|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 523 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... assessing authority from the aforesaid standpoint. At the same time, this Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution would not ordinarily appreciate the effect of documents introduced by the assessee in support of its claim for a deduction as the same is essentially a matter for the assessing authority to appreciate and determine. Consequently, while setting aside the aforesaid part of the assessment order, the same shall now be redetermined by the assessing authority, in accordance with the law laid down in the present judgment and order. 9.. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The assessing officer will now carry out necessary corrections in the assessment order in the light of the directions contained herein and shall also determine the entitlement of the petitioner-assessee to deduction of the value of the turnover relatable to execution of the work by sub-contractors as directed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... the same to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, immediately who will place the petitioner s application together with the findings before the District Level Committee for sales tax exemption and the said committee will decide the petitioner s application for exemption under the notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 in the light of the findings rendered by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes within one month from the date of receipt of the papers from the Commissioner in accordance with law. The recovery of demands under exhibits P10 and P11 in O.P. No. 15979 of 1998 and exhibits P4 and P5 in O.P. No. 20644 of 1999 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be deferred till a decision is taken as directed hereinabove. These two original petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 28440 of 1998 in O.P. No. 15979 of 1998-B dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 34084 of 1999 in O.P. No. 20644 of 1999 dismissed. Petitions disposed of.
-
2002 (8) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... e hearing the first appeal. In compliance to the order dated June 24, 2002 the applicant/revisionist has already deposited Rs. 14,640 as is evident from (annexure 9). In view of the circumstances and in the light of section 13-A(6) of the Act the penalty which was to be paid has already been paid in cash. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice the seized goods on April 10, 2002 is directed to be released forthwith in favour of the applicant/revisionist without any further demand of security. 19.. In view of the above the questions of law are dealt with accordingly. The trade tax revision is disposed of. However, the proceedings for finalisation of the penalty may be made before Deputy Commissioner and the above trade tax authority including the Trade Tax Tribunal and the observation made by this Court in the present case shall not sway over any proceedings before the trade tax authority. Revision disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 809
... ...
... ... ..... inciple of promissory estoppel on the basis of which it was urged that the State was estopped from withdrawing tax benefit from a new industrial unit like the company. He cited some judgments of the apex Court and of this Court in support of his contentions. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, replied that the tax benefit given to the dealers was a concession which could be withdrawn at any time and that there was no vested right in the company as alleged by it. She also referred to some decisions of the apex Court to contend that tax could be levied retrospectively. 8.. Since we are upholding the order of the appellate authority, wherein the products manufactured by the company have been held to be chemicals and not pesticides falling in the negative list, it is not necessary for us to deal with other contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 808
... ...
... ... ..... wed. Writ appeal allowed. jurisdiction at all to tax and, therefore, the same defect as noticed by the Supreme Court in the Orissa Act and Himachal Pradesh Act in 2000 118 STC 297 and 306 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Nathpa Jhakri Jt. Venture v. State of Himachal Pradesh) is there in the amended sub-section (7B) of section 7 and consequent rules. In the above circumstances, we declare that sub-section (7B) of section 7 of the KGST Act and rule 22A(2) of the KGST Rules brought into force on April 1, 1994 are ultra vires as beyond the legislative competence of the State so long as it enables the State to collect tax inclusive of turnover covered by inter-State sales, sales in the course of import, sales outside the State, etc., for which State has no jurisdiction to collect sales tax. Revisional authorities are directed to dispose of the revision petitions filed by the petitioner as per the law declared. The writ appeal is allowed. Writ appeal allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 807
... ...
... ... ..... 53,121 by February 15, 2001 before the appeal could be entertained. Still not satisfied, it went in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal who extended the time and allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount by January 31, 2002. The amount could not be deposited by this date. However, the petitioner deposited the same on March 11, 2002 and before that he had moved an application seeking extension of time from the Tribunal. That application has been dismissed with an observation that the same was not maintainable. 3.. Since the amount as directed by the appellate authority has been deposited by the petitioner, we are of the view that the appeal filed by it should be heard on merits. Consequently, we allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated March 20, 2002 by which the application for extension of time was rejected by the Tribunal and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 806
... ...
... ... ..... orities, it is upto the petitioner to establish, whether such discretion has not been p d or his case has been arbitrarily rejected, which he has failed to do. The petitioner is not even able to cite similar instances, wherein, the Assessing Officer has exempted from tax, such others, so as to plead discrimination in law. Therefore, the petitioner in the absence of such proof cannot claim it as of right giving only interpretation to certain terms in the Section and therefore, absolutely, no legal right of the petitioner is denied in the case in hand nor any other serious irregularities or legal infirmities or inconsistencies have either crept into the order impugned or pleaded on the part of the petitioner, so as to cause interference into the same and hence, the Writ Petition only becomes liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. In result, i.the above Writ Petition is without merit and the same is dismissed as such ii.there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 805
... ...
... ... ..... fact and in substance, an application for equitable relief at the hands of the authority concerned to whom the aforesaid excess amount of excise duty was paid under a mistake. The said application was not rejected on merit. 9. emsp In the aforesaid circumstance, it follows that the present suit for recovery of the said amount cannot be said to be in respect of anything done or ordered to be done, under the Act. Hence, in my opinion, Section 40(2) of the Act did not operate as a bar to the present suit and the suit was maintainable and was also not a premature one. In view of the admitted position that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 56,526.03 paise was paid in excess as excise duty by mistake, the trial court rightly held the plaintiff entitled to a decree for the said sum along with the future interest. 10. emsp I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This Appeal is dismissed, having no merit, but without costs. Lower court records may be sent down.
-
2002 (8) TMI 804
... ...
... ... ..... ld that the addition sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified and the same is deleted. As regards learned counsel rsquo s reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investments Ltd. 2001 251 ITR 263, we feel that the reliance on this case was misplaced. In the case of Steller Investments Ltd. 2001 251 ITR 263 (SC), it was the public issue at large. It was under these circumstances that the court took the view that it was not possible for the company to verify the identity of the shareholders. But the case before us is the case of a private limited company where the shareholders are known to the assesseecompany. Under the circumstances, reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investments Ltd. 2001 251 ITR 263 is misplaced. But as we have deleted the addition on other grounds, the grounds of appeal directed by the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 803
... ...
... ... ..... gards the other contentions taken on behalf of the assessee. The next disallowance in this appeal relates to disallowance of loss of Rs. 3,456 and Rs. 9,250 claimed in respect of coconut oil and edible oil account. The Assessing Officer appears to have disallowed on the ground that the assessee had valued the closing stock at cost price instead of sale price, which, according to him, was higher. We have heard the parties at length and gone through the records. Although the assessee, in the earlier years, has been valuing the closing stock inventory at sale price, nothing prevents him from changing this method to cost price or sale price whichever is lower which is the proper method in arriving at the value of closing stock. In this view of the matter, the Department is not justified in disallowing any part of the losses only on the ground that there is a loss due to the change of accounting in respect of closing stock. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 802
... ...
... ... ..... already taken place in the current year. Therefore, the loss incurred by the assessee is a fait accompli and not a notional one. On a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances and the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal, High Courts and the Supreme Court, as discussed above, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the assessee rsquo s claim of loss on account of fluctuation in foreign currency rate is allowable. Accordingly, we allow the claim of the assessee. For the sake of clarification we may point out that in the appeal in the case of ONGC no other issue is involved. This is however not so in the case of Maruti Udyog. Therefore, the appeals of Maruti Udyog may be put up before the regular Bench, who may decide the issue with regard to loss on account of fluctuation in foreign currency rate in accordance with the decision of this Special Bench, and other issues in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 801
Assessment - Prima facie adjustments ... ... ... ... ..... s of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules the assessee is entitled to prove that payment exceeding Rs. 10,000 was made in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. The above question could not be considered and decided in proceedings under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. All the same, the Assessing Officer and on appeal, the CIT(A) were insisting upon the assessee to prove its case with reference to evidence on record. This approach is not permissible under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. With respect, it is contrary to the directions of the Hon rsquo ble High Court in the case of L.D. Satija (supra). The imposition of additional tax is also unjustified and is deleted. We, therefore, hold that additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) were unjustified and, therefore, additions/disallowances made are directed to be deleted. The revenue would be at liberty to make regular assessment in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 800
Business expenditure, ... ... ... ... ..... rmaceuticals Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 877 (Bom.) (ii) Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT 1988 169 ITR 516 (Bom.) (iii) CIT v. Burroughs Wellcome and Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. 1982 133 ITR 37 (Bom.) (iv) CIT v. Cinceita (P.) Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 652 (Bom.) and (v) CIT v. Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 42 (Bom.). 22. Admittedly, the stamp duty was affixed on 20 bills of exchanges, which were drawn, promising the payment of Rs. 1,62,240, pertaining to buying of certain assets on lease from Forward Leasing and Electronics. 23. It is well settled that when the transaction involved is a lease and not a purchase, the expenditure incurred thereon, including brokerage of commission on stamp duty or the like, this expenditure is allowable as a revenue expenditure. As such, the stand of the assessee is correct. So, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does not call for interference. Thus, it is confirmed. 24. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 799
Cash credits ... ... ... ... ..... o finding by the Assessing Officer that the existence of the partners was in doubt. Therefore, the fact that the partners had introduced their own money cannot be disputed. I find that the partners are old assessees. They had explained their sources of the funds. However, according to the Assessing Officer, they did not have sufficient funds for giving to the firm. On the other hand, the partners had explained as to how the funds were generated for giving to the firm. Now, it is a question of disbelieving the sources of the partners. However, even if the sources of the partners are disbelieved, in such circumstances, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee firm because the firm had already explained that the money came from the partners and it is not a case that the firm rsquo s money was introduced through the partners. In view of the circumstances above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 5. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 798
Cash credits ... ... ... ... ..... of repayment but it is a case of introduction of capital by the partners by making cash deposit in their individual account or through cheque which could not be proved by any of the partners. No evidence could also be produced before us to rely the submission of the ld.Counsel that the deposits made by the partners in their individual SB a/c, has been explained. Further, partly acceptance of the capital as argued by the ld. Counsel in view of the reliance placed on the decision of another case of the Hon rsquo ble Patna High Court i.e. Sarogi Credit Corporation referred above, cannot be applied in the instant case that no evidence was brought on record explaining the amount contributed by the partners in their savings account and thus remained unexplained, hence we uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer Rs. 1,07,500 and reverse the decision of CIT(A). In view of the above the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 797
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... was not given/allowed. 8. That the appellant request for the acceptance of the returned income by deleting the impugned additions made in the declared income of the assessee. It seems that the assessee has surrendered a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and no credit has been given by the Assessing Officer while framing the block assessment. Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee, contended that credit should be given and further deduction should also be allowed. According to him, there was no question of adding the same in the total income of the assessee. We also restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to him to consider the assessee rsquo s explanation and decide the same afresh in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer should consider the above submissions of the assessee while framing the de novo assessment. 14. No other point was argued or pressed before us. 15. For statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed partly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 796
Cash credits, Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... 29. To our mind, the same analogy as is applicable to income has to be applied to loss and if a loss can be termed as one which is computed with reference to transactions recorded in the regular books of account maintained in the usual course of business, such loss cannot be termed as undisclosed and cannot be set off against undisclosed income. This issue is also clear from the wording in section 158BB sub-section (1) clause (c). Thus, the set off of loss of Rs. 28,41,180 claimed for the assessment year 1996-97 by Sri B. Hanumantha Rao and the set off of loss of Rs. 31,08,924 claimed for the assessment year 1996-97 by Sri Ch. Mohan Rao cannot be allowed. This ground of these assessees is, therefore, dismissed. 30. In the result, I.T. (S.S.) A.No. 196/Hyd./1997 is allowed and I.T. (S.S). A. Nos. 50 and 51/Hyd./1997 are partly allowed. ------------------------- 1. 1993 70 Taxman 69 . 2.25 Taxman 80F. 1.110 Taxman 67. 2. 112 Taxman 480. 1. 59 Taxman 568 . 1. 1981 6 Taxman 159 .
-
2002 (8) TMI 795
Precedent - Tribunal’s decision ... ... ... ... ..... n RG I register but took the credit in Part II inasmuch as the declaration filed by them was not acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. emsp The Revenue in their memo of appeal has not disputed that the ratio of the relied upon decision is applicable to the facts of the instant case. However, they have submitted that the Revenue has not accepted the above order and has filed a Reference Application before the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, there is nothing to show that the said order of the Tribunal has been stayed by the Hon rsquo ble High Court. Mere filing of Reference Application does not ipso facto operate as a stay. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (8) TMI 794
Winding-up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... alance amount shall be invested by the Registrar of this Court on the most favourable terms available. The parties may initiate legal proceedings as it may find appropriate including a civil suit etc. within four weeks from today. If this is done, the balance amount shall lie to the credit of the suit. The petitioner may seek appropriate orders for the release of the amount or part thereof, as the case may be, in those proceedings. The respondent would be entitled to set-up any defence available to it in those proceedings. 8. On the failure of the respondent to make compliance the citation shall be published in the Indian Express (English), Nav Bharat (Hindi) and Delhi Gazette, returnable for 25-9-2002. It is made clear that in such an event a provisional Liquidator is likely to be appointed on the next date of hearing keeping in view the fact that the respondent has itself mentioned in its letters that it is undergoing financial problems. 9. Renotify the matter on 1-11-2002.
-
2002 (8) TMI 793
Remand - Re-adjudication in violation of remand order - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... vy Scheme and pay the duty on the basis of actual production. The Commissioner as is evident from the impugned order has taken the view contrary to the above referred judgment of the Apex Court and observed that the appellants could not give an option for paying the duty on the actual production basis and were bound by the Compounded Levy Scheme and their duty liability had to be determined under the said scheme. 5. emsp Since the impugned order of the Commissioner is contrary to the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the above referred case, we have no option but to set aside the same. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-determine the duty liability of the appellants on the basis of actual production, from the date and time of their option, permissible under the law, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, referred to above, after hearing both sides. 6. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
........
|
