|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... t liberty to remove the containers after the goods have been destuffed on payment of outstanding amount of ground rent. The payment should be made by depositing the amount due in the Bombay High Court. The money must be kept in deposit in a nationalised bank so that the amount can earn interest. The High Court will decide the controversy on merits. An important question has been raised by Mr Diwan that there is no liability on the client's part to pay ground rent because the containers are being detained due to non-performance of the statutory duty of the customs authority and also the Port Trust. All these questions must be finally decided by the High Court. Since the Customs have not taken any action in the matter so far, the customs authority will not try to stop the sale of the imported goods by the Port Trust on any ground. Liberty to apply to the Bombay High Court for any further orders which may be needed for working out this order. 5. The appeals are disposed of.
-
1997 (10) TMI 399
... ...
... ... ..... earned their pension on the basis of their holding higher ranks though the pension was being paid by their parent department. This may be on the basis of relevant pension rules as applicable in the State. Now, if the respondents go back to their parent department and work their as Constables or Head Constables their emoluments would be reduced considerably and they would be deprived of getting higher pension when they retire. 22. Considering the whole aspect of the matter we affirm the order of the High Court to the extent that option be given to all those respondents who have put in 20 years qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement from the CID in the ranks they are holding and they will be deemed to have worked in CID upto the date of this judgment. The option shall be given within 30 days. 23. Except as aforesaid the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... article 5(2)(k) only if the installation project continues for a period of more than 120 days and that condition is not satisfied here. It is not disputed that earnings from the work performed by BRI constitute business profits. However, in the absence of a permanent establishment, article 7 of the DTAA would not be attracted. As such, there is no tax liability on BRI for the business profits earned by it. In the circumstances, the ruling of the authority in the Singapore case 1997 228 ITR 55 (AAR), referred to earlier is equally applicable in the facts of the present case. In the light of the above discussion, the Authority pronounces the following ruling on the question raised in the application before it The revenue earned by the applicant from the contracts with Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Ulsan, Korea, and performed offshore India, during the previous year ended on March 31, 1997, will not be liable to tax in India, as it had no permanent establishment in India.
-
1997 (10) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... e head "Salary". Insofar as the amount of commission received by the assessee from the company is concerned, we are of the opinion that the commission arose as a result of the contract for service entered into by the company with the assessee. If it is a commission not referable to the assessee’s role as an employee, in our view, the commission could be treated as assessable under the head ‘Income from business’ or under the head ‘Income from other sources’ and the Tribunal has found that there was no necessity on the part of the company to recover the expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal has come to a right conclusion that the assessee was entitled to deduction for all expenditure claimed in earning the commission and it is deductible for arriving at the true income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we answer the question of law raised before us in this case in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... appen in a case as that of the present appellant where there is a carried forward loss of the preceding year but there is no depreciation claimed for that year or even allowable for that year, can it be that the company can declare dividends out of the profits of that year without deducting therefrom any amounts, whatsoever, because there is no claim for depreciation in spite of the fact that there is a substantial carried forward loss. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we do not have to decide the issue on merits. What all we have to see is whether this issue validly arises from the provisions of s. 115J r/w s. 205 of the Companies Act, 1956. We are of the view that such an issue does crop up and it is a debatable one. In this view of the matter, we hold that the order passed by the AO is beyond the scope of s. 154 under which rectification cannot be effected in respect of debatable issues. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A). 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... was not entitled to get Form-C which was issued in violation of provisions of Central Sales Act, 1956. 2. On consideration of facts of the instant case, where the applicant applied for issuance of Form-C for the import of cement from outside the State of U.P. and the authorities concerned in the ignorance and without ascertaining as to whether the applicant was a registered dealer under Central Sales Act, 1956 or not?, issued Form-C and allowed the applicant to import cement from outside the State of U.P. It appears that mistake was committed by both sides. However, it was the primary duty of the importer to have certificate of registration under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 before applying for Form-C which was not done in the instant case, as such, I reduce the penalty from ₹ 26,000/- to ₹ 5,000/- and the order of the Tribunal dated 27.6.1997 is modified accordingly. 3. With these observations, the revision stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 394
... ...
... ... ..... r investment purpose. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the profit of ₹ 2,57,42,175 derived by the assessee on the sale of 7,00,000 shares in question is assessable as business income. 23. The only other ground raised in this appeal reads as follows - "The CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of the ACIT in treating a sum of ₹ 149 being a sale of fraction bonus coupon of shares in Manjushree Plantation Ltd. as business income." The assessee received a fractional share in Manjushree Plantation Ltd. and so, it had to be sold. There is no evidence that the assessee sought to trade in this share. At any rate, there is no tax effect. Even as per the assessee, it is of the nature of a short-term capital gain. However, as the ground is taken, we have to allow this ground. 24. Subject to the above remarks, about ₹ 49 in respect of fractional share in Manjshree Plantation Ltd., the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 393
Whether charges payable by TISCO to the applicant for work carried out by the applicant under the agreement in its office at Johannesburg, South Africa, including preparatory studies before each field visit, detailed under serial No. 3 of Appendix “B” of the agreement, are income liable to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? If so, at what rate ?
Whether the consultancy fees to be received by the applicant from TISCO under the agreement as detailed under serial No. 2 of Appendix “B” of the agreement is income on which income-tax is payable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? If so, at what rate ?
Is there any obligation on the part of TISCO to deduct at source, from the sums payable under the agreement to the applicant towards technical and consultancy fees, income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, if so, to what extent and at what rate ?
Can TISCO make payment to the applicant of the technical fees/charges in South Africa for the work to be done or services to be rendered in South Africa ? Will that be considered as an income deemed to accrue or arise in India ? Will tax be levied on such income ? If yes, then whether income-tax has to be deducted at source on such payment made in South Africa, and at what rate ?
A daily living allowance as detailed in Appendix “B” of the draft agreement will be paid by TISCO to the foreign technicians of the applicant. Since the same do not fall within the purview of a perquisite, will tax be levied on such an allowance ?
India does not have a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with South Africa. Hence, what rate of tax shall be applicable to the technical and consultancy fees paid in India by TISCO to the applicant under the agreement ?
-
1997 (10) TMI 392
... ...
... ... ..... d a sum of ₹ 6,339 paid as penal interest for short deduction of taxes from the salaried employees as application of income. This has been rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the expenditure is not for purposes of the objects of the Trust. We do not see any infirmity in the orders of the revenue authorities in this regard. The assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of the income applied for charitable or religious purposes in India. The penal interest imposed for short deduction of salaries does not qualify for exemption, as it does not amount to application of income for charitable purposes. 38. The last ground of appeal is relating to levy of interest under section 139(8) and section 217. It was prayed that only consequential relief may be directed to be granted to the assessee. Since the assessee is entitled to consequential relief, the Assessing Officer is directed to give the same. 39. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 391
Whether in the facts and circumstances explained in detail in annexure-I, the applicant is a qualified technician as defined under section 10(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accordingly the applicant would be entitled to the exemption under section 10(5B)?
-
1997 (10) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... . May be in the event the Delhi Administration decides to upgrade and include the post of Senior Sub-Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the legal contentions raised by the appellant would justify such upgradation and beyond that it will not help the appellant to pray the Court to issue a direction to the Administrative to upgrade and include the post of Senior Subordinate Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Normally the court will not interfere with the Administrative Policy of the Government. When such policy violates some provisions of the Constitution such as Article 14, the court will step in to set right. On facts we are unable to hold that such a contingency has arisen in this case warranting interference. Though the appellant in person ably presented his case by elaborately arguing the matter, we are not able to persuade ourselves to take a different view from the one taken by the High Court. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 389
Order of acquittal of the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause (5) of the Iron and Steel Control Order after applying Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act
Held that:- The order of the High Court is obviously correct. No evidence on the record has been pointed out from which it could be inferred that the two respondents had any knowledge of the sale which was manoeuvred by Kamdar and Vallabhadas Thacker, nor is there evidence to show that they took any part in the negotiations for sale, or in the sale itself. Consequently, it is clear that their conviction was not justified.
In the present case, there is no finding either by the Magistrate or by the High Court that the sale in contravention of Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order was made by the Company. In fact, the Company was not charged with the offence at all. The liability of the persons in charge of the Company only arises when the contravention is by the Company itself. Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no finding that the Company contravened Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order, the two respondents could not be held responsible. The actual contravention was by Kamdar and Villabhadas Thacker and any contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on the respondents. The acquittal of the respondents is, therefore, fully justified. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... e question involved in this case is whether the penalty for the importation of the generator set could be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act. It has been held that the diesel generator set is machinery. Since the machinery is endorsed in the registration certificate in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner can very well import the generator set under the said heading. 4.. It was not a case relating to the imposition of tax and the rate at which the tax could be imposed. It was a different case as to whether a penalty could be imposed for importing generator set by furnishing form C . The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali 1964 53 ITR 165 has held that generating set is clearly a machinery. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner has rightly issued C form and imported generating set. 5.. With these observation this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 387
... ...
... ... ..... even before this Tribunal. 5.. The two lower appellate authorities have concurrently held that this was not an error apparent from the record. 6.. The two lower appellate authorities cannot be said to have determined the matter correctly. Extending the advantage of an exemption under a notification that had lapsed as a result of which in the period in question there was no exemption clearly is an error apparent from the record fully rectifiable in exercise of the powers under section 17, RST Act. It is a glaring error to discover which no application of mind whatsoever is required. It is not a question of opinion or interpretation. It does not need any reasoning or arguments to uncover. 7.. In view of the above the application for revision is accepted and the order dated August 16, 1990 of the AA is upheld and the impugned order of the Board as well as the order dated November 30, 1990 of the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals are set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 386
... ...
... ... ..... s, separated by a day. The payment of tax, without the appeal being filed, is of no consequence, since the appeal had been filed on May 9, 1985, which date ought to be taken as the date, on which the appeal had been duly filed, after a delay of twenty-seven days. For condoning the delay so caused, the assessee-dealer filed a petition and deriving the solidified satisfaction as to the sufficiency of cause for the said delay, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed him to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same according to law, which, we feel, in the light of the statutory provisions adumbrated under section 31-A of TNGST Act, as it then stood, coupled with the factual matrix, cannot at all be stated to be suffering from any infirmity or error-either on the question of law or on facts. 13.. In this view of the matter, the revision deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... anted. 5.. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner simply holding that the penalty imposed is excessive, reduced the penalty amount to 50 per cent of the tax and fixing it at Rs. 960. The rationale or the reasoning as given above for the unsustainability of the imposition of penalty by the assessing officer also holds good relatable to the unsustainability of the modification of the order of penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 6.. When we came to the order of the Tribunal, we are able to discern that the Tribunal took the view that the imposition of penalty is not warranted even under section 12(5) of the T.N.G.S.T. Act, when especially the assessee-dealer has filed a revised return prior to the final assessment. The view so taken by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances, cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable under law. In this view of the matter, the revision deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... h the finished goods the sale of the packing material would be exigible to tax even if the goods packed in it are exempt. The other aspect of the matter is that if for any reason the sale of the goods which are packed does not exhaust the prescribed financial limits the assessee would have availed of an impermissible exemption on the sale of packing material. 6.. As regards the sale of limestone it is clearly mentioned in the EC and, therefore, its sale would be exempt from tax in the relevant period. 7.. It may also be noted that in view of the Supreme Court s ruling in India Carbon Ltd. case 1997 106 STC 460, no interest is leviable under section 11-B, RST Act for dues under the CST Act. 8.. In view of the above the levy of tax on the packing material is upheld and the levy of tax on limestone and of interest under section 11-B, RST Act are set aside. 9.. The application for revision stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (10) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... processed goods are to be sold by him and this is made clear by the absence of the word by him after the word sale . Such being the case, it is very well open for the dealer like the assessee-dealers to use the goods so purchased availing concessional rate of taxation in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale by others, in the sense of doing job-work. 12.. In this view of the matter, it cannot at all be stated that the utilisation of the equipments and machineries for doing job-works for others is a refraction or violation falling under section 10(d) of the C.S.T. Act, calling for imposition of penalty under section 10-A in lieu of prosecution. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the imposition of penalty of the assessee-dealers, as had been imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the assessing officer is perfectly justified in law. 13. The revision, therefore, fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... nvenience of transport and such packing material does not reach the ultimate consumer along with goods and so it cannot be treated as packing material sold along with contents without there being any sale of packing material as such. In coming to the conclusion the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal followed it s own decision in the case of United Breweries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1990) 11 APSTJ 95. 3.. Having heard the learned Government Pleader at length, we are of the view that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has reached to the correct conclusion the cartons in which the liquor bottles are kept for the purpose of transportation cannot be equated with the packing material wherein the liquor is packed. Such secondary packing material can only be treated as container and will have to be taxed under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. In this view of the matter, the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... as below (i) Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 917, 919, 920, 1010 and 1011 of 1985 are allowed. (ii) Tax Case (Revision) No. 918 of 1985 is partly dismissed, in ordering deletion of sales turnover on account of gunnies in a sum of Rs. 5,41,050 and directing the assessing officer to give relief to the assessee-dealers in that regard. This Tax Case (Revision), in other respects, shall stand allowed. (iii) Tax Case (Revision) No. 1563 of 1985 is partly dismissed in affirming the remit order of the Tribunal with respect to the turnover of Rs. 17,03,849.69, in respect of which, condonation of delay in the production of E1 forms had been accepted ordering relief to the assessee-dealers on the basis of the said forms so produced, if they are in order and it shall stand allowed, in other respects. (iv) There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances, in all these Tax Case (Revisions). T.C. Nos. 917, 919, 920, 1010 and 1011/85 are allowed 918 and 1563/85 partly dismissed.
........
|
