|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 188 Records
-
1978 (7) TMI 109 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
"Khandsari - Exgratia Refund ... ... ... ... ..... on No. 95/75, dated 30-4-1975, they did not apply for working under the scheme. They have contended that their centrifugals were finally closed before 30-4-1975, i.e. before the Notification No. 95/75 was issued, and hence there was no need to apply for working under the compound levy scheme after 1-5-1975. The explanation of the petitioners for non-application to work under compound levy scheme with effect from 1-5-1975 is acceptable. In the circumstances, Government of India allow the Revision Application. We reproduce below the decisions of the Supreme Court of India, All Indian High Courts, Government of India, Central Board of Excise and Customs and Appellate Collectors of Central Excise.
-
1978 (7) TMI 108 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Exclusion of forwarding - Delivery and other charges - Cost of special packing - Contract prices
-
1978 (7) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Summons - Powers of the Customs authorities - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... iry inasmuch as in the latter case the statement made by a person may be translated into evidence while in the former case such statement was not admissible in evidence. It may be so, but that does not mean that the Customs authorities will have no power to examine the petitioner any further because they have served show cause on him or have asked for time for filing complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. I may, however, make it clear that it would be always open to the petitioner to decline to answer to any question which may incriminate him and which violates the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. He has always got that right and he can exercise such right at all time during the enquiry by the Customs authorities. I, therefore, find that there is nothing wrong in the order of be learned Magistrate which directs the petitioner to see the Investigating Officer as per the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Rule stands discharged.
-
1978 (7) TMI 106 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Classification of goods - Criteria - Central Excice Tariff - Order - Date of ... ... ... ... ..... namel in common parlance. The view that for being assessed to duty under the Central Excise Act, the goods produced must answer to that description in trade and commerce had been re-iterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills and Others 1977 E.L.T. (J 199) . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed - Apart from all this, we are of opinion that the view of the Indian Standards Institution as regards what is refined oil as known to the trade in India must be preferred to the opinion of this author . In this case there is a known Standard for putty for use in window frames which recognises its use as such. The trade is also conversant with its use as such and not as a paint material. 9. In view of the reasons set out above, Government are of the view that putty for use in window frames is not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14 of the Central Excise Tariff, as paint. In the circumstances the review proceedings are dropped.
-
1978 (7) TMI 105 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Collaboration Agreement, Deduction From Total Income, Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... eir own or by selling to others the essential secrets of manufacture. (underlining by us) In the same decision Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest said Whatever description is given to that which in this case has been denoted by the words knowhow , the course of activity embarked upon by the appellants was to put their current knowhow to the most advantageous available use while it had its maximum current value. The appellants acted in the way in which they considered that they could best carry on their trade as manufacturers. The income in question, therefore, is clearly attributable to priority industry and falls within the ambit of section 80-I of the Act. The authorities under the Act--the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, were, therefore, in error in refusing relief under section 80-I in respect of this income. The question referred to us in each of the above cases is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 104 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Penalty Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... prescribed under the new section. This is also the view taken by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Watan Mechanical and Turning works 1977 107 ITR 743, overruling its earlier decision in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajkamal Hotel and Bar 1977 107 ITR 737 (AP). The same view has been taken by the High Court of Orissa in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikari Charan Panda 1976 104 ITR 73 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Soubhagya Manjari Devi 1976 105 ITR 82 (Orissa). The Gujarat High Court also has taken the same view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Motor Car Co. 1 977 107 ITR 753. In the cases before us, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could impose penalties till March 31, 1972. Hence the penalties which were imposed on February 28, 1972, in these cases are levied in time. In the result, the question referred to us in each of the above cases is answered in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 103 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital For Purposes, Capital For Surtax, Capital Of Company, Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Surtax Assessment
-
1978 (7) TMI 102 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, High Court, Question Of Law, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... part of the assessee, lies on the department and, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, we see no justification for not accepting the finding of the Tribunal that there was no concealment of income by the assessee. Then, again, it has been submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the facts assumed in question No. (ii) suggested by the applicant are not correct and in support of his contention he has relied upon the following observation by the Tribunal This question merely proceeds on a contrary assumption in spite of the said finding of the Tribunal without even challenging the finding by referring to any evidence to the contrary. Learned counsel for the applicant was unable to point out that it was on account of any investigation or detection by the Income-tax Officer that the revised return including the minor child s income was filed by the assessee. In these circumstances, we see no force in this application and hereby dismiss it, but without any order as to costs.
-
1978 (7) TMI 101 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Allowable Expenditure, Income From Tea, Litigation Expenses, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1978 (7) TMI 100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Activity For Profit, Carrying On Business, Charitable Purpose, General Public Utility, Income Tax Act, Winding Up
-
1978 (7) TMI 99 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Minor Child, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... lier, on a true construction of the two trust deeds in question, the Supreme Court has held that as long as the beneficiaries were minors, the shares were not being held for their benefit but for the benefit of the charitable trust. When they were not at all being held by the trustees for the benefit of the minors during their minority, the question whether they were being held either for their immediate benefit or for their deferred benefit would not arise, because the critical words in this case are held ...... for the benefit of appearing in section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the shares in question were being held by the trustees of the Second Trust during the assessment year for the benefit of the minors in question, either immediate or deferred. It follows that section 4(1)(a)(iii), even after the amendment, would not be attracted to this case. We, therefore, hold that the decision of the Tribunal is correct. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1978 (7) TMI 98 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation And Development Rebate, Factory Building ... ... ... ... ..... ommence or for carrying on of a business it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. However wide the meaning of the expression may be, its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business. The above view is again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1967 63 ITR 207. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the rebate in respect of the new machinery used for the construction of the buildings in question. Question No. 1 has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative. In view of the above, the answer to the second question also has to be in the affirmative. Both the questions are accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 97 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... xcluded are the railway concerns and such concerns are excluded from claiming the special rate under this item. Whether the special rate can also be claimed at the option of the assessee is another question with which we are not concerned in the present reference. The controversy raised is regarding the scope of the inscription N.E.S.A. in the item and we hold that the inscription attaches to the items of machinery and plant and not to any other aspect and, therefore, in our view, the assessee was not entitled to claim the same. The relevant items in Table I in Appendix I of the Rules have been considered by this court in Anantapur Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (see below). The Explanations contained under the column Remarks have been considered in the said decision in the same manner as we have done. For the reasons given above we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... 154(1)(bb) is not a retrospective provision and, therefore, it cannot apply to the penalty proceedings relating to the assessment year 1963-64. Now, s. 154(1)(bb) provides that with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record the IAC may amend any order passed by him in any proceeding under sub-s. (2) of s. 274 of the Act. This provision was introduced by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1964, with effect from 6th October, 1964. The penalty order was passed by the IAC on 4th March, 1970. Therefore, the aforesaid argument of Mr. Banerjee is not tenable in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case. That apart, s. 154 is a procedural provision. It is settled law that an amendment of a procedural law is normally regarded as retrospective in operation because no one has any vested right in a procedural law. In the premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 95 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Family Hotchpot, HUF Income, HUF Property, Trusts Act ... ... ... ... ..... er by unilateral act. There is no question of either the family accepting or rejecting it. Thus, once an unequivocal declaration is made by the assessee to impress his interest under the trust as HUF property, it ceases to be his separate property and the income derived therefrom cannot be regarded as part of his individual or separate property. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that once the declaration was made by the assessee on April 1, 1955, right from that date whatever interest was derived by the assessee as a beneficiary under the trust ceased to be his separate property and it became impressed with the character of HUF property. The income so derived cannot, therefore, be treated as income of the assessee in his individual capacity. The view that has been taken by the Tribunal is right and accordingly the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Carry Forward, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... visions was considered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1977 108 ITR 838. The Calcutta High Court held that if a return is filed within the time specified by sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, it would be deemed to be in accordance with law and the loss has to be determined and carried forward as a matter of course under s. 72(1) read with s. 80 of the Act, even though the return was not filed within the time provided by s. 139(1). This view was taken by the Calcutta High Court after applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. s case 1970 77 ITR 518. This decision, therefore, in our opinion concludes the matter and both the taxing authorities and the Tribunal were in error in rejecting the contention of the assessee. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 93 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... serving meals, etc., to customers was equally an entertainment expenditure. These decisions are binding on us. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. 1977 106 ITR 424 and also a decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s. Devi Singh Bhandu Mal v. ITO 1971 Taxation, Vol. 31, page 237. The decision of the Gujarat High Court was referred to by the Bench which decided in CIT v. Manoo Ram Ram Karan Dass I.T.R. No. 192 of 1976--since reported in 1979 116 ITR 606 (All) . It also referred to the Full Bench decision in Brij Raman Dass case 1976 104 ITR 541 (All). We have heard learned counsel for the assessee. We are, however, not inclined to differ from the opinion expressed by this court in previous decisions. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (7) TMI 92 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... held that the said sum of Rs. 55,200 was a capital receipt and not income. It appears to us that the facts of the present case are very similar to the facts which were considered by the Supreme Court in the above decision and that the present reference is covered by the said decision. In the instant case the lease is for a long period with provision for escalation of rent. The rent fixed is higher than the previous rent. The lease provides for demolition of the old structures and construction of a new building after substantial expenditure. The lump sum paid is described as salami or premium and not rent. There is no clause for repayment of the lump sum paid or adjustment of the said lump sum against rent. There is nothing on record to show that the premium or salami paid had any characteristic of rent. For the reasons stated above we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 91 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, House Property, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... t. The Tribunal found proved from the recitals of the sale deed that a sum of Rs. 26,000 had been deposited with the vendor of the sale deed by the father of the assessee. The father of the assessee had also instructed the vendor to purchase a property in the name of the assessee during his lifetime. The money deposited with the vendor was thus the consideration which had to be paid for the purchase of the property, when made. It was in pursuance of these instructions of the deceased, Shiraj Hasan, that the property was purchased. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the consideration for the sale deed had not been paid in pursuance of the desire of the promisor. The view of the Tribunal, therefore, holding the documents to be a sale deed cannot be said to be illegal. For these reasons we answer the question by holding that the transaction in question was a sale and not a gift. The Commissioner of Income-tax would be entitled to get costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (7) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Law Applicable To Assessment, Proof On Revenue, Unexplained Cash Credits
........
|
