|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 109 Records
-
1977 (10) TMI 49 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... le cause also penalty need not have been imposed on the assessee particularly in the light of the principles contained in the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. 3. We are told that after the appellant order was passed the assessee had for these two years moved the CIT not by way of revision but for waiver of penalty and that these applications are pending before the CIT. In our view these applications are no bar to the hearing and disposal of these appeals by the Tribunal. However, we examined the body of the petition furnished before the CIT to find out whether the assessee had admitted his liability to penalty or pleaded some other facts inconsistent with what he has stated before the ITO an the AAC and before the Tribunal. We find none. So the petition before the CIT has no material bearing on these two cases. 4. These two appeals are allowed. The penalties imposed for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 for late filing of the returns by the assessee are cancelled.
-
1977 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... er hearing the parties. The assessee paid interest of Rs. 2,525 to Smt. Sanotsh and Rs. 854 to Ved Prakash, the total being Rs. 3,379. Interest of Rs. 322 received from Mohan Singh Hari Chand was deducted and that is how the assessee claimed interest of Rs. 3057. A copy of the assessment order of the asst. yr. 1972-73 has been field which shown that interest of Rs. 1,078 to Ved Prakash, Jind and Rs. 2,545 to Smt. Santosh was allowed in that year. It is submitted that interest has been claimed on old loans and therefore, the interest claimed should have been allowed by the AAC and he should not have remitted the matter back to the ITO I am inclined to agree with the assessee on this point. The amount of interest paid to Smt. Sanotsh is similar to the amount of interest paid to her in the earlier year. The interest paid to Ved Prakash is actually less as compared to the earlier year. I would thus allow the interest of Rs. 3,057. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1977 (10) TMI 47 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... was the benamidar of his father C was not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the agreement of partnership was not a genuine deed. Though we agree with the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the facts of that case do not help the Revenue in any manner. 14. The ITO had taken a ground that the partnership was formed for reducing the incidence of tax in the hands of the working partners. The judgment in the Central Talkies Circuit is an authority for the proposition that if a partnership actually existed in the terms specified in the deed, the incidence of taxation is irrelevant and would not justify refusal to register the firm. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we would hold that the firm is a genuine firm and is entitled to registration. Before granting registration, however, the ITO would grant an opportunity to the assessee to get the deed attested or amended in terms of the Circular of the CBDT dt. 19th March, 1976. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (10) TMI 46 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... pen proceedings under s. 17(1)(b). While deciding these appeals, we have in focus the definition of the term assessment as given under s. 2(ca) and are of the firm view that the reassessment has been used in the context that when an assessment has been legally reopened for reassessment either under s. 17(1)(a) or 17(1)(b), an officer an validly make a reference under s. 16A even when while framing the original assessments he had not though it fit to make such reference. Holding that the WTO wrongly assumed powers for reassessments under s. 17(1)(b) in the case, the reassessments framed on 14th Feb., 1975 are cancelled. Since a similar view has apparently been taken by the AAC, we dismiss these revenue s appeals without going to the factual aspects of the case as done by the AAC. We, however, like to observe that if the proceedings under s. 17(1)(b) were bad, there could be no question of the assessee claiming any relief in such reassessments. 11. Revenue s appeals dismissed.
-
1977 (10) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the time of the original assessment. The submission of Shri Sheth that it cannot be a case of knowingly furnishing incorrect returns appears well founded. If the assessee wanted to furnish the returns knowingly he would not have filed the balance sheet showing the purchase and sale of Budha Jayanti. In the circumstances we uphold the submission of Shri Sheth that the case cannot be covered by the scope of s. 35(1)(b) of the Act. That the action is taken beyond the period of 5 years is not in dispute. The orders of the lower authorities cannot be sustained on this count also. 7. In view of the facts that we have held in favour of the assessee on the first two counts, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the rest of the submissions made by Shri Sheth in these proceedings. Hence the order. The second appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside. If any amount has been recovered in excess the same shall be refunded in accordance with law.
-
1977 (10) TMI 44 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... timate. The learned AAC has reduced this addition to Rs. 1,000. The learned counsel for the assessee challenges the aforesaid finding of the learned AAC and submits that the entire addition should have been deleted by him particularly when all the relevant details of touring have been filed before time and it was patent therefrom that the partners had not undertaken the tour and that the entire tour was done by the employees of the assessee. The details of expenses have been furnished before as also. The learned Departmental Representative supports the order of the learned AAC. 7. After perusing the details of the expenses filed by the assessee before us, we are convinced that the disallowance of Rs. 1,000 sustained by the learned AAC is not justified, as it has been spent on the travelling of the employees whose names have been given as also the purpose of their travelling and the destinations of travel. The addition was, therefore, wholly unjustified and is hereby deleted.
-
1977 (10) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Manufacture - Import - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... membered in this case that W.P. 2798 of 1970 was filed against the order of the Additional Collector dated 8-6-1970, in which a direction was also prayed for to permit the firm to re-export the drug to Nepal. Pursuant to a direction from this court, the goods were allowed to be re-exported to Nepal on bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 21-6-1972. Therefore, having regard to the factual aspect, the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 112 was reduced to Rs. 1,800/-, since the goods were not made available for human consumption but were actually re-exported. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the fine came to be reduced to Rs. 1,800/-. If the order states that it must be construed in lieu of fine, what is meant thereby is to take stock of the factual situation and this has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the officer. Hence all these writ petitions will stand dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 300/- one set.
-
1977 (10) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the trial court had power to order confiscation of the goods found in appellant's possession while convicting him under Section 135 of the Customs Act?
Held that:- It is true that the foreign currency seized from the appellant's possession was property in respect of which an offence was committed, but this fact alone did not call for an order under Section 452(1) in the circumstances of the case, and the order passed, besides being unwarranted, is likely to create complications if in respect of the foreign currency a proceeding under the Customs Act is pending or the Customs authorities have made any order with which the Magistrate's order is inconsistent. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the High Court.
-
1977 (10) TMI 41 - JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Sample - Test reports - Validity - Samples of yarn - Tolerance limit - Determination of counts - Scope
-
1977 (10) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Contraband goods ... ... ... ... ..... statement Ex. P.2 to P.W. 1. She has admitted that they, meaning herself and probably her husband, had taken this building on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 7, and that they wanted to stock paddy therein only from the month of Thai succeeding the date of the statement. She has not admitted that either she or her husband was in physical possession of the building. Even if such an admission can be read into the statement of Ameena Bivi, that admission cannot be used against the revision petitioner herein as substantive evidence, to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the building and therefore, the contraband goods found therein had been concealed by him. In these circumstances, I find that the prosecution has not proved the case against the revision petitioner. Hence the revision is allowed and the revision petitoner s conviction under S. 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year thereunder was set aside.
-
1977 (10) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Tobacco - Legality ... ... ... ... ..... us. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the opinion of the trade panel, he could have had samples of tobacco tested by some independent research bodies as suggested by him and placed it before the third respondent. In these circumstances, the point urged by the petitioner in relation to the constitution of trade panel and the opinion got from it cannot be accepted. 8. On the finding given by the authorities that there has been a clandestine removal of the old stock and substitution of the fresh stock, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to any allowance of dryage does not arise. Once the original stock of 7,627 kilograms is found to have been clandestinely removed, the levy of excise duty on that quantity will be justified. If the stock is substituted contrary to the Central Excise Rules, the authorities are entitled to confiscate the same under Rule 161 of the Central Excise Rules. 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 38 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Demand issued on the basis of test report-Restricted to the stock out of which sample was drawn
-
1977 (10) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Penalty Imposed after six months illegal - Alternative remedy - Article 226 - Applicability - Doctrine of Merge
-
1977 (10) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Life Insurance, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... the insurance company and by no stretch of imagination can the amounts paid in discharge of the obligation in a contract of insurance be said to be a gift made to the nominee of the insurance policy. No doubt, if the nomination was not cancelled, the wife would have become entitled to the benefits of the insurance policy on the happening of either of the events which we have mentioned above provided no alteration had been made regarding the nomination. But, that has nothing to do with the question as to whether the premia paid will amount to a gift or not. To constitute a gift, there must be an immediate transfer of property which was the subject-matter of the gift by the donor to the donee. No such thing happened in this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs, since the assessee did not care to enter appearance before this court.
-
1977 (10) TMI 35 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... tood removed and the application automatically fell with it. The rulings cited before me on behalf of the respondents in support of the proposition that an application under section 146 of the Act cannot be withdrawn as of right are, to my mind, not pertinent to the case. The respondents also rely on Mrs. Freny Rashid Chenai v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty 1973 90 ITR 31 (AP) and Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G. V. Shah, Income-tax Officer, Rajkot 1975 98 ITR 255 (Guj). Those cases cannot assist the respondents because in the present case there is nothing to show that the entire assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was not superseded by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated August 26, 1970, made by the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Mandi, and the proceedings taken consequent thereto are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to their costs, which I assess at Rs. 100 as a single set of costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty, Return Filed Beyond Time ... ... ... ... ..... w-cause notice was that the accounts from the various branches were not received and the sickness of the chief accountant. No evidence whatsoever was produced by the assessee at any stage either before the taxing authorities or the Tribunal when such accounts were received from the various branches and what was the illness of the chief accountant. In fact, with the reply to the show-cause notice no particulars whatsoever were furnished. Such being the position, as admittedly the return, though required to be filed on June 30, 1963, was filed on March 30, 1964, the taxing authorities and the Tribunal were right in taking the view that there was no reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the assessee to file the return within the prescribed period. In that view of the matter, the order imposing the penalty was justified. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1977 (10) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1922 Act, Default In Payment, Excess Profits Tax, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Provisions
-
1977 (10) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Loss On Sale, Purchase And Sale, Revenue Loss, Trade Loss ... ... ... ... ..... od in the name of the bank and not in the name of the assessee would go to show that it was not the intention of the assessee to continue to hold the shares for a long time. The fact that the shares were sold with the ostensible object that the assessee required money to pay off the loan by itself does not indicate the primary object of the assessee in acquiring the said shares. This cannot by itself lead to any inescapable conclusion that it was the object of the assessee to continue to hold the shares on a long-term basis as an investment. On the entirety of the facts and circumstances, an overall impression is left that it was the object of the assessee to make a quick profit by way of dividends by the purchase of shares immediately after the declaration of dividend and nothing else. In that view of the matter, we have to answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue. The matter being unopposed, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1977 (10) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cash Payments ... ... ... ... ..... No. 113 of 1977. Exhibit P-5 is the Commissioner s order. Paragraph 3 of the same shows the items in respect of which deduction was claimed and which were dealt with by the Commissioner in the order impugned. These items with reference to the assessment years are as follows Assessment year 1970-71 Rs. Payments made to Sujatha Textile Mills after 31-3-1969 1,17,141 Assessment year 1971-72 Sujatha Textile Mills 1,26,442 S. Gopal Kammath 3,000 For the reasons given while dealing with W. A. No. 113 of 1977, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned judge. The result is that O.P. No. 558 of 1977 would stand allowed and exhibit P-5 order of the Commissioner would stand quashed with the direction that the Commissioner will proceed to examine the assessee s claim to deduction of the amounts involved in the revision preferred to him afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attributable To ... ... ... ... ..... mentioned in the questions. Our answer to this is in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessees. The interest that are chargeable on the average advances during the relevant years, which has been fixed at 10 , is a benefit that had accrued to the assessees without cost attracting the definition of the term perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act and falling under section 17(2)(iii)(a). In the light of the above, we answer all the questions in all these tax cases in the negative. The department will have its costs from the three sets of assessees, that is, the legal representatives of A. K. Ramachandran in T. C. Nos. 219 and 390 of 1974, the legal representatives of A. K. Lakshmi in T. C. Nos. 199 of 1973 and 227 of 1974 and from the assessee, A. R. Srinivasan, in T. C. No. 400 of 1974. Since the question involved is the same and there has been only one set of arguments, we allow only one set by way of counsel s fee, which we fix at Rs. 250.
|
