|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Wholesale cash price - Assessable value - Connotation of - Favoured Buyer - Burden of proof - Excise duty - Nature and Scope
-
1980 (9) TMI 87 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Hessian Sandwich paper ... ... ... ... ..... wo layers of kraft paper by means of bitumen which acts as an adhesive. Government also observe that the impugned goods contain approximately 70 of hessian by weight. Government further observe that Item 22A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 covers jute manufactures all sorts not elsewhere specified in which jute predominates in weight and this description would cover the description of the impugned goods. 4. Government also observe that the goods are known in the trade as hessian sandwich paper. In this description, both hessian as well as paper are mentioned. Government are therefore of the view that the goods would more appropriately be classifiable under Item 21A of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 particularly as Item 17(2) inter alia covers paper only all binds of paper but does not cover paper products. 5. In view of the above, Government of India set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1980 (9) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Medicines - Statute - Exemption Notification - Canons for interpretation - Criteria for permissible Classification - Constitution - `Foreign Company'- Appeal to Supreme Court
-
1980 (9) TMI 85 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advertisement Expenditure, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... inducing the members to continue to maintain good relations with the society, it cannot be said that the amounts were spent by way of advertisement. The society was not distributing these articles to all its customers, members as well as non-members, but it was distributing its presents in the shape of stainless steel utensils, etc., only to its members. Under these circumstances, it must be held that the amounts spent by the assessee-society on these two items, one for the purchase of stainless steel utensils and the other for the purpose of tour expenses of the members of the managing committee to visit Bombay for the purpose of purchasing these stainless steel articles, must all be considered to be business expenditure within the meaning of s. 37 and allowable as such. Therefore, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (9) TMI 84 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... Vridhachala and his sons, and that he alone could not, therefore, represent the estate of Chidambara as a legal representative, under s. 24B and the court held, on the facts, that the proceedings were not invalid for the only reason that one of the legal representatives alone was impleaded. Ramanathan had not contended that he was not an heir or legal representative of Chidambara his case was that there were others also to whom notice should have gone. The real question decided was whether the department could choose one out of many persons who were admittedly legal representatives under s. 24B, for assessing the income of a deceased person. There was no question as to whether a remainderman or reversioner could be treated as the legal representative of a life-estate holder. In the light of what is stated above, the O.P. has to be allowed, and we do so by quashing Exs. P-6, P-7, P-8, P-10, P-12 and P-13. S.A. No. 707/80 will stand dismissed. Parties to suffer their own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 83 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Companies Profits Surtax, Statutory Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... or ceremony for being treated as a part of the general earned surplus account. The addition, therefore, was not a mere proposed addition but an addition which was a fait accompli. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in observing that the whole idea of the Explanation seems to be to exclude from the capita reserves, allocations which had not been finalised or which had not received the seal of approval from the general body of the company. However, in the present case, the allocations had already been brought about and it could not be said that the intention of the Legislature was to exclude the same from the reserves. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Explanation to r. 1 did not in any way change the legal position, are correct. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (9) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... is the same, but the difference is only in the applicability of the rule of evidence. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that neither the fact that the name of Seth Paleraj Govindram who is alleged to have given hundi loan to the assessee found a place in the list of bankers who did havala business as well, nor the statement of third party assessees that some of their transactions shown as borrowings from Dwarkadas Chaithram were not genuine transactions, would in any way connect the assessee s credit with those bankers as not genuine. If we eschew those facts, there are no other materials on which the ITO could have entertained any belief that the income had escaped assessment by reason of non-disclosure of any material fact. In the result, we have to hold that the reopening of the assessment was not justified. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (9) TMI 81 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... transaction should be allowed under s. 37 of the Act. In our opinion, the said principle and considerations are directly applicable while considering the question of business expenditure under s. 37 of the I.T. Act. To back up the view, we rely on N. M. Rayaloo Iyer and Sons v. CIT 1954 26 ITR 265 (Mad), F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. v. CIT 1959 36 ITR 114 (Bom) and Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. CIT 1963 47 ITR 680 (All). In the result, we hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that merely because the document was unregistered the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed by it. Accordingly, we answer the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, we make no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be sent under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar to the learned Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment.
-
1980 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Profits ... ... ... ... ..... 1980 126 ITR 322 (Delhi), to submit that the accrual of the income took place only on the completion of the work, i.e, when the amount was no longer refundable. But, these two cases are cases in which the question was as to when the income accrued. The actual receipt was later. In the present case, the receipt is earlier. So we are not so much concerned with as to when the income accrued, but as to when the payment became converted into income. Clearly, in 1957, when the work had not started, the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 could be treated as an advance payment for the timber, but when the work was actually done in the calendar year 1958, the amount received had to be accounted for in the profit and loss account as being payment for work done. Those judgments have, therefore, no relevance to the present case. In the circumstances, we would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative which is against the assessee and in favour of the department. The department to get costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 79 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... e need not enter into this question not pressed before the Tribunal, as we have interpreted the main section as not to include the company itself within the word person . We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the agricultural development allowance stipulated in s. 35C would cover only that expenditure which had been incurred for goods, services or facilities to certain classes of persons-cultivators, growers or producers in India, viz., the persons distinct from the assessee-company. On the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal and also on the interpretation of s. 35C made by the Tribunal we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The assessee orally prays for the grant of a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that it is a fit case for granting the said certificate. Oral application is, therefore, dismissed. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TR 131 (Mad) and Commr. of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 1979 116 ITR 528 (Bom). The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that the Tribunal was perfectly right in holding that the amount of deduction allowed to the assessee under s. 80G of the Act is not to be treated as part of the income of the assessee-company includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act within the meaning of the said expression contained in r. 4 of Sch. II to the Surtax Act and hence the capital of the company is not liable to be decreased correspondingly while making a computation under the provisions of the said Schedule. The questions referred in these two cases are accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1980 (9) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ments shall be deemed to have been made if the cheque is handed over to the Govt. officials or to the Govt. officer authorised to receive money on behalf of the Government on the date on which it is so handed over. The delay, if any, was due to the officials of the department in not cashing the cheque in time Accordingly, we agree with the Tribunal that no question of law arises out of the order. The petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1980 (9) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n its judgment, not justified in holding that the onus that lay on the assessee in view of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, had been discharged. For the assessment year 1966-67 Q. I.-Subject to the observations made by us in this judgment the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,000 imposed upon the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with the Explanation. For the assessment year 1968-69 Q. I.-Subject to the observations made by us in this judgment the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,000 imposed upon the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with the Explanation. 2.-The Tribunal was, for the reasons mentioned by it in its judgment, not justified in holding that the onus that lay on the assessee in view of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, had been discharged. As no one has appeared for the assessee, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... mpany was to hire out factories. No doubt, if there is a person whose business is to hire out machines or plants, etc., he would be said to be doing business although in normal circumstances this might be considered a non-business purpose., Similarly, on the facts of the present case, the objects clause permitted the assessee to hire out its factory as part of its business activities. Therefore, the leasing of the factory would be a part of the business by the assessee. So, in addition to all the previous reasons given, it would appear that the leasing of the factory was a business activity. In the circumstances, we would answer the second question for the assessment year 1966-67 in favour of the assessee and against the department and would hold that, in the circumstances of the case, income from the lease of the plant, machinery and buildings was rightly computed under the head Profits and gains of business by the Tribunal. We would leave the parties to bear their own costs
-
1980 (9) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Mills Ltd. 1967 66 ITR 710 (SC), in both of which cases a new aspect of a point raised earlier was allowed to be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. No doubt, these cases would have great relevance if in the present case the income which was held not to arise from business was sought to be taxed in some other way as being income from business, profession or vocation. However, the income is admittedly not chargeable to income-tax, but if it is thought that some other amount is chargeable to income-tax as capital gains under s. 12B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, then a completely different type of point is involved. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that such a point cannot be raised and should not be permitted to be raised when not raised either before the ITO or the AAC. We would, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will get costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (9) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, False Estimate, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... case are quite different. But apart from the fact, as we have mentioned before, even if we allow learned advocate for the revenue to urge that the Tribunal came to that conclusion wrongly by misunderstanding the actual provision of law, even then we are of the opinion that there is no scope for the argument that the Tribunal misunderstood the requirements of law because cl. (a) of s. 273 of the Act specifically requires that two things are to be found as a fact that at the time of making and filing the estimate of advance tax, the estimate was false and the assessee had the knowledge or had reason to believe that the estimate was false. But there is no such evidence in this regard before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that in its findings. In the premises, in our opinion, the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion and the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 72 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Electric Supply Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... scovered it after an appeal had been taken from his original assessment order and decided by the AAC. It is the order of the AAC dated 23rd January, 1968, which is the determining factor in the matter of jurisdiction of the ITO. After this order he did not have any jurisdiction to act under s. 154. This question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 3 In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Electricity Acts of 1910 and 1948 had no application for the purpose of allowing depreciation and development rebate. These had to be determined under the I.T. Act of 1961. The reason is simple. The assessee asked for these reliefs under the I.T. Act. Therefore, the I.T. Act governs. The Electricity Acts have no relevance for the purpose of computation of income. The question is answered in favour of the department. In view of the fact that the assessee has partially succeeded and so has the revenue, we make no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Firm, Gift, Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in R. V. Viswanathan s case 1976 105 ITR 653 (SC) and Kamlavati s case 1979 120 ITR 456 (SC), which flow from the earlier decision in Ramachandra Gounder s case 1973 88 ITR 448 (SC), it must be held that the amount of Rs. 87,000 should not be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under s. 10 of the Act. Question No. (2) must, therefore, be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the revenue. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1)-Which is the question in Estate Duty Reference No. 1 of 1975-in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the revenue. Question No. (2)-Which is the question in Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1975-in the negative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the revenue. The Controller will pay the costs of these two references to the accountable person.
-
1980 (9) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... asset had been entered into by the assessee himself for and on behalf of the minor. What was in substance and truth done by the assessee was to substitute in the place of the first asset another property which he purchased by converting the first asset into cash and utilising the said cash for the purchase of the second asset. We have, therefore, no hesitation to uphold as correct the view taken by the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 9(2)(a)(iv) are fully attracted to the present case and that the income derived from the estate purchased in Vellayur village is liable to be included in the taxable income of the assessee under the terms of the aforesaid provisions. We accordingly answer all the three questions in the affirmative, i. e , against the assessee and in favour of the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1980 (9) TMI 69 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... ttention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd. 1964 53 ITR 134. But there the facts were entirely different. Where the claim for damages is the liability to pay damages under dispute unless the dispute is adjudicated or settled between the parties, the claim could not be said to have arisen. This view is in consonance with the view of this court in the case of CIT v. Shewbux Jahurilal 1962 46 ITR 688 (Cal), as well as the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1969 74 ITR 26. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in view of the nature of the claim, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion on this aspect. Therefore, we must also answer the question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
....
|
