|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 798 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Singhi. 3. Mr. Singhi, the learned counsel for the revenue, brought to our notice that identical issue has been considered by this Court in the case of this very assessee in D.B. I.T. Reference No. 43 of 1988 dated 5-7-2002. The learned counsel for the revenue has also placed the order delivered in D.B. I.T. Reference No. 43 of 1988 for our perusal. 4. Following the view taken by us, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 5. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 797 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t find any substantial ground to admit the appeal. The Civil appeal is dismissed
-
2002 (7) TMI 796 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... port turnover to total turnover is a rough and ready method adopted for facility of implementation and therefore, such export profit cannot be strictly described as profits derived from exports. This is the import of the words used in para 4 of the CBDT’s Circular. The observation contained in para 4 of the CBDT’s Circular is no authority for allowing deduction in respect of profits derived from activities totally unconnected with export activities. We are in this respect bound by the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court. The Revenue’s appeals thus have merit and have to be allowed. 10. In regard to the contention of the ld. AR relating to sale of gunny bags, we find that income there from has been treated as a part of export profit in the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92. 11. In view of the foregoing, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed and orders of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and those of the ld. Assessing Officer are restored.
-
2002 (7) TMI 795 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee’s own case in Fenner (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1999 239 ITR 480 (Mad.). According to the learned counsel, even the fourth question is covered against the assessee, again by judgment in assessee’s own case in Fenner (India) Ltd. v. CIT 2000 241 ITR 803 (Mad.). According to the learned counsel, all these three questions can be answered against the assessee on the basis of these decisions. The department does not controvert the same. Hence, these questions are answered against the assessee. 3. However, insofar as the third question is concerned, according to Mr. Janarthana Raja, the matter is covered in favour of the assessee, again by the judgment in assessee’s own case in CIT v. Fenner (India) Ltd. 2000 241 ITR 645 (Mad.). This is also not controverted by the learned senior standing counsel for the department. In that view, that question will be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. The tax cases are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 794 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cles of personal effects. The Apex Court in the case of H.H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 61 has said that an intimate connection between the effects and the person of the assessee must be shown to exist to render them ‘personal effects’ within the meaning of that expression used in clause (ii) of the exceptions in section 2(4A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Legislature intended only those articles to be included within the expression ‘personal effects’ which were intimately and commonly used by the assessee. 11. The paintings were used to decor the house. Assessee loved paintings. A good painting transmits good vibe across. The element of personal attachment with the object did exist in the facts of the case. Therefore, in our opinion, paintings could be construed to be the personal effects, as such not exigible to tax. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 793 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s context there is no controversy that the quantity found was of commercial quantity. Under the circumstances the relevant provision as regards the sentence would be section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, as amended by Act No.9 of 2001 (which came into effect on 9th May 2001 and would apply to all pending cases on that day). In this context section 22(c) provides for imprisonment for a term not less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extent to two lakh rupees. In the instant case we find that the punishment imposed both in terms of imprisonment as also as regards fine is exactly between the minimum and the maximum prescribed by law. This cannot in any manner be said to be excessive, particularly where the narcotic substance found was of commercial quantity. 7. In the premises aforesaid, we find that there is no substance in these appeals and the same are therefore dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 792 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of M/s Arvind Jewellers, Ahmedabad and in the said order we have upheld the order of the Tribunal and decided the reference in favour of the assessee. Since the identical issue is involved and since the Tribunal has referred to the order of the present assessee while disposing of the appeal of M/s Arvind Jewellers, we are of the view that the reference would meet with the same fate. 4. Following our decision in CIT vs. M/s Arvind Jewellers being ITR No. 174 of 1989, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act. We are also of the view that even if there is an omission or mistake with regard to certain items, it was not proper as found in the assessment order to set aside the whole assessment. In this view of the matter, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 791 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee very fairly states that the sole question is covered by a decision of this Court in Venkatesh & Ors. vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (Mad) 142 (2000) 243 ITR 367(Mad) to which one of us, N.V. Balasubramanian, J. was a party, according to which, the price paid for shares by the vendee is required to be considered for computing capital gains in the hands of assessee. In that view, there would remain nothing in this matter and the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 790 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... he provisions of s. 40(a)(i) only, we cannot go into the question whether the expenditure is capital in nature. What is held by the AO is that since the payment is towards royalty on which no TDS has been made under s. 195 of the Act in view of s. 40(a)(i), the expenditures cannot be allowed which are otherwise allowable as revenue expenditure under the Act. Hence, it can be inferred that the AO has himself treated the expenditure as revenue in nature which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). The issue dealt with by the CIT(A) is only that the provisions of s. 195 are not applicable and, hence, the amount cannot be disallowed resorting to s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. This ground raised before us, therefore, cannot be said to be arising out of the order of the CIT(A) and, hence, we are unable to entertain the same. This ground is, accordingly, dismissed. 51. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are to be treated as partly allowed while the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 789 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of addition of ₹ 20,000 shown as cash credit in the name of Smt. Pramila Sharma. 5. Mr. Jhawar, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that once the addition is made on account of trading result, no separate addition should be made on account of cash credits. 6. It is true that if cash credits are going out of the black money earned in the year, no separate addition should be made but the onus on the assessee to show that these cash credits are bogus and coming out of the black money earned this year. Nowhere assessee admits that these cash credits shown is the result of black money earned in this year or earlier year. In absence of any evidence supporting the claim of the assessee, we find no substance in the case of assessee. It is a case of search. The additions on trading results as well as on the cash credits are made on the material found at the time of search. In the result, we reduce the addition of cash credit from ₹ 1,05,000 to ₹ 85,000.
-
2002 (7) TMI 788 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he requests that the question of law may be left open. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed, leaving the question of law open.
-
2002 (7) TMI 787 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the date of derecognition he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order and any certificate obtained by him from the said institute would be of no avail. The decision in our view does not lay down any general principle of law applicable in all cases. It was based on the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case. Therefore, the decision cannot be of any avail to the respondent in this case. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single judge dated 14 July 1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No 4433/97 which was confirmed by the division bench by its judgment dated 6 July 2000 in DB Civil Special Appeal No 917 of 1999 (Def) is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if in the meantime the respondent has been given any financial benefit on the basis of the qualification obtained on completion of the course the same will not be recovered from her. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 786 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... smin Forte Tablet and Bestrodyrly Syrup on the ground that the name of marketing company also bears on labels/containers of the goods in question. The respondents relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Chemguard Coatings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 43 (T) 1999 (34) RLT 560 and in the case of Nippa Chemical (P) Ltd., Drewtreat Chemicals v. CCE, Madras 1998 (100) E.L.T. 490 (T) 1997 (23) RLT 826 . 4. In the present case, the applicants were clearing the goods in their own brand name and were simply mentioning the name of the marketing firm. Mere mentioning of their marketing firm does not amount to clearing the goods in the brand name of marketing firm. The Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the respondents also held that mere printing the name of marketing firms do not amount to clearing the goods in the brand name of marketing firm. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order. The appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 785 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en applied only if there was no change in the machineries in the petitioner's factory in the relevant year under consideration or if the change had augmented the actual production capacity but since the reduction in the machineries had resulted into reduction in the annual production capacity as per the formula contained in Rule 3(3), the authorities were not justified in applying Rule 5 and, therefore, for the relevant year 1998-99, the respondents are required to be directed to apply the formula contained in Rule 3(3) of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, without applying Rule 5. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned orders dated 11-10-2001 and 18-5-2002 at Annexures "F" and "L" respectively are quashed and set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) shall hear and decide the petitioner's appeal without any pre-deposit. 15. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 784 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dduce necessary evidence for deciding the abovesaid questions. It is relevant to note that none of the parties had addressed this Court to remand the case to the trial Court but in the interest of justice and to decisively answer the issue of jurisdiction. I thought it appropriate to relegate the parties to the trial Court to enable them to adduce necessary evidence relevant to decide the issue of jurisdiction. 22. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the subject application (Ex.1) under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure is restored to the file of the trial Court. To be heard and decided in view of the observations made hereinabove on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations in the impugned judgment or this order and in accordance with law. The trial Court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the receipt of writ of this Court. 23. No order as to costs. 24. Certified copy expedited.
-
2002 (7) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mitation Act as claimed and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not discussed the materials on the basis of which the Courts below recorded the finding of fact relating to lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiffs. It has also not discussed the reason for taking a contrary view on that question. The concurrent decisions of the courts below have been reversed with a general observation that on the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiffs were entitled to exclusion of the period under section 14 of the Limitation Act as claimed. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. In the result the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2040 of 1987 is set aside and the judgment of the Additional District Judge-III in CA No.3713/1986 confirming the judgment of the trial court in Civil Suit No.115/82 is restored. Hearing fee is assessed at ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2002 (7) TMI 782 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... a consideration and was not (and would not even if parcelforce were a private carrier be) a taxable supply, (iii) The supply by plaintiflor to the customer of an arrangement service for which plaintiflor charged pound 1.63 pre parcel. Whatever else was included in this supply, it was not the service of actual delivery. That was supplied by parcelforce. What the customer received for his money was the benefit fo the arrangments which plantiflor had made with parcelforce to deliver its customer 39 s goods to his order without charging him in the normal way. Since plantiflor made this supply for consideration, it was a taxable supply. I too would allow the appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my noble and learned friends, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Millett. For the reasons they give, with whic I agree, I too would allow the appeal. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors Solicitor for the Customers and Excise Durio Garcia.
-
2002 (7) TMI 781 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essional rate has been held to be illegal and the decision of the Supreme Court in British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2000 119 STC 6 has held that such discriminatory levy of tax is illegal and also directed that subsequent to the passing of the notification, it is not permissible for the sales tax authorities to recover the excess of sales tax at the normal rates over the concessional rates. However, the ratio of the said decision has no application to the facts of the case, since the levy of tax in the present case is covered by the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 86(27) dated March 26, 1986 read with the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987, whereunder the T.V. sets constitute an accessory and therefore, imposition of revised levy of six per cent tax is correct and legal. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions formulated above in the affirmative. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 780 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation Tribunal decision which was not interfered by the High Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the decision. The High Court in this decision has not gone on the law which govern the facts and has discussed the matter without any expression of opinion on the subject. This reliance placed by the petitioner will be of no consequence. In this view of the matter, the arguments so raised by the petitioner have no bearing on the question which is germane in the present writ petition. 97.. In addition to the aforesaid, it will be pertinent to note that the notice issuing authority has based its conclusion on a report based on a survey. In this survey, the conduct of the petitioner was not that of co-operation. Thus also the notice is valid. 98.. In the result, I dont find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is therefore dismissed. The petitioner may appear before the departmental authority and contest the notice as admissible in law. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 779 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nclined to permit the State authorities to agitate this question for the first time as it was not taken by the respondent either before the Tribunal or by filing an affidavit-in-opposition to the application for condonation of delay. Such being the position, we are not inclined to permit Ms. Roy to raise such question. 9.. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and consequent thereupon the order reopening the assessment is also set aside. 10.. In view of the order setting aside the order reopening the assessment, the consequent order namely, order passed on March 26, 1997 and the order dated March 15, 1999 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and also the appellate orders dated July 28, 2000 and August 28, 2000 are also set aside. 11.. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. 12.. There will be no order as to costs. 13.. Parties to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
