|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 234 Records
-
1982 (3) TMI 222 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en though separately charged. Hence the rate of tax on gunny is 3 per cent and not 7 per cent and 8 per cent as done. 3. That sale of gunny would be taxed is not in dispute. The only question is what would be the appropriate rate of tax. Admittedly, under the contract there was an obligation for supply of rice in bags on the part of the assessee and the Tribunal relying on this part of the agreement has invoked the fifth proviso to section 5(1) of the Act. Admittedly, at the relevant time rice was exigible to purchase tax at 3 per cent. The direction of the Tribunal to reduce the tax on the sales turnover of gunny bags on the basis of the fifth proviso, therefore, is not open to challenge. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us by saying that the sales turnover of gunny bags during the period in question has been rightly taxed at 3 per cent. There would be no order for costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree with my Lord, the Chief Justice. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1982 (3) TMI 221 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... osition of penalty is concerned, the assessment in the instant case is by taking the year as a unit. The application for registration was dated 13th December, 1972, but was allowed long after on 3rd September, 1973. It has already been held by this Court in the case of Bhanja Bhandar v. Stage of Orissa 1976 37 STC 169, that in a case of this type when registration is granted, it must date back to the date of the application for registration. Since the assessee became a registered dealer during the period, he cannot be assessed under section 12(5) of the Act for that period and there could also be no liability for penalty under the Act for non-registration. The second and the third questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessment under section 12(5) of the Act was not called for nor was any justification available for visiting him with any penalty. There would be no order for costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1982 (3) TMI 220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
DECLARED GOODS — SINGLE POINT TAX — FIRST SALE — EXPORT OR IMPORT — ALLOCATION OF YEN CREDIT BY DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT FOR IMPORT OF TIN PLATES FROM JAPAN — ALLOTTEES OF YEN CREDIT PLACING ORDERS FOR IMPORT THROUGH M.M.T.C. — DELIVERY OF GOODS TAKEN BY ALLOTTEES OF YEN CREDIT — M.M.T.C., WHETHER IMPORTER OF TIN PLATES — WHETHER THERE WAS FIRST SALE OF TIN PLATES, A DECLARED GOODS, BY M.M.T.C. IN STATE — LIABILITY TO TAX
-
1982 (3) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court ... ... ... ... ..... e order dated January 27, 1982, dismissing the judge s summons, viz., Company Application No. 204 of 1981, will have to be set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order Appeal allowed. Order dated January 27,1982, passed in Company Application No. 204 of 1981 dismissing the judge s summons set aside. Judge s summons made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Shri Chande waives service on behalf of the company. Company Petition No. 221 of 1977 to be placed on board of the learned company judge on April 14, 1982, for hearing and final disposal. The company to file its affidavit to the company petition for winding-up on or before March 31, 1982, and to furnish a copy thereof to the petitioning creditors before that date. The petitioning creditors to file affidavit-in-rejoinder, if they so desire before April 8, 1982. There will be no order as to costs of the judge s summons as well as of this appeal. The official liquidator to act upon certified copy of the minutes of the order.
-
1982 (3) TMI 210 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Oppression of mismanagement – Powers of Government of prevent ... ... ... ... ..... was not told how the presence of the two Government directors and their taking part in the meetings of the board of directors would affect the crushing season or the business of the company, especially when these Government directors were on the ad hoc board. Thirdly, the reason given that the bank nominee is the chairman of the board is not even a good excuse. Fourthly, the interest of the shareholders is to be taken into account. A large number of shares have been held by the banks, insurance companies and other Government bodies. Out of a total equity shares of 6,00,000, the bank and insurance companies hold 4,56,000 shares. Thus, about 70 per cent of the capital is contributed from public funds. Fifthly, it is evident that the company has not even suggested that it has during the course of years ratified the said acts of commission or omission. These are the material considerations which weigh with me in refusing the application. I, therefore, refuse the stay application.
-
1982 (3) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PARDESH
Oppression and Mismanagement, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1982 (3) TMI 194 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... -tax matters. Thus Rs. 5,000 out of the said payment to B.K. Khare and Co. plus Rs. 3,400 to Patankar were held to come within the purview of s. 80VV which allowed deduction only of Rs. 5000. CIT (A) therefore upheld disallowance of Rs. 3,400. Learned Deptl. Rep. urged that even financial consultation with B.K. Khare and Co. would be hit by s. 80VV as consultation would be part of tax planning and would therefore be in respect of proceedings before any IT Authority. In this connection, reference was made to Tribunal s order in assessee s appeal. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that consultation with B.K. Khare and Co. was in respect of Company Law, financial planning as well as tax planning and therefore, CIT(A) had rightly bifurcated the expenditure into two equal portions for financial matters and for income-tax matters. Considering the circumstances of the case, we would uphold the order of CIT(A) on this point. 15. In the result, revenue s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 193 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... (All), 108 ITR 517 (All) 109 ITR 154 (All) (FB) and 110 ITR 468 (AP) (FB) and they dissented from 97 ITR 302 (Punj) and 108 ITR 466 (AP)(FB) and 110 ITR 170. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in particular that two separate accounts were made and considering the deeds we are of the view that this is a case of succession and not a case of change in the constitution of the firm and the two assessment had to be made, I.e. prior to the death of Ghevarchand and the period after the death of Ghevarchand when Smt. Subattibai was taken as a partner. It is true that there are conflicting judgements on the issue but the majority decisions are in favour of the assessee and it is a rule of interpretation that when two views are possible the one favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. We are adopting the view which is in favour the assessee and, therefore, we see no merit in the departmental appeal. 9. In the result, the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 188 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... dition of Rs. 23,000 and hence the order of the ITO should be maintained. The counsel of the assessee, Shri Poddar, on the order hand, very strongly supported the order of the AAC and urged that the AAC after considering all the facts and material had deleted the addition and hence the order of the AAC should be maintained. 5. The addition had rightly been deleted by the AAC. The AAC has discussed the facts as well as material relating to the issue. The high denomination notes were encashed by the assessee rsquo s wife. The assessee was placed in high position and he was having income from salary and interest. If the total earnings of the assessee is taken into consideration, the possibility of saving of Rs. 23,000 by his wife may not be ruled out. Under the above circumstances, the reasoning above circumstances, the reasoning adopted by the AAC is fair and agreeing with the reasoning of the AAC, the finding of the AAC is maintained. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT NAGPUR
Deductions, Income Of Co-operative Societies ... ... ... ... ..... pend upon a variation of one per cent on either side of 50 per cent. Such a criterion cannot be said to be scientific. The intention of the Legislature is that the assessee should get relief in respect of its activities relating to its members. Thus, even if a small percentage of the sales are to members, the assessee should get relief on those sales. On this basis, we would direct the ITO to re-work the relief due to the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(iv). In fact, we find from the statement reproduced in the earlier part of our order that the assessee has not claimed any relief on sale of seeds. The ITO will, therefore, look into these points and work out the relief correctly. He will also give the relief due to the assessee under section 80P(2)(c). The answers, therefore, to the questions framed are as follows Question No. 1 In the negative. Question No. 2 Deduction has to be granted with reference to the net profit. 18. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 185 - ITAT NAGPUR
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ticle must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. The difference between the ambit of the terms manufacture and processing was incidentally considered by the learned Judges and it was held thus At some point processing and manufacturing will merge. But where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage we cannot say that it has been manufactured within the meaning of article 203(b)(6). Although the Court was concerned with the distinction between manufacturing and processing , the observations are quite relevant regarding the interpretation to be placed on the word production . We find that the raw film which has been exposed does not retain a continuing substantial identity. It is something quite different from the original. In that sense it would not be wrong to say that the assessee has manufactured an article or thing. In this view of the matter, we agree with the learned AAC and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
-
1982 (3) TMI 181 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Payment Not Deductible, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... claim included what is payable. 7. The learned departmental representative raised an additional argument in that the assessee has covered its liability for gratuity by insurance and the premia thereunder has been allowed. Hence, according to him, there is no case for any further allowance. This argument overlooks the fact that there is a further but certain obligation, additionally during the year (called incremental liability) which is actuarially measured (sic). The premium covers only the liability payable on death or retirement during the year. Only a part of the liability is covered. Besides, the first appellate authority has directed only the incremental liability inasmuch as he has allowed only the difference between the incremental liability and premia paid as further deduction. Hence, there cannot be any grievance on this account. 8. The orders of first appellate authority have, therefore, to be upheld on this point also. 9. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 179 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... TA No. 377 (Mds)/81 (asst. yr. 1978-79) to which one of us, the Vice President was a party, has added one more reason, that s. 69D applies only to instruments which are negotiable without endorsement and that negotiability is the principal test to find out whether a document is a hundi or not, in these transactions the documents are in English. These are pronotes payable to order. There are only two parties and not three parties like bills of exchange. These documents are negotiable only by endorsement because these are all promissory notes payable to order. So merely because it is written on hundi paper and because the grounds of appeal before the AAC were prepared on the basis that these are hundi documents, these documents will not acquire the character of hundi transactions. The essential ingredients to make a document, a hundi document, are absent in this case. So s. 69D cannot be applied. The AAC is right in his view. 5. The departmental appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 177 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Legal Representative, Assessment Of ... ... ... ... ..... The view we have taken does not go that far, since we have not expressed any opinion as to its liability to tax either in the hands of the widow as executor or in her own right as the occasion for such an opinion does not arise in the present appeal. We have also pointed out that there are some peculiar features of the scheme which makes the right to gratuity subject to qualifications which are not present even in a simple right of the legal heir to salary for leave earned by the deceased though unavailed by him. 8. In view we have taken, it is not necessary to go into the alternative question as to the exact amount of gratuity that will be exempt under section 10(10), a question which depends for its answer on the amount of allowances which have to be reckoned as part of salary with reference to the contract of service. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed. Relief due Rs. 22,000. Since the appeal is decided, stay petition has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such.
-
1982 (3) TMI 176 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... s. So this is a payment deductible not under section 36(1)(ii) but only under section 37(1) of the Act. It cannot be said that it is not laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business, because it is a price paid to settle the industrial dispute. So it is well supported by commercial expediency. But for this payment of 5 per cent, it may be that the whole business activity of the assessee would have come to a standstill. If the income-tax authorities had kept in mind this vital difference that bonus is deductible under section 36(1)(ii) and that other ex gratia payments are deductible only under section 37(1), then this controversy might not have arisen at all. So we hold that this 5 per cent payment disallowed by the ITO is an incentive wage and an ad hoc ex gratia payment deductible under section 37 because it is well supported by commercial expediency. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Departmental appeal dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 175 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Transfer Of Assets, For Benefit Of Spouse Or Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... ion 13 of the General Clauses Act. In Coast Brick and Tile Works Ltd. v. Premchand Raichand 1967 1 AC 192, the Privy Council held that the words the security in sub-para (b) of the Kenya Money-Lenders Ordinance need not mean the sole security and that the should be read as a or it can altogether be omitted---see, Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, 12th, edn., p. 232. Hence, there is no special significance in the word the even in the earlier statute. It also stands to reason that a and the may be inter-changeable. It is true that section 64 should be rigidly construed and in case of doubt, it should be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer. But there is, in our opinion, no scope whatsoever for reasonable doubt. There are also other rules or interpretation like interpretation to avoid absurd unreasonable consequence which would automatically follow if we accept the artificial interpretation canvassed on behalf of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 171 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Industrial Company, Agricultural Development Allowance, Deductions, Livestock Breeding Or Poultry Farming
-
1982 (3) TMI 168 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ee did actually receive only Rs. 13,075 and neither did the assessee receive any further amount in this connection nor has the assessee pursued the claim for balance. According to the assessee, it has given up its claim. The departmental representative supported the order of the AAC on a consideration of the circumstances, we direct the ITO to verify the correctness of the assessee rsquo s claim as to whether the assessee has given up the claim for balance of the sale price and in that even to recompute the capital gains on the basis of the actual price received for the sale. It is common ground that there is no written agreement and in determining the amount of capital gains one must have regard to the actual price received by the assessee unless it is shown that the assessee deliberately waived the balance for any oblique or other consideration. The ITO will examine this aspect and then recompute the capital gains accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 167 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... pport the claim of the assessee, we agree with the departmental authorities that mere narration in the account does not establish the assessee rsquo s case. Reference to the commentary in Sampath Iyengar rsquo s book and Mulla rsquo s book and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to therein does not advance the case of the assessee because the legal question as to whether there can be a gift on the occasion of marriage long after the marriage is celebrated was to be raised on basic facts as to which there is no dispute and which are admitted as undisputed. In the present case there is nothing to connect the gift with the marriage beyond the narration in the entry in the accounts which took place long after and which can very well be regarded as a self-serving statement. In the circumstances, we reject the objections of the assessee in the cross objections and uphold the departmental authorities order. In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Amount Borrowed Or Repaid On Hundi ... ... ... ... ..... ecially when a promissory note could be written on a hundi paper under the provisions of the Stamp Act. In the circumstances, the belief of the assessee that the document is a promissory note and not a hundi is, in our opinion, sufficient cause for not obtaining the money by way of account-payee cheque. When it is not in dispute that the transaction was genuine and the amount was duly accounted for in the books of both the parties to the document the contravention of the statutory obligation is venial and cannot carry with it the rigour of the law requiring the amount in question to be added back to the total income of the assessee under section 69D. Therefore, for this additional reason also, we are of the opinion that the AAC was right in deleting the addition made under section 69D. We accordingly, confirm his order. The appeal is dismissed. 12. The assessee has filed a cross-objection only to support the order of the AAC. Since no relief is asked for it is also dismissed.
........
|
