|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 286 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 106 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... s explaining the scope of explanation (c) to section 263 of the Income-tax Act as amended by the Finance Act 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-6-1988. The court in that case had to interpret the words and shall extend and shall be deemed always to have been extended (Emphasis supplied) . The language is similar to the language used in explanation to item No. 5 of 11th Schedule. The court in that context held that explanation to sub-section (c) having been inserted w.e.f. 1-6-1988 any kind of amendment therein whether retrospective or otherwise could not be with effect from a date earlier to the date of insertion of explanation (c). In the light of this decision of the jurisdictional High Court also there cannot be any doubt that no retrospective effect can be given to item No. 5 of 11th Schedule and none was intended. We, in the circumstances, shall direct the AO to allow investment allowance on the cost of fork lift trucks. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part
-
1991 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
A Partner, Accounting Year, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... ssee could not have been allowed continuance of registration of the firm for the period from the death of the partner, Haridas. But, insofar as the period prior thereto is concerned, we find that in terms of the Supreme Court decision reported in Wazid Ali Abid Ali s case the assessee shall be treated as a duly registered firm and entitled to the benefit of registration upto 8-7-1978. Thus the Income-tax Officer s order cancelling the status of the assessee as a registered firm for whole of the year under appeal was erroneous insofar as it related to the period upto the date of the death of its partner, Haridas. 9. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal partly succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent that the assessee-firm shall be treated as a registered firm and shall be entitled to the benefits of registration upto 8-7-1978, but shall be assessed as an unregistered firm for the remaining period of the relevant assessment year. Appeal allowed accordingly
-
1991 (9) TMI 104 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Assessing Officer, Investment Allowance, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... re and it must be such a process which transforms old articles into goods and change the identity, use and purpose of use of the goods undergone by the process. It was further held that by the process which can be considered to be manufacture a new identifiable goods in the sense known in the market as such must come into being. In our considered opinion, the assessee s case does not answer these specific requirements of law. Last but not the least, even on facts the ratio of Kalsi Tyres (P.) Ltd. s case does not come to assessee s rescue. Retreading of tyres would be requiring several processes including a process by which grooves on the tyre are re-created to catch grip on the road. While this may amount to manufacturing, merely taking out certain impurities from the waste oil and making it usable once again may not. In our opinion, it is a mere process. As a result we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned CIT. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (9) TMI 103 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... r a short period, but still the tenancy is an asset and the contribution made by the assessee for acquiring the tenancy is capital expenditure. 17. We have also taken into the consideration the various other cases on which the assessee had relied. 18. Another ground on the basis of which the Department has made the disallowance was that since the ships had been used by the firm for carrying on its business and not by the assessee, the question of allowing a deduction in the computation of taxable income of the assessee did not arise. The assessee was a partner in that firm. The contention of the assessee is that the shops should be considered to have been utilised by the assessee for the purposes of carrying on its business which it was doing in partnership. In view of our holding that the expenditure in question is not allowable being capital expenditure, we do not consider it necessary to go into the second issue. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT BANGALORE
Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ncy for a short period, but still the tenancy is an asset and the contribution made by the assessee for acquiring the tenancy is capital expenditure. 17. We have also taken into consideration the various other cases on which the assessee had relied. 18. Another ground on the basis of which the department has made the disallowance was that since the shops had been used by the firm for carrying on its business and not by the assessee, the question of allowing a deduction in the computation of taxable income of the assessee did not arise. The assessee was a partner in that firm. The contention of the assessee is that the shops should be considered to have been utilised by the assessee for the purposes of carrying on its business which it was doing in partnership. In view of our holding that the expenditure in question is not allowable being capital expenditure, we do not consider it necessary to go into the second issue. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed
-
1991 (9) TMI 101 - ITAT BANGALORE
A Partner, In Part, Market Value, Minor Child, Partnership Firm, Tea Estate ... ... ... ... ..... as that. 7. To sum up, the firm is not a person and the transfer by the assessees of the coffee estates to the firm does not come within the ambit of the sub-clause. Moreover, it cannot be said that the properties which were transferred to the firm were held by the firm for the benefit of the assessees, their wives and their minor children. Thirdly, no case has been made out to show that the transfer was for less than adequate consideration. Under the circumstances, it is held by us that there is no justification for invoking the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii). 8. We have stated above that the WTO had gone beyond the transferred assets. In view of the fact that it is being held by us that the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii) do not at all become applicable in the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to examine as to what amount actually was required to be added, in case the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii) become applicable. 9. The appeals of the assessees are allowed
-
1991 (9) TMI 100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... fact the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the trust deed as a whole and further should have considered the intention and objective with which the trust has been created. The assessee trust is also not a private religious trust though in the trust deed provision has been made to render or cater facilities to the shwetamber Murtipujak Jain pilgrims, sadhus, not only because though they belong to a particular class or sector but they are not small in number to be identified or ascertained In fact s. 13(1)(b) as well as s. 13(1)(a) of the IT Act are not attracted in the present case for the obvious reason that the trust is a religious trust or institution and that it is a public religious trust and not a private religious trust. The assessee trust is definitely entitled for exemption under ss. 11 and 2 of the IT Act, and so, in that view of the matter we find that the order of the learned CIT(A) is in order and we confirm it. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 99 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ompany. The relevant ground in the appeal is rejected. 32. The last ground in the Revenue s appeal pertains to the expenditure of Rs. 900 in respect of issue of bonus shares. The claim was rejected by the ITO but allowed by the CIT(A). 33. The learned Deptl. Representative at the outset placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that the expenditure was capital in nature and not allowable (i) A bad Mfg. and Calico Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 800 (Guj). (ii) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Guj) 184 (1982) 138 ITR 45 (Guj). 34. The learned counsel for the assessee although initially supporting the order passed by the CIT(A) was later on fair enough to state that the issue was covered against the assessee by the aforesaid decisions. 35. In view of the aforesaid position we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) vis-a-vis ground under consideration and restore that of the ITO. 36. In the result both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 98 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Accounting Year, Co-operative Housing Society, Market Value, Purchase Price ... ... ... ... ..... plot and is not a deposit within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxx) of the Act. The claim for the said exemption is accordingly rejected. 7. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel that only the amount paid to the society, viz., Rs. 25,230 be subjected to wealth-tax, we pine that this submission is also required to be rejected since what has to be included in the wealth is the market value on the valuation date and specially when there are no apparent restrictions imposed by the society in respect of the said plot. The WTO has taken the value at Rs. 200 per sq. yd. but on the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that Rs. 150 per sq. yd. would be reasonable. We direct the WTO to adopt this figure and compute the necessary relief which would become available to the assessee. 8. The remaining ground in the appeal pertaining to the valuation of silver utensils and gold ornaments was not pressed and this is accordingly rejected. 9. The appeal is partly allowed
-
1991 (9) TMI 97 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Capital Gains, Purchase And Sale, Speculation Loss ... ... ... ... ..... t of taxes. There should be direct nexus between borrowing and payment of taxes. This has been established in the present case. The fact that the assessee could have encashed his fixed deposits instead of taking loans on the security of those deposits is irrelevant. Besides, the ITO is not right when he observes that this was not borrowing because it was not user of someone else s money. As far as the loan which the assessee has taken was concerned, that money belonged to the lender before it was advanced to the assessee. Merely because fixed deposits of the assessee had been kept as security against said loan would not mean that it was the assessee s money which he had received. What the assessee had received was loan from the lender. In respect of fixed deposits he was the creditor while in respect of loans taken, he was the debtor. The two capacities are distinct. Considering the entire circumstances, I reject the ground raised by the Department. 5. The appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (9) TMI 96 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rebate of duty - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... f Indian Oil Corporation v. C.C.E. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.) contingencies which may set in motion the process of provisional assessment only the following four - (i) The importer is unable to produce any document. (ii) The importer is unable to furnish any relevant information. (iii) The officer thinks it is necessary to subject the goods to chemical or other test. (iv) The officer needs to make further enquiry for assessing the duty. In this case none of the above contingencies is available. In view of the above it is difficult to uphold party s plea and grant of permission under Rule 173-11(C) will automatically give rise to the contingencies from where a provisional assessment maybe inferred. In the result, the applicant s contention that their claim of rebate is covered by Section 11B explanation B(e) is not acceptable. The Government therefore holds the impugned order-in-appeal as correct and well justified. The same is upheld and the Revision Application is rejected.
-
1991 (9) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption - Discrimination ... ... ... ... ..... hough he contested that the appellant s claim. In this view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially the fact that no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the same treatment as was granted to the State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India in the matter relating to payment of duty on the import of caustic soda. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the respondent to charge duty from the appellants on the caustic soda imported by them at the same rate as charged from the respondent - Corporation. If it is found that the appellant has paid any excess in amount the same shall be refunded to the appellant within two months. 4. Since, we have granted relief to the appellant in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this decision shall not be treated as precedent. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 94 - SC ORDER
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... them in the appeal under the statutory provisions. There is force in this contention. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the writ petition to be disposed of by the High Court in regard to the point of validity in the notification. The other points concerning details of the assessment, if any, should, however, be agitated by the appellants in the regular appeals under the Act, if any. 3. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty and confiscation - Interpretation of statute - Headings - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... in Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties Act has been used in various Acts and other enactments, but then Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that no tax shall be levied and collected except by authority of law. There being no such authority of law to levy penalty, we have to hold so. 40.Accordingly, these petitions are allowed to the extent that show cause notices calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why (a) the plant, machinery, land and building utilised in the manufacture, etc. of the fabrics as aforesaid should not be confiscated to Government under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and (b) penalties should not be imposed on them under Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, are set aside. A writ of prohibition issued to the respondents restraining them from proceeding under the show cause notices for the purpose of confiscation and penalties as aforesaid. To this extent rule is made absolute. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication - Re-adjudication without hearing - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... portunity to the petitioner the Assistant Collector, after the order of remand by the Appellate Collector, has chosen to pass the impugned order unilaterally requires consideration. Right to participate in the remanded proceedings is an effective right and the denial of the same constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when the writ petitioner is sought to be saddled with monetary liability. Without going into the merits of the claims, made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the department, the impugned proceedings are quashed on the ground of denial of opportunity and the Assistant Collector of Customs the second respondent is directed to restore the proceedings to his file, give fresh opportunity to the writ petitioners and thereafter pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Once the order dated 23-9-1980 goes, the proceedings dated 18-5-1983 also should go. The writ petitions are allowed and ordered in the above terms. No costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Writ Petition No. 8246 of 1983 is for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider his application dated 5-3-1982. Consequently Writ Petition No. 8246 of 1983 is allowed and there will be a direction as prayed for to consider the refund application at least in respect of the duty paid from 2-5-1981 to 17-2-1982. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the refund application dated 5-3-1982 within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There will however, be no order as to costs. 5. So far as Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1983 is concerned, that relates to the refund application dated 26-5-1981 relating to the period from 10-4-1974 to 30-4-1981. it is not disputed that the payments were made voluntarily without any protest. Therefore Section 11B(1) bars any refund application preferred beyond six months from the relevant date. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1983 will stand dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Adjudication - Demand - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e are unable to come to the conclusion that the notice prima facie does not contain materials for invoking jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act. In that view of the matter, at this stage it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the notice issued by the Assistant Collector. We would accordingly reject the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8.All the contentions raised having failed, the writ application fails and is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, we would, however, observe that since the petitioner has not filed any show cause on account of the interim orders passed by this Court, we permit the petitioner to file show-cause within four weeks from today whereafter the adjudicating authority may dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With these observations, the writ application is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 9. A.K. Padhi, J. . - I agree.
-
1991 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valuation - Packing charges - Durable and returnable packing ... ... ... ... ..... be refunded. Although the assessee has stated that they have paid Rs. 11,16,270.31 for the period 1-11-1975 to 8-1-1976 but there is no material to support his contention. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to refund of this amount subject to verification to be made by the department, of the excessive amount of excise duty paid by the assessee under protest. 16.In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and we quash the demand notice of Rs. 5,23,204.25 and orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector dated 14th August, 1976 and 4th July, 1977 (Annexures H and J) respectively. We further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund to the assessee the excise duty of Rs. 11,16,270.31 for the period 1-11-1975 to 8-1-1976 stated to have been paid by the assessee. The refund of this amount, however, shall be subject to verification by the department. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 17.Petition allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Import - OGL Import Entitlement Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... be orders in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition. The Actual User Certificate must be issued in favour of the petitioner by the Respondent No. 4 by 12 noon of Monday the 30th September, 1991 without fail. The Customs Authorities will issue a proper certificate so that no port charges are levied upon the petitioner because of the detention of the goods in the Port area unnecessarily. 10. It has been stated by the petitioner that due to inordinate delay in releasing the goods by the Customs Authorities, the goods are being damaged. Accordingly, the Customs Authorities will pay costs to the petitioner assessed at 100 GMs. 11. On behalf of the respondents a prayer has been made for stay of operation of this order. Since no question of law worth considering has been raised by the respondents, I do not propose to pass any order for stay of operation of this order. 12. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative part of this order on the usual undertaking.
-
1991 (9) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Petition - Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... rsonal hearing. The goods did not conform to the description given in those invoices nor did the petitioner mention the correct value in the different bills of entry. There was no compulsion. The petitioner deposited on his own and such deposits were not made under protest. The Customs Authorities imposed the duty under Section 14 of the Customs Act on the basis of evidence of value as declared by other importers during the relevant period in respect of importation of identical goods. The petitioner neither demanded any personal hearing nor presented any petition or registered any protest being fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the enhancement of the value. He himself amended such value on all the copies of the bills of entry. 2. Under those circumstances, there being no merit to this application. The petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for. Under these circumstances, this application is dismissed. Interim order if any is vacated.
............
|
