Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 167 of 167 Records
-
1983 (5) TMI 7
... ... ... ... ..... authorities below, neither there was any relevant pleading, nor submissions, or any grounds taken or any argument was advanced. Such being the position, the Madras case also will have no application. further find that the order of respondent No.1 as claimed cannot be said to be devoid of any reasonings and as such the determinations in the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785, will have no appropriate application in this case. The above being the position, the submissions of Mr. Ganguly and so also this rule should fail and the same is thus discharged. There will be no order as to costs. It should be noted here that in respect of Civil Rule No. 943(W) of 1977, same submissions as in Civil Rule No. 944(W) of 1977 were made by Mr. Ganguly and for the reasons as I have indicated in the said Civil Rule No. 944(W) of 1977, I also discharge the said Civil Rule No.943(W) of 1977. There also will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (5) TMI 6
Garnishee Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ll thereafter be considered in respect of the balance amount deposited by the Bhilai Steel Plant for payment to Dilip Construction Company. For the aforesaid reasons, part of the impugned order by which the applicant s application for realisation of the amount has been dismissed, has to be set aside and this revision (Civil Revision No. 40 of 1983) must be allowed. The ultimate result is that Civil Revision No. 39 of 1983 is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Civil Revision No. 40 of 1983 succeeds and is allowed with costs. It is further directed that out of the amount deposited by the Bhilai Steel Plant, and after payment of dues to the I.T. Department against the judgment-debtor, M/s. Dilip Construction Company, the decree-holder shall be entitled to the payment of the amount which was earlier attached by him in execution of his decree. Counsel s fee Rs. 100, if certified. The costs shall be paid by the non-applicant No. 1, i.e., M/s. Dilip Construction Company.
-
1983 (5) TMI 5
Assessment, Estate Duty, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... l redress does not suffer from this disability. If the petitioner is denied relief, it shall result in grave injustice, as he shall have to pay estate duty for property which never devolved on him, thus negativing the primary purpose for which the court exists. Nor can the petition be dismissed, as due to lapse of time the State did not alter its position to its prejudice. It may arise where due to State action the rights of third parties may intervene (sic). In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated December 11, 1962, passed by the Asst. Controller is quashed. He shall determine the principal value of the estate afresh after examining the changed circumstances. As order dated November 26, 1969, has been set aside by the Tribunal, it is not necessary to quash it. Nor is it necessary to quash order dated January 13, 1972, due to setting aside of order dated November 26, 1969, it automatically fell through. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.
-
1983 (5) TMI 4
Offence When Committed, Penalty, Reference To IAC ... ... ... ... ..... applicable in a particular case. The question of bona fides of the determination by the ITO is irrelevant. The question to be determined is whether, on the facts and on, the proper law applicable as on the date on which the ITO made the reference to the IAC, the minimum penalty imposable could be said to be more than Rs. 1,000 or otherwise. If it is more than Rs. 1,000, the reference would be valid but not otherwise. For the reasons discussed earlier, according to the proper interpretation of the statutory provisions even as on June 27,1969, the minimum penalty imposable in the present case was much less than Rs. 1,000. The reference to the IAC was, therefore, invalid and the levy of the penalty by the IAC was, therefore, without jurisdiction. We, accordingly, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As there has been no appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (5) TMI 3
Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... he conclusions we have arrived at. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that, in both the types of cases referred to earlier, the substantive provisions of law relating to a penalty applicable in a particular case would be those in force at the date of the original return from which income has been concealed and that the filing of a subsequent return under s. 139(5) or under s. 148 in which the act of concealment may be repeated would not alter the position. In both ITRs Nos. 131 of 1974 and 65 of 1975, such a return was filed before April 1, 1968. We, therefore, uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal that the pre-1968 provisions should govern the imposition of the penalty in each of these cases. The question referred to us in each of the references is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, having regard to the difficult and controversial nature of the issue raised, we make no order as to costs. Question answered the affirmative.
-
1983 (5) TMI 2
Limitation, Precedents, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... esent Act dealing with the terms finding , direction or order has taken the same view as expressed by the majority in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das case 1964 52 ITR 335 (SC). In my view, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das case, though dealing with the unhappily worded second proviso of s. 34(3) of the 1922 Act, is equally applicable in construing s. 150(1) of the Act which is somewhat analogous and corresponds to that provision. From this, it follows that the impugned notice issued under s. 148 of the Act on the assumption that s. 150(1) of the Act was applicable is without jurisdiction and illegal. Even otherwise, on the facts of the case, it is difficult to hold that there was escaped assessment justifying its reopening. On any view of the matter, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the impugned notice. Rule issued is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1983 (5) TMI 1
Alternate Remedy, Search And Seizure, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... books of account or documents relevant to any proceedings under the Act would not be produced or cause to be produced by the petitioners or that they were in possession of any money which represented either wholly or partly income which had not been or would not be disclosed by them for that purpose. In any case, on the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition, it is obvious that the seizure of the books of account and the sum of Rs. 17,353 by the respondents was without the authority of law. The petitioners, therefore, would be entitled to relief in that regard as well. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The authorisation made by the CIT under s. 132A and the proceedings in consequence thereof are quashed. The action of the respondents in seizing the books and documents as well as the sum of Rs. 17,353 on December 30, 1981, also being contrary to law, they are directed to return the same to the petitioners forthwith. The petitioners would be entitled to their costs.
....
|