|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 491 Records
-
2002 (10) TMI 740
... ...
... ... ..... tax is not to be deducted by the Court. As regards question (c), as per the decisions and provisions of section 194A read with section 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court is not the person responsible for paying any income by way of interest to the assessee, the real person responsible for paying income by way of interest is the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector who had the money in his possession. The Court is acting only as a conduit for getting the payment made to the claimant in execution of a decree passed by the Court and the opinion on question (d), since there is no liability of Court to deduct tax under section 194-A of the Act, the Court need not to retain the amount of approximate tax and to inform concerned ITO to collect it by means of voucher. 11. Registry is directed to forward the aforesaid opinion recorded by this Court to the Court of Vth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore for disposal of the execution in accordance with law.
-
2002 (10) TMI 739
Cost incurred on educating a student in an unaided professional college was more than the total fee which is realized on the basis of the formula fixed in the scheme.
-
2002 (10) TMI 738
Settlement Commission - Jurisdiction of - Duty liability - Settlement of case - Application for
-
2002 (10) TMI 737
Settlement Commission - Jurisdiction of - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... for this case and the case discussed supra. Interest Since the applicants have admitted an interest amount of Rs. 6,49,109/-, no further interest is liable to be paid. Fine and Penalty The applicants have co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of duty liability. In view of this applicants are granted immunity from imposition of fine and penalty. Prosecution Since the applicants have co-operated with the Settlement Commission and have made a full and true disclosure the Commission grants immunity to the applicants from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 and Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) with reference to this case. 21. emsp This order is in relation to 5 seized cars imported through Nhava Sheva Port and covered under the instant application filed for settlement. 22. emsp Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-section (2) of Section 127F ibid. 23. emsp All concerned shall be informed accordingly.
-
2002 (10) TMI 736
Assessment - Issue of notice ... ... ... ... ..... o-called revised return filed by the assessee on 31-12-1991 cannot be said to be in exercise of the right given by the statute under section 139(5) of the Act and consequently such a return has to be treated as non est in law. It therefore, emerges that the only valid return that has to be considered for the purpose of limitation would the return filed on 12-9-1991 and reckoning from the said date, either as per the old proviso or new proviso to section 143(2) of the Act, a notice has to be issued on or before 30-9-1992 whereas the Assessing Officer has issued the notice on 19-10-1992 which is clearly barred by limitation. Consequently all the proceedings that emanate from the issuance of the notice under section 143(2) become void. We, therefore, quash the assessment order on this limited ground. 8. Both the parties have not argued other issues raised in the grounds of appeal and hence, they need no adjudication. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 735
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... de manner. The agricultural land was sold for Rs. 17,29,657 and amounts properly utilised except for Rs. 1,90,000 which was claimed to be exempt under section 54F of the Act. Even above amount was utilised in purchase of a plot for which construction was to be carried. The amount for construction was kept in a bank account but not in an account specified under rules framed under section 54F of the Act. In our considered opinion, levy of penalty merely because amount was kept in a wrong account, is not justified. As the assessee did not fulfil all the requirements of section 54F, he was denied deduction claimed under the said section. But from above it does not follow that he is also to be penalised for above act. The default, as noted by the CIT(A), is highly technical. There is nothing on record to prove that act of the assessee was not a bona fide one. In the above circumstances, we uphold the impugned order cancelling the penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 734
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... the very jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings is not conferred on the assessing authority by reference to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been further held that it is the assessing authority who has to form his own opinion and record his satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings. Merely because the penalty proceedings have been initiated it cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at. In the instant case, as we have already noted that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether the assessee concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, as such on this score also penalty is liable to be deleted. Viewed from any angle, as discussed in detail hereinabove, we are of the firm view that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be validly levied in the instant case. We accordingly delete the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 733
Penalty - Mandatory penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o contention is that they have not concealed the fact of leaving scrap at the premises of their job workers as they had mentioned payment of duty on scrap in their RG 23A, Part II. It is not the case of the Appellants that they have ever informed the department in writing about the practice adopted by them and allowing the job workers to retain scrap. Their mere mention in RG 23A, Part II will not amount to intimation of the fact that the scrap is not brought back to their factory and cleared on payment of duty. As no duty was paid on the scrap they are liable to penalty. However, taking into consideration the fact that the duty was paid by them immediately after visit of the officers, I am of the view that this is not the case where maximum penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is required to be imposed. The interest of justice will be met if they are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- only. I order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2002 (10) TMI 732
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... appeal would be filed and the period of delay which the Commissioner (Appeals) would condone. There is therefore no perceptible wider objective in pursuance of which the change has been made obviously it was only to mean it in order to reduce the time for filing the appeal. That being the case, we do not find any ground provided in exception to the matter of procedural law that would apply by means of which the period of limitation contained in amended law will apply. An incidental fact to be taken note of is that the proposed amendment was part of the budget proposal of 28th March and would no doubt in the ordinary course have come to the attention of an assessee. This however does not in any way affect the applicability of the principles of law. 5. emsp We are therefore of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly applied the amended period of limitation and hence equally found ourselves unable to condone the delay. 6. emsp The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 731
Valuation - “Similar goods” - Confiscation, penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ilar goods rsquo . 5. emsp We cannot uphold this method of arriving at the determination of the lsquo similar rsquo and lsquo identical rsquo goods as understood in law. We also do not find any provision for approving the goods to be lsquo similar goods rsquo , based on the opinions of experts. We also find that there is no material to prove the undervaluation of the Model Number and Brand manufactured by M/s. Cellpower Co. Ltd., Taiwan on record. Therefore, we cannot uphold the allegation of undervaluation as arrived at by the lower authorities. 6. emsp When we cannot uphold the undervaluation of the goods, we cannot uphold any consequent penalties as arrived at in the impugned orders of the lower authorities. Once we find that there is no case for undervaluation of the goods, confiscation under Section 111(m) and/or penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, are not called for. In view of our findings, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 730
Rectification of mistake - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... f hearing the Appeal have not found favour with the Tribunal as it has decided that the impugned product manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 59.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute, AIR 1986 S.C. 2105 that it is not necessary that order must be a lengthy one recording in detail all the reasons that played in the mind of the Court in coming to the decision. rdquo What is imperative is that the order must in a nutshell record the relevant reason which were taken into consideration by the Court in coming to its final conclusions and disposing of the petition. rdquo It is settled law that rectification of mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby the order even if it is not valid is re-heard and re-decided. In view of this we do not find any mistake in the Order No. A/536/Kol/2002, dated 17-4-2002. The ROM Application is thus rejected.
-
2002 (10) TMI 729
Export under Bond ... ... ... ... ..... support of their contention that the original Shipping Bill could be accepted as proof of export as a substitute for original AR 4/AR 4A. We are, thus convinced that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind. 6. emsp In view of our findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the question whether any document other than AR 4/AR 4A could be accepted as proof of export, for grant of the benefit of Notification No. 355/86-C.E. (as amended by Notification No. 69/94-C.E.) to the appellants in respect of the duty paid by them on cut tobacco and the further question whether cash refund of the duty could be granted in lieu of credit facility. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the issues in the light of the case law cited by the appellants which we have mentioned in para-4 of this order. Needless to say that the party shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
-
2002 (10) TMI 728
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ing the applicability of any of the circumstances specified in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act, the extended period will apply. There is nothing to show that the appellant, despite knowing or having reason to believe that these costs were includable, yet stated that they were not. Having regard to the fact that the state of law was unsettled, it was possible for the appellant to come to the conclusion that it did. We are therefore of the view that the facts of the case will not justify applicability of extended period. The demand for the extended period therefore will not apply. The appeal however fails with regard to duty claims within the normal period of limitation. 6. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The demand for duty for the extended period of limitation is set aside, as is the penalty on the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner shall determine and communicate the duty payable with regard to the duty within the normal period.
-
2002 (10) TMI 727
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... s and unsecured creditors report of the competent authority of the company and many other documents. 4. This Court issued notice to the Registrar of the Companies calling for a report. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the Registrar of the Companies filed letter from the Registrar of the Companies wherein in paragraph 6 recommendations of the said authority do find mention. On a perusal of the same it is perceptible that the said authority has no objection for approval of the scheme of Arrangement. 5. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances this Court thinks it fit to allow the prayer of the petitioner-company and accept the scheme of arrangement and further commands to carry out the duties and responsibilities that have been incorporated in the prayer clause. This Court further directs that there should not be any deviation and the directions be followed in letter and spirit. 6. With the aforesaid directions the company-Petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.
-
2002 (10) TMI 726
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... hat the respondent is a growing concern and there is no other claim through any other creditor of the respondent. I am satisfied that winding up of the respondent is not in the interest of the company rsquo s shareholders and creditors. In the light of the settled legal position that the winding up petition was not a mode for recovery of money and in view of the materials placed, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim for ordering winding up of the respondent-company. Since the parties have invited this court to go into the merits of the claim apart from considering the question relating to jurisdiction, this court has no other option except to answer the questions relating to the merits. 14. In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that no grounds are made out for winding up of the respondent-company, and the petition is liable to be dismissed accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Company Application No. 141 of 2002 is closed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 725
Winding-up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... 398 of the Act are preventive provisions in the Act as a safeguard against oppression and mismanagement and the relief based on just and equitable clause under clause (f) of section 433 is in the nature of last resort when other remedies are not efficacious effect to protect the general interest of the company. In the light of the above conclusion, though both the petitioner and the respondent placed several materials in support of their respective case, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to consider the same hence I refrain from dealing those contentions. 11. In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the petitioner has effective alternative remedies available and of her own admission that she has filed a separate proceeding to ventilate her grievance against the respondent, the winding up petition is liable to be dismissed under section 443(2) of the Act accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Company Application N. 392 of 2002 is also dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 724
Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... gistration as per P. 10. 10. In this case as the communication P. 3 has been issued by the State Government it is not necessary to go into the question that whether it was necessary for the Commercial Tax Department to seek the permission of BIFR under section 22. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the order of cancellation of registration P. 10 is quashed. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Commercial Tax Officer be considered in accordance with communication P. 3 issued by the State Government, Department of Commerce and Industries. Petitioner be allowed to work. Attachment of unit shall continue. No restraint to be put till the matter is decided afresh on doing the business as that defeats the intendment of order passed by the BIFR and the purpose of appointing the operating agency and issue of the directions P. 3 by the State Government. It is open to State Government to clarify P. 3. 12. Writ petition is allowed in terms of aforesaid directions. Costs on parties.
-
2002 (10) TMI 723
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Undervaluation - Penalty - Quantification of ... ... ... ... ..... f these invoices are 29-2-1996 and 15-7-1996 which also corresponds to the dates on which the Bills of Entry were filed in April and August, 1996. The admission made by Lalit Jogani cannot at this stage be totally disregarded. There is not even an attempt to explain the name of Jogani Tyres in the invoices. It is not seriously disputed that the copies of invoices were attested and supplied by German Customs. 7. emsp We, therefore, direct deposit of the remaining duty by Jogani Tyres. The interest is not quantified and its deposit does not arise. It is in any case debatable whether the provisions of Sections 28AB and 114A will apply in respect of goods which were imported prior to the date of enactment of these sections. We further note that the Commissioner has substantially increased penalties in his second order. This is not permissible in law. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the penalties imposed on the applicants and stay their recovery. 8. emsp Compliance on 31-10-2002.
-
2002 (10) TMI 722
Demand - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... is that it is on the higher side. 4. emsp The contention of the Revenue is that the value of goods were enhanced as mentioned in the invoices. Enhanced value is accepted by the appellant. 5. emsp In this case, the Revenue authority enhanced the value of the goods and while enhancing the value of the goods, they also enhanced the shipping expenses at the same rate. In the invoices, the shipping expenses were separately mentioned. There is no evidence that the appellant suppressed the shipping expenses, therefore, enhancement of shipping expenses are not sustainable and hence set aside. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant made import of the machines more than ten years old, which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, confiscation is upheld. However, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) and the penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2002 (10) TMI 721
Refund - Unjust enrichment whether applicable ... ... ... ... ..... the order granting refund therefore attained finality and it cannot be reopened by the Central Excise authorities. In the judgment rendered by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise was passed on 27-03-95 whereas the Apex Court rendered judgment on 19-12-96 in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) and therefore the judgment rendered by the Hon rsquo ble High Court is not applicable in this case and is no longer good law. 5. emsp We have heard the submissions made by both the sides and in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) and the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. v. CC, Trichy (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and we confirm his order by rejecting the appeal filed by the revenue. It is ordered accordingly.
........
|
