|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Project Import — Natural Justice — Delay — Evidence — Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... gard. Any delay can be condoned if sufficient explanation is given and the Authority may exercise the discretion in accordance with law. For the fitness of things and for the ends of justice the present writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent No. 2 to admit the documents and to consider the case afresh on merit by giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case on merit nor this Judgment will influence either side so far as the merit of the case is concerned. 11. It is made clear that the respondent No. 2 will be entitled to ask for the production of the documents already filed before the Appellate Authority within a time as he would think fit and proper and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
1990 (6) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Conviction - Enhancement of sentence ... ... ... ... ..... the said gold biscuits. After going through the aforesaid reasoning and also the provisions of Section 135 of the Customs Act, particularly sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section, I do not think that this is a fit case wherein the trial court has wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding less sentence than the minimum prescribed under the said Act. In my opinion, even the said reasoning also does not strictly come within the ambit of any one of the four clauses of sub-section (3) of Section 135 of the said Act. Apart from the aforesaid factual aspects, Mr. Kotwal, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent has produced the cardiogram of the respondent showing that he is suffering from cardiac ailment. 5. Taking the above mentioned circumstances into consideration and also the fact that this appeal is pending from 1983, I do not think that this is a case where this Court should interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Magistrate. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Order not passed for considerable period after hearing ... ... ... ... ..... he appeal. The learned counsel urged that respondent No. 2 cannot deprive the petitioners of an advantage of refund by keeping the appeal pending for over three years after conclusion of arguments. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. Miss Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no answer to the claim that the appeal should be disposed of forthwith. Shri Shroff for the petitioners and Miss Shah for the respondents inform that the Officer who had heard the appeal has been transferred and the new incumbent has taken over. It is, therefore, necessary to direct respondent No. 2 who is in office to re-hear the petitioners appeal and dispose of it forthwith. 4. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to give a fresh hearing to the petitioners and dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and also communicate the decision to the petitioners. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1990 (6) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jurisdiction - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... he only dispute was under which Tariff Item duty was payable. Shri Parekh points out that the Assistant Collector had taken samples of the goods imported and had called for the reports and the two reports were in favour of the petitioner Company. There is considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. The mere mention of Section 11A does not confer jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Central Excise to transfer the proceedings to Additional Collector of Central Excise. The plain reading of Show Cause Notice makes it clear that the show cause notice is really one under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules. It is therefore clear that there is no difficulty in Assistant Collector disposing of the show cause notice. 3. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute and it is directed that the show cause notice shall be disposed of by the Assistant Collector in accordance with provisions of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty and penalty, pending appeal - Dispensation of - Sufficient cause ... ... ... ... ..... this extent that instead of depositing the sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty the petitioner may be permitted to furnish the personal bond relating to the entire penalty amount. There is nothing to give any indulgence to the petitioner to avoid payment of Rs. 3,98,280.65 as pre-deposit as the said amount is being deposited as a condition of the appeal and as without prejudice. If the petitioner succeeds in appeal the petitioner will get all the benefits as available in law. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ-petition is disposed of by modifying and/or varying the impugned order in the manner as indicated above. 4. There will be no order as to costs. 5. Since the petitioner asks for some time to pay the aforesaid amount, time is extended by 3 months from date and within these three months the entire amount can be deposited by equal three instalments or in a lump. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1990 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Confiscation - Customs - Import - Advance Licence - Revalidation of ... ... ... ... ..... d Exports was perfectly justified in not revalidating the licence when the petitioner had indulged in illegal practice by obtaining antedated Bill of Lading. It is undoubtedly true that in the letter dated June 30,1989 the Controller of Imports and Exports has not assigned any reasons, but that fact would not take away the effect of the order as it is obvious that the petitioner had indulged in misleading the Customs Authorities and the Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner cannot expect any advantage from such act. In my judgment, Writ Petition No. 1775 of 1990 is also without any merit and is required to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, both the petitions are summarily rejected. A copy of this judgment should be sent by Prothonotary and Senior Master to the Controller of Imports and Exports for information and action, if found necessary. Mr. Mehta requested for permission to withdraw both the petitions after judgment was partly dictated. I declined the permission.
-
1990 (6) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... policy of life insurance taken out by him. The Madras High Court held that the obligation to pay the insurance premia remains with the assessee. He was merely discharging that obligation as result of the contract between him and the insurance company. The court said that, by no stretch of imagination, can the amounts paid in discharge of the obligation in a contract of insurance be said to be a gift made to the nominee of the insurance policy. The same ratio would apply to the present case. The policy of insurance in the present case is deemed to be a trust created for the benefit of the assessee s children, but that does not make the payment of each and every premium by the assessee to keep alive the policy of insurance a gift made by the assessee to the beneficiaries of the insurance policies. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hom his relations as husband and wife subsisted while making each and every gift. Advisedly, there is no corresponding provision for husbands as under no law in our country can a wife have more than one husband at a time. The situation obtaining herein is materially different. The assessee had divorced her first husband. She contracted a second marriage and made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000 to the second husband when, admittedly, the relationship of husband and wife with the first husband had ceased. The interpretation placed on the clause by the Tribunal is not discriminatory as contended by Shri Jetley for the Revenue. Just as the gift to a second husband by the wife after the divorce from the first husband qualifies for fresh exemption under section 5(1)(viii), a gift to a second wife by the husband after divorce from the first wife may also qualify for fresh exemption. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 71 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Prosecution Under Sales Tax Act, Sales Tax Act, Search And Seizure
-
1990 (6) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... or the Department, that there are many decisions including the latest one of the Supreme Court in the case of C WT v. K. S. N. Bhatt 1984 145 ITR 1, where in the context of wealth-tax proceedings, it was held that liability towards wealth-tax, income-tax and gift-tax which crystallise on the relevant valuation date are to be deducted from the wealth even though the assessment orders are finalised after the valuation date. It was, however, pointed out that there was no direct decision under the Estate Duty Act on the question. In our opinion, the ratio of the decision is squarely applicable in the case of determination of the principal value of the estate for estate duty purposes. We uphold the order of the Tribunal that the liability to gift-tax in respect of gifts made by the deceased during his lifetime was deductible from the principal value of the estate. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s consideration in money or money s worth. Various considerations may go into promise of marriage such as natural love and affection of the parties for each other. These are not capable of being evaluated in money or money s worth. In fact, it is not seriously contended by the learned advocate for the assessee that consideration of marriage can be considered as consideration in money or money s worth. Mr. Mistry relied upon the decisions in CGT v. J. N. Marshal 1979 120 ITR 613 (Bom) as also CGT v. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar 1969 74 ITR 758 (Mad). These cases, in our view, are not relevant to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal that the transfer of these shares is covered by the definition of gift within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
1990 (6) TMI 68 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... earned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of section 276DD of the Income-tax Act prescribe that imposition of fine should always be equal to the amount of deposits is untenable. The word liable used in the section gives discretion to the court with regard to the imposition of fine. The court may either choose to impose fine or may dispense with imposition of fine. When such discretion is there with regard to the imposition of fine itself, it cannot be said that the court has no discretion with regard to the quantum of fine to be imposed. As the appeal is on the ground that the learned special judge has failed to award the sentence in accordance with the provisions of section 276DD of the Income-tax Act on the presumption that the fine amount should be equal to the amount of deposit and as I am not prepared to agree with that contention of learned counsel for the appellant, I hold that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the other part represented the amount in lieu of the obligation of the assessee to maintain his son. It is pertinent to mention that though the Tribunal had found that the settlement in question amounted to a gift in part, it had done so on the basis of the legal provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and the Gift-tax Act as it stood then. Therefore, this is a decision on a question of law and the Tribunal has rightly referred the question to this court for opinion. Following the abovesaid two decisions of this court, we hold that the settlement in trust of the 150 equity shares of Lallubhai Amichand Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee amounted to a gift taxable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, the second question referred to us at the instance of the Department does not survive and, accordingly, need not be answered. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 66 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Lands Within Notified Areas, Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... T v. Glory Paul 1990 186 ITR 496 (Ker)). In the light of the above decisions, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that no tax on capital gains was leviable on the sale of agricultural lands in question. It will be useful to remember the amendment made in the Act by section 3 of the Finance Act, 1989. The amendment in the statute has been made with retrospective effect which makes it clear that capital gains tax is exigible on the sale of agricultural lands situate within the notified areas. In the light of the above, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding to the contrary. It should have been held that if there is capital gains by the sale of lands in question, it is exigible to capital gains tax. We answer the questions referred to us in the negative, 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 shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (6) TMI 65 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Principles Of Natural Justice In I.T. Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ndividuals and not to secure general objects of policy and morals In the U. K., the most ancient case is that of A Court v. Cross 1825 3 Bing 329 at page 360, in that limitation was described as an act of peace . In an opinion expressed in Ampthill Peerage s case 1976 2 All ER 411 at p. 423, the House of Lords observed Truth may be shut out (by operation of limitation) but society considers truth may be bought ... the fundamental principle ... (is) that there should be some end to litigation . . We find solace in what is stated to be the eternal verity of life and law that statutes of limitation achieve peace and good administration but do not advance morals and good conduct. We answer that the assessment order for 1970-71 and the assessment proceedings are barred. The answer is recorded against the Revenue. As respects 1971-72, the assessment order is not barred, and we answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs. B. P. SARAF J. -I agree.
-
1990 (6) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assets, House Property, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hich the net income from the property was computed at Rs. 28,176 in the income-tax proceedings is also not available to the court. On the basis of the assessee s claim that he was to suffer 10 per cent. of the annual letting value by way of tax under the said Act, it could be reasonably taken that the gross annual letting value of these properties must have been Rs. 48,500. In the absence of details, it is not possible to imagine what deductions were allowed or were not allowed to the assessee in the income-tax proceedings. It is also not known whether the repairs allowed to the assessee were hypothetical or whether the assessee had actually incurred any expenditure on account of repairs. In the above view of the matter, we do not see anything wrong in the Tribunal taking the figure of net income at Rs. 28,176 as per the income-tax assessment for applying the multiplier. The question is, accordingly, answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Notice, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ed for time to make another attempt to serve the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that this is a reference of the year 1976. Fourteen years have already passed. If the Department has not been able to serve the notice on the assessee so far, there is no point in granting the Department further time now to serve the assessee. In the circumstances, the reference is returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... f these competing contentions, as observed by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Brothers 1969 74 ITR 836, cannot be determined merely on affidavits especially when serious allegations of improper behaviour and misconduct are made against the officers. As already observed, the officers who conducted the search have asserted that they acted in good faith and in discharge of their official duties and not for any collateral purpose. The Commissioner of Income-tax has also denied the said allegations. There was, however, no request on the part of the petitioners for adducing evidence in proof of the various allegations of misbehaviour levelled against the authorised officers. In the absence of any proof of these allegations, the argument that the authorised officers, in the conduct of the search, acted mala fide is liable to be rejected. I accordingly reject the same. The original petition, for the reasons stated above, is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... inly fall under the expression property passing on death merely because that expression partakes within it of an ascertainment subsequent to but with reference to death. The Gujarat and Rajasthan High Courts in cases have admittedly held that refund falling due as a result of the assessment order or any other order after the valuation date is not an asset on the valuation date under the Wealth-tax Act. The Madras and Allahabad High Courts have taken conflicting views in the matter. Having regard to the Supreme Court decision in M. Ct. Muthiah v. CED 1986 161 ITR 768, in our judgment, a mere right to claim refund which may or may not materialise is not property within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act. Once it is held that it is not Property, the question of its passing on death could not arise. In view of the discussion above, we answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 60 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n No. 3 also, it appears to us, came up for consideration in the assessee s own case in CIT v. Smt. Matilda Ferreira 1977 108 ITR 616. Though such a question was not referred and answered in that case, the court approved the Tribunal s finding as to the ownership of the property which is categorically and unequivocally declared to have belonged to Dr. Ferreira till the date of the settlement. The Tribunal, it may be stated, had emphasised that this was a settlement a declaration obtained by the court as a result of agreement between the parties. It expressed the view that all these declarations were by reason of act of parties and could, therefore, take effect only from the date of the consent decree and could not have the effect of altering the past. Accordingly, we answer the third question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the third question, the fourth question does not survive and is, accordingly, not answered. No order as to costs.
....
|
