|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 2926 Records
-
1989 (12) TMI 71 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... none too favourable for the lessee. Therefore, if at all there is such a guideline for arriving at a judicial decision (and we do not think there is) these observations are not an authority in support thereof. 18. The assessees in this case have by their mere Act of not surrendering the gold bonds claimed the exemption. They are aware that the price of gold will increase in future. Therefore, they have nothing to lose but everything to gain by holding on to the bonds. Thus they desired to gain exemption without losing or paying anything in return. The Commissioner has invoked the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDOWELL in our view, not without justification. The simple, plain and obvious fact is that the State granted exemption in return for the right to retain the gold and when that right was given up in favour of the bond holder it withdraws their right to exemption. 19. In the light of the above, we confirm the orders of the Commissioner. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 70 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... none too favourable for the lessee. Therefore, if at all there is such a guideline for arriving at a judicial decision (and we do not think there is) these observations are not an authority in support thereof. 18. The assessees in this case have by their mere act of not surrendering the gold bonds claimed the exemption. They are aware that the price of gold will increase in future. Therefore, they have nothing to lose but everything to gain by holding on to the bonds. Thus they desired to gain exemption without losing or paying anything in return. The Commissioner has invoked the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell, in our view, not without justification. The simple, plain and obvious fact is that the State granted exemption in return for the right to retain the gold and when that right was given up in favour of the bond holder it withdraws their right to exemption. 19. In the light of the above, we confirm the orders of the Commissioner. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 69 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... e instant case and were not require to be disturbed by the Commissioner. 24. The Various objections raised by the learned Deptl. Representative are sell answered by Mr. Shah. The reopening of valuation for others years if at all, and tendency of such matters before any of the authorities below, if any, do not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide these appeals on their individual merits, particularly when the facts and stages of the proceedings claimed to have been reopened and pending are not clearly know. The cases relied upon by the learned Deptl. Representative are besides the point and hence not applicable hereto. 25. To sum up, we are clearly of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases the Commissioner was not at all justified in acting under s. 25(2) of the Act and setting aside the assessments, as made by the WTO. The order under appeal is required to be vacated. 26. All the appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1989 (12) TMI 68 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... n made by the valuation cell of income-tax department for asst. yr. 1971-72. While adopting the value as per s. 7(4), the CWT(A) will have to deduct the value of that portion of land the possession of which has already been handed over before the valuation date and for which separate value has been determined hereinbefore. The value of such portion of the land admeasuring 694.87 sq. mts. as on 1st April, 1971, as per the report of the valuation cell for asst. yr. 1971-72 may be worked out and the same should be deducted from the total value of Rs. 4,90,000 adopted as per s. 7(4) in the preceding year. 5.6. In view of aforesaid discussions and in view of the facts and circumstances as it existed during the relevant accounting year we set aside the order passed by the CWT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for determining the fair market value of the aforesaid property in accordance with the direction given herein before. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Advance Tax, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Carry Forward, High Court, Interest Payable By Assessee, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1989 (12) TMI 66 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Bona Fide, Carry Forward, Deduction In Respect, Failure To Pay Advance Tax, False Estimate, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1989 (12) TMI 65 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Agricultural Land, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Registered Valuer, Valuer's Report ... ... ... ... ..... t reasonable. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the relevant material. The rate of this plot of land as per the banakat executed on 12-4-1974 was Rs. 65 per sq. yd. and the said land has been sold to the Co-op. Housing Society at the rate of Rs. 280 per sq. yd. in the year 1982. Thus during a period of 9 years there has been an increase in the rate of the aforesaid land by Rs. 215 per sq. yd. (Rs. 280-Rs.65). Even if it is considered that the increase in the land rate was almost equal during all these years, the value adopted by the WTO at the rate of Rs. 225 and Rs. 250 per sq. yd. for A.Ys. 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively appears to be reasonable. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order passed by the Dy. CWT(A) confirming the value of Paladi land as adopted by the WTO. 10. In the result, the revenue s appeals are dismissed and the assessee s cross objections are partly allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 64 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Sales Tax, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... unted to nothing more than a fresh initiation of proceedings under section 263 which has resulted in the above order under section 263. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that an order under section 263 could not be rectified or that in any case it was an arguable matter and so it could not be rectified. But it is not for that reason that this order cannot be rectified. Rectification in this case is not possible because there is no order under section 263. 6. Regarding the merits, it is quite clear that the sales tax has been collected during the accounting period and the payment had been made before the filing of the return on the due date i.e. 21-6-1984. This Tribunal in the case of K.S. Lokhandwala has held that if the payment is made before the filing of the return on the due date it has to be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, consistently with that decision of the Tribunal this deduction is allowable. The Commissioner s order is set aside. The appeal is allowed
-
1989 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t them. 27.Hence, I conclude that the petitioner herein is not holding an industrial licence under the Act as required by the Customs notification dated 7-7-1988 and consequently it is not entitled to get the benefit of concessional rates of duty. 28.I have not considered the other questions raised by respondents 4 and 5, as, in my view, they would fall outside the scope of this writ petition. It is open to the Government of India to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if the petitioner is guilty of any offence or violation of the relevant rules and provisions of law, in the matter of manufacture of the products in question or import of the raw material therefor. If and when such proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to defend the same and that is why I have not decided any of these questions in this writ petition. 29.In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 2000/-.
-
1989 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Appellate Tribunal - Procedure to be adopted ... ... ... ... ..... d that may be passed by the appellate Tribunal. 15. In the result the following order is required to be passed in this petition The petition is rejected. The petitioners may proceed further with the appeal pending before the appellate tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal shall take decision on merits of the appeal in accordance with law. It is clarified that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the final decision of the appellate Tribunal, the petitioners may challenge the legality and validity of the same before the appropriate forum as it may be available to the petitioners. In that case rejection of this petition at this stage shall not be treated as a ground debarring the petitioners from raising all available contentions including the contentions raised in this petition against the decision of appellate Tribunal on preliminary objection/issue. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
-
1989 (12) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Refund - Classification of a product ... ... ... ... ..... d the charging of excise duty under sub-item No. (ii) of Tariff Item No. 26-AA but his request was not acceded and the respondents continued to charge duty under this item and the petitioners continued to pay duty under protest. But the contention of the petitioner has ultimately succeeded at the highest Tribunal under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of payment of the duty 12 per annum. In Redihot Electricals v. Union of India and Ors. the interest was allowed from the date of actual collection of duty at the rate of 12 per annum. 16. In the result, I allow this writ petition and S.B. Civil Writ Petition 1744/89 and 1745/1989 for the reasons mentioned above and direct the respondents to refund the amount of the excise duty charged with 12 per annum interest from the date of actual payment to the date of refund. The respondents are directed to make payment of the amount with interest as aforesaid within a period of 4 months from today.
-
1989 (12) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy - MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ication Annexure P-3. The broad approach to be adopted being that in the first instance the manufacturer has to take a stand with regard to a certain type of input. The department has to either accept that stand or to contest the same and depending on the facts and circumstances of the each case, the same has to be decided whether that input falls in any one of the exceptions noted as (i) to (ii) above nor not. 27. Necessary clarification has already been rendered in respect of a letter Annexure P-19 dated September 29, 1986. In view of the conceded position that the petitioners have since been served with a show cause notice, assessments Annexures P-17 and P-18 both dated September 23,1986, are set aside. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the assessments shall be made afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment and according to law. The petitions are disposed of in the terms indicated hereinabove. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1989 (12) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the manufacturer supplies the refrigerating or air-conditioning appliances as a complete unit or not is not relevant for the levy of duty on the parts specified in sub-item (3) of Item 29A?
Held that:- After referring to sub-items (1) and (2) of Item 29A as covering complete plant and equipment which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units, had stated as follows, with reference to sub-item (3) it consists of two parts, the first portion referring to parts of machinery and appliances and the second portion referring to complete plants which cannot be considered as parts of machinery. The whole argument arose because of the composite sentence used in this paragraph. It only means complete plants which are covered by Items (1) and (2) cannot be considered as parts of machinery and such complete plants would not be classifiable under sub-item (3) of Item 29A. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on this notification No. 80/62-Central Excises, dated 24th April, 1962 does not in any way advance the case of the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS
Seizure of goods - Release pending adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... inished stage and were not fully manufactured, has to be adjudicated upon in appropriate proceedings to be initiated by the Department, it would not be fair to direct the petitioner to furnish cash security amounting to 25 of the value of the goods. It has also been stated that Rule 206 does not mandate that release can be made only if besides the execution of the bond, cash security is offered. Therefore, in suitable cases, cash security can be dispensed with and this is one of those cases where such dispensation could have been granted. 11. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 24-10-1989 in so far as it directs the petitioner to pay 25 cash security of the amount of bond will stand quashed. The bond to be executed by the petitioner in form B. 11 would also be suitably modified to dispense with the clause relating to production of goods at a later point of time in the adjudication proceedings. 12. The writ petition is partly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (12) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... oubt that if he had read it, the contents of paragraph 8 of the affidavit would have definitely been different. The habit of Government officers swearing without reading affidavits prepared on the basis of parawise comments is sufficiently familiar to the Courts. Though, therefore, I am not inclined to issue perjury notice to the Assistant Collector in the instant case, I disregard totally the affidavit dated 7th of December, 1989 filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Even otherwise when the two authorities have on the basis of the samples drawn by the department itself given opinion in favour of the petitioner and it is only one of the nearly 50 samples drawn shows Mohair, it is totally unjust and unfair to detain the goods for the reason pleaded by the respondents. A case is made out for granting Rule and also for granting interim relief. 8. Rule, returnable on 21st of March, 1990. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). 9. Mr. Sethna waives service of notice.
-
1989 (12) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - Letter of authority holder - Function of - Words and phrases - "Owner" - Demurrage - Limitation
-
1989 (12) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Bus-body Building - Manufacture - Licensing Control ... ... ... ... ..... ter of manufacture of motor vehicle which may be used for the purpose of carriage of goods or passengers. Since the respondents are not manufacturing any motor vehicle, they are not liable to take any licence. Otherwise also, as observed in Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1978) 42 Sales Tax Cases 433, it is the functional character that a product is so identified which is identified in the mind of the consumer. 15. Thus, the question posed by the counsel for the appellants, whether the process of building of bodies of buses or trucks would amount to manufacture of motor vehicle as envisaged by Heading No. 87.02 and 87.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is to be answered in the negative. Merely building of the bodies does not amount to manufacture of motor vehicles. 16. No other contention has been raised. 17. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (12) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ petition - Refund of earnest money deposited with supplier firm for purchase of cellulose nitrate sheets
-
1989 (12) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Demand - MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... ). 8. Learned counsel for the Department states that the following judgments are also relevant (i) Manindranath Chatterji v. Collector of Central Excise (1977 T.L.R. 1754) (ii) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1984 (17) E.L.T. 205 and (iii) Collector of Central Excise v. Amber Paints, Bombay 1985 (22) E.L.T. 297. It is also necessary to refer to the fact that Rule 57-1 as it originally stood has been amended with effect from 6-10-1988 and the rule as it now stands incorporates the principles of natural justice and also the limitation for invoking the powers under the said Rules. With these observations, the writ petition Nos. 15564 and 15566 of 1986 are allowed. The bank guarantee furnished by both the petitioners during the pendency of these writ petitions will stand discharged. The writ petition Nos. 13565, 13567 of 1986 and 11938 and 11939 of 1988 are dismissed as not necessary for the present. There will be no order as to costs in all these writ petitions.
-
1989 (12) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Stay/Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... onsents. The Rule is therefore, taken up for hearing. 7. The Writ Petition is preferred against the order of CEGAT to be found at Ex. E. In lieu of cash deposit, we permit the appellants to give bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 5, 12, 000/-. The Bank guarantee to be given in the agreed format on or before 23rd January, 1990. If the Appellants fail to give bank guarantee (which is to be kept alive till the appeal before CEGAT is disposed of) by the specified date, the appellants may deposit on or before 31st January 1990 the aforesaid amount viz. Rs. 5, 12, 000/-in cash. In case the bank guarantee is not furnished by 23-1-1990 or cash in lieu of the bank guarantee not deposited by 31-1-1990, the Appeal before CEGAT may be dismissed by CEGAT for non-compliance with the said condition. 8. This disposes of the Writ Petition. Parties to bear their own costs of the Appeal as also Writ Petition. 9. The format of the bank guarantee, as agreed, to be kept on record of this Appeal.
............
|
