|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 460 Records
-
1999 (11) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... he Act. Therefore, we are of the view that though on material placed on record the Tribunal has committed no error in its ultimate conclusion, but has erred in making the observations in para. 16.1. The Tribunal ought not to have confirmed the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in para. 10 of the order in so far it relates to approval under section 132(5) of the Act to be treated as direction. We were taken through the record. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, took us through the relevant part of the paper book with a view to point out that on the facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. We are of the opinion that so far as the final conclusion is concerned, no interference is called for. However, in view of the above facts and circumstances, our answer would be in the negative, i.e., in favour of Revenue. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... by the provision. We do not find any substance in this plea. The expenditure has not been made for supply of goods. It is linked with the manufacture of goods, as the loan was availed of for purchase of raw materials. There is marked distinction between an expenditure relatable to manufacture and one relatable to supply. The stand of the assessee that unless there is manufacture, there cannot be any supply is not acceptable. If that interpretation is accepted, practically every expenditure would be covered and there was no necessity for the Legislature to make specific stipulations. That cannot certainly be the legislative intent. That being the position, we are of the view that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction. The answer to the first question is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. It is not necessary to answer the second question, in view of the answer to the first question. Income-tax reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 18 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Reference, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Expenditure On Advertisement ... ... ... ... ..... nd is conveying information and knowledge and the common man cannot make use of this literature. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the literature is not in the nature of advertisement. This finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been confirmed by the Tribunal and, therefore, also no substantial question can be said to have been raised. On this ground also, the appeal must fail. It is required to be noted that the doctors are experts in human anatomy and they have expertise in curing the disease with the aid of medicine. So far as the medicines are concerned, that is the subject-matter of a pharmacist who has to explain to the doctors about the contents of the medicine with greater detail so as to make them aware about the real use of the medicine and its effects and side-effects on human beings. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, there is no reason to entertain this application and hence, the same stands rejected.
-
1999 (11) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Interest, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... er providing machinery for recovery of tax which is compensatory in nature (see Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1966 60 ITR 262 (SC) CST v. Qureshi Crucible Centre 1993 89 STC 467 (SC) and Prahlad Rai v. STO 1992 84 STC 375 (SC)). Liability to pay interest arises by operation of law, being automatic. Looking at the nature of levy, it is clear that it is compensatory in character and not in the nature of penalty. It is seen that there are several provisions where the Legislature has made a distinction between interest payable and penalty imposable. The ultimate liability for tax being not there does not dilute the requirements for the non-compliance of which interest is levied under section 201(1A). Judged in that background, the levy of interest is justified and the Tribunal was not justified in deleting it. The answer to the reframed question is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference application is accordingly answered.
-
1999 (11) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Income, Accrual, Compulsory Acquisition Of Land ... ... ... ... ..... amount at that stage. If the appeal was allowed in its entirety, the right to payment of enhanced compensation would have fallen altogether and, therefore, the extra amount of compensation was not income arising or accruing to the respondents during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57. The Supreme Court clarified that there is a distinction between the cases such as the present one where the right to receive payment is in dispute and it is not a question of merely quantifying the amount to be received and the cases where the right to receive the payment is admitted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with the settled or accepted principle. Therefore, the controversy that was raised before the Tribunal and is also sought to be raised in the proposed question is already settled by the aforesaid judgment of the apex court and no referable question of law arises. The applications are accordingly rejected.
-
1999 (11) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... e impugned notice, a copy of which is at page 38 of the paper book as annexure 5, did not specify whether it was issued to the association of persons or to the partnership firm. No such ground has been set up in the writ petition. The notice has been issued to S. K. Gupta and Co. which, as admitted in the petition itself, is a partnership firm and was being assessed to tax from before at general index register No. S 302/W1. This number is mentioned in the notice itself making it quite clear that it has been issued to the partnership firm. The conduct of the Assessing Officer in making the order under section 154 also indicated that he wanted only to assess a partnership firm and not an association of persons. Therefore, in any case there is no infirmity in the notice on this account as well. No other point was raised in this writ petition and for the reasons discussed above, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. The interim order, if any, is discharged.
-
1999 (11) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r hire purchase agreements in which the customer has the option to purchase the vehicle at a price determined in accordance with the agreement at any subsequent stage. Therefore, it is admitted that at the time of the receipt of the amounts by the assessee, there was no liability towards sales tax. The liability would arise only when the sale was actually made and that event was uncertain. Therefore, it was not established that the amounts were received on account of sales tax or were part of the price for which the goods were supplied. The aforesaid rulings, therefore, did not apply and we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had found that only the excess amount left on the conclusion of the transaction that was transferred to the sundry creditors account was taxable. We, therefore, answer the aforesaid questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner.
-
1999 (11) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export, Tea, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Legal Fiction ... ... ... ... ..... otal income would necessarily mean the net income and not gross income. Before the charging section is given effect, taxable income must accrue and while computing the total income, all expenditure and other deductions and allowances must be taken into account before the net income is computed. A great emphasis is laid by learned counsel for the Revenue on CIT v. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 106 ITR 292 (SC). The decision has no application to the facts of the present case, as the same related to the method of taxing salary paid to a partner by a firm which grows and sells tea. With reference to rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, it was held that exemption was to be granted to the extent of 60 per cent. thereof representing agricultural income and tax was to be levied only on 40 percent. The manner of computation was not in issue, which is involved in the case at hand. The question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (11) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Net Wealth, Firm, Partners, Exemption, House ... ... ... ... ..... ore, answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner. As regards question No. 2, the contention of the Commissioner is that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the share in Saraswati Ware Housing Corporation. The said Saraswati Ware Housing Corporation was not a legal person that could own the property in its own right. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a co-owner of the property and was, therefore, entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv). The Tribunal s view now stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in CWT v. T. S. Sundaram 1999 237 ITR 61 Although that is a case of partnership firm, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court is equally applicable to other persons who own the property as co-sharer. Therefore, the said question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner.
-
1999 (11) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Income, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e additions of Rs. 1,62,227 as income of the assessee which the assessee never received having been granted as rebate to the customer for early closure of hire purchase cases concerned ? 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal not empowered under the Income-tax Act, 1961, to grant justice by deleting Rs. 1,62,227 which was admittedly never received as profit on hire in the present case ? We have heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, and Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent. In our view, the following question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,62,227 representing short recoveries from the customers for computing the business income of the assessee ? We accordingly direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of the court.
-
1999 (11) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... framing of the charge is defective and violative of sections 218 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as the judgment has been rendered only in a single case and there is no finding of guilt recorded as regards the two other cases as there is no charge of more than one count relating to the complaint in C. C. No. 73 of 1995, the error committed by the trial court is of such grave nature that it has caused prejudice to the accused and, therefore, in that view of the matter, I have to hold that the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court has to be set aside. In the result, this revision is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II) in C. C. No. 73 of 1995 as confirmed by the appellate court in C. A. No. 34 of 1997. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the charges. The fine amount, if any paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
-
1999 (11) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1973 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, P. K. Palwankar v. CGT 1979 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz 1974 96 ITR 646(Ker) on which also learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal s order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.
-
1999 (11) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Failure To File Return ... ... ... ... ..... hing in their ratio that can be applied to the present case. The Tribunal s finding that the assessee concealed particulars of its income for the three years under consideration is a finding of fact. As regards the question whether the amount of loss has to be included in the income, particulars of which have been concealed, we are of the opinion that the answer to this question is self-evident by virtue of Explanation 4 to section 271(1) which defines the amount of tax sought to be evaded to mean the tax that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished had such income been the total income. When an assessee declares a loss and the assessment is made on a positive income, by adjustment of the income the particulars which were concealed, by virtue of the Explanation the total concealed amount is to be treated as the total income. For the above reasons these applications are rejected.
-
1999 (11) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reference, Amnesty Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... n June 3, 1987, and by that time, the clarification had come. The returns for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were filed on January 21, 1986. Entries were passed in the books of account bringing on record the understatement of stock on April 30, 1986, relevant to the assessment year 1987-88. When the petition was given to the Commissioner on October 25, 1985, some details were available and with bona fide impression the statements were filed. As the recital of the factual position would go to show, the Tribunal had considered relevant materials. The conclusions arrived at by it are factual. It cannot be said to be a case where relevant materials were kept out of consideration and/or irrelevant materials were taken into account for arriving at a conclusion. That being the position, no question of law arises. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions which are factual in nature. They are to be treated as answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (11) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... imited to the consideration of the question that have been proposed in the applications in hand. The question that is raised is merely whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing the re-framed assessments. The correctness of the Tribunal s order is to be seen in the light of the circumstances existing on the date of the order and since on that date the Commissioner s order under section 263 had ceased to exist, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter by the Tribunal were appropriate orders permissible in law. Therefore, answer to the aforesaid question is self-evident and no referable question of law arises. In case the Commissioner succeeded in the reference, he may take appropriate proceedings by approaching the Tribunal in its inherent jurisdiction to recall its order or any other appropriate remedy that may be found feasible. For the above reasons, these applications are dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 5 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Reassessment, Disallowance of Expenditure, Amnesty Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... were required to file the return of income including the additional income and the said returns were to be regularised by issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act. This is pre cisely what has been done in this case. The assessee had filed the return offering the additional income of Rs. 3 lakhs under the amnesty scheme after the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 had already been completed. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had rightly issued the notice under section 148 to regularise the said return and bring the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to tax. This action is clearly in accordance with the terms of the amnesty scheme and the assessee cannot possibly object to the additional income under the amnesty scheme being added to its total taxable income. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly restored the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs. Thus, this question is also to be answered against the assessee. In this result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 4 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Export of Granites ... ... ... ... ..... at all, had relevance only in respect of the period after April 1, 1991. The Supreme Court has also recorded a finding that there was nothing on record to indicate that what the assessee exports is value added granite. The Supreme Court had there fore declined to examine the question. On the contrary in the present case there is a positive finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did in fact do cutting and dressing, including some polishing and that what was exported was dimensional granite blocks which are a valued added item. The case of Stonecraft Enterprises case 1999 237 ITR 131 (SC), would not make any difference to the arguments advanced in the present case . Since this court has already upheld the decision given by the Tribunal in God Granites case, deduction was allowed by the Tribunal in the case of this assessee. The reference is, accordingly, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
-
1999 (11) TMI 3 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction, Export of Granites ... ... ... ... ..... case of God Granites, allowed the claim of the assessee. The controversy is covered by the judgment given in the case of CIT v. God Granites 1999 240 ITR 343 (Kar)--ITRC No. 440 of 1998 and other connected matters decided on July 31, 1999, wherein after taking into consideration the judgment of the apex court in Stonecraft Enterprises v. CIT 1999 237 ITR 131, subsequent change of law by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, and the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it was observed that, since the blocks were cut into size, dressed and polished, therefore, the assessee would be entitled for the benefit under section 80HHC. Following the said decision we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under section 80HHC in respect of export of granites. Accordingly, the references are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
-
1999 (11) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Commission Payment On Sales - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that commission paid on sales is not sales promotion expenditure, and, therefore, the provisions of section 37(3A) have no application?" - The matter is now covered by the decision given in the case of CIT v. Srinivasa Textile Processing Ltd. wherein it was observed that "sales promotion" would have the meaning of "advertisement, publicity, i.e., by providing certain incentive or taking certain other steps by which the product of the manufacturer could be popularised to promote the sale and would include the amount paid to the commission agent." In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in law in holding that commission paid on sales is not sales promotion expenditure, and, therefore, the provisions Of Section 37(3A) have no application.
-
1999 (11) TMI 1 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Service Tax – Delay in filing quarterly return – Penalty reduced ... ... ... ... ..... ) RLT 54. Ashok Rastogi v. CCE Kanpur -1998 (104) ELT 480 (T) - 1997 (22) RLT 511. Shri Sajjan Kumar Kariwala v. CCE, - 1997 (20) RLT 885. Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 1997 (20) RLT 886. Ashwani Associates v. CC, New Delhi - 1999 (105) ELT 40. It is further stated that the clients of the CHA who were at that time responsible for payment of the service tax, had already deposited the same in time and therefore, there was loss (sic) of revenue to the Government. I have seen the cited judgments. The judgments took into account the fact of the service tax was freshly imposed on the assessees and also that the burden of tax stood discharged. The leniency was shown on this count. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to reduce the total quantum of penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. Subject to this modification, appeal is dismissed. Following the ratio of this judgment the total quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. Subject to this modification appeal is dismissed.
....
|
