|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 178 Records
-
1980 (1) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to paragraph No. 9 of the writ petition it is submitted that although this paragraph is admitted but the letter issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner does not carry any legal force, if it is not in accordance with law and it has no evidential value. In view of the aforesaid stand of the State, I hold that the memorandum, annexure P-5, has no legal force in view of my decision that monoblock centrifugal pump is a tax-free goods. 17.. For the reasons recorded above, I allow all the five writ petitions and quash the memorandum dated 9th April, 1979, annexure P-5, and the notice, annexure P-6, in so far as they relate to revising the assessments of monoblock pumping sets. The Assessing Authority or the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioners shall be at liberty to take suo motu action for any other matter if they so choose to do in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs, counsel s fee being Rs. 200 in each case. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 174 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stead of being addressed to the dealer who was to be made liable for the escaped turnover was addressed to an entity which did not exist, the whole proceedings stand vitiated in law. The defect in notice was fatal to assumption of jurisdiction by the Sales Tax Officer. In view of the settled principle which is culled out from these various decisions given under the Income-tax Act and the Sales Tax Act, the principle enunciated in the Kalpanath s case1978 U.P.T.C. 1. cannot be held to be good law. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The question of law raised by the assessee is decided by saying that the notice under section 21 having been improperly served the initiation of proceedings was without jurisdiction and it could not be validated by participation of the assessee in the proceedings. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 300. The fee of the standing counsel is specially fixed in this case at Rs. 300. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 173 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... osmetics and toilet requisites including (a) Hair clips, hairpins...................... (b) Tooth-paste, tooth-powder...................... (c) Alta, lipstick, nail polish..................... (d) Shaving sets, safety-razors.................... It cannot be disputed that for the assessment year 1971-72 it is this notification modified by Notification No. 332 dated 15th November, 1971, which is applicable. It includes beauty boxes along with alta, lipstick and nail polish which cannot be used up. It indicates that the entry has to be understood in the widest sense. The view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions), therefore, that tikuli should be taxed as unclassified item cannot be upheld. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The question of law raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is decided by saying that tikuli was taxable as cosmetic requisite. The Commissioner of Sales Tax shall be entitled to his cost, which is assessed at Rs. 50. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... out sil and lorha. And no Indian kitchen can be thought of without bread or puri and spices. These items are not of direct use yet it can hardly be doubted that in popular parlance they are appliances which are used in kitchen. It is, therefore, not necessary that an appliance to be kitchen appliance must be of direct use or help in cooking. The entry is not cooking appliance but kitchen appliance, a term of wider import. Even in European countries, grinders, beaters, crushers and blinders, items which are not directly used for cooking are considered as cooking appliance (in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. II, 1973 edition, page 625). The revising authority was therefore justified in holding that sewai ki machine is understood in common parlance as kitchen appliance. In the result, these revisions fail and are dismissed. The assessee shall be entitled to its cost which is assessed at Rs. 200 one set. The fee of the standing counsel is assessed at Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 171 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases, Restrictions on establishment of place of business in India
-
1980 (1) TMI 164 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the plaintiffs were estopped from denying the validity of the sale in favour of the Benaras Bank Ltd. and the character of the possession of the Benaras Bank Ltd. and its successors-in-interest?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. At no point of time did the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs raise the slightest objection to the sale of the leasehold interest. It was thereafter that the defendant obtained the permission of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, and raised a construction on the land. The plaintiffs themselves admittedly reside nearabout the land in dispute. They did not raise any objection to the raising of the construction. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants appeared to proceed on the common understanding that the defendants had succeeded to the interest of the Patel Mills Ltd., in the leasehold interest. We are, therefore, of the view that the plaintiffs were estopped from contending that the defendant had no interest in land. The only right of the plaintiffs was to receive the rent.
-
1980 (1) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Managing director - Approval of Government for appointment ... ... ... ... ..... pecific penalty has been provided elsewhere. Section 629A of the Act presupposes a contravention of the provisions of the Act and there can be a contravention only when there is a direction or prohibition. As we have already observed section 269(2) of the Companies Act contains no direction or prohibition and section 629A does not, therefore, have any application. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above two cases and I hold that section 269(2) is only declaratory and does not create an offence. I am not unmindful that this view of mine may permit a director of a company to function without prior approval of the Central Government but the plain language of section 269(2) compels me to take the above view. As section 269(2) of the Act does not create any offence, the question whether it creates a continuing offence or the bar of limitation under section 468, Cr. P C, applies does not arise. The application accordingly fails and the rule is discharged.
-
1980 (1) TMI 147 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interlocutory order ... ... ... ... ..... o the coming into operation of the new policy. As it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Messrs Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, and another, 1971 (3) S.C.C. 170, such public notices and public notifications are prospective and they cannot govern the applications made and decided upon prior to the coming into existence of such public notices or notifications. There is no substance in this contention of Mr. Paranjape. 10. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with costs. 11. emsp Notice of Motion No. 31 of 1980 taken out in this appeal by the respondents, dated 11th of January 1980, is also dismissed with costs for the same reasons. 12. emsp The appellants apply for a continuation of the interim stay which is granted to them earlier. Mr. Gursahani who appears for the respondents states that his clients will not export the goods in question till 4th of February 1980. In view of this statement, no order on the application for stay.
-
1980 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... to beneficiary considered not merely from the point of view of its being an attachment of the existing view of its being acquisition attachment of the existing machines but from the point of view of the necessity for the incurring of the expenditure. Admittedly the purpose of this machines was to remove fluff arising from the operation of the Carding Machines which was earlier removed manually. This expenditure therefore is in lieu of revenue expenditure incurred for manually removing the dust. This expenditure also involves safely and removal of health hazard of the workers. Except for these two benefits the assessee derives no enduring benefit of increase in production of the efficiency of the Carding Machine as such. Taking these circumstances it is very clear that this expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. we, therefore, direct the ITO to allow this claim and recompute the total income. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 142 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... reading of the above provision shows that it applies to gifts of money made by one person to another by means of entries in the books of account. There is no specification therein regarding the period during which the gift should have been made. The provision having come into effect only from 1st April, 1976, it would apply to the gifts made during the relevant previous year assessable from the asst. yr. 1st April, 1976 onwards. We are fortified in our above opinion by the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 119 ITR 830. The gifts in question for the year under appeal having been made on 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970 and 1st May, 1970 would not attract the provisions of s. 4(5A), which came into force only from 1st April, 1976. However, in view of our finding above that no valid gift had been made in this case, we set aside the orders of the AAC and restore the orders of the WTO for all the years under appeal. The appeals of the Revenue succeed and are allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 141 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... t the order of the Tribunal relied on by the CGT (A) has not been accepted by the Department and that the value of the land gifted by the assessee to M/s Devi Educational Institution is liable to gift-tax. The only ground on which the GTO rejected the claim of the assessee was not that the assessee did not produce a certificate in respect of the above institution for exemption. Having regard to the fact that the ITO has recognised M/s Devi Educational Institution as an institution to which the provision of s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 would apply, we agree with the CGT (A) that the gift of lands by the assessee to the above institution is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(v) of the GT Act. Indeed the Tribunal s order relied on by the CGT (A) has also upheld the above institution s claim for exemption under s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, we find no merit in his departmental appeal. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 140 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... rcumstances of that case, which indicated the lead, initiative, drive and over all control of the assessee that the High Court held that the assessee was the owner of the gold. Moreover, the High Court held that in a matter arising under Art. 226 under the Writ Jurisdiction the Court could not consider the question of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence but it could only consider whether the materials or circumstances are such that the inference drawn was capable of being rationally drawn and if there be such materials it could not interfere. In the instant case, however, as discussed above there was no material brought on record to hold that the assessee was the owner of the above sum of Rs. 1,30,785. We, therefore, hold that there is no justification for making the above addition. The addition of Rs. 1,30,785 is accordingly deleted. Consequently, the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is also not warranted and it is also cancelled. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 139 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... alments of Rs. 14,435 on or before 1st Dec., 77, Rs. 14,435 on or before 1st Jan., 78 and Rs. 14,436 on or before 1st Feb., 78. We are informed that the assessee had complied with the above direction of the IAC. The fact that the IAC had thought it fit to grant extension of time to the assessee for paying the tax in instalments establishes the inability of the assessee to pay the tax in a lump consequent upon want of funds which was pleaded before him. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the default committed by the assessee. We, therefore, see no justification for the levy of penalty under s. 140A(3). In view of our above order we do not think it necessary for us to consider the legal contention raised on behalf of the assessee about the constitutional validity of the provisions of s. 140A(3) of the Act decided by the Madras High Court in Sali Maricar vs. ITO. We accordingly cancel the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 138 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... IT vs. Hazarimal Nagji and Co.(4) and that of the same High Court in CIT vs. M.P. Kolha.(5) The learned departmental representative submitted that the appellant cannot be placed in a worse position by reason of filing the appeal and therefore we should not hold that the reassessment as a whole in in-valid. But so far as this case is concerned, it is conceded that the appellant would not be placed in a worse position by reason of the finding that the reassessment is invalid. In view of this, the objection sought to be raised on this score has no force so far as this case is concerned. Further, in this appeal what all we are concerned with is about the correction of the order of the CIT (A). In view of the very re-assessment being held invalid for the reasons set forth above, the setting aside of the allowance originally made by the ITO is untenable. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT (A) to the extent of his setting aside the disallowance made. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 130 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the identical of the Madras High Court reported in 66 ITR 20 relied on by the Revenue and that of Gujarat High Court decision reported in 114 ITR 28 relied on by the assessee and the CIT (A) were considered in detail by the Madras Bench C of the Tribunal referred in the and it was held in that order that the ruling of the Gujarat High Court reported in 114 ITR 28, which dealt with interest payable under s. 217(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 would also equally apply to s. 214 and, that, therefore, the above decision would squarely apply to the facts of that case. The decision of the Madras High Court in 66 ITR 20 was considered to be not relevant. It related only to the time limit for filling the estimate. The reasonings found in the said order, with which was are in agreement, squarely apply to the facts of this case. Following that order, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) on this point. 11. The appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ther it could be said that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause, because he was laid up during that period. We are unable to accept the view taken by the lower authorities that the appellant should have corresponded with the assessing officer even though he was laid up and was taking treatment as mentioned above. In such circumstances, the assessee would have thought of only recovering from his illness. Hence the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence to support the return for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and for filing the return for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Agrl. ITO is directed to reopen the assessment made under s. 17(4) and to make fresh assessment after giving an opportunity to the appellant to file the returns for the two years and to substantiate the returns by evidence, if any, for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. 4. In the result all the appeals are allowed. Institution fee will be refunded in full in all the appeals.
-
1980 (1) TMI 128 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ent for the year 1972-73 was sent back to the Agrl. ITO by this Tribunal in ATA. 295/73 for the purpose of deciding the statues of the appellant. In order to find out whether the appellants could be assessed as association of individuals , the Agrl, ITO should have examined whether the appellants have satisfied the condition provided in s. 2(q) of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act. Since this question has been left open to be decided by the Agrl. ITO for the earlier asst. yr. 1972-73, we propose to remand these assessments also to the Agrl. ITO to ascertain the correct status of the appellants. While considering the status of the appellants, the Agrl. ITO also will consider whether the disallowances are not proper. 4. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Agrl. ITO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with our above observations. Institution fee will be refunded in full in all appeals.
-
1980 (1) TMI 127 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ct of the recitals in the settlement deeds clearly show that the intention of Fathima Nachiar was only to provide one-fourth of the income from the properties for the continuous performance of the charity without break in the manner specified therein. In the view taken by us, we are of the opinion that the order of the lower authorities treating the settlement deeds executed by Fathima Nachiar as trust deeds creating an absolute endowment is wrong. Its, therefore, follows that the settlement deeds executed by Abdul Khadar in 1970 are perfectly valid in law. If under the settlement deeds, each settlee has more than the assessable limit, it is open to the authorities to assess them individually. In case the settlee are assessed, it is open to the assessing officer to consider whether the income should be estimated or accepted as per the return filed by the assessee. 5. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the institution fee will be refunded in full in both the appeals.
-
1980 (1) TMI 126 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... or an earlier year. The decision of the High Court is now pending before the Supreme Court, while the assessment relevant for this appeal is pending revision before the High Court. Under these circumstances, it will be incorrect to assume that the liability has abated. The liability was subsisting on the last day of the accounting year. If the contention of the learned Departmental Representative is accepted, the assessee will be left high and dry in the event of the State appeal to the Supreme Court succeeding against the assessee. On the other hand, the refund remission of sales-tax, if any, would be clearly liable to tax under s. 41(2) of the Act. Apart from these practical considerations, the claim has to be allowed because it was a subsisting one at the time when the accounts were closed and when the return was filed. In this view, we have to hold that the sales-tax liability of Rs. 36,337 claimed as a deduction has to be allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 120 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... said claim has been placed on our file. From the perusal of the details it comes to, that the amount of Rs. 1,293 should have been allowed as deduction, as such the disallowance made and sustained by the lower authorities to the extent of Rs. 1,293 is directed to be deleted. Rs. 6 . Rs. 748 Rs. 30 . Rs. 20 Rs. 25 . Rs. 10 Rs. 50 . Rs. 10 Rs. 11 . Rs. 30 Rs. 9 . Rs. 20 Rs. 51 . Rs. 30 Rs. 151 . Rs. 20 Rs. 100 . Rs. 20 Rs. 30 . Rs. 25 Rs. 25 . Rs. 5 Rs. 15 . Rs. 20 Rs. 30 . Rs. 25 Rs. 25 . Rs. 5 Rs. 15 . Rs. 20 Rs. 30 . Rs. 20 Rs. 25 . Rs. 30 Rs. 5 . Rs. 5 Rs. 20 . Rs. 20 Rs. 100 . Rs. 5 Rs. 25 . Rs. 30 Rs. 20 . Rs. 20 Rs. 20 . Rs. 10 Rs. 748 . Rs. 5 . . Rs. 100 . . Rs. 50 . . Rs. 30 . . Rs. 5 . . Rs. 5 . . Rs. 1293 11. In coming to the conclusion we have derived the required benefit from the orders of this Bench made in the case of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee partly succeeds and is partly allowed.
........
|
