|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Custom House Agents - Examinations for grant of licence - Qualifying examination for ... ... ... ... ..... the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. A Special Leave Petition against this judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Madras High Court (Sathiadev, J.) in Writ Petition Nos. 5315 and 5316 of 1984, by his Judgment and Order dated 18th November, 1987, has also upheld the validity of the same Regulation. In the case of Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan and Anr. v. Jasjit Singh, the Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ors., reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 204, the Supreme Court considered similar Rules under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, being Custom House Agents Licensing Rules, 1960, and upheld the validity of a similar rule there. 17. In the premises, the petitions are dismissed, and the Rule is discharged in each of the petitions with costs. 18. Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1992 is before us for Admission today. In view of our judgment in the above writ petitions, and for reasons set out therein, this writ petition is rejected. 19. Certified copy expedited.
-
1992 (10) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs House Agents - Licensing of ... ... ... ... ..... is to have them appropriately amended. As long as the Regulations stand as they are, we are of the view that it is not open to the Collector of Customs to impose such a restriction upon the petitioners as done by the impugned order. The impugned order of respondent No. 3 is clearly illegal and unwarranted by the Regulations and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, the order of the Collector of Customs dated 29th April 1992 (Exhibit J ), is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Rule is also made absolute in terms of prayer (b) (iii), subject to the provisions of the Regulations as in force from time to time. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioners for renewal of their Customs House Agents licence, in the light of the observations made herein, and in accordance with the law. The respondents to pay the costs of the petition. Certified copy to be expedited.
-
1992 (10) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Duty Exemption Scheme - Customs - Demurrage ... ... ... ... ..... A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court, 1772 1987 (17) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.) can have no application to the facts of this case. 18. In the view that we are taking, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The impugned endorsement on the reverse of the Bill of Entry at Exh. D is hereby cancelled. The petitioners are held entitled to import the exempted raw material for replenishment of their imports under the Special Imprest Licence at Exh. C issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme without payment of the import duty. Rule will have to be made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (c) and (d). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are, therefore, directed to issue the detention certificate from the date of the filing of the Bill of Entry for home consumption till the date of clearance of the goods on the Bill of Entry. The 6th Respondent Bombay Port Trust is directed to honour the said detention certificate in accordance with law. 19. Rule made absolute accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Modvat credit - Scope - Inputs - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... can be put to various uses, one of which is making of packaging materials. These raw materials by themselves are not recognisable as packaging materials. As already stated, we are unable to agree, with this interpretation. We have already pointed out what actually is meant by packaging materials. They only refer to the raw materials which go to make up the above said containers. So, we hold that the above said clarification given by the Board is not correct. 26. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel also relies on Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1991 (52) E.L.T. 592 (Tribunal) . But the facts therein are different and the decision may have no application to the present facts. 27. In the light of the above discussion, our answers to the above-referred to four questions are in the negative and in favour of the applicant. Accordingly we answer this reference. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT
Whether rebate is admissible only in respect of the central excise duty paid on the finished products and not on the raw material going into the manufacture of finished products and that therefore the claim has got to be restricted to the actual amount of duty paid at the time of clearance of the finished products from the factory for export?
Held that:- The learned counsel had not relied on any notification issued under this Rule for claiming rebate on the duty paid on the raw materials used in the manufacture of goods exported. In the absence of any Notification under Rule 12A the assessee cannot get that relief under the Notification made under Rule 12. In this view it makes no difference whether the billets had suffered any duty or not. There are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal and appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... instant case. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Commissioner s order had no bearing on the fact situation. Sri Ramabhadran then contended that the assessing authority was not right in excluding all the deductions claimed by the assessee. This is a matter for the appellate authority to consider. The appellate authority has not considered as to whether, on the facts, the assessee in the instant case is entitled to the deductions under section 35B and on merits whether the order of the assessing authority requires any change or modification. We are concerned only with the question of law referred to us. The question referred to us necessarily will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Since the merits of the case will have to be decided by the first appellate authority, the case is now remitted to the first appellate authority for considering the other questions for both the years involved in these references. References are answered accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is not for the Income-tax Officer to lay down that it should have been treated as profits. We are not concerned with capital gain at all. We are required to consider the nature of the taxable profit under section 41(2) and its relevancy to an action under section 104, in the background of section 109. The ratio of Bipinchandra Maganlal Co. s case 1961 41 ITR 290 (SC), fully governs the facts of the present case. The Revenue has nowhere established that the second condition under section 104(2) was satisfied in the instant case. The capital returns which accrued to the assessee by the sale of depleted machinery has no bearing while considering the reasonableness of the non-declaration of dividend during the previous year. In fact, there is no finding at all that the assessee acted unreasonably in not distributing any dividend during the relevant year in question. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... their Income Tax Act (8th edition at page 1025), this provision provides for only a chance of getting the meagre relief of having a minimum distribution reduced by 1/5th. In a case where the assessee genuinely requires the entire profits to be set apart and no dividend could be reasonably declared, the Board would be helpless in granting the relief to the assessee. The very purpose of sub-section (2) of section 104 will be defeated in such a situation. It is no answer to the problem to point out that the assessee may approach the Central Government under section 107A of the Act. In the view we have taken as above, it is not necessary for us to consider the first aspect of the contention urged by Sri Ramabhadran that section 107 is not attracted at all in the case of a company which has not declared any dividend. For the reasons stated above, the question referred will have to be necessarily answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. References answered accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income, Unexplained Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... that the expenses which were disclosed by the assessee were very low. This was obviously, a conclusion of fact which was upheld by the Income-tax Tribunal. The implication of holding that the expenses of the assessee and members of his family were more than Rs. 2,750 obviously was that the explanation of the assessee was rejected. Thereafter, it was a question of estimating the expenses of the assessee. What could be the expenses is always a question of fact and the Tribunal had been lenient in the present case and has upheld the addition of only Rs. 5,000 instead of Rs. 10,000 which was added by the Income-tax Officer. The conclusion of the Tribunal is based on the facts on the record and an addition has been made with the explanation of the assessee not having been accepted, it is obvious that the provisions of section 69C would be applicable. We, therefore, answer the questions of law in the affirmative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Perquisite, Rent-free Accommodation, Salary, Value ... ... ... ... ..... . P. Rent Control Act. It is this determination of the market rent which is, in effect, the basis of the order of the Income-tax Tribunal in the present case. Before concluding, we may refer to the decision of J. Dalmia v. CIT 1982 138 ITR 653 in which a Division Bench of this court came to the conclusion that, when the property belonging to the company is allowed to be used by a director, then even though it may not be a case of letting out, the value of the rent-free accommodation has to be determined as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor s case 1980 122 ITR 700 and the standard rent will determine the value. To this extent, the decision of a Division Bench of this court in J. Dalmia s case 1982 138 ITR 653 is at variance with the decision in Murlidhar Dalmia s case 1981 129 ITR 67 (Delhi). For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Business Income, Capital Employed, Current Repairs, Deduction, Developement Rebate, Entertainment Expenditure, Exemptions, High Court, Income Tax, Interest On Tax, New Industrial Undertaking, Power To Reframe Question, Purchase Tax, Repairs, Tax Demand
-
1992 (10) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Annual Value, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ation provided under the Rent Control enactment and there was nothing on the record to show that the agreed rent is not fair and reasonable, then the actual rent received by the assessee should be regarded as the fair annual letting value of the property concerned. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court. In the present case also, it is not the contention on behalf of the Department that the rent which was agreed between the assessee and the tenants was not a fair and a reasonable rent at the time when the properties were let out. It is also not disputed that the provisions of the U. P. Rent Control Act were applicable and this being so, the ratio of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Modi Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Co. s case 1980 125 ITR 361 is clearly applicable. In our opinion, therefore, the questions of law have to be answered in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ints and varnish, torch, lantern, etc. All that the assessee did now was to start manufacturing a new commodity. In a larger sense the business of the assessee remained the same, viz., the business of manufacture. It was already manufacturing diverse items and a new item was added to this business. The facts found by the Tribunal are that there was complete unity of control and there was a common fund and these factors have been regarded as most material by the Supreme Court as is evident from the case of Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. 1971 79 ITR 589 (SC) and the other cases referred to therein. In view of the above the only conclusion which can be arrived at, therefore, is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business of manufacture of special alloy wires and billets was an extension of the business and not a new business. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 73 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeals, Stock-In-Trade ... ... ... ... ..... the year 1959, and, in respect of the earlier assessment years, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held that The spirit behind the method of valuation has been to limit the probability of normal fluctuation in the estimated price of stock which could have been taken on the last date of the accounting period. The method adopted by the appellant is, in fact, nearer to the reality of the fact and as such could be treated as a correct and perfect method of valuation. The aforesaid observations of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were accepted by the Tribunal and, therefore, the positive finding of fact was that the correct and true profit could be ascertained from the method of accounting which was being followed by the assessee. This question also has, therefore, to be answered in favour of the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, we conclude that our answer to all the three questions is in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 72 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Money, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... talments may have been agreed to by the Commissioner of Income-tax, non-payment of the instalments cannot tantamount to borrowing money. Be that as it may, section 80V applies only to payment of any tax which was due under this Act (emphasis added). The payment made by the assessee in the present case is not under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The payment has been made under different statutory provisions and, therefore, the assessee cannot claim any help or assistance from section 80V. On the contrary, the insertion of section 80V indicates a statutory recognition of the fact that it is only that interest which is paid on money borrowed for payment of income-tax under the Act which is allowable as a deduction. Any other interest which is paid in relation to the delay in payment of tax would not be entitled to any deduction. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 71 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Export Market Development Allowance, Limit For Allowance, Perquisite
-
1992 (10) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... rchandisers (P.) Ltd. (1990 182 ITR 107. Dr. Krishna also cited a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Mrs. Shirinbai P. Pundole 1981 129 ITR 448, wherein the right of the tenant to surrender his interest in favour of the landlord was recognised and the consideration received by the tenant for such surrendering of right was held to be not liable to capital gains tax. Having regard to the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the payment received by the assessee in the instant case as a consideration for surrendering his tenancy interest in the premises and vacating the same cannot be treated as a revenue receipt. It is in the nature of a capital receipt however, it is not chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Act. We answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was right in treating the receipt as a capital receipt but not liable to be taxed as a capital gain. References are answered accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 69 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e of the country. The legislative intent is to give whole-hearted relief to the co-operative sector by an amount comprised of profit from the activities specified in section 80P(2)(a) from the gross total income. The expression whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities indicates that the deduction under section 80P(2)(a) is to be given to the extent of the whole of the profit attributable to the cottage industry without deducting therefrom any loss arising in any other activity referred to above. It would not be proper to deduct loss incurred in any such activity from the net profit of another activity as the word used in section 80P(2) is or . Therefore, the analysis made by the first appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal appears to be in order. Our answer in respect of all the four questions is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. D. M. PATNAIK J. - I agree.
-
1992 (10) TMI 68 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area ... ... ... ... ..... ngaged in the construction of dams and channels. In Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 47 STC 124 (SC), the assessee was carrying on a business in mining iron ore and selling it in the export market after dressing, washing, screening and blending it. It was held that the blending of ore in the course of loading through mechanical ore handling plant amounted to processing of the ore. Having regard to these principles, it has to be held that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture or production of an article. Before the Tribunal, it was argued that the assessee was an industrial undertaking. The questions posed assume that the provisions of section 80HH would be attracted but for the nature of the activity carried on by the assessee. We are of the view that the activities of the assessee would fall within the provisions of section 80HH. Consequently, the questions referred are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nditure unrelated to the former or incurred in a different connection. The Division Bench held that an item of receipt which is prima facie income cannot be transposed into capital account unless the set off is in respect of a related item of expenditure. Thus, the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Special Bench in Arasan Aluminium Industries case 1982 1 ITD 10 (Mad), cannot be applied without the qualifications which were pointed out by the Division Bench of this court in the above mentioned case. Subject to this qualification, we do not see any illegality in the direction given to the Income-tax Officer to consider the claim of the assessee for set off of interest received on short-term deposits against unadjusted expenditure to reduce the capital cost to the extent admissible. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee but subject to the clarification given above. In the result, the referred case is answered accordingly.
....
|
