|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 160 Records
-
1979 (8) TMI 80 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Short levy - Scope ... ... ... ... ..... nothing to do with the excise at all because it is purely a commercial deal which has no influence over the sale price. It is felt that if this analogy of the Govt. is accepted then even the cost of a cup of tea, if offered by the customer to the manufacturer will also form part of the assessable value. As regards the applicability of Rule 10A, even if the departmental contention that the assessee has not furnished the correct information in the price list is accepted, still the case would fall under Rule 10 and not under Rule 10A because in this regard Calcutta High Court in the case of Inspector of Central Excise v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. - 1978 E.L.T. (J 515), has held that the word mix-statement under old Rule 10 would also include false statement . Since, the instant case, is covered under Rule 10, the Rule 10A being residuary in nature is inapplicable as held by the Supreme Court in the case of N.B. Sanjana v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. - 1978 E.L.T. (J 399).
-
1979 (8) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
Cut or broken steel ingots Mild steel rounds manufactured from duty paid mild steel ingots - Liability to duty
-
1979 (8) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Show Cause Notice - Time Bar - Issue of Show Cause Notice - Scope - Applicability - Alternative remedy - Existence of
-
1979 (8) TMI 77 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Confiscation of seized goods - Penalty - Whether excessive - Criterion for ... ... ... ... ..... is therefore, in favour of the proposition that if a notice for the purpose of section 124 is not issued within the period prescribed under sec. 110(2) ibid. the only consequence is that the return of the goods to the person from whose possession these were seized and that further proceeding regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty under law can still be continued whether the goods in fact were returned or not is irrelevant for these proceedings. The contention of the party on these question is, therefore, not tenable and is rejected. 22. On the plea that the quantum of penalty is excessive, Government observes that considering the contraband nature of the goods which included large quantity of imported liquor and considering further that the Customs Law in such cases should have sharp teeth in order to be deterrent, no relief is warranted. 23. The Board s order-in-appeal is accordingly confirmed in all respects and the revision application is rejected.
-
1979 (8) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Aluminium canisters - Liability to duty - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... o uphold the claim of petitioners and I enquired from Mr. Shah as to what material is in possession of the Department to revise its earlier view and Mr. Shah very fairly stated that there is none. It is now well-settled that the burden to establish that a particular item attracts the tariff item for excise duty is on the department and if the department has no material to substantiate its claim, I fail to see any valid reason to reran remit the proceeding back to the Excise authorities for a fresh determination. In my judgment, accepting the material on record, which is not found to be untrue or incorrect by the two authorities below, it is abundantly clear that the demand notice issued by respondent No. 2 was totally erroneous. In my judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in the petition. 10. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of paragraph 26 of the petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... n our opinion, the disputed, amount could not be assessed in the year of its receipt. Coming to question No. 1, it was only a faint effort made on behalf of the assessee to urge that the disputed receipt was of capital nature. We do not think that there can be any doubt that this amount of damages was paid to the assessee for commission which it would have received if the Jute Mills had worked according to the agreement. It was not a case of premature termination of the managing agency business but it was a case of breach of contract between the assessee and the Jute Mills and under s. 28(ii) of the Act it was clearly a revenue receipt liable to tax. Our answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee, while our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Since question No. 2 represents the main controversy involved in the case, the assessee would get Rs. 200 as costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 74 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Original Order, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... order of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal ought to state a case to the High Court thereon. In our opinion, the question submitted for reference is a question of law as it refers to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s. 254(1) of the Act. However, we are of the opinion that the question submitted for reference in the application is not properly framed and does not bring out the correct and exact point in controversy. Consequently, we have thought it fit to modify it. Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the Tribunal to state a case and submit the following question of law (as modified by us) arising out of its order to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to rectify its order dated December 13, 1974, in respect of assessment year 1962-63 in regard to increasing the cost of the plant of the assessee from Rs. 1 1/2 crores to Rs. 1,52,00,000 ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 73 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... cting from the receipts, expenditure for management of the lands under the two leases, were divided. In our view, the conclusion recorded by the High Court that the lessees as an association of individuals were holding land cannot be justified. The facts in the instant case are very much stronger than those dealt with by the Supreme Court. In the matter of owning the property, in the matter of enjoyment and realisation of profits and activities for carrying on the agricultural operations, they conducted themselves as individuals and not as an association of persons. No income was received by an association of individuals and no association of individuals was owning or holding the property. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner are untenable and accordingly they are set aside. The assessments as have been made by the assessing authority are restored. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs in these revision petitions. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each of these cases.
-
1979 (8) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Goods In Transit, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... old good for the other years too. There is one additional point to be considered in the reference relating to the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The customs duty paid and the packing charges incurred by the said branches for the import of the textile goods from India were claimed as allowance under s. 35B. The learned counsel for the Commissioner contended that these expenses could not have been allowed under s. 35B. We do not agree. The ban is on expenditure on the carriage of such goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of such goods while in transit, as seen from s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. The customs duty paid and the packing charges incurred do not fall within this category contemplated by sub-cl. (b) of s. 35B(1). The question referred to us for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1979 (8) TMI 71 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Court Fee, Estate Duty Act, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... the court-fees so paid in respect of the share of the property of the deceased has to be deducted. Thus, the word leviable is used in relation to that which is leviable, had there not been any provision for deduction. It is only after the various variations and deductions that are permissible that estate duty could be levied and till then it can only be described as leviable. We are in respectful agreement with the above reasoning. As a result of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us should be in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the accountable person was not entitled to a deduction under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act of the full amount of Rs. 16,348.75 in the computation of the estate duty payable. Having regard to the contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court on the question referred to us, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this reference.
-
1979 (8) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Textile Mill, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... lar sum, that sum cannot be treated as penalty or non-business expenditure. The result is that the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. T.C. No. 26 of 1976 The question referred to us runs as follows " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment made by the assessee to the Textile Commissioner in pursuance of clause 21C(1)(b) of the Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, is a business expenditure admissible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts are identical with those considered by us in T.C. No. 614 of 1975 and the provisions are the same. There is no other feature to be considered by us in this case. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.
-
1979 (8) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Income Returned, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... or any gross, or, wilful neglect on his part under the Explanation, therefore, the onus is on the assessee and not on the department and this onus is to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect. The nature of the proof is of course as in a civil case and the matter is to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, it was found as a fact that all the purchases had not been accounted for and that there were numerous discrepancies. In regard to purchases from the Kanpur party the assessee had failed to prove the source of the same and they were also not recorded in its account books. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any error of law. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (8) TMI 68 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Application For Extension, Failure To File Return, Question Of Fact, Reasonable Cause, Wealth Tax Penalty
-
1979 (8) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ctors or its employees, and there is no material on the record to show that the company was reimbursed. The result was not that the company paid out moneys from its coffers, but did not receive it back. As in regard to the settlement arrived at under s. 34(1B), and the assessment of the company on the concealed income, that fact alone would not establish that the company retained the assessed income, even though the money had already gone from its coffers. Before a particular item can be treated as an asset of an assessee, it should be available with the assessee on the relevant valuation date. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was unjustified in deleting the amount of Rs. 59,48,714 from the total wealth of the assessee. The question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1979 (8) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Profits And Gains Of Business Or Profession ... ... ... ... ..... rs, could be added to its income. This contention was rejected by the ITO in view of s. 40(b) of the Act. Both the AAC and the Tribunal have held likewise. The deductions claimed by the assessee could not be sustained in view of s. 40(b) of the Act, which is in the following words 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession ... (b) in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm to any partner of the firm. This provision clearly excludes deductions of interest paid to partners, and if any authority was required that is to be found in the assessee s own case in Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad v. CIT 1953 24 ITR 176 (All). We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Firm, Body Of Individuals, Gift Tax, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ct, 1922, the word firm had been separately defined as in the G.T. Act. There is another consideration which settled the controversy in favour of the department. It is a settled rule of interpretation that the provisions of a statute must be harmoniously construed and an interpretation should be avoided which renders the other provisions otiose. When one turns to s. 21 of the Act, it provides for liability for tax in the case of a discontinued firm or association of persons. In case the legislative intent was to exclude firms from the purview of s. 3, it was pointless to enact s. 21. Thus, reading sections 3 and 21 of the Act, it is amply clear that the legislature contemplated a tax in respect of gift made by a firm. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (8) TMI 64 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... l was competent on the question of charge of interest because it was not the only point on which the assessee had come up in appeal. At the instance of the CIT, the Tribunal referred two questions of law for the opinion of this court. The first question is Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to entertain an appeal under section 246 against the levy of interest under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The second question related to the significance of the word regular assessment occurring in s. 217. As held above, the question whether the ground of objection that s. 217 was not attracted to the case, is not covered by the denial clause and so the charging of interest was not appealable. In this view, the second question does not arise and is returned unanswered. The Commissioner of Income-tax will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (8) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Gift Tax Assessment, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... r the W.T. Act. We are unable to accept this argument. Punctuation marks, even if relevant, as aid to construction of modern Acts have no controlling effect. The inference drawn by us from the context and the language used in the proviso that the assessment year to which the proviso refers is the assessment year under the G.T. Act is not displaced by the comma relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. The view taken by us is shared by the Calcutta, Punjab and Kerala High Courts See CWT v. Smt. Sarala Debi Birla 1975 101 ITR 488 (Cal) CWT v. Seth Nand Lal Ganeriwala and M. G. Kollankulam v. CIT 1978 115 ITR 460 (Ker) . The Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT v. Smt. Hashmatunnisa Begum 1977 108 ITR 98 (AP) took a contrary view. For the reasons already indicated and with great respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The question referred is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (8) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of Appropriate Authority ... ... ... ... ..... a vested right and is to be determined according to the law in force at its institution. A change in law pending the case cannot affect the right of the parties to continue proceedings in that Tribunal in the absence of provisions to the contrary. There is no provision in the Amendment Act which shows that the amendment in s. 274 of the Act is retrospective. The section deals with vested right and, therefore it is prospective. Consequently, the IAC had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The learned counsel for the assessee has referred to the decisions of the Orissa and Allahabad High Courts in Radheshyam Agarwalla v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 196 (Orissa) and CIT v. Pearey Lai Radhey Raman 1979 117 ITR 319 (All) wherein a contrary view has been taken. With great respect to the learned judges, we are not inclined to accept their view. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue. No order as to costs. J. V. GUPTA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (8) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... it difficult for the revenue to properly investigate payments and to open the door wide to evasion. Payment for goods comes within the expression expenditure in s. 40A(3). Therefore, payments made for the purchase of goods fall within the meaning of the expression expenditure in s. 40A(3) of the Act. This view is also supported by the judgment of the Allhabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Radhey Shyam Jagdish Prasad 1979 117 ITR 186. We are in respectful agreement with the view already expressed by this court in the aforesaid case. Even, no authority to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. For the reasons recorded above, the answer to the question is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Since the Tribunal left certain points undecided, the matter may now be decided afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON J.--I agree.
|
