|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 178 Records
-
1989 (6) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Customs - Detention Certificate - Demurrage waiver certificate ... ... ... ... ..... e goods until the detention charges are paid by the consignee for the delay in releasing the goods and returning the containers. 17. This dispute or the claim of respondent No. 4 against the consignee petitioner cannot be decided in this writ petition. As directed in this order the petitioner is entitled for a demurrage waiver certificate from the Customs authorities. Without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the 4th respondent against the petitioner which flows from the contract entered into between them under the Bill of lading, suffice it for the present case to observe that the 4th respondent is at liberty to enforce its claim against the petitioner in accordance with law. 18. The 1st respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certificate to the 4th respondent. 19. In the result writ petitions are allowed and the first respondent is directed to issue demurrage waiver certificate in all the three cases within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1989 (6) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Additional duty ... ... ... ... ..... there is little doubt that Dextrose Anhydrous is a drug intermediate used in the manufacture of Sorbitol. It would, if manufactured in India, be exempt from the levy of excise duty. Having regard to this court s judgment in Century Enka Ltd. v. Union of India, 1982 E.L.T. 64, the Dextrose Anhydrous imported by the petitioners is not liable to additional duty. 9. The petitioners are entitled also to the issuance of a detention certificate for the period during which the said goods were detained by the Customs authorities. 10. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is made absolute in terms of prayer (c)(i), (ii) and (iv). The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 9th February 1983 shall stand discharged. The respondents shall refund to the petitioners the additional duty paid in the sum of Rs. 58,529/-. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Upon Mr. Bulchandani s application the order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.
-
1989 (6) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Prosecution - Misdeclaration and evasion of duty ... ... ... ... ..... is made absolute. The petitioner is discharged from the case. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety discharged. At this stage, Mr Kotwal, submits that the Court should give certain directions to have this case disposed of without any further delay inasmuch as this case has been pending for the last about 12 to 13 years without any indication as to when the case will be taken up for hearing. Mr. Kotwal is right. I, therefore, give the following directions I direct the Principal Judge, Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, to assign this case, namely Sessions Case No. 130 of 1982 to one of the Sessions Judges and to see that the said case is placed on board peremptorily on the 17th of July 1989. The learned Sessions Judge concerned then shall hear the Advocates on either side and proceed to frame a charge, if any, which must be completed by 14th Aug. 1989. After the charges are framed, the learned Sessions Judge shall have the case disposed of not later than 31-12-1989.
-
1989 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Paints and varnishes - Ultramarine blue - Taxation ... ... ... ... ..... . Once it is found by this court that the product ultramarine blue cannot escape payment of excise duty the argument on behalf of the petitioner falls through. The proposition that Government has no authority to collect any tax if there is no sanction of law is not in doubt. Such a principle as argued on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable so far as the facts involved in the present case. No principle of law is in doubt, but application of such principle must be appreciated regard being had to the facts at issue. Once there is finding that such a product is attracted to make payment of excise duty, the question of refund does not arise. Since all these points raised have been considered in their proper perspective and this Court does not find any merit, the writ petition fails and the rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 8. There will be stay of operation of this order for a period of a fortnight from date, as prayed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Deduction, Property ... ... ... ... ..... troversy or doubt in the matter, the abovequoted words have been omitted from the aforesaid second proviso. This would secure that the deduction admissible to the assessee under the provisions of section 24 of the Income-tax Act in computing the income from house property shall not be limited to the annual letting value of the house property as arrived at after providing for the deduction under the said second proviso. This explanatory note and the deletion of the two lines at the end of the proviso only bring out the real scope of the provision and in order to make it abundantly clear, they have omitted the provision. We are, therefore, of the view that the loss claimed by the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, we answer the questions in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 in the affirmative and the question referred for the assessment year 1975-76 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1989 (6) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Amount Due From Company, Bad Debt, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... unt, but he has been assessed. There is thus double jeopardy which he has to meet and the only way out was the rational view taken by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. According to us, by recording the findings that the claim under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act was contingent and that unsecured creditors would have a preferential claim are the findings which cannot be borne out on record. This, according to us, is a mistake apparent on the face of the record which justifies this court in issuing a writ of certiorari. In the result, this petition succeeds. The order passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal on December 22, 1978 (annexure-7) and the subsequent orders passed by the same Tribunal on May 19, 1979, and March 10, 1980, are hereby quashed, and the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on October 5, 1977 (annexure-6) is restored. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (6) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
HUF, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 65 KLT 141, will apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in affirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in holding that only the presumptive share of the assessee in the properties can be assessed in his hands. The matter requires fresh appraisal. In the absence of relevant facts and findings, we are not in a position to answer the questions referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the questions referred to us. At the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore W. T. A. Nos. 24 and 25 (Coch.) of 1981 to file and dispose of the appeals afresh, in the light of the observations and directions contained hereinabove and in accordance with law. The income-tax referred cases are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 51 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Owner, Property ... ... ... ... ..... the present case. The view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.).Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 811 is based upon some earlier decisions, all of which relied upon a decision wherein the court was concerned with the transfer of a movable property like a bus. In regard to the transfer of movable property, no formalities such as that the same should be in writing and is required to be registered are necessary. Hence, the principles applicable to a case of immovable property-which property has some peculiar restrictions in regard to transfer of ownership-make all the difference and those decisions, to which reference has been made at the Bar, cannot be used for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, I entirely agree with the view expressed by my learned brother but, at the same time, express my reservations regarding the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in Osman Ali Khan s case 1986 162 ITR 888 to the facts of the present case.
-
1989 (6) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... see in this case was not towards the payment of any wealth-tax, as such, but, as pointed out earlier, it was intended only to effectively reduce the ultimate wealth-tax liability leading to the availability of more funds in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of being utilised in his business activities. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that this expenditure had been laid out or expended by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, is allowable in computing the income under section 37 of the Act. Though counsel on both sides referred to several other decisions, we are of the view that it is not necessary to make a reference to all of them, since the matter is squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier. We, therefore, answer the third question referred to us also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (6) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... e was referred to this court for decision. We heard counsel. At the time of hearing it was agreed that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585, and the observations contained at pages 602 and 603, after the insertion of section 40A of the Income-tax Act, deduction cannot be allowed on general principles under any other section of the Act. In order to claim deduction for gratuity payment, the assessee should fulfil the conditions laid down in section 40A of the Income-tax Act. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,62,506 under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act. We answer the question referred to us in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Registrar shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1989 (6) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reduction Or Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... at is no justification for the spreading of such an infirm decision to other areas as well. Article 14 does not injunct that there should be equality in illegality. There is, however, some substance in the apprehension expressed by counsel that, if the observations of the Commissioner, Particularly the second sentence in the extract made above, are literally understood dehors and divorced from the context, a penalty order could be automatically issued. The well-known difference in the content of the jurisdiction will have necessarily to be borne in mind by the quasi-judicial authority. The observations made by the Commissioner, in the context of the proceedings before him, would not compel a conclusion in relation to the more harmful and more damaging area of penalty jurisdiction. I am sure and it is hereby directed that the Income-tax Officer shall deal with the penalty matter untrammelled by the observations contained in exhibit P-6. The writ petition is disposed as above.
-
1989 (6) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... titioner is that he filed false returns of income and fabricated and manipulated false accounts and other documents while filing the returns for the assessment year 1983-84 (accounting year 1982-83). The Tribunal s order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), as stated earlier, have not gone to state that the accounts produced by the petitioner and the return of income filed by him are correct. So, the criminal court has to go into the question as to whether the complainant succeeds in bringing out the offence charged against the petitioner. The second ground urged by the petitioner is answered accordingly. The criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of by quashing that part of the complaint relating to the offences under sections 193 and 196, IPC. The other offences alleged are to be enquired into and decided on the basis of evidence to be let in. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of C. C. No. 36 of 1988 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
-
1989 (6) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... no tax on capital gains can be levied in respect of the transfer of such route permits. We are of the view that before any capital gains tax can be levied, the asset sold must be such as is capable of having a cost of acquisition as contemplated under section 48 of the Act. An asset to which section 48 cannot be applied cannot be brought to tax under section 45, since the asset must possess the inherent quality of being available on expenditure of money to a person seeking to acquire it before it can be subjected to capital gains. The route permits cannot be considered as assets which are capable of acquisition, initially, for a price. When such assets are transferred, there can be no question of capital gains. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Return ... ... ... ... ..... ents to impose penalty are without jurisdiction or not. Regard being had to the facts of this case and applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court, this court finds that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to impose penalty. Time is already extended to file the return and the assessed amount being paid should be deemed to have been paid within the extended time and there cannot be any further demand for penalty in the manner sought to be done in the instant case. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any bar and/or impediment to granting the limited relief to the petitioner only against the imposition of penalty. The writ petition is thus allowed in part, directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel the notice of demand for realisation of penalty for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66. The rule is thus disposed of as indicated above and the interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (6) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... larification or opinion given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in their letter dated November 12, 1973, does not form part of the paper book. A copy of the said letter was not placed before us. The Appellate Tribunal has only referred to a portion of the said communication. Only if the full text of the said communication is part of the paper book or is made available to us, on consent of both parties, it will be possible for us to say whether the said communication can be considered to be a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Income-tax Act and its legal effect or impact. In the absence of basic materials on that score, we decline to answer question No. 2 referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal. Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under, the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... he reasons assigned by the income-tax authorities to issue the impugned notices and the purported proceedings thereto suffer from legal infirmities and the conditions necessary for issuance of such notices were not there and the issuance of such notices is therefore found to be unwarranted in law and uncalled for. Once it is found that there is no lawful basis to issue the impugned notices, this court finds no bar or impediment to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute without costs. Let a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to cancel the purported notice dated March 29, 1976, for the assessment year 1967-68 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act and all proceedings thereto. There will be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from date, as prayed for. Interim order already passed at the issuance of the rule will continue in the meantime.
-
1989 (6) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Perquisite, Salary, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... is supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. R. Adaikappa Chettiar 1973 91 ITR 90. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken in 1973 91 ITR 90 (Mad). Our answer to question No. (2) referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Applying these principles, we hold that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the addition of Rs. 3,600 as perquisite value of the conveyance is not sustainable and further that the standard deduction admissible under section 16(i) cannot be restricted to Rs. 1,000 and further directing the Income-tax Officer to allow full deduction under section 16(i). In the circumstances, we answer all the questions, i.e., questions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Writ Income Tax Enquiry ... ... ... ... ..... ght to call for the records as done in the present case. Though the petitioners challenged the steps taken for search and seizure and obtained the present rule, the background of the case convinces this court that the present rule has been obtained to stall the proceedings before the income-tax authorities so that no effective adjudication be effected by looking through the records. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is rejected and the interim order, if any, is vacated. The rule is discharged without any order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the Commercial Tax Officer may request the Income tax Officer for necessary inspection of the documents from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer may also ask for copies of such documents, if necessary, and proceed in accordance with law. There will be stay of operation of this order for a period of three weeks from date.
-
1989 (6) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assets, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... dhra Pradesh High Court in CED v Estate of Late Sanka Simhachalam 1975 99 ITR 370, and also the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jyotirmoy Raha s case 1978 112 ITR 969 are relevant and useful in considering the scope of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, especially the term belonging to occurring in section 5 (.1 ) (iv) of the Act. In the light of the decision of the Madras High Court in . Ramachandra Chettiar s case 1982 141 ITR 771, with which we fully concur, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the respondent-assessee having only life interest in the building is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, is valid and justified in law. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Revenue. The only further question is whether the interest receipt should be spread over the relevant previous years. The assessment order does not show that the assessee is maintaining its accounts on the mercantile basis. It should be stated that the amount became due and payable only as per the order of the Board dated December 11, 1974, annexure-D. As a result of the agreement between the assessee and the Board, annexure-D orders of the Board, dated December 11, 1974, ensued. The right of the assessee to receive the amount sprang into existence only during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76. In such circumstances, the entire amount was rightly held to be taxable for the assessment year 1975-76. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
....
|
