|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 2926 Records
-
1989 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold dealer’s licence ... ... ... ... ..... o comparable quantity of gold, the Department had not refused renewal and the particular offence case which led to the impugned order is also one relating to no contraband primary gold but only relates to ornaments, which will be, in our view, relevant factor for consideration of the nature of the offence. Therefore, on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that it would be a fit case for remanding to the original authority for determining whether the violation of the law by the appellant is so serious and his record shows a persistent tendency for such violation in order to justify the non-renewal of the dealer rsquo s licence. In such a view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Trichy, for issuing orders afresh in the case in de novo proceedings in the light of the above observations after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
-
1989 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Indian currency attempted to be exported illicitly ... ... ... ... ..... e did not choose to entrust the currency to his nephew the appellant merely says that he did not have trust in him. Even at this juncture he has not chosen to indicate that he had already called for his uncle and was waiting for him. Hence his subsequent version given in his letter dated 3-10-1981 to the effect that he was waiting for his uncle to hand-over the cash does not carry conviction. 7. We also agree with Shri Mondal that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not stand in the way of departmental adjudication in view of the various judicial pronouncements to the effect that both are independent proceedings and acquittal in prosecution cannot absolve the appellant of the penal liability in adjudication proceedings, so long as that order has been passed in accordance with law. 8. In the context of the aforesaid position, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Additional Collector. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed
-
1989 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... he documents relied upon and the contents of Hukkeri rsquo s statement which were admittedly adverse to the appellants had been brought out in the notice itself. If in spite of the fact of being put on alert by this notice, the appellants had not chosen to cross-examine Hukkeri to test his evidence then it has to be held that they have waived this opportunity of defence. The reply to the Show Cause Notice was at a much later stage. Therefore, this argument is unacceptable. 8. In the result, we hold that the order imposing penalty on the firm is justified. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty on the appellant firm to Rs. 7.5 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) and the penalty on appellant Jayaram is reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs). Appellant Sitaram is given the benefit of doubt for the reasons discussed above and the penalty on him is set aside on this ground. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ourt. Since brother Gulati has not stated the citation of the case law I could not lay my hand. However, from the extract of the judgment contained in Paragraph 44, it would be clear that the question whether the limitation prescribed under Rule 10 was applicable to the recovery under Rule 160 was not specifically in issue. It is true that the appellants therein did contend that the demand was barred by time under Rule 10, since the demand was made beyond the period of three months. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed on Rule 160. The appellants contended that Rule 160 was not applicable since the goods had been removed after duly filing of the AR-I form and after assessment on the said goods. The High Court held that the removal of the goods was without permission and it comes within Rule 160 of the said Rule. The High Court did not go into the question of limitation for recovery under Rule 160. Therefore, the ratio of that decision, in my view, is inapplicable.
-
1989 (12) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... stances as stated above and by the time Shri Kali Charan reached Delhi, the shop of the said M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri had already closed and gold ornaments were already seized from Shri Manoj Kumar. Under these circumstances, non-availability of the voucher at the time of the seizure is of no consequence when in fact voucher was duly prepared and actually found at the time of the search of the premises of the appellant firm. Besides while exonerating the said firm M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri the Adjudicating Authority has recorded the following finding - ldquo There was no sale materialising, since the ornaments were seized before the transaction, if there was indeed one, could materialise. This finding also tacitly lends assurance to our said conclusion. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we hold that Revenue had failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and consequently both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1989 (12) TMI 144 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the CIT(A) gives a rate of 14.58 per cent as against 14.38 per cent in the earlier year. Though the CIT(A) reduced the addition, nonetheless, the rate of gross profit sustained is more than that of last year. Therefore, there could be no grievance to the Revenue regarding the addition sustained by the CIT(A). The higher the turnover the lower the rate of gross profit, but in this year, the rate ultimately determined by the CIT(A) is higher than that of earlier year when there was lesser turnover. Thus we are satisfied that there was material on record to show that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying the original appellate order and dealing with the ground regarding gross profit addition and he was fully justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,000 which worked out to 14.58 per cent which compared well with the earlier year 1980-81. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 141 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessment Year, House Property, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... ct. The learned Departmental Representative has frankly conceded that this part of the first appellate order cannot be successfully challenged. As regards such exemption in relation to the assessment year 1982-83 we find that the impugned order of the Dy. CWT (Appeals) does not deal with the question of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) and, therefore, this part of the ground does not arise out of the impugned order. 8. In view of the discussion above, the two departmental appeals partly succeed. We, therefore, allow both the appeals in favour of the department in relation to the ground of transfer of half of the Amravati Road property by the assessee to his wife and hold that such purported transfer was not valid and effective and that whole of the property continued to be owned by the assessee. The appeals in relation to the second part of the ground i.e. exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act, fail and are dismissed. 9. The two appeals are partly allowed as above.
-
1989 (12) TMI 140 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessment Year, Break Up Method, Unquoted Shares ... ... ... ... ..... the rules made thereunder, more particularly rule 1D is only to estimate the price of an asset which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. In the case in hand, the difference between the value estimated by the break-up value method and that by yield method is so astronomical that it renders the yield method totally inappropriate. Besides this, such astronomical difference between the two values constitutes such exceptional circumstances as is referred to in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Jalan. We, therefore, hold that on the basis of the facts established before us, no case has been made out for our taking a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench in the assessees own cases for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1-6-87. In this view of the matter, these appeals by the assessees should fail. 8. In the result, we do not find any force in these appeals and dismiss the same.
-
1989 (12) TMI 139 - ITAT NAGPUR
A Partner, Change In Constitution Of Firm, Income Returned, One Partner, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... licable to the case. Consequently, the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in deciding the issue as though the said proviso applies to the case. 14. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) and restore that of the I.T.O. 15. Before taking leave of this matter, we may deal with one of the arguments which the assessee s Counsel sought to raise. According to him, a notice was given by one of the partners on pursuant to which the firm was dissolved. Two points must here be made. If the firm came to be dissolved on the notice being given by one of the partners then this is not a case of dissolution on the death of partner. Secondly, even assuming that the so called notice came to be given simultaneously with the death of Nananjibhai Shah, this is a new plea raised for the first time before the Tribunal -- a plea that involves an investigation into the facts. We, therefore, reject the plea. 16. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 136 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Accounting Year, Assessment Proceedings, Mistake Apparent From Record, Penalty For Concealment, Reassessment Proceedings, Total Income, Undisclosed Sources
-
1989 (12) TMI 135 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Charitable Trust, Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... lause (b) applies only to an institution and not to a trust. Obviously the idea was to grant the exemption only to institutions such as blind schools or craft guilds and not to a regular business such as that of the assessee. 7. Another issue which arises in this case is with reference to claim for deduction under section 80L. This was denied by the authorities below on the ground that the assessments were made in the status of Association of Persons. The contention of the assesse is that the status should be correctly taken only as an individual and that the deduction under section 80L should be allowed. The assessee relied on the decision in the case of ITO v. Shri Krishna Bhandar Trust 1989 29 ITD 15 (Cal.)(SB). After hearing the Revenue, we are satisfied that this claim of the assessee is correct and must be accepted. We therefore direct the ITO to grant the exemption under section 80L and modify the assessment accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 134 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Person Responsible For Paying, Such Person, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... a section so as to achieve the object rather than defeat its purposes, we are of the opinion that the words such person must be read as reference to the person responsible for paying referred to in section 204 which will include the assessee, and hence the charging of interest was valid. Since the assessee has not put-forth any other plea, the order charging interest is up-held. 5. For the assessment year 1982-83, there is another ground relating to the addition of Rs. 4,284 being interest due from M/s. Sakthi and Company. The contention of the assessee was that it had taken interest free loan from M/s. Sakthi and Company, but the Income-tax Officer disallowed the interest paid to third parties to the amount borrowed on the ground of diversion of the borrowed capital. It is stated the same view taken for the earlier assessment year has been up-held by the Tribunal in ITA No. 112/79. In the circumstances, this point is also rejected. 6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed
-
1989 (12) TMI 130 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Accounting Year, Assessment Proceedings, Mistake Apparent From Record, Penalty For Concealment, Reassessment Proceedings, Total Income, Undisclosed Sources
-
1989 (12) TMI 128 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Tax Authorities, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... ties. In our view, therefore, the value that can be taken for the ship can only be Rs. 2,75,860. Till such time as some balance which was lying with the Administrator from sale of goods was recovered, that amount should also be considered as due to the assessee. So we would fix in round figures the value of the ship at Rs. 3 lakhs for each of the years under appeal including such dues. However, in the assessment year 1976-77, since the valuation date is 31-3-1976 and the sale by the US Government to the assessee took place on 19-7-1976 only, which was subsequent to the valuation date, no value can be taken since the assessee was not the owner. Therefore, for this year, the entire value of Rs. 30,50,000 would stand deleted. For the remaining years, the figure of Rs. 3 lakhs will be substituted for the figure of Rs. 30,50,000 fixed by the authorities below. The result is the appeal for the assessment year 1976-77 is allowed and for the remaining assessment years allowed in part
-
1989 (12) TMI 125 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... sent case, we have to hold that the business of producing the film and the work undertaken in pursuance of the contract thereof was the causa causans, i.e., the immediate cause for the making of the gift by Maharaja to the assessee. Therefore, it has to be considered as constituting remuneration and the value thereof would be liable to tax. For the sake of completeness we may state, as already adverted to by us in paragraph 2 of this order, that the customs duty paid on this camera of Rs. 1,09,591 has been taken as the cost thereof and investment allowance claimed has been held to be allowable. This means that the item used as a business asset. Though this is not conclusive of determining whether was the value thereof would partake the nature of income, this is indicative of the primary use of the article gifted, which cannot be ignored in the context. We accordingly uphold the findings of the authorities below in this regard. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1989 (12) TMI 124 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... not in India and her representative did not have sufficient information to prepare the return and that when she landed in India she had to apply her mind to these matters for which some time was required this point is borne out by narration of events in the assessment order itself which indicates that earlier to that date of the assessee was not in India and that her authorised representative had no information to prepare the return by himself. After hearing the Revenue we see no reason why the assessee would not have been given a months time required when she appeared in December 1986. We are satisfied that the assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, and, therefore, the assessments and made ex parte are untenable. The assessments are accordingly set aside and the matter remitted to the ITO for making fresh assessments in accordance with law after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1989 (12) TMI 120 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Any Person, Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... n retrospective effect from a date in the middle, viz. 1-4-1979 is inexplicable. In this situation the only harmonious construction of this section is to understand it to say that the guest house as is understood to be a place for reception of visitors would not cease to be one merely because it is also used for the stay of the employees or directors and not that a residential premises exclusively used for the employees and directors which is not a guest house at all would also be included within the scope of the dominant provisions of sub-section (4). In the circumstances we cannot but follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chase Bright Steel Ltd. and hold that this expenditure being rent paid for accommodation for employees which is not a guest house is an admissible expenditure u/s. 30 and cannot, therefore, be disallowed u/s. 37(4) of the Act. The ITO is accordingly directed to allow this deduction and complete the assessment. 8. The appeal is allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 119 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Interest On Securities, Dividends, Etc., Interest On Securities, Dividends, Etc. ... ... ... ... ..... provisions of sub-section (3) appear to be redundant insofar as the assessment of the member of the Association of Persons is concerned. Of course we notice that these provisions had undergone further change in 1989 when in view of the introduction of section 67A it may have certain consequences which however are not germane to the assessment for the present assessment year 1983-84. Thus in any view of the matter either the income itself is not taxable under section 86(v) on the basis that the income has suffered tax in the status of Association of Persons in the hands of the trust or it is income which is properly assessable only in the status of individual in which event it is liable for deduction under section 80L since sub-section (3) does not apply to such a case. We, therefore, accept the claim of the assessee which is limited to the deduction under section 80L and direct the Income-tax Officer to recompute the income accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 116 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... o the income of the individual under s. 132(5), which proceedings are with the approval of the IAC. Thereafter, after proper consideration in regular assessment, the explanation regarding its sources was accepted in the case of the individual. Moreover, these pronotes were found from the premises which are in the occupation of the individual and not the HUF and lastly, there is not an iota of evidence or justification in the presumption that this amount of Rs. 1 lakh belongs to the HUF. The basis of this presumption made by the CIT that the individual assessee has no source of income is itself because the individual has been showing his income from year to year and is being assessed on that income from year to year so also on his wealth. 5. Taking all these factors into account, we hold that the CIT had no justification in passing the order under s. 263 and hence, his order dt. 31st Oct., 1988 is hereby cancelled. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 114 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... also of confronting with the evidence which the department has collected against the assessee for framing the assessment order. 14. So far as the question of allowing the loss of gold to the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of PIARA SINGH, since the quantum of assessment has to be decided by the assessing officer afresh, no directions are being given in this regard and the question has to be decided by the Assessing Officer on merits and according to law. 15. Regarding the other Grounds of Appeal, we have already expressed the opinion that in view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court reported in (1988) 173 ITR 110 (Raj) since these issues have not been decided by the First Appellate Authority, we are not deciding the issues as the matter has been restored to the file of the assessing officer. 16. Accordingly, while appeal for the asst. yr. 1973-74 is rejected, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1974-75 is allowed.
............
|
