|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 206 Records
-
1984 (6) TMI 66 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... n, it is held in para 6.1 of the order that the ITS himself has treated all the three payments as advance tax and accordingly granted deduction from the tax payable. This is the finding of fact which is not challenged. 4.3. In respect of question No. 3, rectification under s. 154 is allowed on the basis of findings of facts for the purpose, paras 6 and 7.0 of the order are relevant. Therefore, no questions of law arises. 4.4 in respect of question No. 4 in para 6 3, it is held that the provisions of Indian contract Act would apply because the payments were made together with the advance tax challans, which were prepared on the basis of estimates filed. Therefore, the provisions of the Indian Contract Act are clearly applicable, as specific direction regarding appropriation is given by the payer and the same had been accepted by the ITO by accepting the payment itself. Therefore in our opinion, no referable question of law arises 5. In the result, the application is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... that notices under s. 16(2) are issued without verifying whether actually return of wealth has been filed, this is a tragic admission of the state of affairs in the Department. It should at least have caused embarrassment but far from it the AAC has considered it of no consequence. In our view since the notices state the return filed by you. It must be taken that the returns were filed and the Department cannot be heard to say anything to the contrary. Moreover the assessee has paid tax under s. 15B amounting to Rs. 2698 on 21 Aug., 1972 which was on the basis of certain calculations a copy of which was shown to us at the time of hearing. The calculations partly tally with the assessment. This shows that payment was made on the basis of the calculation which must have been filed with the return before tax under s. 15B. Therefore, on the basis of above evidence, we hold that the assessee had filed the return on 22nd July, 1972 and delete the penalty. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 64 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ed as shown in the list and there was nothing to prevent Dumpers being enumerated therein. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the higher depreciation on Dumpers. On this point the appeal is rejected. 6. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of an amount of Rs. 4,500 out of expenditure pertaining to kitchen etc. The assessee was maintaining kitchen at the work site and when the partners visited the work site they utilised this facility. The disallowance is on account of this utilisation by the partners. The assessee s argument is that the nature of work was such that it was necessary for partners to make use of this facility when they visited the work site. 7. The CIT(A) has disallowed it. In our view although it may be necessary for the partners utilise kitchen when they visited the work site, the fact remains that the partners did utilise it. That is sufficient for the disallowance to be made. The CIT(A) s order is confirmed. 8. The appeal is rejected.
-
1984 (6) TMI 63 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ew of the delay in filing the return the ITO directed that interest under s. 139(8) should be levied. The assessee challenged this decision before the CIT(A) who held that the assessee had no right of appeal against the levy of interest. He therefore declined to consider the assessee s claim on merit. 6. After hearing the parties we are of the view that the CIT(A) had clearly overlooked the decision of their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court in case of Bhikhoobhai N. Shah vs. CIT 1978 CTR (Guj) 172 (1978) 114 ITR 197 (Guj) in which it is held that the assessee can challenge its liability to be assessed which would include the denial of liability to be assessed at all to penal interest. Therefore in our opinion the CIT (A) was not right in his conclusion that he had no right of appeal against the levy of said interest. We therefore remit the matter to him and direct him to consider the claim of the assessee on this point on merit. 7. The appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... 1 Act with effect from 1-4-1981. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed copies of the assessment orders/notices of demand in the case of some of the AOPs and has also stated that the other AOPs assessments have to be framed in the manner the ITO is bound to frame as per the provisions of section 167A. The only thing which the ITO assessing the assessee is required to consider is the assessee s share in the profits/losses of various AOPs of which it is a member, for rate purposes only as contemplated under section 86(v) read with Explanation thereto. Since the assessee is a company, it would have no effect if such share of profit/loss is considered for rate purposes, as the companies are taxed at a flat rate. In this view of the matter, we direct the ITO not to include Rs. 3,71,552 in the total income of the assessee and modify the assessment accordingly. 15. This para is not reproduced here as it involves a minor issue. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Discretionary Trust ... ... ... ... ..... s of Indian Trusts Act. Under the deed of settlement the trustees have been given certain powers in respect of the distribution of the income of the corpus of the trust. Again, these powers are not violating any provisions of the Indian Trusts Act. Further, it is a trite law that the assessee may arrange his affairs in such a way so as to minimise the tax burden. Surely, minimising the tax burden within the four corners of the law cannot be equated with any unlawful purpose making a trust void under the Indian Trusts Act. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the revenue vis-a-vis the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act. 20. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the orders of the income-tax authorities and restore the case once more to the file of the ITO with a direction to frame the assessment afresh accepting the assessee s contention that no income is taxable in its hands. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 60 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Judicial Freedom - Appellate Tribunal
... ... ... ... ..... fore the Tribunal. This would be, irrespective of the fact, that one particular assessee was within the jurisdiction of a specified High Court or the original adjudicating authority was located there (c) The proceedings initiated with reference to a rule or provision validly subsisting at the time of initiation of proceedings can continue in spite of repeal or substitution of the original provision (d) Recourse can be had to the provisions as prevailing at the time of initiation of proceedings, and the period available would be the one as permissible under the provisions existing at the time of issuance of show cause notice, in spite of the fact that the short-levy or non-levy refers, to the period when different period of limitation was available and lastly. (e) Concept of breathing time , cannot be countenanced for such type of proceedings as are initiated by way of show cause notices for recovery of duty differential duty or amount opined to have been erroneously refunded.
-
1984 (6) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Match boxes ... ... ... ... ..... mechanised and non-mechanised sectors. Since the mechanised sector has already adopted labour saving device, there is no question of their using any new mechanical process resulting in the displacement of labour. It is only in the other categories, namely, semi-mechanised, medium or tiny sectors, by using a cardboard in which already the labels are printed, there is a certainty of the labour being displaced. It is with a view to avoid this, they have chosen to deny the benefit of concessional duty in respect of units falling within the above three categories who have used mechanical devices in the matter of printing of labels before hand on the cardboard. 16.In this view, we have to agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Jayaprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and Others v. Union of India and Others 1983 (12) E.L.T. 58 and reject all the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Conviction in smuggling cases ... ... ... ... ..... as suffered, by him in the adjudication proceedings. In addition to that, the goods which he had smuggled in the Indian territory have all been confiscated, putting him into a loss of about Rs. 67,000/-. To my mind, therefore, the suggestion of Mr. Patwardhan that in case this court is not inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment, imposition of additional fine of Rs. 15,000/- would meet the ends of justice, is quite reasonable. 6. The order passed by the learned Magistrate relating to sentence is hereby modified and the respondent is ordered to pay a further fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The amount of the fine shall be paid within one week from today, in default of which he shall undergo a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The passport which is impounded by the department shall be returned to him after the payment of the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, provided all the other fines and penalties have been paid by him. Rule made absolute to the extent mentioned above.
-
1984 (6) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appeal under Cr. P.C. for enhancement of sentence ... ... ... ... ..... atnavel Pandian, J. have held that an appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Section 377(2), Cr. P.C. through his Counsel, on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded, is not competent, and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. In view of the Bench judgment, these two appeals have to be dismissed on the ground that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is not competent to file the appeals for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2), Cr. P.C. Hence dismissed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Prosecution - Acquittal - Possession of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... of prohibition imposed and reasonable belief cannot be based on suspicion or speculation. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the respondent had no knowledge or reason to believe that the car was liable to confiscation cannot be said to be unreasonable calling for interference by this court in appeal against acquittal. 17. The circumstances placed before the Trial Court to which reference has been made by the trial and appellate courts may give rise to grave suspicion regarding the complicity of the respondent, a government employee in the Railway, but suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. In my view, the learned appellate Judge correctly found that the charge has not been brought home to the respondent and while doing so, did not disturb the order passed by the trial court for confiscation of the vehicle and in my view, rightly so, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 18. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Natural Justice - Seizure and confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... re is no other alternative for this Court except to quash the imposition of penalties against these petitioners and direct the Collector to re-examine and decide the same. 31. In the light of my above discussion, the following orders and directions - (1) I quash the order of the revisional and appellate authorities and the Collector to the extent they impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the petitioner in W.P. No. 4616 of 1978 in its entirety (2) I quash the impugned orders only to the extent they impose personal penalties of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4614 and 4615 of 1978 and direct the Collector of Customs and Excise-respondent 1 to re-examine that aspect only and impose such penalties as he deems proper on each of them which, however, in any event, shall not exceed the original amount earlier imposed by him. 32. Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. But in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Confiscation of smuggled goods must be based on 'reasonable belief' - Burden of proof - Writ jurisdiction - Evidence - Criminal trial
-
1984 (6) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Proforma Credit under Rule 56A available even if no manufacturing process is undertaken - Paper - Manufacture
-
1984 (6) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
'Printed cartons' - Writ jurisdiction - Statute ... ... ... ... ..... ismiss this writ petition so far as petitioner-2 only. (b) I quash the order dated 15-9-1980 (Annexure-E) show cause notices No. 13084/80, dated 24-9-1980 (Annexure-G) and No. G. 1302/80 dated 24-9-1980 (Annexure-H) issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range BB II Dn., Bangalore. (c) I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to refund the excise duty collected from the petitioner on the printed cartons for the period for which the exemption was in force on that manufactured article, with all such expendition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and in any event within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. But, in settling such refunds, the respondents are free to adjust the same to any other amounts that are found due by the petitioner to Government, under the Act. 23. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of the definition of "related person" contained in clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood after its amendment by section 2 of Central Act 22 of 1973 which came into force with effect from 1st October, 1975
Held that:- The decision of the High Court holding that "the concept of related person occurring in amended section 4 is ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246 read with Entry 84 in the Union List" and striking down clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 as also the expression "the buyer is not a related person and" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 and proviso (iii) to that clause must consequently be set aside and it must be held that these provisions are constitutionally valid.
Affirm the view taken by the High Court and hold that the assessable value of the dyes manufactured by the assessee cannot be determined with reference to the selling price charged by Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited to their purchasers but must be determined on the basis of the wholesale cash price charged by the assessee to Atul Products Limited and Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited. The demand made by the Assistant Collector for differential duty must, therefore, be held to be rightly quashed by the High Court.
The High Court has erred in giving direction in regard to payment of the costs incurred by the assessee in connection with the bank guarantee furnished by it in pursuance of the interim order made by the High Court. We do not think the High Court was right in giving this direction. The bank guarantee was required to be furnished by the assessee as a condition of grant of interim stay of enforcement of the demand for differential duty and if it is ultimately found that the demand for differential duty was not justified, the bank guarantee would certainly have to be discharged, but it is difficult to see how the costs of furnishing the bank guarantee could be directed to be paid by the Revenue to the assessee.
-
1984 (6) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nd that the firm was genuine. Meanwhile, the ITO initiated prosecution of the partners of the firm under s. 277 of the I.T. Act for having filed false returns and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a revision petition filed for quashing the prosecution against the firm held that the Tribunal s finding was not binding on the criminal court and was not a bar to the prosecution proceedings. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that in view of the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that J was a partner of the firm and that the firm was genuine, the assessee could not be prosecuted for filing false returns. The question whether prosecution could be launched before the completion of assessment proceedings was not in issue before the Supreme Court and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Department should wait till the assessment proceedings are over to file any criminal complaint, is unfounded. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1984 (6) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... to rectify the order by invoking s. 154 of the I.T. Act. When that order was challenged before this court, this court held, after referring to the relevant decisions on that point, that when an ITO erroneously applies a provision of the statute to the facts of the case or if a provision of law which is incapable of application has been applied, it amounts to a mistake apparent from the record. In this case, while there is a specific provision under the I.T. Rules to the effect that in respect of electrical machinery no extra-shift allowance could be allowed, the ITO has chosen to allow the grant of extra-shift allowance contrary to the said provision. This is obviously a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the principle of the said decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In this view of the matter, we have to answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to get costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1984 (6) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... as the assessee enjoyed no exemption from the statute at the relevant time, it was not entitled to claim deduction de hors the statute and on the basis of its own scheme. The assessee was entitled to deduction in terms of the statute, but only to the extent of the liability which arose in the relevant period. We do not see any substance in the contention that the Revenue is in any manner estopped by reason of the Tribunal s order of remand. In any case, there is no question of estoppel as against a statutory provision. In the light of what is stated above, we answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative, that is, both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (6) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Minor, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... 3, and it was certainly open to him to agree to partake of the losses ascertained and disclosed by the end of 1973-74. The provision can also be construed, as was done by this Court in Krishna and Bros. 1968 69 ITR 135, as an arrangement for making the minor s share liable for losses, a course permissible under s. 30(3) of the Partnership Act, and distinct from making him personally liable. Chhotelal Ratanlal v. Rajmal Milapchand, AIR 1951 Nag 448, only laid down that no partnership could come into existence with only one adult partner and a minor a partnership requires at least two persons competent to contract. That does not mean that two or more adults could not form a partnership with a minor admitted to its benefits, as was contended for on behalf of the Department. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee, and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. Office will forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal.
....
|
