|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 236 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay in presenting revision application - Held that:- Sufficient cause for condoning delay in presenting revision application, now appeal, has not been made out. From the application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit it would appear that the appellants filed refund application due to mistaken advice of C.D. Sharma, retired Inspector, Central Excise and later they consulted a Counsel. Before mistaken legal advice can be considered ground for condoning the delay in presenting appeal or revision application it should be shown that the parties sought advice of competent counsel and such advice was given exercising reasonable skill and care after proper examination and due care and caution. In the instant case all these aspects are lacking. This apart Shri C.D. Sharma left appellants employment in December 1981 and then the matter was entrusted to Shri D.P. Garg. Shri. D.P. Garg does not appear to have taken any action and is said to have left for a foreign country. The particulars given are extremely vague and general and on that basis sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 104 days, to our mind, is not made out. We therefore reject the application. As a consequence application for admission of additional evidence along with appeal in respect of which the condonation of delay application is made are also dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction - Petition premature ... ... ... ... ..... ontentions pertaining to the facts, as stated by the petitioners, are correct or not. The authenticity of these contentions can be ascertained only after the investigation is complete. Therefore, in our opinion, the petition is premature. Even if the petition is directed for hearing, this court shall not be in a position to decide the controversial contentions pertaining to justifiability or otherwise of the confiscation. This Court in M/s. Vijayant Travels v. R.P. Ghatnekar 1984 (16) E.L.T. 73 (M.P) (M.P. No. 566 of 1981) has taken a view that when a matter is under investigation the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated by the petitioner can be decided only after the enquiry of the facts and in the circumstances writ cannot be issued. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid view taken by this Court and find that the petition filed is premature and therefore, should be dismissed. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT
Striking down Clause (a) of the Proviso (3) of the Notification dated the 1st March, 1964 issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and granting consequential relief
Held that:- In the present case benefit of concessional rate was bestowed upon the entire group of assessees referred therein and by Clause (a) of Proviso (3) the group was divided into two classes without adopting any differentia having a rational relation to the object of the Notification, and the benefit to one class was withdrawn while retaining it in favour of the other. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned Clause (a) of the Proviso 3 of the Notification in question ultra vires and the benefit allowed by the notification is available to the entire group including the respondent. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 113 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Tax Deducted At Source And Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cient justification, because such payments were made on income yet to arise. Refusal to pay interest on excess amounts of tax deducted at source after the income had actually arisen and was earned, but before the taxable income was determined and the rate was applied is not discriminatory or arbitrary. We find that both payments are made in advance of actual assessment but the vital distinction that the former is tax paid on income yet to arise and the latter on income already accrued marks out one from the other. Therefore, the challenge against the validity of section 214 on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness fails. In the absence of any statutory provision, the assessee has no right to claim interest on excess tax deducted at source. The authority below has negatived the claim, rightly in our opinion. There is, therefore, no scope for any judicial review. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 112 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Additional Evidence, Appeals ... ... ... ... ..... efore making the additions in question, the Income-tax Officer had not given any opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence relevant to the grounds of appeal urged by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified under the provisions of clause (d) of rule 46A(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in allowing the assessee to adduce evidence. In view of the finding of the Tribunal that no opportunity was given by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee to lead evidence before making the additions in question, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue on the ground that the case was covered by the provisions of rule 46A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 111 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this court for its opinion. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that the matter arising in this case was covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo 1985 154 ITR 236. In that case, dealing with the case of the assessee arising out of his assessment for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, it was held that the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the entire income from the palace of the assessee, the former Ruler of Bastar, was exempt from income-tax. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken by this court in 1985 154 ITR 236. Following that decision, therefore, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in holding that the entire income from the palace of the assessee was exempt from income-tax. Our answer to the aforesaid question of law is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 110 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Sales Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... isciplinary action against an officer in regard to the order passed by him in the discharge of his judicial function. Officers entrusted with such duties must be given freedom to discharge their duties in accordance with their judicial discretion. They should not be placed under the threat of disciplinary action for the judicial orders passed by them. In this case, the Government may consider the possibility of recovering the amounts directed to be paid to the petitioner, from the person who was responsible for initiating action against the petitioner on account of the judicial order passed by him in exercise of his powers as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Any step initiated in this direction by the Government will prevent recurrence of such incidents in future. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. Forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to the Government for necessary action. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.
-
1988 (12) TMI 109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... of profits the defendant was to get a particular fixed sum. In other words, the defendant thus became a salaried partner which is an expression we are quite familiar with not only in England but also in Bombay. Section 239 of the Contract Act which governed the relationship of partners at the relevant time required them to share the profits . Amberson Marten C. J. laid, in this regard, emphasis on the words in lieu of share of profits in the partnership deed. In the present case, the said clause 14 speaks of the division of net profits, The shares of the junior partners in the profits are the fixed sums set out in the said clause 14. Their shares do not have to be some stated proportion of the profits. The only argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue must, on the strength of this court s judgment in Raghunandan Nanu Kothare s case, AIR 1927 Bom 187, be repelled. The question, accordingly, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 108 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... . The notices issued under section 148 of the Act on March 27, 1972, are, for the same reason, bad in law and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto, are invalid and of no consequence. The notices dated March 27, 1972 (annexures-8 to 8-F), as also proceedings taken pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. In view of my above finding, I do not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether there was any material on which the Incometax Officer could form his belief that the amount in question constituted the income of the assessee, namely, the late Lakshmi Narain. Since I have come to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer did not form the requisite belief, it is not necessary to consider whether he could have, on the materials on record, formed the requisite belief. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the notices dated March 27, 1972 (annexures-8 to 8-F), and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 107 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n law in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer should be treated as merged in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion. The application is allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 106 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... The result was exhibit P-5, intimating the petitioner about the more serious action proposed by him in relation to the recovery, namely, by way of attachment of the property. I do not find any reason whatever to interfere with that finding. There are circumstances which would indicate the supreme undesirability of article 226 being invoked in favour of the petitioner. There is an indication that the petitioner himself had agreed to pay the balance tax, if he had been given some little time. Of course, that is a matter which the Gift-tax Officer has to consider. It may not be ordinarily assumed that the Gift-tax Officer would incorporate false statement with a view to harass and harm the petitioner. I am not prepared to act upon the statement of the petitioner that there was no such discussion or no such agreement whatever. This is one other indication to persuade this court to decline jurisdiction in his favour. No injustice is caused to him. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax Rules, 1957, without the Wealth-tax Officer referring the valuation of these shares to the Valuation Officer as required under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with the Board s Circular No. 96 dated 25-11-1972 ? and we, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion. The application is party allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing computation of the value of the residential property in accordance with rule I BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1979 ? The application is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 103 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce in the appeal against the assessment reopened under section 147, the addition of Rs. 12,26,206 on account of deemed dividend had been deleted, the very basis of penalty under section 271(1)(c) ceased to exist. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, cancelled and the appeal was allowed. We are of the view that inasmuch as the additions which were made in the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been deleted by the Tribunal, the basis for imposition of penalty ceased to exist. The penalty cannot stand on its own independently of the assessment. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deemed dividend which has been deleted cannot form the subject matter of imposition of penalty. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 102 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... tived that contention and held that where minor is admitted to the benefits of the partnership, the deed of partnership need not be signed by the guardian of the minor and the fact that the deed had not been signed by such guardian would not be fatal to the validity of the deed. The second ground has no merit either. Clause 8 of the deed providing for contribution of capital by the minor does not militate against the existence of any genuine partnership firm. A minor can be asked along with other full-fledged partners to contribute capital and the guardian on behalf of the minor can also enter into such agreement on behalf of the minor. So long as the minor is not admitted as a full-fledged partner, the condition that the minor should also contribute capital cannot be a ground to refuse registration. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal were right in holding that the penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was leviable on the assessee? The Appellate Tribunal is, therefore, directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the aforesaid common question of law for the opinion of this court. Both the applications are partly allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 2 is concerned, in our view, the same is a question of law and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether, in law and on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) s decision allowing the assessee s claim of Rs. 2,14,694 on account of interest on excess collection of levy sugar price ? The applications are partly allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he facts in this case are akin to the facts in the Supreme Court case and, therefore, the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal for finding out whether the unremitted profits were kept for trading purposes or for capital purposes. In our view, the facts in the Supreme Court decision are entirely different. In the instant case, the profits which are unremitted were earned in the past. Income-tax had already been levied on them on the basis of their value in Indian currency. Only when these profits are hereafter remitted, their exchange value will be less in terms of dollars in foreign currency due to devaluation. It is a simple case of transfer of profits after they are earned. Such depreciation in the value of profits after they are earned in foreign currency cannot be a revenue loss. In this view of the matter, the question referred at the instance of the assessee requires to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. It is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 98 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... r under consideration. The question that arose for consideration was whether depreciation is to be computed on these assets under section 10(5)(a) or under section 10(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is true that the assessee had not claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1955-56. This, however, does not mean that the assets were acquired during the previous year under consideration. The assets having been acquired before the previous year involved, depreciation obviously requires to be computed under section 10 (5) (b) which reads thus (5) and written down value means-... (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or any Act repealed thereby, or under executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (11 of 1886), was in force. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 97 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... unicipal limits of Surat city, fell within a Town Planning Scheme and within an area that was generally residential. Upon the said land, taken as an undemarcated unit, there was a building which was, in part, tenanted. These factors rightly weighed with the Tribunal and more than offset the presumptive value of the City Survey Officer s nondh . That the Registrar accepted the assessee s statement that the said land was agricultural land for the purpose of registering the sale deed does not carry the matter further. There is indeed one other factor which goes against the assessee and that is that a close reading of the sale deed suggests that the said land is sold for the purpose of building activity. Having regard to all these factors, the Tribunal must be held to have been justified in coming to its conclusion and we answer the question accordingly. It is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee shall pay to the Revenue the costs of the reference.
............
|
