|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 300 Records
-
1989 (9) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Order of remand appeal on other grounds ... ... ... ... ..... ve observations allowing the goods to be cleared on payment of a suitable fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the criteria in fixing the quantum of such fine laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Delhi H.C. in Jain Exports v. Union of India -1987 (29) E.L.T. 753 may be usefully borne in mind by the authorities wherein the Hon rsquo ble High Court observed, ldquo ...... the resort to Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 to impose fine in lieu of confiscation cannot be so exercised as to give a bonanza or profits for an illegal transaction of import . 10. In the result, we remand the case to the Collector for considering afresh the valuation issue as already directed in this Tribunal rsquo s order dated 20-7-1988 in accordance with law, and also to consider clearance of the goods now under absolute confiscation on a suitable fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants may also be heard in the matter.
-
1989 (9) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d., Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras, vide order No. 995/87-B2 dated 27th May, 1987 in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 995 (Tribunal). Shri Durghyya states that there the goods imported were perkins diesel engine components - 90 P 6/354 cylinder Head Castings and the goods were originally assessed under Heading 84.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the importers had claimed re-assessment under Heading 73.33/40 of the CTA. The Tribunal relying on a larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 1987(28) E.L.T. 545, had rejected the appeal. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned JDR and going through the records, we are of the view that the goods imported, namely, adjusting pins are essential parts of the fuel injection pump and are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.10(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (9) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT
Whether it should be disposal of one appeal or the entire hierarchy of reliefs as may have been provided?
Held that:- the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months’ period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle.
Coming to the facts of the present appeal since the claim has been dismissed on the plea of limitation and our conclusion is that the suit was within time, the judgment of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Too long a period has now intervened between the dismissal of the suit and our order of remand. We, therefore, direct the learned Trial Judge to take all effective steps open to him in law to ensure that the suit is disposed of finally before the 15th of December, 1989.
-
1989 (9) TMI 191 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsel for the respondents pressed the preliminary objection taken in the counter affidavit, i.e., that since under the Act an appeal was provided, this Court ought not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioners have not exhausted their remedy by way of filing an appeal. The objection taken is misconceived as in the present case the issuance of the impugned orders was without jurisdiction. In a case like the present there is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact the very first ground which has been enumerated in a Division Bench decision of this Court in I.T.C. Limited and another v.. Union of India and Others, 1983 E.L.T. 1 (Del.) is that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 12. The result is that the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned show cause notices and orders are quashed. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (9) TMI 188 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ct was different from the Karnataka Act. According to the Karnataka High Court s. 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. Societies Act provided that no profit of the co-operative societies would be appropriated towards contribution to the education fund while that of Karnataka co-operative societies Act did not say that appropriation should be out of profits. That Act, according to the Karnataka High Court, created a liability to pay in relation to profits earned by the society. Thus, as far as Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act is concerned the Tribunal has examined various provisions and has come to the conclusion that in substance the contribution to the education fund was appropriation out of profits rather than the charge against the profits. Consequently we hold that the decision of the Karnataka High Court referred to above was not applicable. We follow the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal and reject the ground raised by the assessee. 15. All the appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 185 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... opinion for purposes of granting investment allowance a separate finding whether a particular thing or an article employed in a business is part of plant and machinery is essential to be held. The Income-tax Officer and later the Appellate Assistant Commissioner denied depreciation on the ground that the centering sheets are part of capital assets. Whether they are capital assets or not is besides the point. Whether they should be considered as part of plant and machinery is the question. Even capital goods also can form part of plant and machinery. I hold that centering sheets also form part of plant and machinery and I also hold rejecting the argument of the learned departmental representative that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance of Rs. 20,441 which is originally denied by the Income-tax Officer. Since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner already allowed it I hold that no interference is called for with his order. Hence the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 183 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Allowable Expenditure, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Carrying On Business, Change In Constitution Of Firm, Cinema Theatre, Dissolution Of Firm, Entertainment Tax, Firm Consisting, In Part, Let Out, Mercantile System, Partnership Deed, Written Down Value
-
1989 (9) TMI 181 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... y comparable rates, etc., we consider, having regard to the total turnover shown and the addition already made of Rs. 1,40,000 to the gross profit on the ground of inflaction which raises the gross profit to Rs. 3,57,960, the only further addition warranted would be additions for any small adjustments in the Trading and P and L A/c etc. This of course is apart from the provision for sales-tax of Rs. 45,000, which, it is clear from the facts ascertained by us during the hearing, is not a provision which relates to this year and is, therefore, not admissible as a deduction. Therefore, as a result of the computation now made, the aggregate works out to Rs. 2,73,240 (Rs. 88,240 Rs. 1,40,000 Rs. 45,000). Since the assessment is made to the best of judgment and the possibility of some other inadmissibles, as adverted to earlier, not being ruled out, we would fix the figure of total income assessable at Rs. 3,00,000 in round figures. 18, In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1989 (9) TMI 178 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Account Books, Assessee Carrying On Business, Assessment Year, Best Judgment Assessment, Cash Payments, In Part, Rejection Of Accounts, Sales Tax, Total Income
-
1989 (9) TMI 177 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessment Year, Cash Credits, Penalty Proceedings, Revised Returns, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... t of the provisions of the Income- tax Act in the present case could be considered venial, that is pardonable. Therefore, there is no option left with us but to sustain the imposition of a penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c), notwithstanding the fact that the order-sheet entries were not relied on by the Revenue in the course of prosecution proceedings, and the assessee had to go through the trauma of the same and the assessee had been acquitted, and were relied on for the first time only before us. According to our decision, penalty will be imposable only in respect of the peak credit of Rs. 10,000 in the account of Dharmaraj and the difference of Rs. 29,547 in the account of Jupiter Ruling and Binding Works, that is in all in respect of Rs. 39,547. We would direct that the Income-tax Officer would recompute the minimum penalty leviable under law with reference to the aforesaid concealment and levy such penalty. 15. The result is, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1989 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... should have been filed before Dec., 1973 according to the above mentioned cl. 13 of the said partnership deed. These defects were remained from the beginning when the registration was allowed. Therefore, in my view inspite of these facts remained in Sept., 1973 the registration was allowed, now registration cannot be cancelled on those defects which were duly considered and registration was allowed. Further the genuineness of assessee firm is not in doubt. If minor mistakes are there in the partnership deed, for technical reasons registration cannot be cancelled. The AAC was fully justified in cancelling the order of the ITO under s. 186 (1) of the Act. No interference is called for. 6. The cross-objections are just supporting the AAC s order. Therefore, when we have confirmed the cancellation of ITO s order, the cross-objections of the assessee have become infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 172 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... h suppression of job work receipts or to cover up and leakage which is not accounted for. Therefore, after rejecting the book results regarding job receipts, we have to take into account the salary paid. Not only that the credit entry of Rs. 40,000 was made by the end of the year by the assessee. When we have made the addition disallowing the part of the salary, i.e. Rs. 25,000 out of Rs. 55,597 we have to see that when there is no employee or karigars to do the work or to carry out the orders, that will consequently reduce the job receipts. The aspect has been ignored by the ITO in calculating the addition made by him on account of suppression of job receipts. Therefore, considering the salary allowed and the credit entry of Rs. 40,000 made by the assessee, by the end of the year to cover up and such suppressions, in the view, no addition is warranted on this account. 22. In the result the appear of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 170 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Business Receipt, High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... certainly is part of the welfare scheme of the employees if the assessee helps in the proper maintenance and management of the school. Section 40A(9) limits the deduction available to actual payments made by the assessee within the limits given in section 36(1)(iv) and section 36(1)(v). Section 36(1)(iv) will not be applicable to the facts of this case because that deals with contributions towards provident fund, superannuation fund etc. Section 36(1)(v) also would not be applicable because that deals with approved gratuity fund. Section 40A(10) also has no application to the facts of the case. That section is to be invoked for allowing a deduction denied earlier on accrual basis when the Income-tax Officer finds that the assessee has actually paid during the accounting year an amount out of the funds created for the welfare of the employees. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 80,000. 25. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed
-
1989 (9) TMI 169 - ITAT DELHI-E
Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Firm Assessment, Late Filing, Reasonable Cause, Registered Firm
-
1989 (9) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... onwards. It was sold on29-10-1979and, therefore, having been held by the assessee for a period of about 9 months only, it remained a short-term capital asset. The asset that was held by the assessee from the date of allotment (28-4-72) or the date of delivery of possession (24-7-73) was different in its nature and scope and it was not that asset that the assessee transferred on29-10-1979. Therefore, the profit that arose to the assessee was not from sale of asset acquired by him on28-4-72or24-7-73but from the sale of the asset acquired on30-1-1979. In our view, therefore, the asset that was transferred was a short-term capital asset and the ITO rightly assessed the profit arising therefrom as a short-term capital gain. The order passed by the learned AAC directing that the same be treated as long-term capital gain, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The Revenue s appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the order passed by the ITO is restored.
-
1989 (9) TMI 167 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... king. We have held, while dealing with the issue of the claim of investment allowance, that the assessee-company is very much an industrial undertaking, and therefore it would automatically rank for the claim of deduction under s. 80I of the IT Act. We hold accordingly. 14. The other issue raised is in relation to the treating of entertainment expenses as covered by s. 37(3A) of the Act. Shri Agarwal pleaded that the entertainment should not be considered under this section. The learned Departmental Representative only supported the orders of the authorities below. On this issue our considered view is that s. 37(3A) would cover the expenses such as entertainment and therefore this ground of the assessee is without any merit. 15. The last of the issue is relating to the charging of interest under s. 216, which is only consequential to the assessment, the AO is only directed to rework the same, after given effect to this order. 16. In the result the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1989 (9) TMI 166 - ITAT DELHI-D
Activity For Profit, Assessment Year, Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... nstrate that the newspaper Samaj was not published in the course of actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust. Such purpose being the educational, cultural, social, economic and political advancement of the people. As regards the printing press and the foundry the ITO does not speak about them with reference to the objects of the trust. The learned CIT(A) also did not touch that aspect of the matter and the grounds of appeal set up by the Revenue, which we have reproduced above, also do not rely on sec. 13(1)(bb). The Revenue s challenge to the order passed by the CIT(A) is merely that the object of the assessee trust being political, it is not entitled to exemption under sec.11. We have discussed above this aspect of the matter and held that the object of the assessee trust is not political but is of a charitable nature, as defined in sec.2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our view, therefore, these appeals have no force and are hereby ordered to be dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Earlier Decision, Hybrid System, Income Tax Authorities, Interest Income, Supreme Court, Total Income, True Nature
-
1989 (9) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-C
Appellate Tribunal, Non-resident Company ... ... ... ... ..... he petition laid down in this case. Here we are concerned with an altogether different question, namely, whether in this case the royalty income earned by the assessee inIndiashould be assessed on receipt basis as claimed by it or on accrual basis as has been done by the assessing officer. 25. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that since the assessee has regularly and consistently kept its accounts in respect of royalty income on receipt basis, and as this system was accepted by the Revenue for the earlier years and approved by the Tribunal too, we hold that the revenue is not justified to convert it into Mercantile system unilaterally and therefore, income is not liable to be taxed on accrual basis and that the royalty income has to be assessed on receipt basis. In this view of the matter, we confirm the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the three assessment years under appeal. 26. In the result, these Departmental appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ufacturing glass at Baroda was considered to be an expansion of business. The assessee s case is on much better footing. Accordingly we order the allowance of Rs. 42,929 in respect of interest as revenue expenses. 21. The sixth and last ground is against the finding of CIT(A) who declined to treat the assessee company as an industrial company. The appellant company is engaged in construction as well as manufacturing business. Income of the assessee company is mainly from construction business. The learned counsel for the assessee was fair enough to admit that this issue is covered by jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Minocha Brothres P. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134 (Del) and his attempt is only to keep the issue alive. 22. In the light of decision reported in (1986) 160 ITR 134 (Del), therefore, action of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. In the result assessee fails on this issue. 23. In the result Revenue s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed.
............
|
