|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2810 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 117
Issues:
1. Bail amount enhancement and reduction
2. Timely disposal of the case and delay in proceedings
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner was arrested in connection with a contraband-related incident. Initially, the petitioner was granted bail of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the bail amount. Subsequently, a plea for reduction of bail amount was rejected by the same Single Judge who had initially enhanced it. The petitioner then approached the High Court again seeking a reduction in the bail amount. The court held that due to the previous decisions on the bail amount, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed on this ground.
2. Apart from the bail amount issue, the court also addressed the timely disposal of the case. The court had directed that the case should be concluded within six months, and the complaint was filed accordingly. However, there were delays in the proceedings, with the charge being framed after several hearings. The department's counsel argued that the petitioner had caused delays in the proceedings, while the petitioner's counsel cited health issues as a reason for the delays. The court noted that the trial could be concluded within a short duration as most witnesses had been examined. The petitioner's argument that remaining in custody might lead to pleading guilty was dismissed by the court. Ultimately, the court emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings in the criminal case before the Magistrate.
In conclusion, the petition seeking a reduction in the bail amount was rejected by the High Court. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious proceedings in the criminal case and directed the Magistrate to proceed further promptly as previously instructed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 116
Condonation of delay in presenting revision application - Held that:- Sufficient cause for condoning delay in presenting revision application, now appeal, has not been made out. From the application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit it would appear that the appellants filed refund application due to mistaken advice of C.D. Sharma, retired Inspector, Central Excise and later they consulted a Counsel. Before mistaken legal advice can be considered ground for condoning the delay in presenting appeal or revision application it should be shown that the parties sought advice of competent counsel and such advice was given exercising reasonable skill and care after proper examination and due care and caution. In the instant case all these aspects are lacking. This apart Shri C.D. Sharma left appellants employment in December 1981 and then the matter was entrusted to Shri D.P. Garg. Shri. D.P. Garg does not appear to have taken any action and is said to have left for a foreign country. The particulars given are extremely vague and general and on that basis sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 104 days, to our mind, is not made out. We therefore reject the application. As a consequence application for admission of additional evidence along with appeal in respect of which the condonation of delay application is made are also dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 115
Issues:
1. Whether the seizure of HDPE woven sacks by the Excise authorities was legal and justified.
2. Whether the petition filed by the business owners is premature due to the ongoing investigation.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, engaged in stitching and printing HDPE woven sacks, received a notification exempting certain woven sacks from Excise duty if manufactured on flat knitting looms. However, subsequent amendments clarified that sacks manufactured on circular looms were not exempt. The Excise authorities seized HDPE sacks from the petitioners' premises, alleging duty evasion. The petitioners contended that they were not involved in manufacturing on circular looms and demanded release of the goods. The authorities claimed the sacks were woven on circular looms, attracting Excise duty. The court noted the ongoing investigation and deemed the petition premature. It held that the facts and contentions needed clarification post-investigation before a decision could be made on the legality of the seizure. Citing precedent, the court dismissed the petition as premature, emphasizing the need for a complete investigation before adjudication.
2. The respondents argued that HDPE sacks woven on circular looms were subject to Excise duty, contrary to the petitioners' claims. The preventive officers observed HDPE sacks at a factory rented by other businesses for stitching and printing. Statements revealed the involvement of different entities in the manufacturing process. The authorities seized sacks, suspecting duty evasion due to circular loom manufacturing. The court acknowledged the conflicting contentions and the incomplete investigation. It cited a previous case to support the dismissal of the premature petition, emphasizing the need for factual clarity before legal conclusions. The court found the petition premature and lacking grounds for admission, ultimately dismissing it without costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 114
Striking down Clause (a) of the Proviso (3) of the Notification dated the 1st March, 1964 issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and granting consequential relief
Held that:- In the present case benefit of concessional rate was bestowed upon the entire group of assessees referred therein and by Clause (a) of Proviso (3) the group was divided into two classes without adopting any differentia having a rational relation to the object of the Notification, and the benefit to one class was withdrawn while retaining it in favour of the other. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned Clause (a) of the Proviso 3 of the Notification in question ultra vires and the benefit allowed by the notification is available to the entire group including the respondent. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the Central Government to pay interest on excess tax deducted at source (TDS).
2. Constitutional validity of Sections 214, 215, and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Classification and discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the Central Government to Pay Interest on Excess TDS:
The petitioner, an income-tax assessee, argued that the income-tax paid in advance and the tax deducted at source should be treated as advance tax for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined the language of Sections 193, 207 to 213, and 214, concluding that these provisions do not support this construction. Section 214 specifically provides for payment of interest on excess amounts from instalments of advance tax paid under Sections 203 to 214. The court highlighted that the tax deducted at source is on income already earned, whereas advance tax is on estimated income yet to be earned. Therefore, the two cannot be treated on the same footing for purposes of payment of interest on refunds. The court found no enabling provision in the Act to direct payment of interest on tax deducted at source, as the specified rate of tax is applied to income already earned. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for interest on excess TDS was rejected.
2. Constitutional Validity of Sections 214, 215, and 217:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 214, contending it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the statutory framework and found that Section 214 has sufficient justification for providing interest on excess advance tax paid, as such payments are made on income yet to arise. In contrast, refusal to pay interest on excess TDS, which is on income already earned, is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The court cited precedents such as Addl. CIT v. Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. and CIT v. Clittres, which support the view that no interest is payable on excess TDS due to the absence of statutory provisions. The court concluded that the distinction between advance tax and TDS is justified and does not violate Article 14.
3. Classification and Discrimination under Article 14:
The court addressed the petitioner's argument regarding discrimination under Article 14. It reiterated that taxation laws must pass the test of Article 14, but the State has wide discretion in selecting the objects and persons it will tax. The court emphasized that legislation is only unconstitutional if it operates unequally within its range of selection without valid classification. The court referred to principles from cases such as Murthy Match Works v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and East India Tobacco Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which establish that mere inequality of treatment does not constitute discrimination unless it is arbitrary and irrational. The court found that the classification between advance tax and TDS is based on a rational distinction, as advance tax is on anticipated income, and TDS is on income already earned. Therefore, the challenge against the validity of Section 214 on grounds of discrimination and arbitrariness fails.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on excess TDS due to the absence of statutory provisions. The distinction between advance tax and TDS is justified and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 214, 215, and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was found to be without merit.
-
1988 (12) TMI 112
Issues involved:
The judgment involves a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the dismissal of a departmental appeal based on the application of rule 46A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Application of Rule 46A(1)(d):
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee to adduce further evidence under rule 46A(1)(d) as the Income-tax Officer had not provided an opportunity to the assessee to present evidence relevant to the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the evidence u/r 46A(1)(d) due to the lack of opportunity given by the Income-tax Officer.
Tribunal's Decision and Justification:
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, holding that the case fell within the purview of rule 46A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the Income-tax Officer did not allow the assessee to lead evidence before making the additions in question, thereby justifying the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision to permit additional evidence u/r 46A(1)(d).
Court's Opinion and Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as the case was covered by the provisions of rule 46A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling against the Revenue. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in this reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 111
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the income from the palace of the former Ruler of Bastar is exempt from income tax. The decision was based on a previous court ruling and the court's opinion aligned with that ruling. The court's answer to the question of law was affirmative, ruling against the Revenue.
-
1988 (12) TMI 110
Issues:
Delayed payment of pensionary benefits and gratuity, claim for interest on delayed payments, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, deduction from Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, legality of disciplinary action, entitlement to interest on deducted amount, directive for payment of interest and costs, government's arbitrary actions.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a retired Member of a Tribunal, faced delayed payment of pensionary benefits and gratuity. The petitioner claimed interest on various amounts due to delayed payments. The Government contended that 2/3rds of pension was sanctioned provisionally due to pending disciplinary proceedings. However, the Court found that the disciplinary action against the petitioner was ill-conceived and condemned the Government's actions. The Court emphasized that officers with quasi-judicial powers should be free from the threat of disciplinary action for their decisions.
The Court directed the Government to pay penal interest on the amounts due to the petitioner from the date of retirement. It was noted that the deduction from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was unauthorized, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on the deducted amount. The Court ordered the Government to pay the petitioner interest on the deducted amount and the deducted sum itself with interest within a specified time frame, failing which future interest at a higher rate would apply.
In conclusion, the Court highlighted the importance of allowing officers to exercise their judicial discretion without fear of reprisal. It suggested the Government consider recovering the amounts to be paid to the petitioner from those responsible for the unwarranted disciplinary action. The judgment directed the payment of interest, costs, and emphasized the need to prevent similar incidents in the future through appropriate actions by the Government.
-
1988 (12) TMI 109
Issues:
1. Entitlement to registration of a firm under section 184(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the specified individual shares of the partners in the partnership deed.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of whether a firm of chartered accountants was entitled to registration under section 184(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1969-70. The dispute arose from a partnership deed that specified fixed sums for junior partners, leading to the Income-tax Officer initially denying registration to the firm. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal subsequently ruled in favor of the firm's registration, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision.
The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of section 184(1)(ii), which mandates that the individual shares of partners must be specified in the partnership instrument for registration. The Revenue contended that the fixed sums allocated to junior partners, as per clause 14 of the partnership deed, did not constitute specified shares in the profits or losses of the firm. The argument centered on whether the term "shares" should be construed as stated proportions rather than fixed amounts.
In analyzing the legal precedent and relevant provisions, the court highlighted the essential elements of a partnership, emphasizing the need for an agreement specifying the partners' share in profits. Reference was made to a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which underscored the importance of considering the real relationship between partners in determining the existence of a partnership. However, the court found that this authority did not align with the present case's circumstances.
Drawing on a historical case involving partnership agreements, the court cited the observations of Amberson Marten C. J., who opined that partners could agree to share profits in various ways, including fixed sums in lieu of variable profits. The court emphasized that partners could structure their profit-sharing arrangements as long as they adhered to the partnership agreement.
Ultimately, the court relied on the principles outlined in the Contract Act and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in previous cases to reject the Revenue's argument. The court concluded that the fixed sums designated for junior partners in the partnership deed constituted their specified shares in the profits, dismissing the Revenue's challenge and ruling in favor of the firm's entitlement to registration under section 184(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The judgment did not award costs, bringing a resolution to the dispute regarding the firm's registration status for the relevant assessment year.
-
1988 (12) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Proper service of notices u/s 148.
3. Approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes for initiation of proceedings.
4. Formation of belief by the Income-tax Officer regarding escapement of income.
5. Compliance with conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the Notices Issued u/s 148
The petitioners challenged the notices dated March 27, 1972, issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1955-56, purporting to reopen the assessment of the late Lakshmi Narain. The court found that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) did not form the requisite belief independently but acted under the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The ITO's own view was that the amount could not be brought to tax, but he submitted the proposal for reopening the assessment under the superior's instructions. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 was held to be bad in law, and the notices issued were quashed.
Issue 2: Proper Service of Notices u/s 148
The petitioners contended that the notices were not served in accordance with the law. The court found that the notices were initially attempted to be served by registered post but were returned unserved. Subsequently, service was effected by affixture. The court concluded that the respondents did attempt to serve the notices by registered post and, failing that, served them by affixture. Therefore, there was no illegality in the proceeding for want of proper service of notice.
Issue 3: Approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
The petitioners argued that the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was for reopening the assessment of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) and not the individual. The court found that initially, there was a mistake in the description of the status of the assessee as HUF instead of an individual. This mistake was later corrected, and fresh approval was obtained from the CBDT. The court held that the reasons recorded for the earlier proposal must be treated as reasons for the later proposal, and the approval granted was valid.
Issue 4: Formation of Belief by the Income-tax Officer
The court emphasized that the ITO must form his own belief that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 are satisfied. In this case, the ITO did not form the requisite belief independently but acted under the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The court held that the proceedings initiated were bad in law as the ITO did not form the requisite belief.
Issue 5: Compliance with Conditions Precedent for Assumption of Jurisdiction u/s 147
The court held that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 were not satisfied as the ITO did not form the requisite belief independently. The proceedings initiated and the notices issued u/s 148 were quashed.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the notices dated March 27, 1972, and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto were quashed. The court found that the ITO did not form the requisite belief independently, and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 was bad in law.
-
1988 (12) TMI 107
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the merging of orders to the court for its opinion. The application was allowed. [Case: 1988 (12) TMI 107 - High Court of Allahabad]
-
1988 (12) TMI 106
The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner who was a donee under a gift and was held liable for gift tax payment when the donor defaulted. The court found the recovery proceedings justified and declined to interfere with the decision. The petitioner's request for relief was denied.
-
1988 (12) TMI 105
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the valuation of unquoted equity shares to the court for its opinion. The Tribunal was asked to draw up a statement of the case for this purpose. The application was partly allowed. (Case citation: 1988 (12) TMI 105 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1988 (12) TMI 104
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the application and directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the computation of the value of residential property under the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The court found the question proposed by the applicant to be a question of law. No appearance was made by the opposite party. The judgment was delivered by Justice Om Prakash.
-
1988 (12) TMI 103
The High Court of Calcutta ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal justified the cancellation as the additions made in the assessment were deleted, rendering the basis for the penalty nonexistent. The Court answered the referred question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
-
1988 (12) TMI 102
Issues:
Interpretation of partnership deed for registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the registration of a partnership firm for the assessment year 1973-74. The main issue was whether the firm was entitled to registration based on the interpretation of the partnership deed dated December 26, 1967, and November 24, 1970. The firm had undergone a change in constitution, and a minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The deed included a clause stating that partners and the minor were to provide capital in proportion to their shares, with interest charged for failure to do so. The registration was initially refused due to the minor not signing the deed and the requirement for the minor to contribute capital.
The High Court analyzed the grounds for refusal of registration. Firstly, the court referred to a previous decision where it was held that the deed of partnership did not need to be signed by the guardian of the minor for the partnership to be valid. The court emphasized that the absence of the guardian's signature did not invalidate the partnership. Secondly, the court addressed the requirement for the minor to contribute capital, stating that it did not negate the existence of a genuine partnership. It was clarified that a minor could be asked to contribute capital, and the guardian could enter into such agreements on behalf of the minor without affecting the partnership's validity.
Ultimately, the High Court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, ruling that the firm was entitled to registration. The court found no merit in the grounds for refusal of registration and held that the partnership was genuine. The judgment was a significant interpretation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act regarding the registration of partnership firms, emphasizing the validity of partnerships involving minors and capital contributions. The decision provided clarity on the requirements for registration under the Act, ensuring consistency in the treatment of partnership firms for taxation purposes.
-
1988 (12) TMI 101
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer a common question of law regarding the penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The applications by the assessee were partly allowed. (Case citation: 1988 (12) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1988 (12) TMI 100
The Revenue requested the High Court to direct the Tribunal to refer two questions. Question 1 was rejected based on a previous court decision. Question 2 was considered a valid legal question, and the Tribunal was directed to refer it to the court. The application was partly allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 99
The High Court of Bombay ruled that losses from devaluation of Indian rupee were allowable as revenue deductions. However, loss from devaluation of unremitted profits was not considered an allowable revenue loss. The court distinguished the case from a Supreme Court decision and ruled against the assessee.
-
1988 (12) TMI 98
The High Court of Bombay ruled that depreciation on assets acquired before the previous year should be computed under section 10(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question was answered in favor of the assessee. (Case citation: 1988 (12) TMI 98 - BOMBAY High Court)
............
|
9911796707
