Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 164 Records

• 1992 (5) TMI 47 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
  

  Assessed Income, House Property, Rental Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rtificially defined income and the liability arises from the fact that the assessee is owner of the property. The liability to tax does not depend on the power of the owner to let out the property as it also does not depend on the capacity of the owner to receive the bona fide annual value. Thus, to put it more plainly, when owner is spoken in sections 22 to 24 of the Act in respect of house property it is the legal owner who is to be meant and understood and not equitable or artificial owner. 10. Therefore, in our view, the assessee-company is liable to pay tax in respect of the sum of Rs. 4,48,345 being rental income in respect of the godowns for which it continued to be the legal owner and the CIT(Appeals), therefore, went wrong in giving relief to the assessee-company by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, vacate the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 46 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
  

  Assessing Officer, Financial Year, Previous Year, Reopening Assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d by the assessee s counsel, with whom we agree, invoking of section 147(b) was barred by time by 31-3-1980 as per section 149 of the Act. 17. On the basis of admitted facts before us it was not obligatory on the assessee to disclose the amount invested by him during the previous year 30-6-1975 for construction of godown which falls within the financial year 1974-75 for invoking and applying the provisions of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is an inferential and enabling provision. In our opinion, therefore, non-disclosure of inferential facts cannot attract the provision of section 147(a), and the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment for assessment year 1975-76. 18. We, therefore, vacate the impugned order of the Appellate Commissioner and quash the assessment made on the assessee by resorting to the provision of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the same being without jurisdiction. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 45 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
  

  Reasonable Cause, Tax At Source, Tax Deducted At Source

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of section 201 becomes applicable and get in motion. The assessing company being deemed to be an assessee in default is liable to pay interest as per the said provision. Therefore, in our considered opinion the amount of tax deducted at source having become irrecoverable being barred by limitation under section 231 of the Income-tax Act cannot save the assessee from charge of interest under the provisions of section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In taking this view we draw support from the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CIT 1992 193 ITR 457. The decisions relied upon by the assessee counsel are inapplicable to the facts of the present case as such we are not discussing the same. We, therefore, hold that the CIT (Appeals) grossly fell in error in giving relief to the assessee. We, therefore, reverse his order and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. 6. In the result, the departmental appeals are allowed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 44 - ITAT CALCUTTA
  

  Debt Due, Religious Trust

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ub-section (5) of section 11, where such asset is not held by the trust or institution, otherwise than in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from the end of the previous year in which such asset is acquired or the 31st day of March, 1992, whichever is later This would show that even if it is to be held that there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) as alleged by the ITO, there was still time for the assessee-trust to change its investment pattern and put it in assets specified in section 11(5) of the Act till 31-3-1992. I, therefore, respectfully follow the decisions of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts, referred to above and hold that the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) was right in his conclusion that there was no violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act by the assessee-trust in these two years and that it is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, I confirm his order and dismiss the appeals

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 43 - ITAT CALCUTTA
  

  Capital Asset, Long-term Capital Gains, Loss On Sale, Short-term Capital Loss, Words And Phrases

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 42 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
  

  Assessing Officer, Market Value, Reference To Valuation Officer

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... letter addressed to the CWT(A) dated 27-2-1990 appearing at page 7, the assessee had stated that the company owns the flat in question. In the schedule of Fixed Assets appearing at pages 14B and 14C of the assessee s compilation, the flat has been described as Residential flat on ownership basis . In the statement of fact appearing at page 32 also, it has been stated that the assessee-company owns a flat. It is, thus clear that the assessee had been claiming itself to be an owner of the flat and the plea now sought to be raised is at variance from the case already set up before the departmental authorities. Moreover, the contention that the flat does not belong to the assessee would need investigation. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should not be allowed to raise this plea at this stage. We accordingly reject the assessee s prayer. 13. In the result, we hold that the appeals by the assessee are devoid of any force and are consequently dismissed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 41 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
  

  High Court, Quoted Equity Shares, Tax Liability, Unquoted Shares

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... were pending. The tax liability upon appeal has been more than the tax provision in accounts as at 31-12-1983. ............ Prima facie, therefore, assessees contention of the tax liability of Rs. 2,47,25,618 having become final upto the date of finalisation of the Balance Sheet, viz., 28-3-1987 appears to be correct. For the reasons given hereinabove, we would accept the assessees contention in principle, but leave quantification to the Assessing Officer with the remark that the additional tax liability which had become final for and upto assessment year 1984-85 upto the date of finalisation of Balance Sheet, viz., 28-3-1987, would be deductible in the valuation of shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. But the Assessing Officer would do the quantification in regard to the deductible tax liability in the light of our observations above, after giving the assessees reasonable opportunities of being heard. 14. For statistical purposes, assessees appeals are allowed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 40 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... case of insurance policy once a policy is issued on the payment of the first premium the insured is himself interested in making payment for subsequent premia to keep the policy in force. This is not so in the case of deposits in the public provident fund. The depositor will get the benefit of the first deposit and the subsequent deposit on the same terms and conditions. In other words, while the premia in the case of an insurance policy have a certain continuity the deposits in the case of public provident fund do not have that necessary continuity. Therefore, every deposit in public provident fund is like the first premium in the case of an insurance policy. It takes as much effort to secure every deposit, be it first or subsequent, as for the first premium in the case of an insurance policy. For these reasons I am of the view that the ITO s order should be restored. His order is, therefore, restored and that of the Dy. Commissioner is set aside. 6. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 39 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Assessment Order, Cash Credits, Orders Prejudicial To Interests

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tation of time prescribed in this section for exercise of the power, takes care of the difficulties which would be created by passage of time in obtaining evidence and is also to serve the principle of finality of the assessment. But in spite of limitation so prescribed the word may is still used which means that even when the limitation is not over there can be factors which can, and I believe, should be taken into account in passing a revisional order. This is such a case where such factors exist. They are indicated above. Although the Commissioner s action may be within the prescribed period of limitation it has to be borne in mind that a long time has passed because of the defects in the assessment order and for no fault of the assessee. A revisional order should not be passed so as to put an assessee to a disadvantage in obtaining evidence without his fault. 7. For the above reason the Commissioner s order is set aside and the ITO s order restored. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 38 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Co-operative Society, Deduction In Respect, Interest Income, Set Off

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... re shall have to be scrutinised in order to decide the point in controversy. The ITO was not right in observing that interest expenditure, whatever its nature, was liable to be deducted. 9. As far as the present case is concerned, the interest expenditure represents payments made to a certain co-operative society from whom the assessee had purchased certain goods and the payment of the interest was occasioned due to the fact that there was delay in payment of price of the goods purchased. Thus the interest expenditure in the present case was business expenditure and it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest from investments. Consequently that interest expenditure was not liable to be deducted from interest derived from investments. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also lays down the principle which has been followed in the present case. The ground raised by the department is rejected. 10. The appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 37 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Loss of molasses

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s from the District Magistrate. The Supreme Court of India also upheld the above decision of the High Court 1991 (36) ECR page 80-J . 3. Government observe that there is strong force in the submissions of the applicant company. The documents/letters submitted by them indicate that they had taken every reasonable step to get the molasses cleared. In spite of their best efforts, they were unable to procure permission from the Controller of Molasses, who is the sole distributing authority for the product, for selling the goods in the open market. Therefore there is sufficient evidence to hold that the loss occurred under circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the case is on all fours with the case cited by them. In the circumstances. Government find that condonation of the loss of 4457.59 Qtls. of molasses in the instant case is warranted. It is ordered accordingly. Consequential relief is granted. The revision application is disposed of accordingly in above terms.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 36 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
  

  Appeal - Adjournment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... roceed to hear the matter and reply to the reference. It would be outside the pale of the larger bench to adjourn the matter sine die, as it would not meet the ends of justice in settling the controversy. Further I would like to mention that in several cases, a plea is made that the decision of the larger bench or that of a regular bench is pending consideration before Hon ble Supreme Court and on this plea, an adjournment is sought, but this Tribunal has not considered such requests - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill v. Hico Products Ltd. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.) 1990 (29) ECC 292 . Therefore, I order for hearing the Reference without adjourning the case sine die. Sd/- (S.L. PEERAN) Member (Judicial) 10-4-1992 Majority Order In view of the majority opinion, the appeals are adjourned sine die. Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Judicial Member Sd/- (P.C.Jain) Technical Member Sd/- (S.L.Peeran) Judicial Member Sd/- (P.K.Kapoor) Technical Member

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Stainless steel

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ounsel for the petitioner wanted to challenge the correctness of the decision in the matter of Super Traders (supra) and the provisions of Section 15(ii)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. We are afraid the argument does not appeal to us particularly when the decision of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court in A. Parmananddas (supra). 6. In terms of the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner had paid only part of the duty i.e. 100 per cent or less and had furnished bank guarantee in respect of some part of the duty and not whole. While dismissing the writ petitions with no order as to costs, we order that the respondents would be entitled to recover the duty from the petitioner as is payable under the Heading 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent per annum from the date the duty became payable. The respondents will also be entitled to encash the bank guarantee and enforce the bond and make the recovery forthwith.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Revision - Jurisdiction - Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d that the goods in question were assessable under Item 62(14) ICT and, thus, liable to duty at the rate of 10 ad valorem. The imported goods will remain assessed under Item 62(2) ICT and no refund will be permissible to the petitioner on that ground since the proceeding arising out of the show cause notice under Section 130 of the Customs Act are being aside. This in fact, in substance, is the prayer of the petitioner as well when the petitioner said that the notice under Section 130 of the Act was not tenable and that the record showed that the goods imported were stainless steel angles. In the interim order dated 15 January 1979 reproduced above the petitioner had given undertaking that the refund of Rs. 1,45,155/- as ordered by the Central Government shall not be withdrawn. The amount shall not be allowable to the petitioner in view of what we have said, otherwise the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. 31.There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  SSI exemption - Brand name

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d obtained registration of this trade mark in his own name. So far as India is concerned the trade mark belongs to the petitioner. The Central Excise Act is applicable throughout the territory of India only. The petitioner is using its own trade mark in India and not of somebody else. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is using somebody else s trade mark militates against the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 which are applicable throughout the territory of India. 15.In that view of the matter this writ petition must succeed. 16.The show cause notices dated 3rd March, 1992 and the letter dated 9th March, 1992, written pursuant to the said show cause notice, are quashed. 17.A prayer has been made on behalf of the Department for stay of operation of this order. The prayer is refused. 18.The writ petition is disposed of finally, as above. 19.All parties shall act on the signed copy of the minutes of operative part of this judgment on usual undertaking.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Prosecution - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Burden of proof

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... roceeding. Same principles were also laid down in a recent case reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604 with further observation that the powers under Section 482. Cr. P.C. should be exercised in rarest of rare cases . 14.Having regard to the allegations made in the petition of complaint and after taking into consideration the complaint as a whole involving the petitioner and other accused named in the said complaint we are firmly of the view this is not a fit case in which the High Court should interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. It may be mentioned that the allegations that the complaint is bad for want of proper sanction was not pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly, we dismiss the criminal revision and vacate the interim stay granted. The records be sent down to the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for trial of all the four accused named in the complaint excluding accused Rodolfo T. Cardiante alias Rudy.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Detention of goods - Customs - Import - Writ petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t him to bring in the restricted items like loaded P.C.B., which was restricted under Appendix-2B of Serial No. 160 of the Import Export Policy of the 1990-93. Furthermore, it has been alleged that other costly software s were not disclosed at the time of importation. There is also allegation about distortion of the import price. 8. In view of the aforesaid the respondents have been able to make out a prima facie case which calls for an answer. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. All the questions of facts and laws are left open to be agitated before the Adjudicating Authority. 9. Reply to the show cause notice must be sent to the authorities within 3 weeks time from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall dispose of the case in accordance with law after giving a personal hearing to the writ petitioner. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this order on the usual undertaking.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AHMEDABAD
  

  Bail - Customs House Agent

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that ho cogent ground has been made out by the Customs Department for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted in favour of the opponent accused, S.B. Singh. It also requires to be taken into consideration that the orders granted by this Court (Coram B.C. Patel, J.) dated 26-3-1992 have become final. 14. Therefore, the Misc. Appl. No. 1366/92 requires to be allowed and the same is hereby, accordingly, allowed. Petitioner-Khungar is hereby ordered to be released on bail in sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the P.B. of like amount with a further condition that he shall not leave the city and district of Ahmedabad without having obtained the prior permission of the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, and that he shall report to the customs department on every Monday during the morning hours till the trial against him is concluded. He shall also cooperate with the customs department in the investigation. 15. Misc. Crl. Appl. No. 1482/92 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AHMEDABAD
  

  Import, Export and Drawback

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to be held that the petitioner company had exported the goods which were loaded by it in the vessel named CHERRY CHENTAK on or about 3rd January, 1983 but sank on 7-3- 1983 along with the said vessel within the territorial waters of India. The view taken by the Assistant Collector, the Collector of Customs and the Government will have to be regarded as erroneous. Therefore, the orders passed by them will have to be quashed and they will have to be directed to grant drawback of duty to the petitioner-company as permissible under the Rules. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector of Customs and the Government (Annexures A , B and C to the petition) are quashed and set aside and a writ of Mandamus shall issue directing the respondents to grant drawback to the petitioner-company in respect of the aforesaid goods to the extent permissible under the Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to cost.

  ---

• 1992 (5) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Writ jurisdiction - Demand show cause notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... GAT and in fact the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the CEGAT. Thus the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned show cause notice was neither without jurisdiction nor unwarranted in law. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. As such the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. 14. Besides the question whether there was any fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, is a question of fact which could be adjudicated only by the authority created under the statute for this purpose. To adjudicate upon findings of facts, the jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked. In this connection reliance can be placed on M/s. Jaishri Engineering Co. (supra). 15. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....3456789