|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the exemption given to 'cotton fabrics' under Item 7 above should be restricted to 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act.1944 as it stood on 1-4-1963 or whether it would also cover goods falling under the said definition after Its amendment in 1969?
Held that:- the 1963 Act, on a proper construction, does indicate a policy that certain items which are subject to additional excise duty should be left out of sales tax levy except in cases where there is a specific indication or provision of the Act to the contrary. The Kerala State legislature cannot be said to have attracted the 1944 Act definitions with their future amendment, blindly and without application of mind. On the other hand, it has been done in pursuance of a scheme, a purpose and a policy. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any abdication of its legislative functions by the Kerala legislature.
Thus the High Court was right in the view it took viz. that the scope of the exemption available under Item 7 of the Third Schedule to the 1963 Act will vary according to the scope of the corresponding entry in the Schedule to the 1944 Act as it stands at the relevant time. So far as assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 are concerned, the definition of 'cotton fabrics' in Item 19 of the Schedule to the 1944 Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969 w.e.f. 1-4-1969, will apply. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT
Whether proper notice had been issued/
Held that:- Considering the contentions urged and do not find any ground which supports the allegation that there had been fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. Therefore, Rule 11 -A clearly applies to the facts of the instant case. In that view of the matter, the appeals were correctly allowed by the Tribunal. On careful examination of the facts of the case and the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals before us. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the classification of the goods by the appellant under Entry 84.35 could not be sustained if the catalogue submitted was ?
Held that:- There is no evidence as to how these goods are dealt with in the trade or industry. There is no technical definition of the expressions used. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the true approach of the Tribunal should have been to find out the correct meaning of the items, i.e., the meaning attributed to the expressions used by those dealing with it in the trade.
The Tribunal should now find that out. In that view of the matter we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to find out how these goods are dealt with by the people who deal in them after giving both sides due opportunity of adducing evidence and then decide the question ac cording to this Judgment.
-
1988 (10) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT
EXEMPTIONS — DRUG INTERMEDIATES — CHEMICAL HAVING OTHER USES THAN AS DRUG INTERMEDIATE — EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE ONLY WHERE PRODUCT ACTUALLY USED AS DRUG INTERMEDIATE
-
1988 (10) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge ... ... ... ... ..... r the parties stated that the matter arising in this case also came up for consideration before this court in CIT v. Amar Transport Services 1986 162 ITR 1. A Division Bench of this court, while considering the nature of a transaction similar to that entered into by the assessee, held that the transaction was one of sale. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out any reason for taking a view different from that in 1986 162 ITR 1. Following that decision, therefore, it must be held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that true nature of the transaction was that of exchange only and not of sale. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,821 which was added as profit under the second proviso to section 10 (2) (vii) of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1988 (10) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Minor, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... f and responsible to it for the conduct of its business and as such, all the accused are liable to be tried and punished jointly for the aforesaid offences. In the authority cited, there was no corresponding allegation to the effect that the petitioners were in charge of the affairs of the firm or that they were conducting its business in any manner while in the present case as already stated, a positive allegation to this effect is available on record. There is thus no merit in this contention as well. Petitioners Nos. 6 and 7 are, however, ladies. Out of respect for them, it is ordered that the learned trial court would exempt them from personal appearance in the course of the trial when approached with a request for the purpose. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 787-M of 1988 thus succeeds to a very limited extent of quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order qua petitioner No. 3, Vijay Kumar Sahni. Learned trial court would now proceed with it in accordance with law.
-
1988 (10) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Exemption For Personal Effects, Personal Effects ... ... ... ... ..... ld have taken adequate care and precaution in dealing with person if they knew him to have been detained under the COFEPOSA on November 16, 1976. He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. Among the 42 grounds of appeal advanced by Shri Mahender Singh, ground No. 36 stated that the impugned order by the Competent Authority appeared to be the result of an absolute collusion between the Department and the affected party inasmuch as the affected party had deliberately, with the sole intention of defrauding the bona fide purchasers of his various properties of their valuable assets (sic). Learned counsel for the Department strongly objected to this ground. Learned counsel for the appellant did not press the same before us. We have seen nothing on record in these four appeals to suggest that there was any collusion between the Competent Authority and Shri Surinder Singh Sood against whom he had proceeded under section 6 of the SAFEMA. The ground is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction ... ... ... ... ..... ch one of us was a member, took the view that a reference against the order passed under section 254(2) of the said Act is maintainable. Following the aforesaid decision, we quash the order dated 26th August, 1987 (annexure-7 to the writ petition), passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the application of the petitioner made under section 256(1) and decide the same on merits according to law.
-
1988 (10) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. The said finding of the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Karnal, has been set aside on appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, vide order dated January 4, 1988, annexure P-3. Basis of the complaint having been knocked out, the allegations in the complaint are rendered groundless. In line with the finding recorded by this court in D. N. Bhasin v. Union of India 1988 171 ITR 7, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1392-M of 1988 succeeds and is allowed. Complaint, annexure P-2, is quashed. It is, however, made clear that in case the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are set aside and that order achieves finality, the Revenue will be entitled to file fresh complaints against the petitioners on the same facts and grounds in accordance with law and this judgment will not stand in their way to that extent. No costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessee, Failure To Deduct Tax At Source, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... icient for the issuance of the processes. Application of judicious mind to the facts and circumstances obtaining in any particular case is absolutely necessary and there has to be a mention of it in the summoning order. A summoning order made without any application of mind is ab initio void and illegal and is liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Some of the petitioners are ladies. Out of respect for them, it is ordered that the learned trial court would exempt them from personal appearance in the course of trial, when approached with a request for the purpose. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed to the limited extent aforesaid. The learned trial court would now pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners would be entitled to raise before the learned trial court in their defence all the pleas taken by them in this court for quashing the complaint annexure P-1. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd 1988 169 ITR 533 (SC), where the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the question as by the time the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, the matter had become academic. The assessee, it seems, had succeeded on merits on the revisional order of the Commissioner and, therefore, the Supreme Court felt it unnecessary to go into or decide the controversy. We have been invited by Mr. Jetley to form a larger Bench but, having perused the detailed judgment of the Division Bench in P. Muncherji s case 1987 167 ITR 671, we are not inclined to accept his suggestion. It is for the Revenue, if so advised, if it wishes to keep the matter alive in the instant case, to take the matter further to the Supreme Court. We must follow the considered view of the Division Bench of our High Court. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs of the reference.
-
1988 (10) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... p as being payable to the employee, thereby showing that the parties understood all these payments as coming within the scope of salary to the employee. We would, therefore, confirm his direction in this regard also. In our opinion, the Tribunal has adopted a proper and reasonable approach and there is no warrant for considering salary in a restricted or unrealistic manner. All these were payments or rewards given to the employees for work done by them or in appreciation of good work done which had brought profit and prosperity to the company, and the aim was to induce them to do such good work in future. As far as bonus to the employee is concerned, the Madras High Court in CIT v. India Radiators Ltd. 1976 105 ITR 680, has taken an identical position. We do not think that the question deserves any elaborate discussion. Accordingly, we answer this question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The parties will, however, bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1988 (10) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Kerala Building Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... sed for charitable purposes. A perusal of exhibit P-1 shows that the main object of the company is to establish and run hospitals, dispensaries, clinical and pharmaceutical laboratories, to act as chemists and druggists. The predominant or the main or chief object of the company is not to subserve any charitable purpose. It is to earn profit. The fact that the directors have got the power to subscribe to any charitable objects of a public character or to subscribe to charitable or benevolent institutions will not and cannot be construed as the objects of the petitioner. Nor can it be said that the building is used mainly or principally or chiefly or predominantly for charitable purposes. I am of the view that second respondent was justified in holding that the petitioner is not eligible for exemption from the levy of tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. No interference is called for with exhibit P-7. This original petition is without merit. It is dismissed in limine.
-
1988 (10) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... licant, a request for summons of the seller was made under section 131 to the Income-tax Officer, and the Income-tax Officer did not issue any summons and inasmuch did not reject the request or communicate anything to the applicant, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the averments made in the affidavit, in the absence of any contrary material or holding otherwise ? We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions for the opinion of this court. The application is partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re was no material on record to show what documents were filed along with the return and the details furnished by the assessee of the returned income. In the absence of those materials, the Tribunal was right in holding that it could not be said that there was any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by see was unable to point out that the assessee had placed any material on record disclosing the estimate filed by him to substantiate the contention that the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 217 of the Act were not attracted. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be held to have erred in law in upholding the order passed by the income-tax Officer rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1988 (10) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... nst the Income-tax Department. The larger contention that the Income-tax Department has no jurisdiction to seize the articles of stranger assumes that the articles really belong to a stranger. That is matter which has yet to be adjudicated. If the petitioner has got a case that he is the owner of the articles, he will have necessarily to establish the title over the same, initially. The possible remedy then would be to institute suit against the pledgee and bringing, if necessary, other parties, including the Department, on the party array. These proceedings could possibly be obviated if the petitioner awaits the final disposal of the writ petition which is expected to be heard within a short while. In these circumstances, I am disinclined to entertain this writ petition. The dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the exercise by the petitioner of his other remedies. It would appear that he would do well to wait for some little time. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 25 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the assessee. We hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was a change in the constitution of the firm and also in holding that the registration of the firm could not be continued for the said assessment year on that ground. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter on the basis of the answers aforesaid and, in particular, to determine whether the assessee had been given an opportunity to rectify the defects in the declaration form submitted by it in terms of section 185 of the Act and also whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing its declaration within the prescribed time. If necessary, the Tribunal will be entitled to take further evidence and hear the parties afresh. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in compliance with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. S. ALI AHMAD J. -I agree.
-
1988 (10) TMI 24 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 271(1)(a) noted above that penalty imposable under the said section cannot be calculated without reference to the tax assessed. As such, no valid order of penalty can be passed against the assessee in the instant case. The learned advocate for the Revenue did not dispute that if the order of assessment in the assessment year involved was not sustainable, then the order of penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the said Act of 1961 could not stand by itself. I hold that the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground as aforesaid is valid and proper. For the reasons as aforesaid, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in compliance with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. S. ALI AHMAD J.-I agree.
-
1988 (10) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ation either to reopen the proceeding or to rehear the assessee, unless a demand came from the assessee. The Tribunal has also doubted the genuineness of the entry in the file of the Income-tax Officer dated February 19, 1973, where it was recorded that the case was heard at the assessee s request. The Tribunal found that the said entry was in a different ink. The Tribunal has also found that there was no demand from the assessee either for rehearing or for reopening of the proceedings. No finding of fact by the Tribunal has been challenged by an appropriate question. Following our judgment and order in Taxation Case No. 172 of 1978, 1989 176 ITR 34, I answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in compliance with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. S. ALI AHMAD J. -I agree.
-
1988 (10) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ssee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. No specific concealment or inaccuracy was referred to. The date when the said penalty proceedings were initiated cannot also be found on the record. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the said Act, which was in force at the relevant time, in our view, cannot also be taken advantage of by the Revenue inasmuch as the deemed concealment thereunder can arise only in a valid order of assessment under section 144 of the Act and not in a time-barred assessment. For the above reasons, I am unable to accept the contentions of the Revenue and I answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in compliance with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. S. ALI AHMAD J. - I agree.
....
|
