|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 175 Records
-
1982 (8) TMI 75 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Interest Paid By Company ... ... ... ... ..... o far as the decision of the Bombay Bench in the case of M. E. (P.) Ltd. is concerned, we agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that it would not apply to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, it is not admitted nor it has been found that they are in the nature of current accounts. It is no doubt true that the mere admission by the assessee of the amount of Rs. 5,175 as an income would not have made the amount taxable, but as we have seen above, in fact, and, in law, the amount in question is taxable. Therefore, the aforesaid action on the part of the assessee is not material. It is not under dispute before us that the disallowable amount is Rs. 5,175. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the income-tax authorities regarding disallowance of Rs. 5,175 under section 40A(8) is justified and is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 74 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... ed representative for the department submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to show the share of profit of his minor in his total income. He further submitted that it is of no significance whether the assessee s own income was below or above the taxable limit. He, therefore, urged that we should uphold the order of the AAC. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and we do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court clearly supports the action of the income-tax authorities. Again on going through the relevant provisions of the Act, we have no doubt in our mind that the assessee was required to show the share of profit of his minor son in his return of income whether or not his own income was above or below the taxable limit. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the AAC. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 73 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Development Allowance, Manufacture Or Production, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... entitled to claim exemption with regard to the value of his interest in the undertaking under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. In view of what is stated above, the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that it is an Industrial Undertaking is unassailable. In this view of the matter, the assessee would be entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B. However, since the ITO has not discussed individual items of the expenditure on which the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35B, it would be necessary to send the matter back to him for a fresh decision on this limited issue. We would, therefore, set aside the orders of the income-tax authorities on this point and restore the case once more to the file of the ITO with a direction to give his decision afresh keeping in mind the observations made in this order and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 72 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... that time, when the property was sold, the assessee was having a family. Under the circumstances, the capital gains as a result of the sale of the said house would only belong to the HUF and not to the individual. So, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is uncalled for and same is deleted. 10. In the asst. yr. 1978-79, interest income of Rs. 5,967 was added in the hands of the assessee, since it has been held that the sale price of the house belongs to the HUF and as such the income earned on such money could only be added in the hands of the HUF. So, the addition of Rs. 5,967 in the hands of the assessee is uncalled for and the same is deleted. 11. In the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessee took the ground that the addition of gross profit of Rs. 3,000 is uncalled for. This point was not pressed at the time of arguments. So, this point is decided against the assessee. 12. In the result, Appeal No. 40 is allowed in full and the Appeal No. 41 allowed in part as above.
-
1982 (8) TMI 71 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... sment year 1977-78 about the proposed action by the Commissioner. In addition to that the Commissioner communicated with the assessee s duly authorised counsel, Shri N.M. Ghoel, explained the point for the assessment year 1978-79 and heard him. From these facts, it is clear that the opportunity of being heard as contemplated in section 263 is in fact provided to the assessee also for the assessment year 1978-79 and as stated in para 4.5 of the Commissioner s order the assessee has availed the same when his counsel made submissions. It is difficult to hold that the communication made to assessee s duly authorised counsel will not amount to a communication to the assessee or giving of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of this, we reject the preliminary contention of the assessee and accept the submissions of the departmental representative. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, appeals of the assessee for both the years may be treated to be dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 70 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... sment year 1977-78 about the proposed action by the Commissioner. In addition to that the Commissioner communicated with the assessee s duly authorised counsel, Shri N.M. Ghoel, explained the point for the assessment year 1978-79 and heard him. From these facts, it is clear that the opportunity of being heard as contemplated in section 263 is in fact provided to the assessee also for the assessment year 1978-79 and as stated in para 4.5 of the Commissioner s order the assessee has availed the same when his counsel made submissions. It is difficult to hold that the communication made to assessee s duly authorised counsel will not amount to a communication to the assessee or giving of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of this, we reject the preliminary contention of the assessee and accept the submissions of the departmental representative. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, appeals of the assessee for both the years may be treated to be dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 69 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... (1) to (9) of clause 6 and the second time after the distribution of property as stated in sub-clauses (10) to (15). Moreover, discretion is given to the trustees in some cases to give or not to give the property and apply their discretion. In view of these facts, the actual administration or application of the estate is necessary. If not the complete administration then at least the administration or application of the property should be reached to such a point that one could infer that the residuary estate had been ascertained or was easily capable of being ascertained and there is nothing more to be done by way of administration. In view of the above facts and law, we are of the view that in this case neither there is a complete administration nor had the administration reached to such a point that one could infer that the residuary estate had been ascertained or was easily capable of being ascertained. We uphold the order of the Commissioner. 6. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 68 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessment Year, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... tions of the High Court were only when the asset originally transferred was converted into a different asset. If the complete report had been gone into and the full extract quoted above was read, the conclusion which the AAC had drawn could not be there. The Bombay High Court after analysing the relevant provisions itself had observed that . . . it is quite clear from the definition of the expression net wealth in section 2(m) that not only the aggregate value of the assets belonging to the assessee is to be taken into account but the aggregate value of the assets which are required to be included in the net wealth under the Act are also to be taken into account as on the valuation date . . . . It is clear that in the case of assessee, the approach of the WTO is correct and the AAC has fallen into error. The order of the AAC on this point is reversed for all the five assessment years and the orders of the WTO are restored. 6. As a result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 67 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Accounting Year, Carrying On Business ... ... ... ... ..... t of an amount considered in terms of money in the least. The Delhi High Court in the case of K. S. Malik, in our opinion, will not support the revenue in view of the Gujarat High Court authority. 7. We may also like to mention one argument about section 28(iv) being not applicable in respect of amounts received in cash or considered in terms of money. The existence of the words the value shows that the benefit or perquisite referred to in section 28(iv) is not measurable in terms of cash or capable of consideration in terms of money. The use of those words is thus in harmony with the further words whether convertible into money or not . It is noticed from the Delhi High Court decision itself that the Madras High Court also took the view that money transactions would not be covered by provisions drafted in the same fashion as section 28(iv) of the Act. 8. For the reasons given above, we uphold the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
-
1982 (8) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act - Iron and steel products - Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... (1) Upon levy of customs duty at 230 on the value computed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per M.T. out of which, - (i) the amount calculated on invoice value shall be paid in cash and (ii) for the rest an un-conditional bank guarantee from a nationalised bank shall be furnished. (2) The petitioner shall also furnish guarantee for an amount equal to 10 of the invoice value of the goods payable to the Director of Inspection (Investigation) Department of Income-Tax from a nationalised bank. (3) The petitioner and/or the Bank shall keep inventories and records including the names and addresses of the parties to whom the said goods are sold. The petitioner shall furnish the same to respondent No. 3. (4) The petitioner shall furnish a similar bank guarantee in respect of the claim of the authorities concerned, if any, regarding demurrage/ground rent/detention charges before detention certificate is issued. 19. The C.Ms. 2737, 2907 and 2908 of 1982 shall stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1982 (8) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valuation - Related person - Price list ... ... ... ... ..... ld be asked for by the Department. The request of the petitioner-company that it should be granted the permission to avail of provisional assessment was reasonable. The Department in our opinion, erred in not following this course. The non-reference of the said letter dated 21st August, 1981 clearly vitiates the order dated 28th August, 1981. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 10th November, 1976, 15th March, 1978, 31st January, 1979 (annexures D, F and G to the writ petition) and order dated 28th August, 1981 (Annexure 0 to the writ petition) are quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to avail of the provisional assessment under rule 9B and they are further directed to, re-consider the price list submitted by the petitioners in accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers case. (Supra). The petitioners would he entitled to costs. Counsels fee Rs. 550/-.
-
1982 (8) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Customs - Vessels - Ship breaking dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... foresaid, we make the Rule absolute to the extent that the Customs Authorities are directed to refund to the petitioner out of the amount paid by him the amount which is in excess of the amount of duty calculated at the rate prevalent in 1963, that is to say, on the date of importation of the vessel into India. The impugned order of the Appellate Collector of Customs is quashed. Let appropriate writs in regard to the above be issued. 12. No order need be made in the appeal and the application for interim order which shall be deemed to have been disposed of by this judgment. 13. Mr. Mihir Chakraborty, learned Advocate on record for the respondents in the writ petition, prays for certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance is involved in the Rule Nisi. In the circumstances, the oral prayer for a certificate is disallowed. Murari Mohan Dutt Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
-
1982 (8) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Valuation - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... otices were issued to the respondent. As there is no absence or excess of jurisdiction or any contravention of law established at this stage, a writ of prohibition cannot be issued. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed with costs, and the appellants arc at liberty to take further proceedings in accordance with law, in pursuance of the show cause notices issued by them. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 one set. (After the judgment the Court made the following orders) 10. The Order of the Court was made by Singh, C.J.- After judgment was delivered in the above case, an oral prayer has been made by the learned Counsel for the respondent for certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. After hearing the learned Counsel, we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance arises in this case, which in our opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The oral prayer for certificate is accordingly refused.
-
1982 (8) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Arrested person - Bails and bonds - Offence - Arrested person - 'Investigation' ... ... ... ... ..... o desired, having regard to the fact that originally the applications made by them were rejected and they were directed to be remanded to judicial custody. Unless such an order is obtained, it will be necessary for respondents 2 and 3 herein to be taken into judicial custody in connection with their arrest and production before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the event of their being released from detention which they are undergoing under the orders passed under COFEPOSA. (5) So far as respondent No. 8 is concerned, he has already made an application for being released on bail which is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It will be open to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing all concerned subject to the liability to be continued in detention as per the order passed under COFEPOSA underwhich he is in detention at present. 13. Rule absolute to the aforesaid extent.
-
1982 (8) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Writ jurisdiction - Plant - Construction of plant is manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ned with such a situation. Even if a company constructs a manufacturing unit for its own use by purchasing different duty-paid parts or other material, it would amount to manufacture. Construction of a plant can therefore be said to be something which has been manufactured . If therefore a refrigerating or air-conditioning plant is manufactured by a company for its own purpose it can be said that it has manufactured the plant. The reason for granting exemption is that the plant as a whole is not ordinarily sold as readily assembled unit. This argument is of no avail to petitioners in the present matter since the petitioners have manufactured cooling coils and condensers which are readily saleable in the market. In fact, instead of manufacturing this item themselves, the petitioners could have purchased duty paid cooling coils and condensers already manufactured by some other manufacturer from the open market and utilised the same. 3. Petition therefore fails and is rejected.
-
1982 (8) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Accounting of raw material is mandatory ... ... ... ... ..... lause (d) has been committed. From the above, it would appear that even in a case where any breach of the rule is committed with intent to evade payment of excise, the goods in respect of which a breach is committed, shall be liable to confiscation. The intention of a party can be proved from circumstances and direct evidence. In the instant case, the excise authorities found from the circumstantial evidence that with the intent to evade payment of excise duty that 189 billets had not been entered in the accounts. 11. The intention of evading excise flows from the fact of deliberately not showing the raw materials in the accounts. The intention is presumed to cause that which is the natural consequence of something consciously done or omitted. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that impugned orders of the Excise authorities are erroneous or suffer from an error requiring to be interfered with. 12. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Medicines - Demand - Short levy ... ... ... ... ..... rs provided under the same rule would be applicable to this case. If the plea now raised by the appellant is permitted at this stage, the respondents would be deprived of the opportunity of establishing how the extended period of limitation would apply in this case. The facts necessary invoke the period of limitation should have been specifically pleaded by the appellant at the appropriate stage when the respondents would have had the benefit of pleading and showing how the claim is not barred by limitation. Since that stage has already passed, we are not inclined to permit the appellant to raise the plea of limitation at this stage. 7. The last plea of the learned Counsel that the respondents, having allowed the appellant to clear the goods earlier, are now estopped from raising the additional demand, has to be rejected as there is no estoppel against the statute. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ually meant was that there was no need to examine defence witnesses on the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the petitioner had expressed that he did not want to examine any defence witness. It is significant that the petitioner did not raise any objection about the denial of such an opportunity in his written argument (Annexure-G), memorandum of appeal (Annexure-I), written argument before the Appellate Authority (Annexure-J) and revision petition to the Government of India (Annexure-L). From this it is clear that the petitioner at no stage expressed his grievance about violation of the principles of natural justice or affording of proper opportunity, by the adjudicating authority. This ground, therefore, has no merit whatsoever. 10. In the circumstances we are unable to find any merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1982 (8) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Tariff Item in the Schedule-Canons of interpretation - Assembling of cycle parts is not manufacture - Classification
-
1982 (8) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... v. State of Kerala (A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1165), a single act of smuggling attributed to a person was held to be sufficient to warrant an inference that he will repeat his activities in future also. Since the detenu in this case was a dealer in watches and other electrical goods and was unable to give any satisfactory explanation for acquisition and possession of foreign goods worth Rs. 25,000/- in his shop and residence, the detaining authority was justified in forming an opinion that detention of the detenu was necessary to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods. This satisfaction was reinforced by the past history of the detenu and, therefore, whether he was prosecuted or not for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act was not a relevant circumstance in examing the validity or legality of the impugned order directing his preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Act. 8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this petition.
....
|
