|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 754 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed only by 2000 amendment, only explains the scope of the provisions of section 29(2) in that what was implicit as understood by this Court itself was made explicit. It does not in any way widen the scope of section 29(2) so as to have only prospective operation. 13.. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that the provisions of sections 29 and 29A of the Act are not applicable to the said case. We accordingly set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Since the Tribunal did not go into the question regarding the exigibility to penalty and its quantum as also other defects pointed out by the petitioner, for that reason, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for considering the said question and for rendering the decision. This will be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 753 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these circumstances, I deem it proper to read down the amended rule and thereby to set aside the penalty on the peculiar facts of the case but in the light of the objections and also in the light of the materials made available to me. In the circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside the notice proposing to levy penalty of Rs. 1,65,000. Since I find that the notice requires to be set aside, subsequent order also requires to be set aside notwithstanding the appeal remedy. Availing of appeal remedy in the given set of facts would be a mere waste of time. The order impugned is also liable to be set aside. 10.. Before concluding, I also deem it proper to direct the petitioner not to continue in future the greenish forms and provide form 39-C in terms of the amended rule. 11.. In the result, this petition is allowed. Impugned notice and the subsequent order of confirmation are set aside with the above directions. Parties are to bear their own respective costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 752 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt were accompanied with the goods carried, but and form No. 18A was not carried along with those goods on account of the ambiguous situation created by the existing amendment, it will have to be inferred that the dealer at the relevant time was not carrying these papers on account of the amendment which was existing at the relevant time. This was the view of the appellate authority as also the Rajasthan Tax Board and I fully concur with the view taken by the courts below. The impugned order in any case does not result into miscarriage of justice or loss of revenue to the State exchequer as it is not even the case of the petitioner that there has been evasion of payment of the sales tax. The intention of the respondent in my view at the most can be treated as an irregularity, but not an illegality so as to interfere with the order at the revisional stage. This revision petition thus has no merit and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 751 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anation introduced by S.R.O. No. 585 of 1996 to be continued without limiting it to the first year in which the turnover crosses the limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The grant of exemption under section 10 of the act is a matter exclusively within the province of the Government and the courts cannot direct the Government to grant any exemption to the appellants because, as otherwise it will cause practical difficulties to them. The Government have advisedly limited the benefit of concessional rate of tax under the notifications only to small-scale industrial units whose turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. The classification being reasonable it will not be open to this court to issue any directions as sought for by the appellants to extend the benefit of the explanation inserted by S.R.O. No. 585/96 for all the years to come. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 750 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act that the two orders dated July 2, 1996 and November 5, 1997, of the Tribunal were not served on the petitioner prior to June 24, 1997, we are not inclined to throw away the petition on the technical ground of latches. 12.. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition and condone the delay in filing the applications under section 45(1) of the DST Act and remit the case back to the Tribunal for deciding the petitioner s applications for reference, on merits. 13.. During the pendency of the petition, on petitioner s depositing a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs with the authorities, further recovery proceedings were stayed. It is made clear that this stay would continue to operate till the decision of the reference applications on merits by the Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, it will be for the Tribunal to decide whether recovery of the additional demands is to be stayed or not. 14.. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 749 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thereunder. That the State Legislature had earlier chosen specifically to incorporate sections 3A and 3B to tax the transfer of the right to use goods and the transfer of goods involved in work contracts respectively does not lead to the conclusion that, therefore, it had not intended to tax the supply of food and drink until section 3D was inserted in 1997. The incorporation of sections 3 A and 3B can only be said to be measures of abundant caution. 45. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion above made and in the light of overwhelming decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court in favour of the Revenue, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the authority imposing the interest from the date on which the tax has become payable, which has been approved by the Special Tribunal. All the writ petitions are dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 748 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al Sales Tax Rules has not been complied with. We are unable to accept the submission. We find that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the facts of the case, found that the rule has been complied with and there are no materials before the Special Tribunal to take a different view on this matter. 16. We therefore hold that the conclusion of the Special Tribunal that the petitioner is not an agent of the Universal Radiators and there is a relationship of principal to principal is quite reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As already observed, we are not sitting in appeal over the order of the Special Tribunal. We are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the Special Tribunal is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to take a different view than the one arrived at by the Special Tribunal. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders of the Special Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 747 - SUPREME COURT
What was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Held that:- The judgments of the High Court under challenge cannot be sustained as the impugned judgments do not indicate any substantial question of law formulated and that the second appeals were heard on any substantial question of law. This Court has taken the view in cases more than one that in second appeals, substantial question or questions of law must arise for consideration and the appeals are to be heard on the substantial questions of law so formulated.
The appeals are allowed. We remit these matters to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above.
-
2002 (11) TMI 745 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion (baa) added from the assessment year 1992-93. Both the parties agreed and stated that the earlier Special Bench had held that the said Explanation would be prospective and not retrospective in nature. The assessment year before us is 1986-87 and the aforesaid Explanation would not be applicable. Before we part with this matter, we would like to categorically observe that the numerous decisions cited at the bar by the parties have been duly considered, but these were many in number and in case inadvertently one or more of them does not find a mention in the order, it does not mean that the same has been overlooked, but it is categorically to be observed that it has been taken into account. Having answered the various propositions raised before this Special Bench, we now direct the matter to be placed before the Division Bench for passing an order in conformity with the views expressed by this Special Bench as also to deal with any other ground/grounds raised in the appeal.
-
2002 (11) TMI 744 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on facts, the Contractor has been able to establish that the arbitrator was biased against it ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Except raising the vague and general objections that the arbitrator was biased and had predisposition to decide against the Contractor, no materials, much less cogent materials, have been placed by the Contractor to show bias of the arbitrator. No sufficient reason appears on record as to why the arbitrator should not have proceeded with the arbitral proceedings. The test of reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable man is not satisfied in the factual situation
-
2002 (11) TMI 743 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Valuation - Settlement of case - Immunities ... ... ... ... ..... itted duty of Rs. 1,51,655/- was paid on 14-6-2002 as seen from the TR-6 Challan available on record. In this background the Commission observes that no further interest need be charged on the applicant and grants immunity from payment of interest. (3) Fine and Penalty The applicant has co-operated with the Commission in the proceedings and has made a full and firm disclosure of the duty liability. Therefore, the Commission grants immunity from payment of fine and penalty. (4) Prosecution Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed at Srl. (3) above, the Commission grants immunity from prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The above immunities are granted in terms of Section 32K(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This order shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 742 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business expenditure, Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings after certain date, etc., Method of accounting
-
2002 (11) TMI 741 - ITAT GAUHATI
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... hineries was declared by the assessee as its business income and the same was accepted by the Revenue. This evidences that the activity of letting out of tea estates along with the plant and machineries on lease constitutes the business activity of the assessee. In our considered opinion, it is a well settled position of law that depreciation will be granted to the owner who has let on lease his assets, the letting amounts to its business and the assets amount to be used for the purposes of the business of letting or leasing. Our above opinion, also finds support from the decision in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. 1998 231 ITR 3081 (SC) and First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2001 250 ITR 1 (Chennai) (SB) (AT). In view of the above, we set aside the orders of both the lower authorities on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of depreciation of Rs. 1,15,035 to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 740 - ITAT, DELHI
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... he ld. Counsel stated that the entry in the cash book was made on 13-5-1996 and the cash memos also related to the same date. It was further stated that the amount has been deposited in the cash book on 16 8209 5-1996 and as that was a clerical mistake, no addition was warranted. 10. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We have noted the submissions of the ld. Counsel that there was inadvertent mistake in mentioning the date of entry in cash book while giving information to the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside this issue and restore back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and take a view accordingly. 12. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 have not been pressed and, therefore, the same are dismissed. 13. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and does not call for any adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ------------------------- 1. 27 Taxman 450A.
-
2002 (11) TMI 739 - ITAT JAIPUR
Method of accounting - Estimation of profits, Interest chargeable ... ... ... ... ..... e Court in the case CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. 2001 247 ITR 209 was discussed. Accordingly, the Hon rsquo ble High Court observed that when the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has not charged interest and when the charge of interest has not been specifically stated in the assessment order, after that the order charging the interest in demand notice is contrary to the provisions of law and the Assessing Officer cannot levy interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 11. Perusal of record reveals that the Assessing Officer did not apply specific provisions of law for charging of interest. Having regard to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) as well as Autolite (I) (P.) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra), interest in such circumstances cannot be charged. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete the levy of interest. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, as stated above.
-
2002 (11) TMI 738 - ITAT JODHPUR
Method of accounting - Estimation of profits ... ... ... ... ..... and circumstances of the case, as also the specific reasons explained by assessee, for fall of g.p. in this particular year, together with the fact that in assessee rsquo s own case in assessment year 1986-87, the Tribunal held the profit rate of 9 per cent to be reasonable, we consider the conclusion/finding of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in treating the profit rate of 9.3 per cent, as shown by assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular year, to be quite proper and justified. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 6. In the result the revenue rsquo s above appeal is dismissed. 7. As regards assessee rsquo s C.O. No. 11/JDPR/99 pertaining to revenue rsquo s aforesaid appeal, the ld. AR of assessee has not pressed the assessee rsquo s C.O. for the reason of the same being supportive of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s impugned order and so the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result the assessee rsquo s aforesaid C.O. is dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 737 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Method of accounting - Estimation of profit ... ... ... ... ..... on of the purchases. It is also true that the entries in the books of account were based on the bills issued by M/s. Rajan Agency and in those bills no discrepancy was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Considering that fact alone, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for making the addition on the basis of rough estimate on a letter pad found at the time of search, when the bills for authenticated purchases were also available with him. It is also noticed that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has not rejected the book results while applying the provisions of section 145(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter also, we are of the view that the entries in the books of account should have been preferred in preference to rough estimate found during the course of search. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 30,637 confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 736 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... f the company to visit U.K., France, and Switzerland to study the export market and to explore the possibilities of export since the assessee was in the business of manufacturing hosiery goods etc. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-submissions of the details of business talks held with the companies visited. The foreign exchange was released by the Govt. for undertaking such tour. The assessee had submitted complete details of the countries visited, names of the companies with whom the Director held the talks and the number of days spent. It was not necessary to furnish the details of the talks held. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified for making the disallowance of Rs. 3,12,835 treating the expenditure was not for business. We, therefore, find no justification to disturb the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and allowed in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (11) TMI 735 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Return of income ... ... ... ... ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provided that the revenue authorities can reduce or increase the amount of interest in view of variation in the amount of tax as a result of subsequent proceedings by way of appeals or revisions, rectifications, reassessment etc. However, these provisions do not authorise the levy of interest under section 139(8) or 217 for the first time where no such interest was charged in the original assessment made for that particular year. 10. In view of the above decisions, we are of the firm view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in charging the interest under section 139(8) or 215/217 of the Act for the first time in the order passed under section 154/155 of the Act, particularly when no interest under these sections had been charged at the time of making the original assessments. Accordingly, we delete the interest charged by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) under these sections. 11. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 734 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... s requesting for issuance of the said certificate. There is no response to the said letter. As such the factual position remains that during the period in question i.e. from April, 1992 to March, 1993, the appellants were not possessing the small scale registration certificate and as such the condition of the notification were not fulfilled. The appellants rsquo reliance upon the various decisions of the Tribunal that the certificate would relate back to the date of application is of no avail to them inasmuch as there is no certificate in existence and as such the question of relating back the same to the date of application does not arise at all. As admittedly during the relevant period the appellants were not registered and the certificate has not been issued even after the expiry of a period of 11 years, we are of the view that the benefit of the exemption notification has been rightly denied to the appellant. Accordingly we find no merits in the appeal, which is rejected.
........
|
