Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1960 1960 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 63 of 63 Records
-
1960 (2) TMI 3
Manufacturer - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ayment of the excise duty payable by the manufacturer even after the removal of the goods from the premises referred to in Sub-rule 1 and in contravention of the provisions thereof. As pointed out by Their Lordships of the Federal Court of India in the Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons, A.I.R. 1942, Federal Court, page 33, the excise duty which is imposed upon the manufacturer of the producer of excisable articles in connection with the manufacturer or production does not cease to be excisable if the goods are disposed of by the manufacturer, as the petitioner claims to have done in this case. What Their Lordships held in that case was that there was nothing to prevent the Central Legislature from imposing a duty of excise on a commodity as soon as it comes into existence, no matter what happens to it afterwards, whether it be sold, consumed, destroyed or given away. The contention that the demand made in this case was without lawful authority must therefore fail.
-
1960 (2) TMI 2
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... as akin to a judicial trial, the rule of natural justice must be observed and the assessee must be given proper opportunity of testing the materials upon which the authorities wish to rely, and of providing materials on their own behalf. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Rule must be made absolute and the assessments already made, upon which the demand notices were issued under Rules 10 or 10A must be quashed and/or set aside by a writ in the nature of certiorari and there must be issued a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to take any further proceedings based on the said notices, unless a proper assessment has been made. Nothing in this order will prevent the respondents from proceeding to take any steps that may be necessary for such assessment, or for the realisation of the revenue in accordance with law. As I have stated above, the point of limitation has not been decided by me in this case and is kept open. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1960 (2) TMI 1
The respondent a partnership firm which, by an agreement was appointed the managing agent. The total commission was a sum of Rs. 3,09,114 accrued to such managing agent. At the oral request, the managing agent agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 only as its commission which was credited to the account of the managing agent. Assessee claimed Rs. 2,09,114 as deduction on account of surrender of income. Held that Rs. 2,09,114 to be accepted as deducible expenditure.
|
|