|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 175 Records
-
1982 (8) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Revision petition ... ... ... ... ..... law, it will not be open to the Criminal Court to ignore that fact and make an order regarding the disposal of the property. It is further stated that an order of confiscation duly made can only be altered or set aside by the authorities as contemplated under the Act and cannot be interfered with by the original Court. A. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an appeal against this Division Bench ruling is now pending disposal before the Supreme Court. But that is not very relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, since this court is governed by the Division Bench ruling cited supra. In other words, till the Bench decision of this court is modified or set aside, the ruling has to be followed. Following the said ruling, the order of the learned Magistrate directing return of the properties, viz. M.Os. 4 to 9 and 14 to the respondent herein (first accused) is set aside and the order in the adjudication proceedings will prevail.
-
1982 (8) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Search, even if illegal, does not effect the validity of seizure - Interpretation - 'Acquired possession' - Burden of proof - Contraband goods - Confession made by co-accused - Admissibility
-
1982 (8) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Special excise duty - Exemption notification - Canons of interpretation - Duty of excise - Nature and scope - Taxing statute
-
1982 (8) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Determination of defective goods - Customs - Rate of duty - Applicability of - Circles and sheets - Writ jurisdiction - Classification
-
1982 (8) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Show cause notice not issued within six months - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... have been earlier response. But this aspect may indicate the lack of care by the department but can in no way vitiate or affect the legality of the notice which was undoubtedly issued in December, 1981. This notice is in compliance with the provision of Section 124 and the petitioner if he wishes to establish his ownership of the car and establish his innocence has no option but to join the proceedings. The petitioner now through his counsel has stated before us that he will be filing reply to the notice within 15 days and that he will give his full cooperation in the enquiry. That is a correct approach. We have no doubt that as the matter is very old the respondent will act with expedition and try to conclude the matter within a period of three months. 9. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. We had dismissed the writ petition and announced the order on 11-8-1982 without giving the reasons. We are now giving the reasons for the dismissal of the Petition.
-
1982 (8) TMI 50 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... the source of income in respect of which it is claimed should be revenue yielding in the particular previous year. What is relevant is that a potential source of income should exist from which the assessee can receive then or later an income which will be subjected to tax. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Tribunal came to the right conclusion in thinking that the take-over of the electricity business did not create a vacuum leading to the assessee s disability from claiming the interest on borrowed capital as deduction but that it actually gave place to a source of income against which the interest payments could be deducted though that source of income did not result it any positive income for taxation during the previous year under consideration. For, the above reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Messing Expenses, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... to any question of law. The mere fact that the accounts could, if at all, be rejected under s. 145(2) while they have been rejected under the proviso to sub-s. (1) of that section would not, in our opinion, raise any statable question of law when we find that the finding in regard to the rejection of accounts is based on a consideration of the material on record. Questions Nos. 9 to 12 relate to disallowance of the messing expenses claimed at Rs. 7,439. In this behalf the following question of law does arise Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the messing expenses claimed at Rs. 7,439 could not be treated as an allowable deduction ? We, therefore, allow this application in part and direct the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question indicated above for the opinion of this court. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... can also be an article for personal use. The Supreme Court s decision, therefore, cannot be helpful to support the wide meaning of the word jewellery accepted by the Gujarat High Court and followed by the Division Bench sitting at Indore in Nand Kishore Girdharilal s case 1981 132 ITR 868 (MP). The view taken by the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts and the dictionary meaning quoted by us above were not brought to the notice of the said Division Bench. For these reasons, we approve of the view expressed in Sonal K. Amin s case 1981 127 ITR 427 (MP), and overrule the decision in Nandkishore Girdharilal s case 1981 132 ITR 868 (MP). Our answer to the question referred by the Division Bench is that for the assessment years prior to 1st April, 1972, jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semiprecious stones, within the meaning of s. 5(1)(viii). The case will now be laid before the Division Bench for final disposal. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ike nature, it is not entitled to be deducted while determining the accumulated profits. In the circumstances we must hold that the Tribunal was in error in treating the building reserve fund on the same footing as the depreciation fund. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to above makes it clear that several funds created comprising of initial depreciation, development rebate or in the name of general reserves do continue to be profits and are not deductible while determining the amount of accumulated profits. For the above reasons we answer the question referred to us partly in favour of the Department and partly in favour of the assessee. So far as the depreciation fund is concerned the answer shall be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. But so far as the building reserve fund is concerned our answer shall be in the negative and in favour of the Department. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.
-
1982 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nitely indicate, on what date must the sale be deemed to have taken place. He suggested two alternative dates, viz., the date of encroachment and the date of suit. But as observed by us above, this is too farfetched an inference to be drawn from the use of a single word which, in all probability, appears to be an inaccuracy of language. Once we reject this theory of sale at an anterior point of time, the argument that the sum of Rs. 40,000 represents interest falls to the ground. If no amount was due at an anterior point of time, there is no question of paying any interest at all. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the said sum of Rs. 40,000 was not a revenue receipt and is not includible as such in the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70. The question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The same answer shall also be recorded in R. C. No. 272 of 1978. No costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Any Person, Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ed in the same manner as it would for the purpose of estate duty, that is to say, by an application of the principles laid down in r. 1BB of the W.T. Rules, 1957, made under the W.T. Act, 1957. I wish, however, to make it clear that where the house has unutilised surplus land surrounding it in excess of 20 of the aggregate area what I have here laid down may not apply. Counsel have made a statement that the parties are agreed in the event of the court holding that the principles laid down in r. IBB of the W.T. Rules should apply for the determination of the market value of the property for the purposes of estate duty, that the difference between the unbuilt area and the specified area is less than 20 of the aggregate area of the plot. The matter is now referred to the Prothonotary and Senior Master for an enquiry into the valuation of the property under the provisions of s. 28(5) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The enquiry shall be held having regard to what is here laid down.
-
1982 (8) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... is 7 1/2 and as per item 2 of Pt. I of Appx. I of the same Rules in respect of furniture and fittings the depreciation to be allowed is at 15 . The authorities have proceeded on the basis that the partition works and false ceiling were an integral part of the building and, therefore, depreciation should be allowed only at 7 1/2 . The Tribunal has taken the view that the partition works and false ceiling cannot be taken to be part of the building but they will fall under the expression fittings , though not under the expression furniture . We agree with the Tribunal that the partition works and false ceiling come under the expression fittings coming under item 2 of Pt. I of Appx. I of the I.T. Rules, 1962, in which case the rate of allowance can be only 15 , and not 7 1/2 , which is applicable only to buildings. Therefore, this question also has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will have its costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (8) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o finding was recorded by the IAC that there was any wilful concealment of the income and in the absence of such a finding, the order of penalty would be unsustainable. The other reason given for deleting the penalty was that the income did not accrue to the present firm. As is apparent from the facts stated above, the amount received by the firm was not credited in its account and instead credited to the accounts of Lachhman Dass and Sat Parkash who were partners in the earlier firm. The assessee-firm, therefore, did not treat the said amount as its own and it being firm different from the one to whom the refund had been made could not be held guilty of any concealment. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted the penalty and questions Nos. 1 and 3 are accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer on questions Nos. 1 and 3, we do not propose to express any opinion on question No. 2 and the same is returned unanswered. No costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HUF, Hindu Law, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... ce whether there was a female member who was entitled to claim maintenance from the coparcenary or HUF property living at the time when the alienation was made. Existence of such female member does not in any way curtail or restrict the right of the sole surviving coparcener to alienate the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. It must, therefore, be held that the Tribunal was right in taking the view which it took. Before we part with the reference we may mention that Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the assessee, sought to challenge the alienation also on grounds other than the ground on which it was challenged before the Tribunal. We have not permitted him to do so since, as stated above, challenge to the alienation was confined to only one ground stated above. In the result, we answer the question referred to us for our opinion in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly with costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -firm, which was not disputed or no other question was raised or argument was urged before the Tribunal, the answer is obvious. The Tribunal held that the interest should be allowed as business expenditure. Our attention was also drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT 1979 118 ITR 200 (SC), where the Supreme Court analysed the difference between money lying in a business and the money lying for the purpose of the business. That was the main controversy before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went into that question and made its observations in that context. In this case, that was not the controversy and we do not see any relevancy in examining this aspect of the matter. In view of the fact that the answer to the question is obvious in the context of the controversy, we will answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay the costs of this reference. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Annual Value, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... s of the assessee, it does not acquire such character merely because it has not been refunded to the respective tenants from whom it was collected. In this view of the matter, it is immaterial whether the whole of this sum of Rs. 42,683 or any part thereof represents excess collection of occupiers share of tax. In any view of the matter, it is not liable to be treated as a receipt of revenue character. We, therefore, allow the assessee s claim and direct the exclusion of this sum of Rs. 42,683 from the assessee s total receipts. In view of the provision of law we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, arrived at a correct conclusion and in that view of the matter the question No. 1 must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative and also in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear its own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Contribution To Recognised Provident Fund, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment
-
1982 (8) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Authority To Levy Penalty, Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ve cases that it is a case of exercise of power conferred by a statute on a particular authority. The relevant enquiry is whether the authority who passed the order had the requisite power or jurisdiction conferred by law when it passed the order. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law. We have also noticed in the earlier part of the judgment the decision of Bharat Barrel 1971 40 FJR 339 AIR 1972 SC 1935, where the Supreme Court has noted with approval the definition given by Salmond on substantive law and procedural law as substantive law is which we enforce while procedure deals with rules by which we enforce it . In our opinion the provision for penalty is a substantive provision and the authority to levy penalty is only procedural. For the reasons stated above and in the premises, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. Each party will pay and bear their own costs. T. C. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 37 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ) ought to be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, apart from placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ciba of India Ltd., also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Mica Supply Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 20 (SC). Learned councel for the assessee further submitted that the Supreme Court has laid it down in the case of CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38 (SC) that each and every question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal is not imperative to be referred if the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India have been correctly applied. We think, there is much substance in the submission of Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the assessee, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court laid down in 1970 77 ITR 20 (SC), no statement need be called for under s. 256(2) of the Act. In the result, therefore, we reject the applications. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nd to determine the tax that was actually payable under the notice of demand that was issued in this case. It has been mentioned on behalf of the assessee that the assessment order was modified in appeal by the AAC. The order of the AAC, however, is not before us nor has it been referred to by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the best course will be to direct the Tribunal to go into the question whether the amount of tax determined as payable by the WTO has been reduced in appeal or not. If it has been reduced as alleged on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal should take into consideration the appellate order in determining the amount of tax payable and the quantum of penalty should be calculated accordingly. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to dispose of this case in accordance with the principles laid down above. The question referred is answered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
....
|
