|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 189 Records
-
1986 (10) TMI 50 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... nds and not before. Looking at it an another way, the market value of the shares as on March, 31st, 1967 as disclosed by the wealth tax assessment for 1967-68 was an important piece of evidence and the Tribunal was justified in relying on it. There was no material to show that the value of the shares had gone up since March, 31st,1967 as well as September 11 1967 was its published balance sheet as on Dec 31st, 1966 which alone could be relied on for the purpose of valuation whether on March, 31st 1967 or September 11, 1967. 6. It would appear from the above that the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case are on all fours with the facts and circumstances considered by the Hon ble High Court in the reported case. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon ble High Court, we would uphold the submissions made on behalf of the accountable person. We would, therefore, direct the ACED to modify the assessment accordingly 7. In the result, the appeal allowed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 49 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... , we are not inclined to accept the same. We have come to this conclusion as we entirely agree with the submissions made on behalf of the revenue that the expression other agents has to be interpreted in the same manner as one has to interpret the expressions purchasing agent and selling agent . It may be possible to hold that under the provisions of the Companies Act, the directors are the agents of a company. However, the expression other agent used in the said sub-clause has to be understood in the context in which it is placed. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the directors could be treated as other agent as contemplated in the said sub-clause. 12. For the reasons stated above and respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwalla (P.) Ltd. we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 13. In the result both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Deduction Of Interest, Interest Income, Mercantile System, Purchase Price, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... d be the year to which the liability pertained. The assessee could not have claimed in future such liability in respect of this year even on the basis of payment when made in future. But when the issue has to be considered with regard to the accrual of income, certain factual concepts do have impact on consideration even after the Supreme Court decision referred to above. There was clear distinction in these two matters even at the time when the revised return was filed especially because the income when received in future could be taxed on which legitimate tax to the revenue could be collected but in the case of deduction for liability, the legal position being clear, no such allowance could be claimed in future asst. years. 8. For assessment year 1978-79, the difference in the fact as stated would not alter our decision. We, therefore, delete the penalties levied in both the years. The orders passed by the CIT(A) are set-aside. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed
-
1986 (10) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Drug trafficking - Smuggling of heroin out of country ... ... ... ... ..... d earlier, the Petitioner is a foreign national and was taking heroin out of this country and he pleaded guilty to the charge and according to Shri Sardar, the Petitioner wants to go back to his country no sooner he is out of jail. In this view of the matter, there is no difficulty in reducing the sentence of the Petitioner. The circumstances of the case justify that whatever period undergone by the Petitioner till today be held as an adequate sentence in respect of his guilt. I am told by his Counsel that the Petitioner is in jail since last 1 year - 8 months and 22 days. In my view, therefore, the Petitioner could be sentenced to the extent of 1 year - 8 months and 22 days. The sentence as imposed by the two Courts below for two years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- on two counts are quashed and set aside and instead the Petitioner is sentenced to the sentence already undergone by him, as mentioned above. The Petitioner is liable to be set free. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
1986 (10) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Prosecution - Complaint ... ... ... ... ..... ferent level. But however, the petitioners have chosen not to challenge the subsequent actions for reasons best known to them though the present petition is filed much after the seizure. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to interfere with the impugned orders. The only concession justified is that if the petitioners desire to furnish bank guarantee, they can do so and for that matter I enlarge the time upto 5-12-1986 and to that extent the impugned order dated 28-7-1986 stands modified. At this stage, Mr. Kotwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought stay of the impugned orders of the Magistrate on the ground that they may prefer a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. The impugned orders are stayed for a period of six weeks and the Collector of Customs not to auction the goods in question during this period. The petition is therefore, dismissed subject as aforementioned and rule is accordingly discharged. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... be quashed by this Court by means of the proceedings under Article 226. 4. We do not find that to be a sufficient ground for entertaining the writ petition. To grant a stay or not to do so is the discretion of the authority before whom an appeal lies. Moreover the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act can apply for a stay. The Tribunal will be entitled in that event, to consider the pros and cons of the matter and to grant the prayer for stay, if sufficient ground for the same is made out. 5. The writ petition is rejected summarily.
-
1986 (10) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Refrigerating appliances - Ice Cream Combination Cooler ... ... ... ... ..... interpretation of a tariff entry is very desirable and principles of taxability cannot vary from person to person or from office to office. 17. We are satisfied that the Departmental authorities applied Tariff Entry 29A to the facts and circumstances of this case on a total misunderstanding of the true import and meaning of the entry and on the facts found by the Department, and available before them, the finding that the Ice Cream Combination Cooler was dutiable under this entry was plainly unsupportable and clearly wrong on the face of it. Moreover, the assessee had expressly stated before the authorities that the unit was assembled according to the requirements of the parties and the space available . This crucial aspect was not considered by the Department. The learned Judge was therefore right in setting aside the assessment, and the appellate and revisional orders and we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR
Writ Jurisdiction - Writ petition ... ... ... ... ..... he writ petition on the ground that alternate remedy was not exhausted first by the petitioner. I may hasten to add that in the aforesaid case, it was Tariff Item No. 27 which was dealt with and dross and skimmings were taken (to be) neither goods nor end-products in view of Explanation III occurring in Item 27 of the First Schedule. The aforesaid case does not relate to item No. 68. The explanation occurring in Item No. 68 makes the Explanation III in Item No. 27 inapplicable. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as to whether duty is leviable on dross and skimmings, I decline to interfere in this writ petition for the sole reason that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternate remedy available to him under Chapter VIA of the Act, especially when it is still open to him to avail the same. The alternate remedy is still open to him and he can have a recourse to it. 9. The writ petition is consequently dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reference to the High Court ... ... ... ... ..... owing question and refer the same to this Court Whether the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked against the applicant when the alleged 5 pieces of gold were not recovered in the presence of the applicant or from his possession, custody or control.
-
1986 (10) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prosecution - Complaint ... ... ... ... ..... ideration to the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court should not have quashed the charge framed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of its revisional and reference jurisdiction. Since the learned Magistrate had formed the opinion that there were grounds to presume that the accused had committed the offence and since it cannot be said that the prosecution was false, frivolous or vexatious or one which was by way of abuse of the process of law, the High Court should not have quashed the charge in exercise of the revisional and reference powers. 9. There may be facts and circumstances of a particular case where such powers can be exercised but the same cannot be stretched to the present proceedings particularly when it is not a case of no evidence. 10. As a result of the above discussion, I see no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Any observations made herein will have no bearing on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court.
-
1986 (10) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay of recovery ... ... ... ... ..... er s grievance is that the goods attached by the Collector may not be sold till the appeal is pending before the Tribunal and the Tribunal should decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. Since the value of the attached goods is more than the amount due, we think it proper that the sale of attached goods shall not take place during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Thus we direct the respondents not to auction the attached goods till the disposal of the appeal. We also direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. 6. Subject to these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. Let copies of this order be given to the Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges as early as possible.
-
1986 (10) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay application moved to Collector (Appeals) ... ... ... ... ..... to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, in the meanwhile, stay of operation of the order of the second respondent can be granted. But the learned counsel for the petitioner wants a further direction to be given to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal itself within a specified time which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I consider that for the respondent the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by directing the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition pending on his file. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner and pending on his file within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Meanwhile, the order passed by the second respondent will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation of goods produced with Customers brand name and with manufacturer's own brand name ... ... ... ... ..... hich he has acquired a right to use. In such a case, the sale price fetched by sales effected by him under such brand name in wholesale will be the basis for computation of excise duty payable by him - So also nothing said herein will come to the rescue of a brand name owner who himself is the manufacturer of goods or to sales effected in favour of related persons as defined by the Act The Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the petitioners in the context of the present Writ Petition will stand discharged. No other point has been argued. The petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 2. Writ Petitions Nos. 1686-1691 of 1979 raise the same point in the context of other brand names. These petitions will also stand disposed of in terms of this order with the same direction regarding computation of levy and discharge of guarantee bonds and with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Council is obliged to give reasons for its finding that a member is guilty of misconduc?
Held that:- It seems to us that it is bound to do so. In fairness and justice, the member is entitled -to know why he has been found guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under section 22A of the Act. To exercise his right of appeal effectively, he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. We have already pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first determinative finding on the guilt of the member. It is a finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of a "finding ". Moreover, the reasons contained in the report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion may or may not constitute the basis of the finding rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore, state the reasons for its finding.
The appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... namely, that of receiving rental income. Our finding is that the assessee did have interest in the business and its equipment. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal which is based on the material on record, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the income of the assessee-firm was assessable under the head Business income . In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was also right in granting continuance of registration to the assessee-firm. For all these reasons, our answer to the first question referred to this court is that the income of the assessee-firm was assessable under the head Business income and not under the head Income from other sources .Our answer to the second question referred to this court is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting continuance of registration to the assessee-firm. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of these references.
-
1986 (10) TMI 35 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here a similar question was referred to this court for its opinion. As held by us in M.C.C. No. 99 of 1980 (CIT v. K. L. Rajpur 1987 164 ITR 203), which we have decided today, the question framed by the Tribunal is too wide and it does not bring out the real issue which arose before the Tribunal. We, therefore, reframe that question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner was not competent under section 263 of the Act to set aside the entire order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer when that order was the subject-matter of an appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? For reasons stated in our judgment delivered today in M.C.C. No. 99 of 1980 ( 1987 164 ITR 203), our answer to the question framed by us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1986 (10) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Commissioner's Powers For Revision, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf. The only question which arose before the Tribunal and which arises in this reference is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the entire order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer in exercise of his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act when the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In our opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner was not competent to set aside the entire order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question framed by us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1986 (10) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... approach of the Tribunal was erroneous and the levy of penalty could not be deleted on the ground that it was not exigible, our answer would cause serious injustice to the assessee for no fault of hers. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. It did not examine the facts or the explanation of the assessee, keeping the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in view. The only proper course for us is, therefore, to send back the case to the Tribunal with a direction to look into the record and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the same and in the light of the observations which we have made above. This is a fit case which the Tribunal should hear again. The case would, therefore, go back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to hear the parties after giving them notice and thereafter to dispose of the appeal in the light of the observations made by us above. The reference is accordingly answered. In the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... there was justification for not charging interest from the debtor. Such a consideration is not germane to the allowance of deduction within the scope of the provisions contained in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the disallowance sustained by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be assailed. In the result, the questions referred at the instance of the Department are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Questions referred at the instance of the assessee are answered as under Question No. 1.-No answer is returned for the reasons stated earlier. Question Nos. 2 and 3.-They are returned unanswered with the direction that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may rehear the appeal as indicated earlier in this judgment. Questions No. 4.-It is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Department. In view of the divided success of the parties, we make no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 31 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer. The Department submitted an application for making a reference and the Tribunal has referred the above questions of law for the opinion of this court. Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Revenue, was unable to show any later decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court taking a different view from the view already taken in the cases of S. V. Kondaskar v. V. M. Deshpande 1972 83 ITR 685 and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 331. The Tribunal has decided the case by placing reliance on the abovementioned two Supreme Court decisions and no argument has been raised by learned counsel for the Revenue to show that the Tribunal in any manner committed any mistake in taking the above view. As the questions of law referred to us are already concluded by the above-mentioned two decisions of the hon ble Supreme Court, we answer the above questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
