Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1962 1962 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 84 of 84 Records

• 1962 (8) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Confiscation and penalty (Customs)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... o India but there is nothing to show that they were in any way concerned in such importation. Unless a person can be shown to have taken some part in the series of the steps which culminated in the gold being brought into this country, he cannot be said to have been concerned in the importation of the gold. This is the view which was taken in the case of Additional Collector of Customs and Others v. Sitaram Agarwalla (AIR 1962 Cal. 242) by a Division Bench of this Court and I respectfully agree with that decision. 11.For the reason aforesaid, I modify the order of the Customs Collector to this extent that the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner firm shall be set aside but subject to the modification the rest of the order shall be affirmed. 12. Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the petitioner firm as contained in the aforesaid order. 13.The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above.

  ---

• 1962 (8) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE AT BANGALORE
  

  Budget Day Removal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ar premises or precincts could be considered as factory or a part of the factory in the premises or precincts in question, excisable goods other than salt should be manufactured, or, any manufacturing process connected with the production of those goods should have been carried on or ordinarily carried on. Admittedly the vehicles in question had left the factory premises. Further admittedly, they were not within the premises or precincts where any part of the manufacturing process was going on. They were in an open space, probably, a place reserved for parking carts and other vehicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the excisable goods were within the Factory after 5 p.m. on 15-5-1957. 3.For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the levy imposed on the petitioner is not warranted by law. Therefore, the orders imposing the penalty are quashed. If the petitioner has already paid the penalty in question, the same will be returned to the petitioner. No costs.

  ---

• 1962 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Imposition of Excise Duty on the petitioner by virtue of Item No. 17 "Foot-wear" of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) with effect from 28th day of February, 1954, and the calculation of the duty ad valorem by including in the price, charges for freight, packing and distribution challenged

  Held that:- In imposing the Excise Duty, there was a definite desire to make an exemption in favour of the small manufacturer who is unable to pay the duty as easily, if at all as the big manufacturer. Such a classification in the interests of co-operative societies, cottage industries and small manufacturers has often to be made to give an impetus to them and save them from annihilation in competition with large industry. It has never been successfully assailed on the ground of discrimination. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (8) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in, law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the interest payable by the assessee under section 18A having regard to the fifth proviso of section 18A(6) read with rule 48 of the Income-tax Rules?" - Held that: There does not appear to be any provision in the Income-tax Act for reduction or waiver of interest where the liability arises under sub-clause (8) of section 18A. - Answered against the assessee.

  ---

12345