|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 230 Records
-
1985 (9) TMI 110 - ITAT BANGALORE
Income From Other Sources, Chargeability Of ... ... ... ... ..... sis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Sales International Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 64. The assessment year involved was 1971-72 for which section 2(24)(ix) did not apply. Further, the decision of the Bombay High Court in D.G. Goenka s case was also not brought to our notice. In any case, the facts in Visweswaraiah Lucky Centre s case are distinguishable. In that case, the assessee did not win the bumper prize but a person who had purchased a ticket from the assessee got the bumper prize. All that the assessee got, was a bonus on the prize winning ticket sold, which was quite different from the bumper prize received by the purchaser of the ticket, and did not constitute winnings from lottery. The bonus as well as commission on tickets sold became part of the business receipts of the assessee about which there was no dispute. Since the facts are distinguishable, the decision in Visweswaraiah Lucky Centre s case will not apply to the instant case.
-
1985 (9) TMI 109 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... income, as pointed out by the senior Departmental Representative is taxable or not and would thereafter pass an order. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the income attributable in executing the Housing Schemes and the other connected schemes there with for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are exempt under s. 10 (26B) of the IT Act. In the alternative, the authorised representative for the assess made submission that the income of the corporation is also exempt under s. 10(20A) of the Act. Since we have considered the submission of the authorised representative for the assessee in regard to the applicability of s. 10(26B) and the assessee corporation is allowed exemption therewith, we do not think it necessary to deal with the applicability of s. 10(20A) of the IT Act. In view of our finding recorded above, we hold that this ground has been rendered infructuous and as such no finding is recorded therein. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 108 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Capital Gains, Chargeability Of, Balancing Charge ... ... ... ... ..... lace. We are considering the determination of the capital gains in the hands of the assessee as an independent entity. In that position, it will be liable to capital gains tax not only on those assets, which it had received from the firm but also on all other assets which were sold by it and which belonged to it in any other capacity. The only criteria is that it should be a capital asset and that there should be a transfer of such capital asset. Both these conditions are satisfied in this case. Apparently, the working of the capital gains will be as under Rs. Rs. Sale proceeds 75,000 Less Written down value of the assets failing to the share of the assessee from the firm. 32,456 Written down value of the assets of sugar mill machinery suppliers 19,120 51,576 ---------------------------- Difference 23,424 -------------- The above amount will further be subject to statutory exemption and the relief under section 80TT of the Act. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 107 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Reassessment, Notice, Return Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ese cross-objections is that the ITO could not assume jurisdiction under section 147(a) as there was neither any omission nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year 1964-65. Same arguments were adversed by the learned counsel for the assessee on this issue. Similarly, he advanced his arguments on other contentions raised in the cross-objections also. However, in view of the fact that we have upheld the cancellation of the reassessment by the Commissioner (Appeals) on another ground, we do not think it necessary to deal with any of these objections in our this order. However, the parties will be at liberty to place these objections in case the matter is restored for fresh consideration by the Tribunal by any higher authority. 21. In the result, while the appeal by the department is dismissed, the cross-objections by the assessee are treated as infructuous and are also rejected.
-
1985 (9) TMI 106 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Income, Diversion Of By Overriding Title, Reassessment, Non Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... depreciation on railway siding, etc., which were not granted in the original assessment. This contention was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the reopening of the assessment was only for a limited purpose. We agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sir Shadi Lal and Sons v. CIT 1973 92 ITR 453. It was held in this case that on reassessment, the entire assessment is not opened. A claim for expenditure, which has been disallowed during the original assessment, cannot be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to income-tax, which had escaped assessment. The controversy on reassessment is confined to matters which are relevant in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. This contention, therefore, fails. 14. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... id to him. Finally, the entitlement of interest does not depend upon its quantification. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it became due to the assessee only on 7th Feb., 1983. Regarding the CIT (A) s reasoning that s. 154 action cannot be taken, we are of the view that this is not a debatable issue. To our mind the position is clear i.e. interest has to be paid to the assessee on the amount over paid to the time that the over payment is actually refunded. In this view we are fully supported by the Delhi High Court decision in the case of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation, where it has been held that the assessee would be entitled to interest on the refund of advance tax due to it from the date of initial payment not only upto the date of initial assessment but right up to the date on which the refund was actually made. Consequently we hold that the assessee is entitled to interest from 30th Nov., 1981 to 7th Feb., 1983. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... the same and which was allowed and subsequently required to be considered on the basis of cessation of liability. Therefore, the same would not be applicable to the present case. The plea that the excise duty should have formed part of sale price and required to be credited to the sales account also does not hold good in the context of practice followed by the assessee regarding payments of such excise duty and system having been followed from year to year besides the submission being irrelevant. 10. The third ground is in respect of extra shift allowance and it was submitted by the ld. departmental representative that the appeal was filed only to keep the matter alive. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Commissioner (A). 11. To the extent as above, the order passed by the Commissioner (A) is modified and the Commissioner (A) as also the ITO are directed to pass appropriate orders. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1985 (9) TMI 103 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Method Of Accounting, Rejection Of ... ... ... ... ..... Commerce v. CIT 1975 101 ITR 796 (SC) We dare say that achieving greater simplicity and clarity in statute law will be taken up by the draftsman of the legislative bills to avoid playing linguistic games in Court and promotion of interpretative litigation. Lawyers and legislators must stop confusing each other and start talking to their real audience---the people---so that communication problems may not lead to prolific forensic battles.... 24. Having added as above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), on this ground and, therefore, the same is upheld. 25. The second ground is in relation to allowance of weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act in respect of expenses of Rs. 12,773 and Rs. 59,745. 26. In our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee and, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision taken by him. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Capital Gains, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... rtion of the said section reads as under --- Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers --- (ii) any distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals or other association of persons Here also, we are of the considered view that if it was possible to divide the said Panchavati property into four shares, and if each of the sons of the late Shri Chinubhai gets his one-fourth share then the provisions of section 45 would not be applied as no transfer was involved in such transaction. However, in the instant case, there is no dissolution of body of individuals or other association of persons as only the assessee and Shri Bharatbhai had walked out from the Panchavati property by taking Rs. 75,000 each while Shri Jitendra and Shri Surendra continued to own the said property equally. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in upholding the action of the income-tax authorities. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 101 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Income, Assessability Of, Capital Or Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... onsidered as not taxable at all, that section would be made otiose. It is true that the amount should be independently chargeable. However, the imposition of the tax and the availability of a deduction are statutory. The statutes may be different but that is not relevant. Moreover, section 7(3) of the 1974 Act makes a direct reference to section 80L of the 1961 Act. If the amount was not chargeable to income-tax at all, there was no need to provide for deduction under section 80L. Therefore, what is not allowable as deduction must be considered to be chargeable to tax by the statute. We have already held that the amount is interest and is, therefore, chargeable. Shri Patel has argued that where two views are possible, one in favour of the assessee should be taken. However, in this case the only reasonable view is that the interest paid in respect of compulsory deposit is taxable. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are confirmed. 19. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... at the arguments in this connection by the ld. departmental representative have considerable force. However, in the order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal it has been observed as follows In determining the property which the deceased was competent to dispose of at the time of his death and which is therefore deemed to pass on his death, reasonable expenses for the marriage and maintenance of the unmarried daughters have therefore, to be deducted as being outside his competency. In this view of the matter also, the claim made by the ld. counsel for the Accountable Person has to be allowed. The High Court decision in the case of Leelavathiamma on which the Appellate Controller has relied, is in favour of the revenue. However, since two views are possible in this case, we are adopting the view in favour of the Accountable Person. Accordingly we hold that the amount of Rs. 40,000 claimed for the marriage expenses should be allowed as a deduction. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... n. It would be proper to make the same observations here in these appeals. 7.There being no cogent reasons, we decline to interfere with the order dated May 14, 1985 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, apart from the direction given by the learned Single Judge, it is also made clear that whatever bonds, sureties, bank guarantees or cash deposits already made by the respondents for clearing their goods the same shall remain intact. For future, it is also made clear that the assessing authority shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise Act or the Central Excise Rules and will be free to take appropriate proceedings for guaranteeing payment of excise duty which might be leviable against the respondents in case the goods are found to be chargeable to excise duty under Tariff 18 (III)(ii) of Schedule to the Central Excise Act. 8.The appeals are, thus, disposed of with the above observations, but with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sugar - Interpretation of statutes - Fiscal statute ... ... ... ... ..... n that the decision could not in any way advance the case of the revenue. The importance of the decision cited lies in the fact that the Supreme Court held that additional duty mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act (Act 51 of 1975), was not in the nature of countervailing duty, inasmuch as it was not the charging section. That question has no relevance to the points contested in this writ petition. 5. The result, therefore, is that the writ petition is allowed, quashing Exhibit P3, order of the first respondent. There will be no order as to costs. 6. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, on behalf of the State an oral request was made for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not find any substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court is involved in this case. Hence leave declined. 7. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the counsel on both sides, on usual terms, if applied for in that behalf.
-
1985 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... petition, in substance, is directed against an interlocutory order whereby the Tribunal has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. However, it will be open to the petitioners to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for granting them the necessary exemption. If such applications are made, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. 3. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.
-
1985 (9) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Plastics - Intermediate process ... ... ... ... ..... eir products are not covered under Tariff Item 15A(2). It is, thus, clear that the raw-material for the manufacture of plastic bangles in this case, being monomer, will not attract the applicability of sub-item (2) of the Tariff Item 15A. 12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner-respondents, who at the relevant time had manufactured acrylic sheets/tubes and plastic bangles out of monomer virgin and regenerated monomer by subjecting them to polymerisation process, are not liable to excise duty and the products therefrom are not covered under Tariff Item No. 15A(2). Thus, the view taken by the learned single Judge is correct, and no case for interference with that is made out. 13. No other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants for our consideration, in these appeals. 14. The result is that these appeals have no force and are consequently, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of these appeals.
-
1985 (9) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Manganese Ore high grade (battery grade) - Imported in form of moist coarse grains and coarse powder - Tariff Rulings - Adjudication
-
1985 (9) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t which it was bound to do on account of the allowing of the appeal on 28th June, 1984. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the contention of the Counsel appearing for the respondents. Till a stay order was obtained by the respondents, mere filing of the appeal before the Tribunal did not result in granting an automatic stay order in favour of the respondents. If the respondents so desired, they should have prayed for the stay of the order of the Appellate Collector, in the absence of which the actual position of the law appears to us to be that the petitioner is entitled to obtain the amount of Rs. 79,493.97. We accordingly direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 79,493.97 within a month from today, unless the respondents are able to obtain a stay order within this period. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. 5. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner at an early date on payment of the usual charges.
-
1985 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Value of clearance ... ... ... ... ..... es of its predecessor. It was also proposed to apply the Notification No. 80/80 to the facts of the case and take the production of the full year 1981-82 from the factory . This was clearly a matter falling within the purview of Section 11A of the Act. 34. But, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that 11A is only a recovery provision and it does not enable the original authority under the Act to reopen and re-assess. This argument is no longer open to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to press this contention in view of the Supreme Court decision in Kohli s case. 35. Therefore, on the facts found by the Assistant Collector, his order withdrawing the approval to the classification accorded to the petitioner-owner and imposing the duty on the aggregate value of the goods cleared by M/s. Regal Rubbers and M/s. Sun Rubbers during the previous financial year, notwithstanding the lease, is to be upheld. 36. It is ordered accordingly and the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1985 (9) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Show Cause Notice - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nsequently, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. We, therefore, find no substance in the argument raised by the learned Counsel on this point. 10. The next point argued by the learned Counsel was on a question of limitation. According to him, the notice issued by the Assistant Collector dated 19th November, 1981 was barred by time. It was urged that since the period during which the clearance was involved viz., 1st April to 18th September, 1981, the cause of action arose on the 1st April, 1981. This is wholly untenable argument. The clearance reached the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs only on the 18th September, 1981. Time would begin to run from that date. The period of six months had not come to an end and the notice had been issued in two months time. The notice is not barred by time. We hold accordingly. 11. No other point was argued. 12. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs to the answering Respondents.
-
1985 (9) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ufactured by it and it is the goods with the trade marks affixed to them that are sold by the respondent to Nestle s. There can therefore be no doubt that the wholesale price at which the goods with the trade marks affixed to them are sold by the respondent the Nestle s as stipulated under the agreements would be the value of the goods for the purpose of excise duty. That is the price at which the respondent sells the goods to Nestle s in the course of wholesale trade and we fail to see how the value of the trade marks could be added to the wholesale price for the purpose of determining the value of the goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty. 6. We are satisfied upon the particular facts of this case that the value of Nestle s trade marks cannot be added to the wholesale price charged by the respondent to Nestle s for the purpose of computing the value of the goods manufactured by the respondent in the assessment to excise duty. 7. The appeals are dismissed with costs.
............
|
