|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 182 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 42
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed a writ petition seeking a refund of Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 20,39,139.40 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition. The petitioner was successful in appeal, and the Excise Duty was found to be not recoverable. The respondents were directed to refund the amount with interest, and the petitioner agreed to furnish a Bank Guarantee. The judgment granted two months for the payment and left the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 41
Whether, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the exemption given to 'cotton fabrics' under Item 7 above should be restricted to 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act.1944 as it stood on 1-4-1963 or whether it would also cover goods falling under the said definition after Its amendment in 1969?
Held that:- the 1963 Act, on a proper construction, does indicate a policy that certain items which are subject to additional excise duty should be left out of sales tax levy except in cases where there is a specific indication or provision of the Act to the contrary. The Kerala State legislature cannot be said to have attracted the 1944 Act definitions with their future amendment, blindly and without application of mind. On the other hand, it has been done in pursuance of a scheme, a purpose and a policy. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any abdication of its legislative functions by the Kerala legislature.
Thus the High Court was right in the view it took viz. that the scope of the exemption available under Item 7 of the Third Schedule to the 1963 Act will vary according to the scope of the corresponding entry in the Schedule to the 1944 Act as it stands at the relevant time. So far as assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 are concerned, the definition of 'cotton fabrics' in Item 19 of the Schedule to the 1944 Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969 w.e.f. 1-4-1969, will apply. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 40
Whether proper notice had been issued/
Held that:- Considering the contentions urged and do not find any ground which supports the allegation that there had been fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. Therefore, Rule 11 -A clearly applies to the facts of the instant case. In that view of the matter, the appeals were correctly allowed by the Tribunal. On careful examination of the facts of the case and the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals before us. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 39
Whether the classification of the goods by the appellant under Entry 84.35 could not be sustained if the catalogue submitted was ?
Held that:- There is no evidence as to how these goods are dealt with in the trade or industry. There is no technical definition of the expressions used. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the true approach of the Tribunal should have been to find out the correct meaning of the items, i.e., the meaning attributed to the expressions used by those dealing with it in the trade.
The Tribunal should now find that out. In that view of the matter we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to find out how these goods are dealt with by the people who deal in them after giving both sides due opportunity of adducing evidence and then decide the question ac cording to this Judgment.
-
1988 (10) TMI 38
Issues:
- Eligibility of Acetic Anhydride for exemption under specific notifications as a drug intermediate.
- Interpretation of the term "drug intermediate" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Adjudication of refund claims for duty paid on Acetic Anhydride.
- Reversal of orders by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and subsequent appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
- Consistency of interpretation with previous judgments and government orders.
- Application of the principle of contemporaneous exposition in statutory interpretation.
Analysis:
1. The central issue in this case revolved around determining whether Acetic Anhydride manufactured and sold by the respondent to drug manufacturers qualified for exemption under specific notifications as a drug intermediate. The contention was that the product was used in the manufacture of drugs and, therefore, should be exempt from excise duty.
2. The respondent had filed refund claims for duty paid on Acetic Anhydride, asserting that it fell under the category of drug intermediate as per the relevant notifications. The dispute arose from the Assistant Collector's initial refund allowance, which was later challenged and overturned by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), leading to further appeals by the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Previous judicial decisions, such as the Mysore Acetate & Chemical Co. Ltd. case and the government order concerning Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., emphasized the importance of end-use in determining the eligibility for exemption as a drug intermediate. The principle was reiterated in the Shasum Chemicals case, highlighting the significance of contemporaneous exposition in statutory interpretation.
4. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, considered the broad description and substance of the term "drug intermediate" in the exemption notification. It was established that the Acetic Anhydride manufactured by the respondent was indeed used by drug manufacturers in the production of drugs, aligning with the intended purpose of the exemption.
5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the goods in question met the criteria for exemption as a drug intermediate based on their actual use in drug manufacturing. The appeals were dismissed, with no costs awarded, affirming the Tribunal's correct interpretation in light of the goods' intended purpose and application.
6. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in alignment with their purpose and contemporaneous understanding, emphasizing the need to consider the practical application and intended use of products in determining their eligibility for specific exemptions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1988 (10) TMI 37
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the transaction in question was a sale, not an exchange. The Tribunal was wrong in deleting the profit addition under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The court ruled against the assessee, who must bear their own costs. (Case citation: 1988 (10) TMI 37 - Madhya Pradesh High Court)
-
1988 (10) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Assessment of undisclosed income by the Income-tax authorities.
2. Prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Quashing of the complaint against the partners of the firm.
4. Liability of minor partner in the partnership business.
5. Responsibility of partners in conducting the business of the firm.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the assessment of undisclosed income by the Income-tax authorities concerning a partnership firm engaged in supplying goods to the army. The firm's income-tax return was assessed, resulting in a finding of undisclosed income through credits from self-cheques. The assessment was affirmed by higher authorities, leading to a complaint filed against the firm and its partners for prosecution under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act.
2. The prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act was initiated against the firm and all its partners based on the assessment of undisclosed income. The partners challenged the complaint through a petition seeking its quashing. The petitioners argued that the self-cheques were encashed through a sister concern of the firm, reflecting the credits in the firm's books, while the Income-tax Department contended that the absence of corresponding entries in the sister concern's books rendered the explanation incredible.
3. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the encashment of self-cheques and the absence of entries in the sister concern's books. The court analyzed legal precedents cited by the petitioners but ultimately upheld the Income-tax Department's view that the lack of entries in the sister concern's books undermined the credibility of the explanation provided by the firm. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint only in relation to one of the minor partners, while allowing it to proceed against the other partners.
4. Regarding the liability of the minor partner in the partnership business, the court referred to relevant legal observations and held that the minor partner could enjoy the benefits of the business but could not be held liable for its wrongdoings. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled in favor of quashing the complaint against the minor partner.
5. The judgment also addressed the responsibility of partners in conducting the business of the firm. It was argued that one partner was primarily transacting the business, while others should be discharged from the complaint. However, the court noted specific allegations against all partners for being in charge of the firm's affairs and conducting its business, leading to the decision that all partners were liable to be tried jointly for the alleged offenses, except for the minor partner.
In conclusion, the court partially allowed the petition by quashing the complaint against the minor partner and directed the trial court to proceed with the case against the remaining partners in accordance with the law.
-
1988 (10) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
1. Forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA.
2. Validity of the Competent Authority's order.
3. Applicability of SAFEMA provisions to Surinder Singh.
4. Rights of subsequent property holders.
5. Compliance with natural justice principles.
6. Burden of proof and evidentiary standards.
7. Review and procedural compliance under COFEPOSA.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Forfeiture of Properties under SAFEMA:
The Competent Authority ordered the forfeiture of several properties, including immovable properties and business interests, under Section 7(3) of the SAFEMA. These properties were allegedly acquired illegally by Surinder Singh, who was detained under COFEPOSA.
2. Validity of the Competent Authority's Order:
Surinder Singh contested the applicability of SAFEMA to him, arguing that he had not been provided the reasons for the Competent Authority's belief that the properties were illegally acquired. The Competent Authority reminded him that under Section 8 of SAFEMA, the burden of proving the legality of the properties lay on him. Despite multiple notices, Surinder Singh failed to appear, leading to an ex parte order.
3. Applicability of SAFEMA Provisions to Surinder Singh:
Surinder Singh was detained under COFEPOSA, making him a person to whom SAFEMA could be applied. However, it was contested whether the detention order was valid under Section 12A of COFEPOSA. The Competent Authority presumed the review was conducted within the required time, but this was challenged as an inference should not be made in penal statutes without concrete evidence.
4. Rights of Subsequent Property Holders:
- Mahender Singh: Claimed to have purchased property from Surinder Singh, but no regular sale deed existed. He was initially notified but not associated with further proceedings.
- Anil Kumar Grover: Claimed to have purchased a flat, but was not notified of the proceedings.
- Smt. Satya Gupta: Claimed to have purchased a plot and constructed a house. She was not notified and came to know of the forfeiture only after receiving a notice under Section 19 of SAFEMA.
The Tribunal emphasized that these subsequent holders should be given an opportunity to prove they were bona fide purchasers for adequate consideration, as per Section 2(2)(e) and Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA.
5. Compliance with Natural Justice Principles:
The Tribunal noted that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the subsequent property holders were not given a chance to be heard. The Competent Authority should have associated them with the proceedings to determine if they were bona fide holders.
6. Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards:
The burden of proof to show that the properties were not illegally acquired lay with Surinder Singh under Section 8 of SAFEMA. However, the Tribunal noted that income tax assessment orders, especially those made closer in time to the acquisition of properties, should be considered relevant evidence.
7. Review and Procedural Compliance under COFEPOSA:
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Competent Authority to ascertain whether the review under Section 12A of COFEPOSA was conducted within the stipulated time. It was emphasized that the validity of the detention order is a condition precedent for proceedings under SAFEMA.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal restored the cases of Mahender Singh, Anil Kumar Grover, and Surinder Singh back to the Competent Authority for further investigation and opportunity to present their case. The appeal of Smt. Satya Gupta was allowed, and the forfeiture of her property was quashed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with natural justice principles and proper procedural adherence under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
-
1988 (10) TMI 34
The High Court of Allahabad held that a reference application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable against the order passed under section 254(2) of the Act. The court quashed the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's application under section 256(1) on its merits. (Case citation: 1988 (10) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1988 (10) TMI 33
The High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed against Swastika Metal Works after the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the finding that credit entries of Rs. 85,000 were not genuine. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1392-M of 1988, stating that the complaint was groundless. The Revenue could file fresh complaints if the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were set aside.
-
1988 (10) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the order summoning the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. Compliance with the provisions of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code in issuing summons.
Analysis:
1. The petitions were filed by Raja Ram and Sons, accused of not deducting tax at source under section 194C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while making payments to subcontractors exceeding Rs. 5,000. Prosecution under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was initiated against the accused partners of the firm or trust for their alleged involvement in the offense. The accused contested the liability of deducting tax at source and challenged the legality of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer.
2. The petitioners challenged the legality of the order summoning them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. It was argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as it was passed in violation of section 200/202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found the summoning orders to be cryptic and lacking the application of mind as required under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that summoning orders must be speaking orders containing sufficient grounds for the issuance of processes.
3. The court held that summoning orders made without the application of judicious mind are void and illegal, and can be quashed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was reiterated that the learned trial court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before issuing processes. The court directed that some of the petitioners, who were ladies, be exempted from personal appearance during the trial upon request. The petition was allowed to the extent that the trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, allowing the petitioners to raise their defenses during the trial.
This judgment highlights the importance of complying with tax deduction provisions, ensuring the legality and reasoning behind summoning orders, and the necessity of a judicious application of mind by the trial court in criminal proceedings.
-
1988 (10) TMI 31
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s 263 to revise assessment order under Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The case involved a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263 to revise an assessment order. The assessee, an individual, had failed to comply with advance tax payment requirements, leading to interest payable under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner assumed jurisdiction under section 263 and levied interest on the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer's order had merged with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, making it not revisable by the Commissioner.
The High Court referred to the decision in CIT v. P. Muncherji and Co. [1987] 167 ITR 671, where it was held that the Income-tax Officer's order merges with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order on all points appealable or modifiable by the latter. The Court also discussed precedents like CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala [1953] 23 ITR 412 (Bom) and CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC) to support this view.
Contrary to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's view in CIT v. K. L. Rajput [1987] 164 ITR 197, the Bombay High Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's order merges entirely with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court's stance in Addl. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd [1988] 169 ITR 533 was also noted, where the Court refrained from deciding a similar issue due to the matter becoming academic.
Despite a request for a larger Bench, the High Court declined, citing the detailed judgment in P. Muncherji's case [1987] 167 ITR 671 as the basis for its decision. The Court upheld the view that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the original assessment order, as it had merged with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The question referred was answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 30
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding cash payments made by the assessee-company to its employees.
2. Determination of emoluments to be considered as part of 'salary' for computing disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a reference concerning the interpretation of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to cash payments made by the assessee-company to its employees. The Income-tax Officer disallowed certain payments made to employees, alleging they exceeded the permissible limit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention that certain payments like house rent allowance, ex gratia payment, motor car allowance, and insurance premium should not be considered for disallowance. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue. The High Court, in line with a previous decision, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the payments made did not fall under the expression 'benefit or amenity or perquisite' in section 40(c)(iii).
Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around determining the emoluments to be included as part of 'salary' for computing disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal construed the term 'salary' in a commercial sense, considering various payments like bonus, commission, allowances, prizes, and ex gratia payments as part of 'salary.' The Tribunal's approach was deemed reasonable by the High Court, emphasizing that these payments were rewards for work done by employees to induce good performance in the future. Citing a precedent, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the emoluments mentioned should be considered as part of 'salary' for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40(c)(iii).
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, affirming the Tribunal's decisions. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of section 40(c)(iii) and the inclusion of various emoluments as part of 'salary' for computing disallowances under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1988 (10) TMI 29
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for buildings used for charitable purposes.
2. Determination of whether the building in question qualifies for exemption under the Act based on the company's memorandum of association and annual reports.
Analysis:
The petitioner, as the Administrator of a hospital owned by a private limited company, sought exemption from the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The dispute arose from the government's decision to deny the exemption, leading to a legal challenge against the order (exhibit P-7). The petitioner argued that the building qualifies for exemption under section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which pertains to buildings used for charitable purposes. The company's memorandum of association, specifically clauses related to charitable activities, was central to the argument. The government's decision was based on the company's primary objective of running hospitals for profit rather than charity, as evidenced by financial data from annual reports. The court emphasized the distinction between the company's powers and its real charitable objectives, citing relevant legal principles on the interpretation of company objectives. The judgment highlighted the need for the building to be primarily used for charitable purposes to qualify for exemption under the Act. Ultimately, the court upheld the government's decision, ruling that the petitioner was not eligible for tax exemption. The petition was dismissed, affirming the decision in exhibit P-7.
-
1988 (10) TMI 28
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer two questions of law regarding purchases related to concealed income for the court's opinion. The application was partly allowed. (Case citation: 1988 (10) TMI 28 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1988 (10) TMI 27
Issues:
1. Application for rectification of income tax assessment under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of Income-tax Officer's decision to dismiss the assessee's application.
3. Correctness of the Tribunal's decision in upholding the Income-tax Officer's order.
4. Levying of interest under section 217(1A) and section 139(8) of the Act.
5. Assessment of total income under section 143(1) of the Act.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court regarding the justification of the Income-tax Officer in dismissing the assessee's application for rectification of income tax assessment. The assessee had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 29,575 for the assessment year 1977-78, but was assessed on a total income of Rs. 31,640 based on the firm's assessment. The Income-tax Officer rejected the rectification application, leading to appeals and ultimately the reference to the High Court.
The court examined the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, which requires the Income-tax Officer to assess the total income after necessary adjustments. It was noted that the Tribunal found a lack of material on record regarding the documents filed along with the return and details of the returned income. As a result, the court held that there was no apparent mistake or error in the Officer's order. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the rejection of the rectification application was deemed correct as the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to challenge the assessment.
The assessee contended that the Income-tax Officer wrongly computed the total income and levied interest under sections 217(1A) and 139(8) of the Act. However, the court found that the assessee did not present sufficient evidence to support this claim, leading to the affirmation of the Tribunal's decision against the assessee. Ultimately, the court answered the question referred in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal's decision and directing each party to bear its own costs in the matter.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence and documentation to support claims in income tax assessments. It underscores the need for thorough record-keeping and compliance with procedural requirements to challenge tax assessments effectively.
-
1988 (10) TMI 26
The petitioner had pledged articles with Venugopalan Nambiar. Income-tax Department seized the articles. Writ petition seeking return of articles is pending. Petitioner must establish ownership before proceeding. Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner advised to wait for final disposal of pending case.
-
1988 (10) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the declaration filed by the firm was incorrect and defective.
2. Whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, and whether the registration of the firm could be continued for the assessment year.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the declaration filed by the firm was incorrect and defective:
The Tribunal held that the declarations filed in Form No. 12 were invalid and incorrect. The initial declaration was filed in an obsolete form and was not signed by all partners. The subsequent declaration in the correct form was filed late and not signed by Kamla Devi Jaiswal, nor was there evidence of authorization for Jag Narain Prasad to sign on her behalf. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) and Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) both found these declarations defective and not in compliance with section 184(7) and the relevant rules.
However, the court noted that the defects in the initial declaration were curable under section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act, which allows the ITO to intimate the defect and provide an opportunity to rectify it within one month. The court emphasized that the only defect in the second declaration was the missing signature of Kamla Devi Jaiswal, which could have been rectified if the assessee had been given an opportunity.
2. Whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, and whether the registration of the firm could be continued for the assessment year:
The Tribunal, ITO, and AAC held that there was a change in the constitution of the firm when the minor partner, Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, attained majority, necessitating a fresh partnership deed and registration in Form No. 11A. They relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Ram Narain Laxman Prasad v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 233.
The court, however, disagreed, citing the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad v. Addl. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 858, which overruled the earlier decision. The Full Bench held that the attainment of majority by a minor already admitted to the benefits of the partnership did not constitute a change in the firm's constitution under section 187. The court also referenced similar views from other High Courts, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 257 and Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 601.
The court concluded that section 187 of the Income-tax Act is not relevant for determining the continuance of registration under section 184. The original partnership deed provided for the shares of profits and losses of Rajendra Prasad both during his minority and after attaining majority, indicating no change in the firm's constitution or partner shares.
Conclusion:
The court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative, affirming the defects in the declarations but clarifying that these defects were curable. Question No. 2 was answered in the negative, holding that the Tribunal was not justified in finding a change in the firm's constitution or denying registration continuation on that ground. The Tribunal was directed to reassess the matter, considering whether the assessee was given an opportunity to rectify the defects and whether there was sufficient cause for any delays.
-
1988 (10) TMI 24
Issues involved: Assessment of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return and the validity of penalty imposition.
Summary:
The case involved the assessment of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a partnership firm for late filing of its return. The firm, S. P. Viz Construction Co., filed its return for the assessment year 1969-70 after the due date of June 30, 1969. The firm claimed it had applied for an extension of time due to difficulties in finalizing its accounts. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 48,610, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The firm then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which noted that the assessment for the relevant year had been set aside as time-barred. As a result, no tax was payable by the firm, leading the Tribunal to cancel the penalty order based on the tax payable being a prerequisite for calculating the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the penalty under section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed without reference to the tax assessed. Since no tax was payable due to the assessment being time-barred, the penalty could not stand. The Court answered the referred question in favor of the firm, concluding that the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was valid and proper.
-
1988 (10) TMI 23
The High Court in Patna upheld the decision in Taxation Case No. 172 of 1978 in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal's findings regarding unexplained cash credits and investments were not considered as they were not recorded in the assessment order. The Tribunal also questioned the genuineness of certain entries and found no demand from the assessee for a rehearing. The question was answered in favor of the assessee with no costs awarded.
....
|
9911796707
