|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... However, we are of the opinion that the assessee is to fail respect of its claim for the computation of capital for the purpose of deduction s. 80J of the Act. The reason is that this issue was there in the immediately preceding year, and the Tribunal decided it against the assessee. What to say of it, reference s. 256(1) of the Act was rejected, and the assessee has not availed the opportunity s. 256(2) of the Act. So the order of the Tribunal has become final in the immediately preceding assessment year, where it confirmed the decision of the first appellate authority on the issue. Since the first appellate authority has followed his own order, which was upheld by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue and the same has become final therefore, we hold that the CIT (Appeals) is right in his conclusion. Hence, we confirm his order wherein he has directed the ITO to compute the capital, after including the capital work in progress. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... atna High Court s decision in the case Kashi Prasad Kataruka 101 ITR 810 and the Tribunal s decision in the case of film actor Shammi Kapoor in ITA No. 626/Bom/1979 dt. 29th Dec., 1979. The facts and rival contentions being identical, we hold that particularly in the case of self occupied property the income should be computed on the basis of rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation instead of market value. 2. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... fer the questions of law to the Hon ble High Court as in the meanwhile the law on the subject has been settled because of the Supreme Court s decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raz Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 50 (SC). He submits that a similar view has also been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case published in March, 1981 issue of Taxation Section III at page 140 and the Calcutta High Court s decision in the case of CIT vs. C. Ratan and Co. and S.N. Agarwalla (1980) 18 CTR (Cal) 173 (1981) 128 ITR 39 (Cal). The Dept. Rep., on the other hand, submitted that questions of law having been referred to the High Court for the earlier years should be referred for these years also. In our opinion, it can be taken that the law is well settled and the question has now become of academic interest only. In that view of the matter, we hold that no referable question of law arises out of our aforesaid order. 5. In the result, the applications are dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 98 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... wo projects but were more in the nature of general grants not specifically relatable to plant and machinery. Upholding the decision of the Tribunal, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to take into account the amount of the grant-in-aid given by the Government in computation of the capital employed by the assessee in the purchase of machinery for baby food unit and cheese unit. To the like effect is the decision of the Tribunal on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the assessee. Since, on facts, it is found that the amount of subsidy granted by the Government was not specifically granted to meet cost of assets, namely, building, plant and machinery, the actual cost of building, plant and machinery cannot be reduced by the amount of subsidy. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the conclusion reached by the ld. Commr. and accordingly quash his orders for all the years under appeal and restore the orders of the ITO. 4. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 97 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee cannot be placed in a worse position than what he was before. 11. In the view we have taken in cancelling the assessment made, the above grounds of the assessee relating to the gross profit addition does not survive for consideration and need not be considered. Hence, we are not considering the same. 12. Now, we will take up the departmental appeal. The only ground in the departmental appeal is with regard to the gross profit addition reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ITO estimated the gross profit at 35 per cent whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has estimated it at 15 per cent. Since we have cancelled the assessment made on the assessee in the status of HUF, the present ground raised in the departmental appeal need not be considered and, accordingly, we are not considering the same. The departmental appeal becomes infructuous as we have cancelled the assessment. 13. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 96 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Asset, Agricultural Building ... ... ... ... ..... o reach the said agricultural lands, the assessee has to traverse part of the abad land. This, in our opinion, cannot be an impediment in the assessee s way as normally a cultivator would like to live in abadi rather than away from abadi , on the land proper in complete isolation. Therefore, merely because the assessee lives in an abadi and is to traverse part of the township before he reaches his lands, which admittedly are not farther than 150 yds. to 240 yds. of the house, it cannot be said that the house in question is not situated in the immediate vicinity of the land. The area or the magnitude of the house is again of no consequence because section 2(e)(1)(ii) refers to a building and does not say that the said building should be of a particular size. We, therefore, feel that the property in question, i.e., the Garhi situated in Bari Sadri, should not have been included in the net wealth of the assessee. Accordingly, we exclude the same and allow the assessee s appeals.
-
1981 (3) TMI 95 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... rement. When there is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee which provides that the employee shall receive gratuity in the stated instalments, no right to receive would accrue before the stated dates of instalments. In our view, the Commr. was in error in holding that the order of the ITO in not taxing the entire amount of gratuity of Rs. 94,575 in the asst. yr. 1975-76 was erroneous. 4. On the happening of any of the events mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) in Sch-IV no gratuity is forthwith payable at the times as provided in Rules. Rule 4 thus has to be r/w Rule 9. Following with respect the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 37 (Bom)/79 decided on 5th Oct., 1979, we hold that as the accrual and payment were deferred by agreement to future dates, the amounts so deferred could not be said to accrue or arise on any day prior to the day agreed upon. 5. The appeal is allowed. The order of the CIT is set aside and that of the ITO is restored.
-
1981 (3) TMI 94 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... taposing the above three basic data it would be very difficult to say that even from a purely critical point of view the assessee could manufacture more than 50 per cent non-cotton textiles either as a whole or even out of the machinery in respect of which initial depreciation is granted. This being so the very premises on which the Commr. moved under s. 263 does not seem to be valid or correct. The ld. Deptl. Rep. is not able to produce before us any other data which goes to support his case. On the contrary, the ITO at the time of the original assessment has definitely written to the assessee enquiring about the composition of his production though in connection with the grant of development rebate, the criteria for the grant of which is the same as that for the grant of initial depreciation. The ITO, as it would appeal, thus, has in fact gone into this question and has satisfied himself about the factual position. 6. The Commr. s order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Arms and Ammunition - Banned items ... ... ... ... ..... under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is incorrect and cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Appellate Collector on January 25,1980 was in accordance with law and should not have been disturbed. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to succeed in this petition. 14. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated April 28,1980, annexed as Exh. G to the petition, is set aside and that passed by the Appellate Collector on January 25,1980 is restored. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall release the goods covered under Licence No. P/E/0305801 dated January 16, 1978 and No. P/E/0305741 dated January 12,1978 within a period of one month from today. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall issue the detention certificate in favour of the petitioners and on such certificate the respondent No. 3 shall hand over the goods to the petitioners, in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... ely the same on which the said orders were challenged in the writ petition and which grounds were negatived by this Court. The defendant raised an objection that the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition and writ appeal operated as res judicata and bars the present suit. This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and was upheld by the trial court and we agree with it. There can be little doubt today about the proposition that the plaintiff having chosen to challenge the impugned orders in a writ petition and writ appeal and having failed therein, cannot be allowed to file a suit on the very same grounds. The judgment of this Court does operate as res judicata. It is indeed unnecessary to refer to the authorities on this aspect since it is so well-settled. Reference however, may be made to Union of India v. Nanak Singh, A.I.R. (1968) S.C. 1370 and State of Punjab v. B.D. Kaushal, A.I.R. (1971) S.C. 1676. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs, throughout.
-
1981 (3) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Sugar - Excess Excise duty charged from the buyer not refundable ... ... ... ... ..... v. Union of India and Others (Civil Misc. Appln. No. 1259 of 1976 of Civil Misc. Writ No. 4326 of 1972) have held vide judgment dated 16-2-1978 that the applications of the Sugar Mills for refund of the portion of the amount which represents differential excise duty cannot be accepted and ordered that the amounts in question should be transferred to the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund. 7. In view of the above legal position, the Government hold that the amount of excise duty which is charged in excess and is lying with the Central Excise Department is not to be refunded to the petitioners but has to be deposited in the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund which is meant to reimburse the actual consumers the amount which they have paid in excess. 8. The Government accordingly reject the revision application and direct the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976, as aforesaid.
-
1981 (3) TMI 90 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REVISION CASE)
Regulator is a part of ceiling fan - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... or. As regards the judgment of the Bombay High Court cited by the petitioners, the Government observe that the ratio of the said judgment would not apply to the instant case as in this case the issue is the inclusion of value of regulator which is considered a part of fan in the assessable value of ceiling fan whereas in the case before the Court the question was inclusion of value of accessories and not of parts, in the assessable value of tractors. The Government further observe that the plea of time-bar raised by the petitioners is not correct inasmuch as the show cause notice demanding duty short levied during the period from 3-9 73 to 30-12-1973 was issued on 30-8-1974 i.e. well within the time limit of one year stipulated in Rule 10 read with Rule 173J and that therefore, the demand is raised well within time. In the circumstances, the Government do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and therefore, reject the revision application.
-
1981 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Medicinal and toilet preparations ... ... ... ... ..... o prevent the misuse of the alcohol and for the purpose of effectively enforcing the prohibition programme. In our opinion, such restrictions are unwarranted and they are made only to effectively implement the prohibition policy. The misuse, if apprehended, must be prevented by enforcement of the Act and the Rules. Prevention of such misuse is not by restricting the number and quantity of the medical preparations that can be manufactured. Such restrictions, in our view, are not in accordance with the prescribed Rules framed under the Act. We are in complete agreement with the observation of Mohan J. and that on all fours the decision in M/s. Enoch Pharma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker. 280, applies to the facts of this case. From the discussion we have made above, it is clear that such restrictions now sought to be imposed, are not warranted under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In these circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250/-.
-
1981 (3) TMI 88 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Job work - Factory - Workers strength - Burden of proof - Criteria for discharge of onus ... ... ... ... ..... s yard. It would also be irrelevant to determine whether power has been used in the manufacture of the said boats since there is evidence to show that more than 100 workers had been engaged by the petitioners in the activity of building boats. 5. Government further observe that the boats in question are of special design and are in the nature of mechanised craft and their manufacture is not complete without installation of the engine. It is, therefore, obvious that the engine is not an accessory of the boat but is an integral part of the boat without which the said boat cannot be operated. In the circumstances the petitioners contention that the installation of the engine amounts to mere job work is also not correct because what is returned to the customer is not an engine but a fully manufactured mechanised boat. 6. In view of the above. Government find no reason to interfere with the order in appeal which is correct in law. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1981 (3) TMI 87 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Wrapper used for packing paper and paper board - Determination of assessable value
-
1981 (3) TMI 86 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Short levy - Price list approved ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, issued for the same amount under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This demand has been confirmed by the lower authorities. 4. Government, however, observe that the price list dated 20-2-1973 filed by the petitioners had been finally approved on 19-5-1973 after due deliberation. In the circumstances the short-levy in question occurred on account of inadvertance and error on the part of the departmental officers. Recovery of such short-levy could therefore, correctly be made only with reference to Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not under Rule 9(2) ibid. Government are therefore, of the view that the original demand dated 18-7-74 was barred by limitation as prescribed under the aforesaid rules. Since it had been issued after the expiry of 1 year from the date of payment of duty. 5. In view of the above Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal. The revision application is accordingly allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 85 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Trade discount ... ... ... ... ..... w price was charged. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Atic s case would be relevant - There can, therefore, be no doubt that where a manufacturer sells the goods manufactured by him in wholesale to a wholesale dealer at arms, length and in the usual course of business, the wholesale cash price charged by him to the wholesale dealer less trade discount would represent the . The conclusion, is, therefore, inescapable that the assessable value of the dye stuffs manufactured by the appellants must be taken to be the price at which they were sold by the appellants to ICI and Atul less 18 trade discount, and not the price charged by ICI and Atul to their dealers. 6. Having regard to the foregoing, the Govt. hold that the petitioners are entitled to deduct the trade discount given by them to Parekh Agencies for determining the assessable value. The refund claims must be considered in the light of this order and the petitioners should be given consequential relief.
-
1981 (3) TMI 84 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Cocoa butter is not non-essential oil ... ... ... ... ..... t is observed that condiments and blended flavouring concentrates for the preparation of non-alcoholic beverages which cannot be eaten or drunk direct also figure under the tariff items 20 and 21(7) respectively under the said Section IV of the Indian Customs Tariff. It, therefore, cannot be said that in order to be classifiable as food item under Section IV of ICT, an item has to be capable of being eaten or drunk direct. The Government also observe that even in the scheme of classification under Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature, cocoa preparations including cocoa butter have been placed under Section IV which deals with preparations of foodstuffs, beverages etc. 6. In view of the foregoing, the Government hold that the impugned cocoa butter is covered by the description of all sorts of food not elsewhere specified and is classifiable under Item 21(2) of ICT. The appellate order which is correct in law, is, therefore, upheld and the revision application is rejected.
-
1981 (3) TMI 83 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Interpretation - Notification - Subsequent amendment - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... ication indisputably used to enjoy the concessional rate of duty before coming into force of CTA 75 right since 686 by virtue of Notification No. 82-Cus./60 up to 1-8-1976 and these parts are also presently enjoying the aforesaid benefit by virtue of Notification No 129-Cus./80 as amended. The Appellate Collector has rightly mentioned about a well settled question of law that it is not essential that a change in the notification should always be interpreted in such a way as to make a change in the meaning. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government observe that the purpose of the amended notification was only to place the matter, which was already settled in the earlier notification, beyond any shadow of doubt and as such the amended notifications do not make any material difference in the contents effect of the impugned notification. 5. In view of the foregoing, the Government uphold the appellate order which is correct in law and drop the review proceeding.
-
1981 (3) TMI 82 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Electrical stampings and laminations ... ... ... ... ..... cal protection and are not designed for sharing magnetic load of the motor. They accordingly contend that these end plates cannot be treated as electrical stampings under Tariff Item No. 28A of the Central Excise Tariff. 4. Government agree with the petitioners that the stampings are made from special type of steel known as silicon steed sheets which are mainly used for electrical equipment. Government observe that in the present case the end plates are made of M.S. and are used for mechanical protection in stators and rotors and these end plates do not by themselves have any specific electrical function as a lamination, or electrical stamping. Government accordingly accept the petitioner s contention and hold that the end plates made out of M.S. steel sheets are not classifiable as electrical stampings within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 28A of the Central Excise Tariff. 5. Government accordingly allow the revision application with consequential relief to the petitioners.
....
|
