot also be anticipated with any expectant regularity as the anticipated with any expectant regularity as the fruits of the tree in Shaw Wallace s case. The society eager to retain and continue all its members as members can scarcely for cast when a member would transfer his lease to another or whether he would ever do so. Nor is there a certainty that the transfer would result in an excess and not a deficit for the transferor. We therefore hold that both type of receipts are not taxable in the hands of the assessee. In the view we have taken, the alternate grounds raised by the assessee are not considered. 17. The appeals are dismissed
-
1981 (7) TMI 83 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... poses by the Appl. Tribunal by the order in ITA No. 1160 in the light of the Supreme Court decision in (1981) 129 ITR 314 (SC) the tax on the above amount is to be deducted on the valuation dates coming after the date of the addition. The WTO found that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 11,26,615 from several persons. Since these were invested in a farm an agricultural asset not included in the net wealth the WTO did not allow deduction of the above liability. The ld. counsel for the assessee does not dispute this on principle but it is pointed out that while the loan taken was Rs. 11,26,615 even according to the WTO the investment in the agricultural land came to only Rs. 8,30,883 leaving a sum of Rs. 2,95,732 which should in any case lie invested in taxable wealth. After hearing the parties we find that the assessee is entitled to deduction of this liability. 6. Another ground of appeal relating to the date of valuation is not pressed. 7. The appeals are partly allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 82 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... its scientific correctness. The decision in Avon Cycles case also does not help the assessee that being the case of a partnership firm. The ITO has correctly taken what is called commission as part of the remuneration. 8. The other point in dispute in this appeal relates to the grant of relief under s. 80J. The ITO rejected the assessee s claim in this regard noting that the details were not furnished. The IAC while approving his order noted that the claim was considered for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 and was rejected for the reason that this was only a case of expansion and no new unit had come into existence and the profits were also not ascertainable there being no separate books. The Commr. sent the matter back to the ITO for investigating on facts the assessee s case for relief under s. 80J. The matter is still at large no final decision having been made thereon. We see no reason to interfere with this part of the Commr. s order. 9. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT
Whether aluminium rolled products and extrusions can be described as "metal" for the purposes of the notifications dated December 1, 1973 and May 30, 1975 issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- The only interpretation possible is that aluminium rolled products and extrusions are regarded as distinct commercial items from aluminium ingots and billets in the notifications issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal — Appellate jurisdiction — Second appeal — Appeal pending before the Tribunal — Commissioner of Sales Tax cannot interfere
-
1981 (7) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Exemption - Import ... ... ... ... ..... by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. 19. But, unfortunately these decisions were not brought to my knowledge and there was no full consideration of the matter as has been done presently. I do not think, I can stick to my old view which was arrived at without reference to these decisions, all of which fully bring about the distinction between the chargeability under Section 12 and the assessment under Section 15. 20. In W.A. No. 537 of 1969 this question did not arise at all since what came up for determination was the date and hour of entry for the purpose of levy of customs duty. As I said above, once the same rate of duty is applicable Section 15 will come into play. 21. For all these reasons, the writ petition will stand allowed. The rule nisi are made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Taxable event - Yarn - Liability to duty - Composite Mills -Refund ... ... ... ... ..... side. If money has already been collected on the basis of the weight of sized yarn instead of on the basis of the weight of unsized yarn, the same should be refunded with interest at twelve per cent per annum from the date of collection till date of refund such refund to be made within three months from today. The respondents to report to this Court on or before 31st October, 1981 the fact that they have so refunded the money. The respondents are also restrained by orders and injunctions of this High Court from collecting excise duty on yarn on the basis of (he weight of the sized yarn instead of on the weight of unsized yarn at the spindle stage. If any show cause notices have been issued against any of the petitioners in this group of matters for the purpose of collecting the difference between excise duty on the basis of the weight of sized yarn the same are also quashed and set aside. The respondents must pay the costs of the petitioners in each of this group of matters.
-
1981 (7) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Adjudication order - Scientific authorities not discussed in detail - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... sion, the said rule made it explicit what was implicit the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Learned Counsel is not stating before me that the meaning of Homoeopathic medicines ought not to have been gathered by reference to other relevant statutes and the Rules thereunder. As stated above, in the absence of definition of Homoeopathic medicines in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, no exception could be taken to the approach of the respondents in relying on the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules made thereunder for the purpose of gleaning out what could be Homoeopathic medicines. There was no attempt on the part of the learned Counsel to place before me any other scientific works or judicial precedents, which may persuade me to hold otherwise. I am not able to spell out any infirmity in orders passed by the respondents, so as to compel me to interfere in writ proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs
-
1981 (7) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Maplitho and Creamwove papers - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rnment observe that plain maplitho and creamwove papers are known to the trade as printing and writing paper and the mere addition of woollen fibre would not take the impugned paper out of the category of printing and writing paper for the purposes of Central Excise classification, since they have been used for the purposes of printing. In this context, the opinion given by the Director, Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industry cited by the petitioner makes its clear that the product is nothing but printing and writing paper and that supports the petitioners contention. 6. In view of the above and the records of the case Government hold that the impugned varieties of paper are correctly chargeable to duty under sub-item 3 of Item 17 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood at the material time. 7. Government of India accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application with consequential relief to the petitioner.
-
1981 (7) TMI 75 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Glass yarn - Glass strands - Twisting operation - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... e through the holes of spinnerets and subsequent twisting of the glass strand etc., the Government hold that the process of spinning is not restricted only to the glass yarn composed of staple fibre twisted together and that the impugned glass yarn can also be considered as yarn spun out of glass fibre, which is again wide enough to cover staple fibre as well as continuous glass filaments. What the impugned notification envisages is that the exemption is available only to the glass yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre and not the glass yarn spun out of a blend of glass strand and polyester, nylon or other fibre. The impugned glass yarn being wholly made of glass filaments is, therefore covered by the said exemption notification. 8. In view of the foregoing, the Government of India sets aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application with the direction that the impugned glass yarn would be exempted from CV duty in terms of the exemption Notification No. 87/76-C.E.
-
1981 (7) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
High Court decision - Ignoring of will lead to contempt of court ... ... ... ... ..... ondents to the effect that the items imported in five parcels bearing Air Way Bill No. 098-3098-6410 shall be released in favour of the petitioner-firm or its agents within three days from the date of receipt of this order subject to payment of duty. 10. Shri Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further pointed out that for no fault of the petitioners, the goods imported have been lying in the warehouse of Mysore Sales International at the Air Cargo Complex and the consignment has incurred demurrage which the petitioner would not have been liable but for the illegal and untenable stand taken by the respondents and therefore this Court as a consequential relief should order respondents to issue a no demurrage certificate to the petitioners so that it will not be liable to pay demurrage to M/s. Mysore Sales International. Such a direction may issue. Rule is made absolute in terms above stated. 11. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Manufacture of goods with customer's brand name ... ... ... ... ..... pewriter ribbons which formed the subject matter of the present case. Therefore, by passing the impugned order the same goods would have been subjected to double taxation had the goods not have been covered by the exemption under the notification issued under Rule 8 (i) of the Central Excise Rules. As such, the impugned order has to be set aside. 18. I, accordingly, make the rule absolute and quash the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, copy of which is Annexure E to the petition. There will also be a declaration in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. As regards the submission of Mr. N.C. Roy Chowdhury that M/s. Rainbow Industries should not get the benefit of the exemption by the notification issued by the Central Govt. will speak for itself and I do not wish to give any liberty to the Excise authorities or to put any fetters in their way from proceeding in accordance with law.
-
1981 (7) TMI 72 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Import of goods - Chargeability to duty - Guidelines for - Endosulfan Technical - Applicability of rate of duty - Interpretation - Relevant date
-
1981 (7) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Iron or Steel Products ... ... ... ... ..... (iii) it is now clear that the Hinges manufactured are not liable to pay the duties in so far as the intermediary process is concerned. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, this rule must be made absolute which I hereby do. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 70 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Tariff Item 68 - Dutiability of turnkey projects - Lifts elevators and escalators ... ... ... ... ..... t further observe that elevators and escalators installed in buildings are firmly affixed to the building and are not intended to be moved and accordingly could not merit to be called goods. Government, therefore, hold that the elevators and escalators erected and installed by the petitioners could not be considered as goods and hence would not be assessable under tariff item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. Government, would, however make it clear that the component parts of the elevators and escalators manufactured and cleared from their respective factory(ies) would be chargeable to duty at the appropriate rates. However, no further duty is chargeable when these component parts are assembled at site to erect or instal and commission the elevators and escalators in buildings because at that stage the elevators and escalators become a part of the immovable property. The revision application is disposed of accordingly on this short point without going into the other contentions.
-
1981 (7) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Excise duty - Powers of parliament - Tariff value - Fixation of - Valuation - Difference in methods - Guidelines for - Constitution - Interpretation
-
1981 (7) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Valuation - Determination of assessable value - Mistake of law - Writ petition - Amendment of
-
1981 (7) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Yarn - Dutiability - Precedent - Revisional Order ... ... ... ... ..... ged on the yarn in the form in which it is cleared from the spinning department of the petitioners for further use in the weaving of fabrics, viz. on the unsized yarn i.e. on the unsized weight of the yarn. 10. In view of these two decisions taken by the highest authorities while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the same would be binding upon the Union of India in the present petition also. Shri Dhanuka, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents could not point out to me any other judgment which has taken a contrary view. In view of these two judgments, I quash the notices at Ex. E collectively issued by the 4th respondent. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (d) of the petition. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the directions given by this Court on the interim orders shall stand discharged and the same shall be returned to the petitioners.
-
1981 (7) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at there was no chance of interest being recovered and, therefore, the assessee was not charging interest. Whether there was accrual of interest or not should be judged from the realistic point of view. This principle has been reiterated by the Madras High in the case of CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. 1981 127 ITR 572. Furthermore, in case, where the Tribunal has made a categorical finding that the principal had become a bad debt, this principle is attracted particularly when that finding of the Tribunal was not challenged as perverse in the reference before us. In any event, we need not rest our decision solely on this aspect, in view of the other reasons mentioned hereinbefore. In the premises, in our opinion, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion, as it did, and the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
....
|
