Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 114 Records
-
1972 (9) TMI 54
... ... ... ... ..... been urged before the learned District Judge was that the demand notice under Rule 9(2) is bad. The non-examination of the Inspector was not material for the purpose. The authority that had passed the order had the jurisdiction to pass it. It was only a mere wrong reference of the power under which the action is taken by the officer which was in challenge. But, this would not vitiate the action done if it can be justified under some other power that the action can lawfully be taken. In the instant case, the duty could have been demanded from the plaintiff under Rule 10. If the sector officer could justify the demand legally, then a wrong reference would not invalidate the notice. The demand notice has thus been held to be not illegal or invalid. The notice was not attacked on any other ground on behalf of the present appellant in the trial court. Mr. Nanavaty s contention in this behalf cannot thus be accepted. 3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 53
Demand - Fresh demand - No estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... under Rule 10-A. Rule 10-A has been held to be bad by this Court in W.P. Nos. 265 and 266 of 1967 - Murugan and Co., a firm by its Partners S. P. Thiruvadi and Another v. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise and 2 Others 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 193) (Mad.) (W.P. No. 265 of 1967), S.P. Thiruvadi and Co., by its Partners S.P. Thiruvadi and S. Andappa Pilial v. The Inspector of Central Excise, Cuddalore Range and Another (W.P. No. 266 of 1967) on the principle of the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 1053 of 1963 - (The Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras v. The District Revenue Officer, Chingleput, Madras and 2 Others). As already stated, this demand, if it fails as a demand under Rule 10-A cannot be sustained as a demand under Rule 9(2) as urged by the Learned Counsel for the Department for the reason set out above. In this view, both the demands have to be set aside. 6.The Writ Petition is allowed and the Rule Nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 52
Whether the goods correctly answered the description of goods for which the appellant had been given an import licence?
Held that:- No manner of doubt that the High Court of Bombay was quite right in accepting the conclusions and findings of the Customs authorities about the proper scope of Item 74(vi) of the I.T.C. Schedule. In our opinion, there is nothing in the decision of the Collector which can warrant its condemnation as perverse or unreasonable. Even if it be assumed that because of the language used in the two items viz. Items 74(vi) and 74(x) of the I.T.C. Schedule, there is some room for confusion, it would not be competent for the High Court to interfere in a writ petition with the conclusion or finding of the Collector of Customs regarding the scope and ambit of those items and the appellant guilty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and imposed a personal penalty of ₹ 80,000. Appeal dismissed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 51
Whether there was absolutely no admissible evidence to convict the appellant of the offences with which he was charged or to confiscate the currency notes because the statement alleged to have been made by him to the Customs Officer in fact was made to the police officer or if it is held to be made to the Customs Officer it was made in the presence of the police, as such was inadmissible in evidence?
Held that:- The order of the Collector confiscating the currency notes and awarding the punishment does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal is accordingly dismissed
-
1972 (9) TMI 50
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Closing Stock, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... hat is relevant for the assessment in the case of an asseesee s maintaining his accounts on the mercantile system is the sales of coffee effected by him during the previous year relevant to the assessment year and in the case of those who are maintaining accounts on the basis of cash system, the price realised by them in the relevant previous year. In both the cases the question of opening stocks and closing stocks are irrelevant. Herein we are concerned with an assessee who is maintaining his accounts on the basis of the mercantile system. That being so, the only point relevant in making the computation is sales made by him in the relevant previous years. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals and remand the cases to the Tribunal to reassess the assessee for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 on the basis of the principles enunciated above. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed. Cases remanded.
-
1972 (9) TMI 49
Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... aim. All this is missing. The case of A. H. Wheeler and Co. Private Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Allahabad is also of similar nature. There also the Income-tax Officer had omitted to reduce the super-tax rebate and thus allowed the excessive relief to the assessee. This mistake the Income-tax Officer sought to rectify under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In that case it has been held that a mistake which can be rectified under section 35 can be a mistake of fact or law and that the Income-tax Officer has power under section 35 to examine the whole record. There can be no two opinions about this proposition. As we have already pointed out, in the case before us there is no mistake, much less a mistake apparent on the record. The Income-tax Officer cannot be said to have committed a mistake in omitting to deal with the claim of the assessee which was never made. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 48
Legal Representative, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e taken against him. Merely because an assessee has the knowledge of the tax assessed against him or payable by him under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act the service of the notice of demand cannot be dispensed with. In the counter-affidavit it is not denied that no notice of demand was served upon the assessee but it is said that he had knowledge of the arrears of tax due from his father. This is not enough to render him as an assessee in default. The recovery proceedings are, therefore, illegal and cannot be sustained. The petition is accordingly allowed. The recovery proceedings against the petitioner, including the notices under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act (annexures 4 to 10 to the writ petition), are quashed. The stay order dated 3rd May, 1972, whereby the petitioner was restrained from withdrawing the sum under life insurance policies Nos. 7704456 and 13569329 is discharged. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this petition. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 47
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Liability To Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... recomputation has been made in the instant case obviously because the Explanation was never relied upon by the department at any stage before the income-tax authorities or before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not and could not consider the question as to whether the Explanation was retrospective in nature so as to apply to the assessee s case. In the absence of any findings recorded by the Tribunal in this behalf, which would include findings of fact and law, it is not possible to hold that the point sought to be raised by the learned counsel is merely an aspect of the question already referred to us. In our opinion, it is entirely a new question and cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. At any rate, such a question cannot be answered on the basis of the material before us. For the reasons stated above, we answer question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 46
Business Connection, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... law, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Pal for the Department that the moment person is appointed a del credere agent he carries with him the authority to accept offers or make binding contracts on behalf of his principal. Mr. Pal, for the Department, pointed out certain distinctions between the instant case and the case which was before the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Aggarwal and Co. 1965 56 ITR 20. But these differences do not appear to us to be material. As we have stated, the crux of the matter in a case like the present one is the agent s authority to accept offers or to bind the principal. If that element is absent, it cannot be said that there was any business connection as contemplated by s. 42 of the 1922 Act corresponding to s. 9 of the 1961 Act. Our answers to questions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in this reference are, therefore, in the negative. And in view of these answers, questions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 do not arise. Each party will bear and pay its own costs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 45
The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee during the years mentioned above to pay advance tax under section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. Instead of paying the demanded amounts, the assessee filed estimates under section 18A(2) and on the basis of the said estimates paid advance tax. Ultimately, for the several years, he filed returns ; and the Income-tax Officer finally determined his incomes too - When the assessee estimates the advance tax payable consistently at lower figure for several figures and the returned income being much higher and the assessed income being still higher, whether penalty under section 18A(9)(a) can be levied on the assessee
-
1972 (9) TMI 44
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - Whether amounts provided for taxation, gratuity and dividends are “reserves” or “provision for the purpose of Super Profits Tax”
-
1972 (9) TMI 43
Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act - meaning of the expression ' for the purpose of the land 'provided in section 5(e) - When the expenditure is reasonably connected with the holding of the land and using it for the purpose of agriculture, then such expenditure will be covered by this expression
-
1972 (9) TMI 42
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 182(4) of the Act does not contemplate that tax due from one partner er may be recovered from another partner of a registered firm - Section 182(4) and 189(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 indicate that when taxes due by a partner of a registered firm which has been dissolved is not recoverable from him - tax including interest and penalty, can be recovered from any other partner of the firm - but the tax sought to be realised must not exceed 30 per cent. of the defaulting partner's share in the profits of the firm Petition dismissed
-
1972 (9) TMI 41
Real owner of deposits and shares - When there is evidence to show that deposits and shares in the name of assessee's wife were actually belonging to the wife - Whether interest and dividend from these assets can be included in the husband's assessment - Suffice it for us to say that the evidence on record did not establish that either the purchase in the name of the minor of the lands or the deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Laxmi Ammal was benami for the assessee. As this sum of Rs. 25,000 formed the source for the purchase of shares and the other deposit which yielded the dividends and interest, the income therefrom is not liable to be included in the assessee's income.
-
1972 (9) TMI 40
Petitioner is a co-operative society - Whether a co-operative society engaged in banking business is entitled to deduction in respect of interest on government securities - whether assessee can seek remedy by rate against the revision order by the Commissioner disallowing deduction claimed
-
1972 (9) TMI 39
Whether the losses subsequent to the date of general meeting at which dividends were declared can be considered for the purposes of super-tax and undistributed dividends - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in considering the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the assessee's action in not distributing any dividend, the Income-tax Officer should have taken into account the losses suffered up to the last day of the 12 months following the end of the previous year as distinct from up to the date of the general meeting - Tribunal was not right in considering the reasonableness of the assessee's action in not distributing any dividend with reference to losses suffered by the assessee in the following year - Question answered in the negative in favour of the department
-
1972 (9) TMI 38
Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act - petitioner is the same in all these writ petitions and he has prayed for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the four assessment orders of the same date, December 31, 1963, passed under the Travancore Excess Profits Tax Act - Whether assessment and recovery of excess profit tax could be made after disruption of a Hindu Undivided family - Whether a fresh plea could be made for the first time at the Appellate stage
-
1972 (9) TMI 37
Retirement of Partner - Reassessment of Firm - These are petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondent made under section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Though the petitioner has raised a point in the affidavit that the provisions of section 155 should not be invoked for the assessment years in question and only section 35(5) of the old Act was applicable, he was not able to show how under section 35(5) or the provisions of the old Act, the revision of assessment could not have been made. Both under the old Act and under the new Act, there is power to rectify the partner's assessment consequent on the assessment or reassessment of the income of the firm. The provisions in the old Act and in the new Act in respect of this power are substantially the same - petition dismissed
-
1972 (9) TMI 36
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution arising out of a proceeding for search and seizure of the account books of the petitioner under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether the party subjected to search and seizure operation has a right to inspect the records and get copies - whether a search and seizure operation carried out when reason for ordering the operation was not recorded is valid
-
1972 (9) TMI 35
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the relief under section 86 was only with reference to the net amount of interest and not on the gross amount - Whether the method of computation of net interest from tax-free securities adopted by the Income-tax Officer was correct - Whether the notification issued under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is applicable after the repeal of that act and whether the rebate is available on gross interest or on the interest after deduction of expenses
|