|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 220 Records
-
1991 (5) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... a no doubt contends that the instructions at Annexure P-1 having been withdrawn, the show cause notice cannot survive. If that be so, nothing prevents the petitioner from raising this contention before the appropriate authority. It is only after the facts have been proved and departmental remedies exhausted that this Court s jurisdiction should be invoked. Mr. Patwalia had also relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that no excise duty was leviable in the present case. All the cases cited by him arose out of the decisions delivered by the departmental authorities. Such is not the case here. 7. I accordingly hold that the writ petitions are incompetent at this stage. The petitioners may submit their replies/explanations, adduce all relevant evidence, exhaust the departmental remedies and if still aggrieved the remedy of writ may be resorted to. No interference is called for at this stage. The petitions are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Prosecution - Duty Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... into the correctness or otherwise of the data submitted by the manufacturer. If any excess payment had been made to the respondents erroneously then the respondents would be asked for its repayment under Rule 14 but no such notice was given which will further show that the data furnished was not false. All the evidence that the complainant wanted to lead, had been brought on record. The rest of the witnesses were given up as being unnecessary or having been won over by the respondents. In view of the evidence discussed above and also appraised by the learned trial Court, it was rightly found that the evidence brought on record did not show that the statement submitted by the respondents to claim drawback on oil cans was wrong or false and came within the mischief of Section 132 of the Customs Act. The findings of the learned trial Court are, therefore, affirmed. 7. As a result of the above discussion, we do not find any force in this appeal and consequently dismiss the same.
-
1991 (5) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Penalty - For obstruction of Officer of Customs ... ... ... ... ..... on the rummaging operation. There is no infirmity in the reasoning given by the Collector in his impugned order particularly on the admitted facts of the case that the two petitioners were in fact responsible for the shifting. 9. To add to this, we would like to mention that when the statutory authorities under the Act were discharging their duties, it was none of the business of the two petitioners to shift the vessel from the dock to a distant place irrespective of the fact as to whether there was inconvenience to other vessel or to make available berths to other waiting vessels. The explanations offered by them in justifying their act of shifting the vessel cannot be accepted on the face of their own admission that it was at their instance that the vessel was shifted. There is nothing wrong in the order of the Collector and hence there is no reason to interfere with the order. 10. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed having no merit, but without any costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Appeal - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... or determined the merit of the dispute whether Chromo Board is duplex board or not. It is also made clear that if the respondents wish to rely upon the statements of any witnesses at any stage of the proceedings the respondents should give the petitioners an opportunity to cross examine such witnesses provided the petitioners seek such opportunity. The amount of the differential duty deposited by the petitioner with the respondents must be returned by the respondents to the petitioner with interest at 12 per cent per annum. 29. The application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. A xerox copy of the operative portion duly countersigned by the Deputy Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Counsel appearing for the party on payment of usual charge. The respondents will make payment of the amount as directed to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of communication of the operative portion of this order to the appropriate authority.
-
1991 (5) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Adjudication - Natural justice - Cross examination ... ... ... ... ..... ence, oral and documentary. It shall be open to him to conduct the proceedings from day-to-day and we have the undertaking of the petitioners, given to us by counsel, that they shall fully co-operate in this regard. After the examination and cross-examination of witnesses on either side is over, the 3rd respondent shall give to the parties a break of at least a week. He shall then hear arguments on either side. After the arguments have been heard, the 3rd respondent shall pass a fresh, reasoned order and, in doing so, shall not have regard to the order which we have set aside. It is expected that all this, including the communication of the fresh order to the petitioners, shall be completed within a period of eight months from today. The order of the 3rd respondent, Ex. R to the petition, is quashed and set aside. The 3rd respondent shall now proceed in the matter of the show cause notice issued to the petitioners in the manner set out hereinabove. Rule absolute accordingly.
-
1991 (5) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant falls under the category of "relatives" as defined under section 2(2)(c) of the Act and has illegally acquired property liable to be forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the said Act?
Held that:- The affected person has not proved his regular source of income and thus has not discharged the onus cast on him under the smugglers and Foreign Exchange Maniputaors (Forfeiture of Property) Act. In view of the petition filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, in respect of the claim of business carried on by him and savings therefrom the claim of business is not established and proved. The decision of Commissioner of Income-tax on a different amount of income for a different year further proves that the claim of business conducted, etc., is false and untrue. No enquiries were conducted by the Commissioner of Income-tax as to the genuineness of the petition of the assessee
he above conclusions of the Competent Authority are based on positive evidence collected by him on the basis of which he was justified in rejecting the plea of the appellant and treating the property as having been illegally acquired. Subsequent conduct of the appellant in not filing even single return of income for or after the assessment year 1970-71 goes to establish the falsity of his claim regarding the sources of investment in the impugned property. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 54 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o be decided by him at his discretion. There can be no mathematical formula when discretion is to be exercised in determining as to how the discretion should be exercised. The exercise of the discretion must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is apparent from the impugned order that the Commissioner of Income-tax has taken into consideration the extent of the delay in filing the returns or payment of advance tax. For the year 1980-81, the delay was 7 months and for the year 1981-82 the delay was 20 months. The taxable income of the assessee is high and, taking the overall circumstances into consideration, it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that the discretion has not been properly exercised. Unless it can be demonstrated that there has been improper exercise of the discretion, the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, should ordinarily not interfere. We see no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... estion of construction of the document and the question of construction of a document is always a question of law. The Tribunal, in its order dated June 30, 1989, agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota Range, camp at Jaipur, that the assessee is a charitable trust, and that it was on this score that the order was made by the assessing authority. So, again, the question whether the assessee is entitled to claim any exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act is a question of law. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the aforesaid questions of law arise for adjudication by this court. We allow this application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee ?
-
1991 (5) TMI 52 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ineness of the firm under section 186 of the Act was not considered. Regarding the other contention of learned counsel for the Revenue, we find that all these were considered by the learned Tribunal which is the final authority on facts. On going through the order of the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we find that there is absolutely no finding that there was no genuine firm registered under the Act. The learned Tribunal considered the entire matter and came to a clear finding that there was a genuine firm in existence during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal and this finding cannot be faulted. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In other words, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the lower authorities were wrong in cancelling the registration of the firm under section 186(1) of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (5) TMI 51 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Partners, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the value of the building and then it should be allocated amongst the partners indicating the nature of assets and liabilities allotted to the share of the partner and the net wealth of the partner is to be determined by including the share so allotted, and only thereafter, the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) should be allowed, i.e., deduction should be allowed under section 5(1)(iv) in the hands of the assessee-partner and not in the hands of the firm. Though Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue, has urged that the question referred in the above case was different, learned counsel has fairly conceded that the views expressed also cover the present reference. We do not see any reason to take a different view. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Tarachand Agarwalla s case 1989 180 ITR 234 1989 2 GLJ 45, squarely covers this case. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (5) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... by the Competent Authority that the conviction of the husband of the appellant under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or the Customs Act, 1962, was in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees. The onus to establish that the appellant s husband was convicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to goods exceeding one lakh of rupees is entirely on the Competent Authority. In the absence of such finding, the appellant has been wrongly treated as an affected person in terms of section 2(2)(a)(i). The Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act against the person who is not an affected person in terms of section 2 of the Act. The proceedings under the Act initiated against her are bad in law and liable to be set aside. In view of the above finding, the necessity of discussing the other issues on merits is obviated. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Competent Authority set aside.
-
1991 (5) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ch assets. (2) Before making an order imposing a fine under sub-section (1), the person affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Where the person affected pays the fine due under sub-section (1), within such time as may be allowed in that behalf, the Competent Authority may, by order, revoke the declaration of forfeiture under section 7 and thereupon such property shall stand released. It is clear that each property of an affected person is to be treated as separate entity for purposes of section 9 of the Act and two or more properties cannot be clubbed and treated as one unit. The Competent Authority has erred in clubbing the properties of the appellant as a unit for purposes of section 9 of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, bad in law. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Competent Authority set aside. The case is remanded to the Competent Authority for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made above.
-
1991 (5) TMI 48 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment, Return, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ect of the return filed under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act and a voluntary return filed under section 139(4) is not the same as return envisaged by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 139. The extended time-limit of one year under section 153(1)(c) for completing the assessment will not be available in respect of a revised return purported to have been filed under section 139(5), where originally the return was filed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise in this case because the period within which the assessment could be made depends upon the provisions under which the returns were submitted by the assessee and this matter requires consideration. These applications are allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the facts of the case and refer the above question of law for the opinion of this court.
-
1991 (5) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ee-trust from the Calcutta trust was liable to be included as part of the income of the assessee-trust under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Act of 1961. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The costs are made easy. Now, the same principle is applicable in the present case also. But the difference is that it is for the year 1964-65 and the aforesaid case was for the year 1965-66. Therefore, the same principle which has been laid down in the aforesaid case is equally applicable in the present case. Instead of going into detailed facts, suffice it to say that the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned case is squarely applicable in the present case also. More so because, the above case is between the same parties and it is also in respect of the same scheme. In these circumstances, I allow the writ petition and quash the notice dated March 17, 1981, issued under section 148 of the Act.
-
1991 (5) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... as to whether the deductions claimed fail within section 40A(7) (b) or not. The other question about fall in gross profit rate cannot be looked into in this case because the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has not rejected the books of account of the assessee and, without making this as a base, it could not be said that the expenditure had been inflated, which is a question of fact and, in view of the finding of the Commissioner which is confirmed by the Tribunal, the same cannot be allowed. The following question of law can alone be said to arise in this case 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on account of gratuity payment amounting to Rs. 3,06,175 ? The Tribunal is directed to state the facts and circumstances of the case and refer the above question of law for the opinion of this court.
-
1991 (5) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , directed that, as provided under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner will move an application within four weeks before the Commissioner of Income-tax, for considering the waiver of the penalty imposed in the years 1975-76 to 1980-81. It is further directed that this application shall be disposed of within two months after the application has been filed. It is made clear that no coercive methods shall be adopted for recovering the penalties imposed till the decision of the application by the Income-tax Commissioner. This disposes of the petition, as above with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 44 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... ion as to whether the cash credits were genuine or not was a pure question of fact and no question of law arose. It can, therefore, be said that the question whether the cash entries in the account books maintained by the assessee are genuine or not is a question of fact and is not a question of law for which a reference can be made to this court. We have stated earlier that there is no dispute that a sum of Rs. 15,000 has been deposited in cash. The Tribunal taking this fact into consideration recorded a finding in agreement with the assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the cash entries the onus for which was placed on him. We are of the opinion that the question as to the genuineness of cash credit is a question of fact and is not a question of law and no question arises for reference. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the application under section 256 of the Act with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Securities, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... as held by the Full Bench of this court in jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh 1963 50 ITR 678, the Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds and Zamindari Abolition Rehabilitation Grant Bonds issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh are covered by the term Government security are covered by the term security of State Government within the meaning of clause (xxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. In CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. 1973 89 ITR 236 AIR 1973 SC 2524, the Hon ble Supreme Court has opined that, if the provisions of a taxing statute can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, that interpretation which is favourable to the assessee has got to be accepted. In view of this also, we hold that the bonds in question are Government securities within the meaning of clause (xxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act and the Tribunal has rightly held so. In the result, the reference is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (5) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Restrictions On Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... e authority passes an order purchasing the property, it may write immediately to the Income-tax Officer, Circle II(B), Kanpur, or such other authority as it thinks appropriate enquiring whether there are any arrears outstanding from the transferor or the transferors, as the case may be, in lieu of which the property in question is attached and if it is found that any such arrears are outstanding, to pay over the same to such authority the balance of the consideration shall then be paid over to the transferor within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 269UG. 4. It is evident that, if a no-objection certificate is issued and the property is sold, the property will pass to the purchaser subject to the attachment or other encumbrances, if any, subsisting in the property on the date of sale. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within four days.
-
1991 (5) TMI 41 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal Against Assessment, Appeals, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... nnot lie as section 264(4)(c) clearly provides that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under section 264 if the order has been made the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In this case, there is no dispute that the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, I find no irregularity or illegality in the order sought to be quashed in this original petition. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to agitate the matter in appropriate proceedings, the original petition is dismissed.
....
|
