|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 178 Records
-
1980 (1) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... rt in the case reported in 119 ITR 145 had held that a manufacture may hire a plant or machinery and employ hired labour and manufacture the goods. The Court further observed that to earn the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, a company must mainly engage itself in the manufacture or processing of goods either personally or by someone else under its supervisory control or direction. The case of the assessee, in our opinion is clearly within the ratios laid down in the above two cases. The stitching of the garments from outside parties was done under the supervisory control and direction of the assessee company. Besides the other processes were carried on by itself. If can, therefore, be held that the assessee company was engaged in the processing of goods and was therefore industrial company within its definition laid down in the Finance Act, 1976. We, therefore, uphold the order of the AAC on this issue also. 34. In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 118 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... materials but the Revenue could ask for satisfaction of the fact that the declarant had really earned the amount before accepting the explanation of the assessee. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court found this view fortified in an earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah vs. CIT (7). Thus there is a cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on this point. However, with respect we prefer to follow the view expressed by the Delhi High Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Be that as it may, we have found as matter of fact that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the impugned two credits of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 45,000. In view of this, we need not dilate much on the legal point. For the foregoing reasons, we find no basis for treating the impugned two sums of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 45,000 as income from undisclosed sources. We, therefore, order the decision of the two amounts accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 117 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... be reckoned at 8 (eight) complete months. As regards the asst. yr. 1976-77 in the light of our findings for 1974-75 there is no case for our interference. The assessee had no difficulty to file a return. The due date was 1st Aug., 1976. Profits for that year had been already ascertained by 31st March, 1976 on the date off dissolution. So the assessee should have filed the income-tax return in time. We are told that the Commr. had reduced the quantum of total income and therefore the quantum of penalty may require a recomputation. The assessee may, if so advised get it rectified before the ITO. 4. Therefore, I.T.A. No. 772/Coch/77-78, asst. yr. 1974-75, is allowed in part. Imposition of penalty is confirmed. The quantum of penalty will be computed on the basis that the default in not filing the returns is only for 8 (eight) months. Appeal ITA 773/Coch/77-78, asst. yr. 1976-77, is dismissed. If there is any mistake in the quantum of penalty, the assessee may approach the ITO.
-
1980 (1) TMI 116 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... er of an HUF, he has complete and absolute domain over the entire assets and can do whatever he feels like. When the respondent Brij Bhushan Sanwalka had only four daughters, the question of attacking the gift of Rs. 10,000 to one of his daughters simply should not have arisen. Though the AAC in his wisdom came to delete the addition of Rs. 1,448 on altogether different grounds but we uphold his order as the decision reached by him is a correct one. Shri R.S. Khichi, appearing for the Revenue accepted that the facts are similar as in the asst yr. 1973-74. 5. Therefore, for the reasons which prompted us to dismiss the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 1079 supra we hold that the interest payments of Rs. 1,717 and Rs. 1,479 to Anupama Sanwalka and Meenu Sanwalka in respect of their deposits the source of which was gifts, as stated above, could not be added to the respondent s assessment on the ground that the gifts were not valid. 6. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 115 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... re, do not find anything incongruous in this. 24. We also find that no amount on account of bad debts was factually written off or adjusted by the assessee against these amounts claimed as reserves, that in fact the assessee also did not make a claim for any deduction for any of the asst. yr. under consideration on account of bad debts, that no such claim was either made or allowed by the ITO that the assessee made contra entries in the unpublished balance sheets only and no such entries were passed in books and that the published balance sheets did not contain any contra entries. The amounts were in fact treated as reserves. These are entitled to be considered as reserves under r. 1(xi) (b) of the First Schedule to the Act. We, therefore, direct that these be so treated, both the issues are decided in all the asst. yrs. in favour of the assessee. The Surtax Officer directed to make necessary adjustment in the relevant Surtax assessments of the assessee. 25. Appeals allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... nst the assessment framed in the case of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal and the said assessment had since been framed on the basis of return since filed by the assessee on 2nd Nov., 1974. The amendment by way of insertion of sub-s. 4 to s. 249 of the Act was made effective as from 1st Oct., 1975. Accordingly, on the facts of the assessee s case the said amendment has had no effect since that has not been made retrospective. In view of the matter, we are of the opinion and we hold that the impugned order of the AAC cannot be allowed to stand on its legs since proviso to sub-s. 4 as also sub-s. 4 of s. 249 of the Act did not apply on the facts of the assessee s case. The impugned order of the AAC is set aside, the appeal is restored to his file with the directions that he will hear the appeal afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds.
-
1980 (1) TMI 113 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... me assessee was Rs. 98,746. In asst. yr. 1972-73 the difference of Rs. 2,369 is constituted of depreciation of car of Rs. 480 and recomputation of property income of Rs. 1,884 (including rounding of income by Rs. 5). In the second year i.e., 1973-74, the notional income being profit on sale of car under s. 41(2) amounts to Rs. 900 and other disallowances in all amount to Rs. 26,104. With this, it cannot be ignored that the total capital of the company is Rs. 10 lakhs divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and even if dividend declared would have hardly been anything significant per share under the peculiar circumstances of this case. The assessee elected as a prudent businessman not to declare the dividend and thus the total surplus after provision for taxes etc. is hardly significant to call for any declaration of dividend. The action of the Commr. (A) is, therefore, confirmed for both these years. 5. In the result, the Revenue s appeals for the two years are dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is entitled to give sub-licence would not make it a capital asset. Technical know-how is an intangible asset and it can be used or parted with without any detriment and accordingly it cannot be said that merely because the assessee sub-licenced in later years that there was a capital asset acquired by the payment of Rs. 26 lakhs. We hold that it is a revenue expenditure and the assessee is entitled to the deduction. In view of this it is unnecessary to deal with the alternate claim of depreciation and development rebate. 7. It was common ground that the disallowance of Rs. 2,000 would be decided on the basis of the decision relating to the payment of Rs. 26 lakhs. As we have held that the payment was on a revenue account the expenditure incurred in obtaining that agreement by way of travelling expenses would also be of a revenue nature. This would also be allowed. 8. In the result the assessee s appeal is allowed and the assessment will be modified accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 111 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... assessed income cannot beneficiary called as definite income of the assessee for penalty matter. Relying on these observation of the Punjab High Court we hold that the Revenue cannot successfully contend before us that assessed income was relevant for judging the default of the assessee and not the returned income. The question is whether the assessee believed returned income to be correct. There is nothing on record to show that returned income was untrue to the knowledge of the assessee and that assessed income of Rs. 20,000 was believed to be the income by the assessee from the very beginning. The finding is that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The admission which is not absolute and qualified cannot beneficiary read against the assessee to its detriment. The assessee having believed that its income was below taxable limit and thereby having failed to file return within the time, we think that it was prevented by reasonable cause. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 110 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... Metal Products, repayment of which was praised by the partners, the assessee was justified in losing all hopes for recovery of the amounts due from these three debtors. In respect of the debts, only those amounts could be treated as assessee s assets and included in the assessee s net wealth were the assessee had some hope of recovery. Taking all these facts into consideration and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that the assessee was justified in treating only Rs. 25,000 out of the amount outstanding from M/s. Jai Shree Metal Products as assessee s asset for inclusion in the net wealth and is not including the balance amount due from M/s. Jai Shree Metal Products and the entire amount due from M/s. Shrinivas Shyam Sunder and India Trading Co. in his net wealth. The addition on this account made by the Revenue authorities, therefore, in our view, was not justified and is hereby deleted. 7. The appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 109 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e Supreme Court itself has stated that the liability was a substantive liability but it could be viewed either as an additional tax or as a fine for the infraction of law. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no clear indication of the nature of the liability and whether it is finally disallowable Two Benches of the Tribunal have taken diametrically opposite views. The Bombay Bench has taken a view in favour of the assessee. The Ahmedabad Bench has taken a view contrary to the assessee s interest. In this set of circumstances, in our opinion, clearly two views are possible on the subject and therefore, the Supreme Court s decision in the case of T.S. Balaram vs. Volkart Bros. (82 ITR 50) would apply. In the circumstances, in our opinion the ITO could not have passed an order under s. 154 of the IT Act. It has wrongly been invoked and the orders, therefore, require to be vacated. The order of the AAC is reversed. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ence of any material whatsoever brought on record by the GTO to ascertain the real fair market value of the plot land, he could not have proceeded to determine whether there was any gift at all and if so, the extent thereof. This was particularly necessary in the fact that in the original IT proceedings, he proceeded to value the land at Rs. 90 per square yard and in the re-assessment proceedings he proceeded to value the land at Rs. 75 per sq. yd. In these circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order of the GTO. In our opinion, the AAC was fully justified in vacating the order of the GTO, though for different reasons. 8. Coming to the cross objection filed by the assessee, since we are upholding the order of the AAC cancelling the gift-tax assessment, we do not find it necessary to go into the questions of law which have been rendered superfluous. 9. In the circumstances, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee, are dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Import - Replenishment licences ... ... ... ... ..... the matter, therefore, it must be held that the respondents 3 and 4 were not justified in making an endorsement on the basis of public notice of February 28, 1979 not were they justified in replacing the original endorsement of the 50 value. Respondent No. 2 was not justified in ignoring the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the endorsement did not make reference to the quantity. 20. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to consider the question regarding the application or otherwise of the rule of promissory estoppel in this case. 21. The petition succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order directing respondents 3 and 4 from canceling the new endorsement made by them and restoring the original endorsement regarding the value limited to 50 and further directing respondent No. 2 to act on the said endorsement or granting the claim of the exemption from duty under Notification of June 19, 1978. 22. Rule absolute as above. Respondents to pay costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 106 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Chapter X Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... ready availed of both in respect of clearances of Toluene may be confirmed. He also drew attention to the Ministry s instructions contained in their letter No. V. 6(8)1-68/MP, dated 22nd July, 1968 which according to him suggested adoption of liberal approach in such matters. He also drew attention to the certificate of the inspector to the effect that the Toluene supplied in this case had been used by M/s. Shalimar Paints Ltd. in the manufacture of industrial paints and non-caustic paints remover. The Government consider that in view of the petitioners contention the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 26/62 should not legitimately be denied in respect of Toluene merely because L.6 Licence of the used Toluene was endorsed in this behalf subsequently so long as all other conditions are satisfied and Chapter X Procedure is followed to the satisfaction of the authorities at the destination as per the certificates produced. The Revision Application is, therefore, allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 105 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision - Scope of Section 36(1) ... ... ... ... ..... plication to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, asking them to invoke their powers of suo motu revision under section 35A of the Act and revise the order passed by the Asstt. Collector. The Board had, however, declined to use the power and the Central Government had therefore held that the revisionary authority under section 35A can invoke the power under that section even at the instance of an assessee. But in this case, no application under section 35A has been filed by the petitioners to the competent authority. On the contrary, they have filed an application under section 36(1) of the Act against the order of the Superintendent. The language of section 36(1) is very clear and an application under that section can be made only against an order from which no appeal lies. In the present case an appeal did lie against the order of the Superintendent and therefore, it fell outside the purview of section 36(1) ibid. Government accordingly dismiss the revision application.
-
1980 (1) TMI 104 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Refund of duty on fabrics destroyed in fire after clearance not admissible ... ... ... ... ..... llector they could not be considered as an aggrieved party so far as the impugned order-in-appeal original of the Assistant Collector is concerned. In other words, the petitioners and M/s. Weldon Cording Works in whose premises the duty paid goods were allegedly destroyed by fire constitute two independent entities in the eyes of law and the fact that the petitioners also own the factory of Weldon Cording Works would not make any difference. Government further observe that in this case the fabrics were cleared on payment of appropriate duty from the premises of the petitioner. They were destroyed afterwards in the premises of Weldon Cording Works. There is no provision for granting any refund of duty when goods are destroyed at any post-clearance stage in such cases after clearance of the goods on payment of duty. The lower authorities, therefore, rightly rejected the refund and there is no case for interfering with the same. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (1) TMI 103 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVEW CASE)
Smuggling - Onus of proof ... ... ... ... ..... given regarding diamonds in packet Nos. 11 and 12. As regards the diamonds claimed by the other ten persons, Government observe that their submissions about the acquisition of the diamonds are plausible and the department has failed to controvert these explanations. Accordingly, Government accept the submissions of all the eleven persons as satisfactory regarding the fact that the diamonds were not smuggled ones and on this point concur with the view taken by the Board. 10. In the circumstances, Government hold that though the provisions of Section 123 were correctly applicable to the diamonds in question, the firm M/s. Khettery s Jewellery and the other ten persons have however satisfactorily explained that the said diamonds were not smuggled ones. In the result, Government do not propose to annul or modify the Board s order in appeal on this point. 11. The review proceedings are disposed of accordingly. The diamonds in question may now be returned to the persons concerned.
-
1980 (1) TMI 102 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Wires - Production of end use certificate not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... ho are mostly the Government Departments and it was not possible for them to co-relate the clearances from the factory to the actual user. The consignments cleared by them through their dealers after having been supplied to the Telephone Department had lost their identity in storage and as such the end use certificate would not be possible to obtain. Apart from this the technical evidence produced by the party clearly show that those wires cannot be used for any other purpose and evidence has not been controverted by the lower authorities. Government therefore accept the petitioners arguments that capability and design for a particular use should be the deciding factor for claiming benefit of Notification No. 173/68 without insistence on proof of actual use. 7. Government accordingly drop the review proceeding which was initiated under their notice dated 30-3-1978 and confirm the order-in-appeal No. 580/77 dated 15-6-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector, Shri M. G. Chitnis.
-
1980 (1) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Valuation - Packing - Meaning of 'returnable' ... ... ... ... ..... s Ltd., Baroda v. Union of India - 1979 E.L.T. (J 444) 1980 Tax. L.R 2251 (Guj ). This interpretation would be in conformity with the nature of the excise duty and the ambit of the Entry 84 of the Union List and would clearly exclude the post-manufacturing cost. That would be the proper interpretation to be placed upon the provision. A requirement that the packing which is of durable nature should be returned in order to exclude its value is not justified from the wording of the sub-section. Therefore, the view taken by the respondents is untenable. As earlier noticed, the Government of India also has conceded the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner under identical circumstances. 6. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and a writ shall issue to the respondents to exclude from the assessable value of the excisable goods the cost of the secondary dealwood packings and approve the price-list submitted by the petitioners for the relevant period under consideration.
-
1980 (1) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Determination of assessable value when there is no sale of goods ... ... ... ... ..... r. When it was pointed out to Shri Mascearanhas at the time of personal hearing that though the decision of the Asstt. Collector in going by the gross margin of profit as shown in the petitioners profit and loss statement may prima facie appear to be arbitrary, the adoption of any other method including recourse to Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, would appear to be still more arbitrary. The petitioners themselves were also unable to suggest any other method for arriving at the assessable value in conformity with the law. When exact determination of the margin of profit cannot be made in the circumstances of the case, all that could be close was to make that determination on reasonable basis as rightly done by the Asstt. Collector and duty confirmed by the Appellate Collector in this case. In view of the above, Government of India find no reason interfere with the Order-in-Appeal, which is correct in law. The revision application is, therefore, rejected.
........
|
