|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 145 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... finding that no penalty was leviable. On the directions of the Hon ble High Court we have examined the entire evidence again and perused the quantum orders of the ITO, of the AAC and of the Tribunal alongwith the orders in penalty to consider the submissions made by the parties before us and we are convinced that the three presumptions that are to be raised against the assessee under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c), when examined in the light of the entire material, have been rebutted by the assessee by discharging the initial onus. We, therefore, cancel the penalty. 19. Before we close, we would like to observe that in coming to the conclusions that we have arrived at in determining the issue in appeal before us, we have considered the authorities cited on behalf of the assessee, particularly the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 60 CTR (SC) 34 (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC). 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... aim of Rs. 10,730 in respect of shop expenses, Rs. 10,730 in respect of travelling expenses and Rs. 43,483 in respect of Kharajat expenses. This was reduced to Rs. 1,000 by the CIT(A) on the basis that some of the items are bound to be unvouched. On going through the details. and the basis on which the addition is sought to be made, we find no justification to sustain any amount of disallowance. We, therefore, delete the same. It appears nobody has made any attempt to verify or vouch the expenses as claimed. Without such exercise, no disallowance can be resorted to. 5. The last ground in assessee s appeal is against charge of interest of Rs. 2,119 under s. 215 of the Act. This is merely consequential and, therefore, the same shall stand modified. 6. To the extent as above, the AAC s order is modified and the AO is directed to pass appropriate orders in the case of the assessee as also its partners. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the cross objection is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 143 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... ion during the course of argument, deals with assessee s right to get the amount of interest reduced or waived under certain circumstances. That right is available to the assessee in those proceedings but not in the present proceedings. We have dealt with that aspect of assessee s contention in earlier part of this order and do not intend to respect the same once against. 17. To sum up we hold that the charge of interest under s. 217 was perfectly justified in this case and the interference by the learned CIT(A) with that part of ITO s order was totally misconceived and uncalled for. 18. Before we part with the case-file we would like to make it clear that nothing expressed herein shall be read as jeoparadising respondent s claim for reduction in or waiver of the amount of interest under s. 139(8) or 217 of the Act. 19. In the result the order of the learned CIT(A) on the subject-matter of the ground No. 2 is set aside, that of the ITO restored and the appeal partly allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 142 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Discretionary Trust, Interest Payable By Assessee, Late Filing, Previous Year, Registered Firm, Share Income
-
1989 (7) TMI 141 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... In view of the discussions in the precedings paras, we would observe that the various decisions relied upon by the assessees counsel would not help him in any way since the facts of those cases are fully distinguishable. The propositions laid down in those judgments are well known and with which we cannot have any quarrel but these would not be applicable in the present two cases wherein we have already pointed out the abnormal circumstances under which the assessments were completed by the ITO. We are also of the view that the assessments were set aside by the CIT only with a view to enable the ITO to apply the decision in the case of McDowell and Co. supra but that was an additional factor which weighted with him in observing that a similar situation may exist in the present cases as well. 21. In the final analysis we opine that the consolidated order of the CIT under s. 263 does not call for any interference on our part. The same in upheld. 22. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 140 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... wealth was asked for upto 30th Sept., 1973. The application in Form 6 was filed on 19th Sept., 1973. It seems from any record that no reply was received. Since the time was asked for upto 30th Sept., 1973, and as the return was filed on 22nd Oct., 1973 there was no default . This reply was submitted before time-limit for imposition of penalty was going to expire on 31st March, 1981. Since the assessing authority did not pass any order imposing the penalty before 31st March, 1981, it can also be presumed that in view of the aforesaid reply the assessing authority might have been satisfied that no penalty is leviable in view of the explanations submitted by the assessee vide letter dt. 18th March, 1981. The non-passing of any penalty order prior to 31st March, 1981, should result in such presumption in favour of the assessee. Even on this ground the penalties imposed upon the assessee are not sustainable. 15. In the result all the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 139 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Year, Business Premises, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... f the discussions in the preceding paras, we would observe that the various decisions relied upon by the assessees counsel would not help him in any way since the facts of those cases are fully distinguishable. The propositions laid down in those judgments are well known, with which we cannot have any quarrel but these would not be applicable in the present two cases wherein we have already pointed out the abnormal circumstances under which the assessments were completed by the I.T.O. We are also of the view that the assessments were not set aside by the C.I.T. only with a view to enable the I.T.O. to apply the decision in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. but that was an additional factor which weighed with him in observing that a similar situation may exist in the present cases as well. 21. In the final analysis we opine that the consolidated order of the Commissioner u/s. 263 does not call for any interference on our part. The same is upheld. 22. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 138 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Year, Capital Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... oked by the CIT who had relied only upon the 10 services (above) listed by him. Now, in the present agreement there is no such clause as the one which the Tribunal has relied on. On the contrary, under clause 3(b) of the agreement it is stated that the sole obligation of the corporation was to furnish the know-how and that it makes no warranty in respect thereof whether for any result of the use thereof or the sufficiency thereof to accomplish a desired result or the quality or quantity of the licenced product which could be made thereunder, etc. Therefore, the above decision of the Tribunal is not applicable to the present case. On the other hand, some of the items in the definition of know-how are such that they would be of current use during the process of production for short period. They are quality control, marketing data, sale techniques. Therefore, the royalty payment in this case has to be regarded as of revenue nature. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 137 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Delay In Filing, Late Filing, Original Assessment, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... the statements were not ready time for riling the return of wealth was asked for up to 30-9-1973. The application in Form 6 was filed on 19-9-1973. It seems from my record that no reply was received. Since the time was asked for up to 30-9-73 and as the return was filed on 22-10-73 there was no default. This reply was submitted before time limit for imposition of penalty was going to expire on 31-3-1981. Since the assessing authority did not pass any order imposing the penalty before 3-3-1981, it can also be presumed that in view of the aforesaid reply the assessing authority might have been satisfied that no penalty is leviable in view of the explanations submitted by the assessee vide letter dated 18-3-1981. The non-passing of any penalty order prior to 31-3-1981, should result in such presumption in favour of the assessee. Even on this ground the penalties imposed upon the assessee are not sustainable. 14. In the result all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed
-
1989 (7) TMI 136 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... not the assessee s case that he is engaged in the business of money lending and although there is an unchallenged finding of the ITO that these Fixed Deposit are business assts , this finding does not make them a part of the assessee s discontinued business of dealing in brass scrap. The decision of the Allahabad High Court supra relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative supports the Revenue s case. 15. Before we part with these appeals we would like to refer to the arguments advanced by the parties pertaining to the concession purported to have been made on behalf of the assessee at the assessment stage. As we are deciding these appeal on merits we do not propose to deal with these arguments and decline to state our views. 16. In the final we hold that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the carried forward loss of asst. yr. 1983-84. We accordingly set aside the consolidated order of the AAC and restore those of the ITO. 17. The appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 135 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... y used in the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1981-82. The Department s case, therefore, rests only on the passive use. So far as that is concerned, the learned Accountant Member has rightly distinguished the Madras High Court decision from the facts of the present case. Therefore, there is no basis for disallowing the assessee s claim on the ground of passive use in the earlier assessment year. The machinery in respect of which the investment allowance has been claimed was actually and physically used in the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1982-83. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to that allowance for the asst. yr. 1982-83. In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to enter into the question of applicability of the Board s Circular which specifically pertains to s. 80J. For the same reasons, it is unnecessary to enter into the question of commercial or trial production in the earlier assessment year. On all other issues I agree with the views of my learned Brother.
-
1989 (7) TMI 134 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessment Year, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Stamp Duty, Wealth Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... .yd. It may be true that this was done for the purpose of Stamp Duty but how can a person be heard to say one thing for the purpose of one Act and quite another for the purpose of another Act ? Moreover that valuation at Rs. 2.07 per sq.yd. was with a view to pay lower Stamp Duty. When the assessee has taken such a stand and derived that benefit than that assessee must be held at her own word. Further in the wealth-tax assessments of the HUF the value had been shown at Rs. 2.07 per sq.yd. and obviously with a view to pay less wealth-tax. It is even surprising that this kind of plea is being taken that for the purpose of capital gains that value for other Acts cannot be taken into account. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the value for the purpose of computation of capital gains must be taken at Rs. 2.07 per sq.yd. whatever may be value taken in the case of any other assessee and however close the land of that other assessee may be. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 133 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Actual User, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year, Profits And Gains
-
1989 (7) TMI 132 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Accounting Year, Carrying On Business, Charitable Trust, From Other Sources, In Part ... ... ... ... ..... onfirming the charge of interest under section 215 of the Act is concerned we do not think that the assessee should succeed on this point. The argument that the assessee could not have anticipated the disallowance of interest expenditure and therefore there should be no charge of interest under section 215 does not appear to us to be convincing. No doubt Mr. Mehta relied upon the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Bharat Machinery and Hardware Mart 1982 136 ITR 875 for the relief claimed in ground No. 3 but we do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee company could be held entitled to such relief. In view of the discussion made with regard to ground Nos. 1 and 2 above the plea of the assessee company that it could not have anticipated the disallowance cannot be accepted. In our opinion the learned CIT(A) has decided the issue in this point also rightly. 16. In the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly
-
1989 (7) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Appeal - Transferred proceedings - Limitation - Condonation of delay
... ... ... ... ..... rovisions, there is a strong case for condonation of the delay in view of the following facts - (i) There was a larger period of limitation under the old provisions of Section 36 (ii) This was a transitional period for filing of appeals before the Tribunal and (iii) There is lack of any clear legal authority for taking the view that in such existing causes of action the time limit as prescribed in the new provision would apply in cases where there was a larger period of limitation under the old or repealed provisions and that period had not yet expired and no provisions on the lines of Section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or of 1963 have been enacted in the Central Excises Act. 34.02 I would, therefore, condone the delay. 35. The aforesaid findings are however, only of academic effect so far as this appeal is concerned. I agree to the finding in para 30 of the proposed order that appeal is not maintainable for lack of proper authority. The appeal is dismissed on that count.
-
1989 (7) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Valuation - Demand - Limitation
... ... ... ... ..... aid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in classifying the goods under Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff and in upholding the demand of the duty for a period beyond six months as contemplated by Section 11-A of the Act,.............................................. In the matter before us, the respondent company did not produce a copy of the contract at the time of the filing of the declaration under Notification No. 120/75-CE and the invoice also did not mention that MCI inserts had been supplied free of charge by the Railways. In view of these observations, we are of the view that the extended period of limitation is applicable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order passed by the Assistant Collector. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned advocate had made a prayer for the remand of the matter. We do not find any justification for the same. 13. In the result, the revenue s appeals are allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 129 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valuation - "Ordinarily sold" - Adjudication - Evidence - Writ jurisdiction - Civil suit ... ... ... ... ..... January 29, 1988, cannot be sustained. 101. Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly. 102. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant the following reliefs (i) I pass a decree for declaration in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, thereby declaring the notice dated March 27, 1986, as illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Consequently, on this ground, the order dated January 29, 1988, is also set aside. (ii) I also pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from taking any action, in pursuance to the notice dated March 27, 1986. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 103. In I.A. No. 1551 of 1988, I direct plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs with the concerned Authority. Subject to this deposit, the stay was to continue till the decision of the suit. This amount was deposited by plaintiff. I am not making any order for the refund of this amount, but this amount, be accounted for in the records of the defendants.
-
1989 (7) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... thorities did not have the power to issue the demand notices. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Excise Department justifying the demand on the ground that under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules the petitioner could not have removed the dutiable goods kept in the warehouse without the permission of the Excise Authorities and as the petitioner was guilty of having committed a breach of the said rule, the Excise Authorities were entitled to recover the duty from the petitioner. 4. We have gone through the writ petition as well as through the relevant rules of the Central Excise Rules. We are unable to find out any rule which required giving an opportunity prior to issuance of demand notices. The operation of the Rules 155 and 160 is automatic. As the petitioner did not obtain permission of the requisite authority before removing the tobacco, he was liable to pay the amount demanded from him. 5. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Exemption - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... terials on records, this court with great anxiety has considered the provisions of Sections 12, 15 and 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and looking to the aspect of the importation of the goods, into India and within the territorial waters of India, and finds that the petitioners, at the material point of time, are liable to pay the duty for the imported goods. Regard being had to the materials on records, this Court finds that on the relevant date, the petitioners cannot avoid the payment of duty and/or additional duty in the manner sought to be claimed by the petitioners, and as sought to be imposed by the Customs Authorities. This Court, after consideration of all the materials on record, does not find any merit in the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Interim order, if still subsisting, is vacated. 10. As prayed for, let there be stay of operation of this order for two weeks from date.
-
1989 (7) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Confiscated goods - Release of goods ... ... ... ... ..... he is entitled to the release of goods confiscated but the Assistant Collector unjustifiably and without any rhyme or reason is refusing to return the goods to the petitioner. 2. In reply to the petition a counter-affidavit has been filed. It has been stated that as against the orders mentioned above, the Union of India has filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi and that one month time be granted to the Union of India for obtaining stay order. To us it appears that this petition can be disposed of by making an observation to the effect that it the stay order is obtained within one month from today, the rights of both the parties will be regulated in terms of the said stay order, but if the stay order is not obtained within the aforesaid one month, the petitioner will be entitled to the release of the entire confiscated goods, in accordance with the directions of the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Allahabad. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
............
|
