|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 6048 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 561 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
SSI Exemption - Brand name - Settlement of case - Immunity ... ... ... ... ..... interest is concerned, the immunity is granted to the applicant in excess of 10 of the duty evaded. The applicant shall calculate the interest from the date (after 28-9-1996) duty become payable till it was paid, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the same to the Revenue. Revenue in-turn shall verify the calculation of interest amount and confirm the same to the applicant within a week rsquo s time from the date of receipt of the calculation sheet from the applicant. The applicant and Revenue shall ensure that amount of interest is also paid by the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Bench. 40. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 41. emsp This order of settlement shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 42. emsp All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 560 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deductions - Income of co-operative societies ... ... ... ... ..... d to distinguish above case by referring to the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. B. Seshamma v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 314 where interest allowed was taken to be income from other sources. This way, action of the Assessing Officer was sought to be justified. However, after considering the facts of the case we are inclined to agree with the view taken by our brothers in the case of the assessee in assessment year 1991-92. The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue is distinguishable and the question whether interest allowed bore the same character did not arise in that case. There interest received was claimed to be a capital receipt and not taxable. Accordingly, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decision and hold that interest allowed to the assessee was exempt and not taxable. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 1993-94 is dismissed whereas those of the assessee for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 559 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... f instrument of partnership, as one of the partners being non-resident, was not in India. From the acts on record, we find that no interference is required in the order of ld. CIT(A), as the assessee has complied with the provisions of section 184(2), in substance. Photocopy of the partnership deed was signed by all the partners and the attesting witnesses. When a document is duly signed in original by all the partners and witnesses, it cannot be brushed aside merely because the assessee has not marked thereon as lsquo certified to be true copy rsquo . The basic requirement of section 184 is that the instrument of partnership must be signed by all the partners, so that the Assessing Officer could verify that all the partners whose names are mentioned, are genuine partners. On totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 558 - ITAT GAUHATI
Unexplained money ... ... ... ... ..... the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). We further observe that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable on one more count. As per the provisions of section 69A wherein a financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money not recorded in the books of account and the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory, the money may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. In the instant case, the assessee was found to be the owner of Rs. 1,50,000 on 17-2-1982 and hence the relevant financial year is 1981-82 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83 and thus, the addition made in the assessment year 1983-84 for the same cannot be legally sustained. Support for the above view is derived from the decision in the case of Harlal Mannulal (supra). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 557 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Gujarat, Ahmedabad with his letter No. 4238/1(6)/91-92 dated 17-12-1991 the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 2. Before us ld. DR supported the order of Assessing Officer while ld. AR supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and special reliance was made by ld. AR on the letter dated 17-12-1991 mentioned above wherein Assessing Officer was not in agreement with the audit objections. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of CIT(A). As per provisions of section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General rsquo s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 and paras 2 and 3 of the Board rsquo s Circular No. 14/19/56-II dated July 28, 1960 mentioned above, the Audit Department should not in any way substitute itself for the revenue authorities in the performance of their statutory duties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 3. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 556 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... 992. While taking such a view, I am also fortified by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO v. Dharmvir 2002 253 ITR1 (AT). It is relevant to point out that this Bench of the Tribunal has decided a similar issue against the Department vide order dated 31-12-2001 in IT Appeal No. 33(Asr.) of 2001 and others in ITO v. Partap Builders. Recently, the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Camco Colour Co. 2002 254 ITR 5651 . Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal as well as that of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court and without going into the merits of the case, I dismiss this appeal filed by the Deptt. 5. In view of my findings in IT Appeal No. 625(Asr.) of 1995 (supra), the present Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 6. In the result, the appeal as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 555 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ns and allowances including depreciation allowance should be separately deducted from the profit so that the net profit can be arrived at. 8.1 Similarly, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhatia (supra) has held that where net profit rate is applied, the assessee entitled to depreciation. It is also worth mentioning that in the case of Bishambar Dayal and Co. (supra) the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act, which makes the claim of depreciation inadmissible where the income is computed by applying the flat rate. Thus, in view of the above decisions, the assessee was entitled to depreciation and, therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow depreciation to the assessee as per the provisions of law. 9. No specific findings are called for as regards the other grounds of appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 554 - ITAT MUMBAI
Interests ceasing on death ... ... ... ... ..... un-crystallized. It is a case of unilateral relinquishment of right to choose and the assets remaining unidentified, we hold that this relinquishment did not amount to a gift. In this view of the matter, the disclaimer even if with in a period of 2 years prior to the date of death, is not addable to the estate of the deceased. The right to choose was never exercised by the deceased assessee and accordingly, the right do not subsists and the estate of the late husband of the assessee remaining un-administered and in these facts, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CED (A) in holding that nothing had passed to her during her life time out of the estate of her husband and directing the deletion of the value of inherited assets of Rs. 25,00,000 out of the estate of the deceased assessee. Accordingly, the order of the CED (A) is upheld on the issue and the ground of appeal No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 553 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Unexplained moneys, Unexplained investment, Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... sessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the return for the block period, in time. In our view, reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence or ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. 18.1 In view of the above, we do not find any justification in levying the interest under section 158BFA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer not to charge interest under section 158BFA of the Act. 2004 DALJIT SINGH v. ASSTT. CIT (ASR.) 269 So by respectfully following our earlier order dated 26th June, 2002 in the case of Narula Transport Co. (supra), we allow this ground of the assessee rsquo s appeal and direct the Assessing Officer not to charge interest under section 158BFA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and that of the Department is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 552 - ITAT JAIPUR
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... lant. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case CIT v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra). In that case, the information brought was in respect of the same assessee which was brought in assessment proceedings of subse-quent year whereas in the case of appellant, there is no such information which can be said to have been brought by the Assessing Officer. He appears to have proceeded merely on the basis of suspicion. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra), therefore, cannot be said to be governing the issue at hand. In the light of the above facts and findings, notice so issued under section 148 of the Act is found invalid. The same is, therefore, directed to be quashed. As a result the assessment made also stands annulled and consequently the ground of the revenue become infructuous. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and assessee rsquo s cross objection stands allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 551 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hazardous substance ... ... ... ... ..... d when the defendants 4 and 5 file appropriate independent proceedings, it would be open to the parties to take respective stands. 8.Learned Counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 sought to argue that as the goods have been confiscated and property vested in the Central Government and the customs authorities, the appeal filed by the CCIL was not competent. However, this argument overlooks one relevant point, namely, the goods till they are removed by the customs authorities, are to be kept with the CCIL and it is the CCIL who was, in normal course, bound to carry out the, directions contained in the impugned order dated 10th May, 2002 of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, as the CCIL has adversely been affected by the said order, it could maintain the present appeal. 9.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 10th May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. IA No. 11658/2001 filed by the defendants 4 and 5 is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2002 (12) TMI 550 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export - Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) ... ... ... ... ..... sp The petitioners have claimed CCS at the rate of 10 from 16th July, 1987 in their petition and merely because through inadvertence, in their affidavit in rejoinder, they have claimed CCS at the rate of 10 from the date of application of registration of their brand name, they cannot be deprived of their legitimate claim for CCS at the rate of 10 from 16th July, 1987. Under the circumstances, we hold that the petitioners are entitled to CCS on export of spices at the rate of 10 from 16th July, 1987. 12. emsp For all the aforesaid reasons, both petitions succeed. The Respondents are directed to compute CCS on export of spices effected by the petitioners 10 from 1-7-1986 to 12-2-1987, 7 from 13-2-1987 to 15-7-1987, 10 from 16-7-1987 onwards, and after adjusting the amount of CCS already paid or deducted, pay the balance amount to the respective petitioners within a period of three months from today. Both the petitions stand disposed of in above terms, with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 549 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... fication in their declaration, the longer period of limitation would apply inasmuch as the said mis-declaration has led to suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of duty. lsquo Prima facie rsquo , we do not agree with the above findings of the adjudicating authority as the claim of wrong classification cannot be equated with suppression or mis-statement on the part of the assessee so as to give rights to the Revenue to invoke the longer period of limitation. The appellants have admittedly filed the classification under Heading 8708.00, the Revenue was within its power and jurisdiction to change the above classification or to raise an objection against the appellants if they felt that the correct classification was under Heading 8302.00. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants have a good prima facie case on limitation. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition un-conditionally. Main appeal is fixed for final disposal on 4th February, 2003.
-
2002 (12) TMI 548 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... p It is plea of the applicants before us that while the Show Cause Notice was made answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai, the notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai who does not have any jurisdiction to decide the case in the absence of any specific order of the Central Government transferring the jurisdiction to him. In this connection, they rely upon the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Consolidated Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1223 which has been followed in the case of Auto Ignition Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai 2002 (144) E.L.T. 631 . 4. emsp We find force in the appellants rsquo plea regarding lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice. 5. emsp Appeals are thus allowed by remand in so far as they relate to the present appellants.
-
2002 (12) TMI 547 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Seizure - Smuggling - Onus of proof - Confiscation of Indian currency ... ... ... ... ..... tion of their liability for confiscation merely because the documents evidencing their acquisition, cannot be produced. 3(f) emsp As regards confiscation of the Indian currency, the same is not upheld, since it is not proved as to what are the smuggled goods and whether the currencies seized by the Customs are the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods in question. Therefore, their confiscation is also required to be set aside. We order accordingly. 3(g) emsp When the confiscation of the precious stones and the Indian currency is not being upheld, there is no question of imposition of personal penalty upon the appellant, Shri Sachin A. Mehta under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order of imposition is, therefore, required to be set aside. We order accordingly. 4. emsp In view of setting aside the orders of confiscation of precious stones and Indian currency, the imposition of penalty upon Shri Satish A. Mehta is also set aside. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 546 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Import - Advance licence - DEEC Scheme - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... by the Proper Officers were correct and the re-assessments now being proposed in the proceedings initiated by the investigators are not called for. (h) When I find that the licences produced entitle the appellant to clear the ex-bond goods free of duty, I cannot find any reasons for them to have misdeclared the values since the goods are duty free. There appears no incentive to do so. There is no allegation that the licences produced will not cover the quantity of values, even after the alleged loading of values as declared. I therefore do not uphold the allegations of the deliberate under-valuation as alleged and arrived at by the lower authorities. (i) When I find that the licences produced cover the goods under question and no duty is required to be determined, the BAM being exempt fully from duty, I cannot find any reason for confiscation of the goods or visit of penalties. The same are required to be set aside. 23. emsp In view of my findings I would allow these appeals.
-
2002 (12) TMI 545 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... chased from railways and used as inputs in the manufacture of bars, rods etc. could be treated as duty paid goods so as to satisfy the condition for enjoying the benefit of Notification 202/88, dated 20-5-88 as amended by Notification No. 33/92-C.E., dated 1-3-92. Learned Judge after considering the contentions raised by both sides took the view that duty paid nature of the railway scrap has to be presumed and the burden is on the Revenue to establish that those goods are non-duty paid in order to deny the benefit of Notification 202/88. From the impugned order it is clear that no such attempt has been made by the Revenue. On the other hand, the Commissioner has assumed that rail cuttings/scrap purchased from the railway by the assessee are non-duty paid goods. The above finding cannot be sustained in the light of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the decision of the Allahabad High Court referred above. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (12) TMI 544 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... were destroyed in the blow room due to the fire. The Tribunal in a similar case in CCE v. HEG Ltd. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 121 held that in case of a fire in the blow room in a factory where yarn is manufactured, the credit in respect of the inputs is admissible as the inputs were destroyed after the manufacturing operations had already been commenced. In another case, the Tribunal in Asmaco Plastic Industries reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 129 held that where the inputs were destroyed after entering into the manufacturing process, Modvat credit in respect of such goods is admissible. 6. emsp In respect of the claim of the appellants that they had not claimed the excise duty involved in this case from the Insurance Company, the appellant took the specific stand in the reply to the show cause notice that Revenue had not adduced any evidence to contradict this claim. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 543 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, C
Settlement Commission - Immunity - Interest ... ... ... ... ..... s Act, 1962. The jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner shall calculate the interest due and communicate the same to M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd., Bangalore within 20 days of the receipt of this order. Thereafter, M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd., shall pay the amount communicated to them by the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of the said communication indicating interest due and submit compliance to the jurisdictional officer as well as to this Bench. 9.0. emsp The immunities granted above shall stand withdrawn, if the interest due is not paid within the period mentioned above. Similarly, the above immunities are also liable to be withdrawn, if it comes to the notice of this Bench at any time that in obtaining the settlement particulars material for settlement have been withheld or the settlement has been obtained by any fraudulent means. Attention is drawn to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2002 (12) TMI 542 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Cenvat/Modvat - Reversal of credit ... ... ... ... ..... ispute relating to availability of Modvat credit claimed by them under the provisions of Rule 57H(7) and their plea before the authorities was only to adjust that amount against the demand amount. 4. emsp We find that the only dispute in the present case is in respect of reversal of Modvat credit for the inputs contained in the final product lying in stock as on date when the appellants opted for exemption. The Larger Bench as also the Hon rsquo ble Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the appellants lay down that such reversal is not to be made on the final product being exempted subsequently. As such, following the above two decisions, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. We make it clear that no orders are being passed on the appellants rsquo entitlement to Modvat credit under the provisions of Rule 57H for which the learned Consultant informs us that separate proceedings are going on before the authorities.
............
|
