Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 218 Records
-
1985 (12) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Prosecution - Conviction and sentence ... ... ... ... ..... ptable in view of the provisions of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years and under Rule 206 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, it is the duty of the State to meet the expenses for examination of the witnesses even if they are defence witnesses. But that fact could not be taken as a consideration in the matter of allowing examination of witnesses. The expense that will have to be incurred by the State for procuring the attendance of the witnesses should not be taken as a criterion for denying justice that is otherwise due to the accused for the purpose of fair trial. The Crl. M.C. is, therefore, allowed and the Order passed by the Magistrate is set aside. The matter is sent back. The Magistrate will be free to consider the matter afresh in the light of what is stated above and in view of the provisions of Section 243 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He will be free to pass appropriate orders on the merits.
-
1985 (12) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Excess production rebate on sugar - Rebate allowed in excess by mistake ... ... ... ... ..... not be availed of by the petitioner having regard to the exemption provided to export sugar under Rule 12, which is governed by a separate notification issued by the Central Government, viz.. Notification No. 197/62. 34. It is not disputed by the petitioner that 21,264.274 quintals of sugar was exported. It is also not in dispute that the sugar exported was exempt from the whole of the duty. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner-company was not entitled to any rebate in the levy of duty on that quantum of the sugar exported and the concessional duty availed of by the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn and rectified by the department in the accounts of the Company. 35. The ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in D.R. Kohli, and of this Court in Union of India v. ITC Ltd. - 1985(2l) E.L.T. 655 (Kar.), squarely apply to the facts of this case. 36. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the order made by the Assistant Collector, as per Annexure E, is upheld.
-
1985 (12) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Inspection and seizure cannot be done simultaneously ... ... ... ... ..... a term which may extend to two years or with both. Under Section 22, any Central Excise or other officer exercising powers under this Act or under the rules made thereunder who (a) without reasonable ground of suspicion searches or causes to be searched any house, boat or place shall for every such offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. This only shows that the search should be in accordance with Section 110 of the Customs Act made applicable to this Act with suitable modifications stated supra. 12. Rule 9 which is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents refers to time and manner of payment of duty. Even this rule therefore will render no help to the respondents. 13. The conditional offer by the respondents as such from the counter-affidavit is no cure to an illegal seizure. 14. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs as prayed for. 15. Advocate s fee Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only).
-
1985 (12) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessing Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... be regarded as settled when damages are paid by way of compensation for its breach. What is really settled by the award of such damages and their acceptance by the aggrieved party is the dispute between the parties. The law, however, speaks of a settlement of the contract, and contract is settled when it is either performed or the promisee dispenses with or remits, wholly or in part, the performance of the promise made to him or accepts instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit. We are concerned with the sense of law, and it is that sense which must prevail in sub-section (5) of section 43. These observations, on the contrary, support the view put forward on behalf of the assessee. These were all the submissions made before us and for reasons which we have indicated above, the question referred for opinion must be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 54 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ods were carried no further than New York by or on behalf of the assessee. The only argument on behalf of the Revenue appears to have been that the section was wrongly interpreted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the circumstances, we must necessarily assume that all the authorities proceeded on the assumption that the carriage of goods ended at New York. When facts are so understood, and in the light of the decision of this court in I.T.R. No. 71 of 1972, we must necessarily come to the conclusion that the section permitted the claim for deduction in respect of storage and local duty. In the circumstances, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these Tax Referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (12) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Appeals, Order For Compulsory Acquisition, Transfer To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... en the order under section 269F(6) does not become final till the appeal is heard. If a further appeal is taken to the High Court, the vesting is postponed till the order of acquisition is confirmed by the High Court. If no appeal is filed to the High Court, and here again there is a period of limitation prescribed by section 269H, the vesting will take place in accordance with the appellate order of the Tribunal which will become final. Thus, the various provisions in sections 269G, 269H and 269-I are inter-related and form complete code regarding the date and time as to when the property vests in the Central Government. The operation of these inter-related provisions shows that the vesting is postponed in accordance with the time stated in the Explanation to section 269-I(1). I completely agree that this set of provisions has the effect of excluding the operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act. I also agree that the appeal should be dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... on the ground that the same does not raise a question of law. We are of the view that our orders in I.T.A. Nos. 18 to 20 1976, IAC v. N. Vajram Setty 1986 159 ITR 742 (Kar) and I.T.A. No. 17 of 1976, IAC v. National Flag Perfumery Works 1986 159 ITR 737 (Kar) do not raise substantial questions of law of general importance that need to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. We cannot, therefore, grant the oral applications made by the petitioner. In the light of our above discussion, we make the following orders and directions (i) We uphold the office objection raised in these cases and dismiss the SCLAPs filed by the petitioner under section 261 of the Act as not maintainable. (ii) We reject the oral applications made by the petitioner for grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal against our orders in I.T.A. Nos. 18 to 20 of 1976 and I.T.A. No. 17 of 1976 under articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution on merits. We, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Intercorporate Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ain reason was given by the Finance Minister, who proposed an amendment, for making the amendment. What we can take judicial notice of is the fact that such a statement of the reason was given in the course of such a speech. The question whether the object stated was properly expressed by the language of section 2(15) of the Act is a matter which we have to decide for ourselves as a question of law. Interpretation of a statutory provision is always a question of law on which the reasons stated by the mover of the amendment can only be used as an aid in interpretation if we think, as I do in the instant case, that it helps us considerably in understanding the meaning of the amended law, We find no bar against such a use of the speech. In the foregoing circumstances, we have to answer the first part of the first question relating to the benefit under section 80K in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1985 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... that method which is most efficacious to determine the fair market value of the property sold. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to attack the finding of the authorities on a ground which entirely falls within the domain of appreciation of evidence. It was contended that the report of the valuer produced by the appellant was wrongly rejected on wholly untenable reasons and the value fixed was highly excessive. We are afraid, it is not open to us to scrutinise the evidence again or to disturb the finding as to the fair market price on merits because the appeal to this court under section 269H is maintainable only on a question of law. It is, therefore, not open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the fair market price assessed by the authorities below on such a ground and the contention of the learned counsel has to be overruled. In the result, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. G. C. MITAL J.-I agree.
-
1985 (12) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Cheques Dishonoured ... ... ... ... ..... at even if the assessee had not followed a more scientific system of accounting, it cannot be said that he cannot show by following simple system of posting the entries in his books of account that so far as he is concerned, he has written off a bad debt as irrecoverable. We should also keep in mind that in this case for the very same year when the income is stated to have accrued, the reverse entry relating to receipt of the cheques also has been made. This fact, taken with the other circumstances that this income is not shown in the profit and loss account, clearly established that the assessee intended to treat this as irrecoverable in that year itself. We are, therefore, satisfied that the third condition relating to writing off of the amount as irrecoverable in the books of the assessee is also satisfied. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Since the assessee is not represented, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee was not salary paid to its employees, but the amount recovered by the bank from the assessee during the assessment year on account of expenditure incurred by the bank for the preservation of goods pledged with the bank. The bank was entitled to recover that amount from the assessee and was also entitled to retain the goods pledged for expenses incurred by the bank in respect of the possession or for the preservation of the goods pledged, as provided by section 173 of the Contract Act. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 55,679, being the amount of bank charges debited by the bank to the assessee s account during the relevant previous year. Our answer to question No. (4) referred to this court, is, therefore, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1985 (12) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption From Wealth Tax, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... de by this court. What is true of us is also true of the Tribunal. When the Tribunal has referred a question for the opinion of this court, to bring out the real controversy, we can undoubtedly reframe the same, examine and answer the same. On this power, there is no dispute at all. But, that is not the position here. What the assessee now seeks us to do is to frame an altogether new question as arising in the case and then answer the same. We are of the view that section 256 of the Act does not empower us to do the same. We cannot, therefore, accede to the very first prayer of Sri Bhat. Both sides do not dispute that the question referred to us does not really arise for our determination from out of the order of the Tribunal. When that is so, there is hardly any justification for us to answer the same. In the light of our above discussion, we decline to answer the question referred to us. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ould not apply. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this court in Addl. CIT v. M. K M. Moosa Bhoy Amin 1984 148 ITR 88 and Surana and Co. v. CIT (D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1977, decided on January 11, 1985 1985 153 ITR 190). In view of the aforesaid decisions of this court, our answer to both these questions is in the negative and we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee-firm was not dissolved on the death of the partner, Shri Ganeshilal, and that it was merely a case of change in the constitution of the firm. We also hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the provisions of section 187(1) and (2) of the Act would nevertheless govern the assessment of the firm. Thus, both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (12) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemption From Wealth Tax, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... essee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act, in respect of her capital invested in the firm, M/s. Ratnalaya, which needs further consideration. We, therefore, find that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raises the following question of law Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that M/s. Ratnalaya is an industrial undertaking , and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of her capital employed in M/s. Ratnalaya? . In the result, the reference application is allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to draw a statement of the case and refer the above question of law to this court for its opinion within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ty. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty. Aggrieved by that order, the Department submitted an application before the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected that application. Hence, the Department has filed this application. Having heard the learned counsel for the Department, we have come to the conclusion that this application deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal found that the assessee had entertained the bona fide belief that the amount in question was not required to be disclosed in the returns for the assessment year 1977-78. The Tribunal also held that in the circumstances of the case, the omission on the part of the assessee to include the income in question was not deliberate. These are findings of fact and in view of these findings, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty levied on the assessee, does not, in our opinion, give rise to any question of law. The application is accordingly rejected.
-
1985 (12) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Company, Question Of Law, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ication made by the Department under section 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, the applicant has filed these applications. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the question as to whether the reserve for leave with wages should be taken into account for calculating the capital of the assessee for the purpose of determining the surtax liability is a question of law and it does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The applications are, therefore, allowed, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that reserve for leave with wages has to be taken into account for determining the capital of the assessee for the purpose of determining the surtax liability ? In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
-
1985 (12) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ome-tax Officer in its assessment order was correct. It appears to us that the so-called mistake which has been sought to be corrected by the Income-tax Officer is not one apparent from records. The subsequent computation was made on the basis of a different view taken by the Income-tax Officer on the same facts. We also note that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. 1965 57 ITR 299 and the circulars issued by the Board of Direct Taxes following the said decision, the rectification itself has resulted in further error. It is not the object of section 154 to perpetrate errors in this manner, vide ITO v. Arvind N. Mafatlal 1962 45 ITR 271 (SC). For the reasons as aforesaid, we agree with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rule nisi is discharged and the application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1985 (12) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ome-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that where a case falls under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), only the minimum penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(iii) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the main provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the provisions of the Explanation thereto are mutually exclusive so that they cannot operate in the same field ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs. 1,26,000, the admitted value of the stock which was not accounted for ? This petition is, therefore, allowed and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the above question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs. S. P. GOYAL J. -I agree.
-
1985 (12) TMI 40 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he Wealth-tax Officer when it made a reference for the purpose of making an assessment. Section 16A permitted the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference for the purpose of making an assessment. The Tribunal placed reliance on decision of the Calcutta High Court in Satyendra Chunder Ghose v. WTO 1980 126 ITR 102 and held that the assessment had not been validly reopened and completed. An application submitted under sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Act for making a reference to this Hon ble Court was also dismissed and reliance was placed on a decision of this court in Brig. B. Lall v. WM 1981 127 ITR 308. We have heard Mr. Surolia for the Department. In our view, no mistake has been committed by the Tribunal in taking the aforesaid view. The view taken by the Tribunal is based On the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and also of this court. In view of the above circumstances, we find no force in this application and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e present case is not covered by the amendment made in section 187(2) which is applicable from the assessment year 1975-76 only and not prior to it and, therefore, the Full Bench decision in Girdharilal s case 1984 47 ITR 529 (MP) construing section 187(2) prior to its amendment, is clearly applicable. Following that decision, it must be held that the present case is case of change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187(2) of the Act and riot of succession covered by section 188 of the Act. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal was contrary to law. Consequently, this reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Commissioner was not correct in concluding that the two separate assessment orders passed by the Income tax Officer were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Revenue shall get costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 200 if certified.
....
|