Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 161 Records
-
1995 (6) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Natural Justice - Personal Hearing ... ... ... ... ..... 4 of 1980, dated 13th June, 1980 and remand the revision application dated 16th July, 1975 instituted by the petitioners against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 14th July, 1975 for hearing afresh on merits after hearing the petitioners. We are told at this stage that after the establishment of Central Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) all matters pending before the Government of India under the Excise Laws were transferred to CEGAT. It is open to the Government of India to transfer the records to the appropriate bench of CEGAT. The appropriate bench may endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible as the revision application was filed sometime in the year 1980. 4. The interim order made by this Court of 16th January, 1981 to continue till the disposal of the matter by CEGAT and for the period of four weeks thereafter. 5. Rule accordingly made absolute as indicated above. There shall be however no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Motor - Demand - Adjudication Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... for the Assistant Collector to recompute the duty payable under Tariff Item No. 30D and the petitioner Company may be entitled to refund of some amount. The claim made by the learned counsel cannot be acceded at this juncture because the order passed by the Collector is under challenge before the CEGAT at the behest of the Excise Authorities, and as long as the Tribunal has not disposed of the appeal, it is not open for the Assistant Collector to recompute the duty payable. In case the appeal pending before the CEGAT ends in dismissal, then it is open for the petitioners to approach the Assistant Collector and demand recomputation. The Assistant Collector will then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6.Accordingly, petition fails and Rule is discharged with costs. In case the petitioners have been paid any amount in pursuance of any interim order passed in this petition, then the petitioners shall repay the said amount the said amount within six weeks from today.
-
1995 (6) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demand - Strictures against Department ... ... ... ... ..... it is filed on behalf of the respondents. The affidavit sworn by R.K. Mehra, Assistant Collector refers to copy the letter dated June 11, 1986 in paragraph 11 and further it states that the copy is annexed to the affidavit at Exh. A . In paragraph 18 of the affidavit, reference is made to the clarification issued by the Board and it is stated that the copy of the clarification is annexed as Exh. B . Both these documents are not annexed to the affidavit and we are surprised how such an affidavit was prepared, sworn and then tendered in Court. The copies of the exhibits are also not furnished to the counsel for the petitioners. It is very sad state of affair and we hope that such carelessness will not be repeated. 4. Accordingly, petition succeeds and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition. The amount deposited by the respondents under interim orders to be refunded to the Respondents alongwith interest accrued thereon.
-
1995 (6) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rate of duty - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... and perusal of the same leaves no manner of doubt that not only the Bill of Entry was presented on November 5, 1986 but was also entered in the Cargo Declaration Register. The perusal of the original register indicates that the Bill of Entry was returned to the Petitioners after registration and thereafter, the corrected Bill of Entry was represented on November 19, 1986. It is well settled that the rate of duty payable is on the date when the Bill of Entry is presented. It is not uncommon that the Bills of Entry after presentation are returned to the importer or its agent for correction and after such correction the Bills of Entry are represented. It is impossible to accede to the claim that the relevant date is not the date of presentation but the date of representation. In our judgment, the claim of the Petitioners is devoid of any merit and the petition must fail. 3. Accordingly Rule is discharged with costs. The Respondents are at liberty to enforce the bank guarantee.
-
1995 (6) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ... ... ... ..... disentitled the assessee from claiming the benefit of duty drawback only if few thin lines of printing/coloured yarn is contained in the body of the fabrics. In the present case that is not the case. In the present case predominantly the goods are printed to the extent of 50 in the body of the fabrics. In the circumstances the impugned orders denying duty drawback to the Petitioners are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector of Customs (Drawback department). In the circumstances the Petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of duty drawback under sub-serial No. 2617 in respect of the cotton bleached candy. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector of Customs only for verification of the claim in respect of the duty drawback. The Deputy Collector (Drawback) will decide the amount payable to the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... y 75 approximately of the said sum has been refunded i.e. Rs. 1,49,821/-. It was paid by a cheque dated 8-2-1994 (see page 48). 8.The Airport Authority have not appeared before me. There is no reason why they should appear because the balance sum of Rs. 56,579/- is clearly payable by them. Being a public authority it would be unreasonable on their part to withhold the sum without any just cause. A writ is, therefore, permissible for such recovery instead of having to file an ordinary suit, which tends to become a long drawn affair. There will be writs absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) and there will also be an order in terms of prayer (e) but all this will be as against the respondent No. 3, and the respondent No. 3 only and further that interest will be paid if and only if payment of the principal sum of Rs. 56,579/- is not made within a month hereof. 9.All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed zerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
-
1995 (6) TMI 15 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ermined at 12.5 per cent. of the award amount after excluding the interest component included therein. It also held that the pre-award interest should be totally excluded from the income of the assessee. On the aforesaid facts it was finally held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to estimate the profit at 12.5 per cent. of the principal amount of the award. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the pre-award interest component of the amount was not taxable. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we find that the interest out of the award is taxable. The finding of the Tribunal is not justified and right. With regard to the second contention as to the rate of tax, it is brought to our notice that in view of the settled position of law the rates of tax on interest would be consistent with the rate of profit on the principal business at which the tax is levied in accordance with law. With this observation, the matter is disposed of.
-
1995 (6) TMI 14 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... v. Bijay Kishore Kapoor 1993 202 ITR 129, wherein it has been held that in terms of clause (iv) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, salary includes any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages. Section 17 contains definitions within a definition. For the purposes of the section, there is no difference between commission which is wholly dependent upon work done and fixed salary on a periodic footing. It has further been held that the terms of engagement clearly reflected the relationship between the employer and employee. The employer itself considered the payment as salary and made deductions under section 192 while making the payment. The commission received by the assessee was assessable as income from salary and deduction at the rate of 30 per cent. could not be allowed on account of expenses. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the references are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (6) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Late Filing, Sanction For Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... idity of the section would be open to serious challenge for want of such an opportunity. Here the validity of the section is not questioned and adverse civil consequences to the parties will not be affected as section 279 itself takes care of the rights of the parties to compound the offence even after the proceedings were instituted. As the accused are not prohibited from approaching the Commissioner even before the sanction is accorded, the petitioners could have very well approached the Commissioner and sought for compounding the offence. They, not having done it, cannot at this belated stage, say that natural justice was violated in that the Commissioner did not order any notice to them. No such notice is contemplated in the Act and the Act also does not prohibit persons from approaching the Commissioner for compounding the offence at a later stage. Under these circumstances, I feel that this criminal miscellaneous case cannot be allowed and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... l placed before it, for supporting the action taken for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD of the Act. The order clearly falls short of this requirement. In our opinion, the point is concluded by the above decision also. Since no satisfaction has been arrived at by the respondent on the basis of objective facts and no reasons have been recorded for coming to a positive conclusion as to why there was difference of more than 15 per cent., the order cannot be said to be in accordance with law and must be quashed and set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated March 30, 1995, passed by the respondent-appropriate authority at annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to complete necessary formalities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the court including issuance of clearance certificate. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he impugned order dated December 9, 1985, found that the penalties levied by the Income-tax Officer were reasonable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 1 in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 1,00,000 and the revision petition filed by the assessee came to be partly allowed. In the present case, we do not find any merit in the petition, Firstly, the assessee did not avail of the opportunity given to show that the amounts mentioned above were not concealed income. Despite several opportunities, the assessee did not remain present. Secondly, no appeal was preferred. Thirdly, the record shows that the assessee agreed to surrender the amounts only after seizure operations took place in 1965. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Auction Sale, Finding Of Fact, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Writ Petition
-
1995 (6) TMI 9 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... er properties of the firm. A share in the goodwill is capable of being inherited. As in the aforesaid case and in the case at hand, the Gift-tax Officer did not indicate that he had perused the partnership agreement or the later partnership or the agreement by which the minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. The order also does not disclose that any investment was made by the firm on behalf of the minor through her guardian, as indeed, he proceeded with the presumption that the minor had a right to the share of the assets of the partnership firm and further on the assumption that such a right also included a share in the goodwill,. In such circumstances, the minor was held as not liable to gifttax. The present case is fully covered by Pranay Kumar Saharia s case 1993 204 ITR 78 (Gauhati). In the result, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (6) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Residential House Property ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee. It is enough if the assessee is the beneficial owner of the house in respect of which exemption is claimed. The expression belonging to fell for consideration of this court in Syed Khaza v. Raghavendra Rao 1974 2 ITJ 287. The Division Bench held that it does not necessarily connote ownership of the property and that the right of possession falls within the ambit of that expression. Following that judgment, we hold that for purposes of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, a person who has come into possession of the property on payment of the full consideration is entitled to exemption even though in the relevant year the property was not conveyed to him under a registered document. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Fair Market Value, Immovable Property By Central Government, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Transfer Of Property
-
1995 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Amount Forgone, Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... sessee s son, R. M. Meenakshisundaram, wherein this court held as under, in CIT v. R. M. Meenakshisundaram 1995 212 ITR 220 (headnote) Held, that the monies received by the assessee at the family partition had been his stock-in-trade and had been continuously lent by him with a view to earn profit thereon. Even when the money was utilised by the father, it was treated as a loan from the assessee and interest was credited to the assessee s account. The assessee was carrying on the business of money-lending during these assessment years. The interest received on these loan transactions constituted business income. In view of the abovesaid decision rendered by this court in the case of the assessee s son, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the income arising from money-lending business is business income. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Public Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... under section 5. The words shall not be deemed to include occurring in section 22 cannot be construed as having a positive content so as to bring the properties referred to in that section within the charge, whenever the exemption under that section is not available. Even if the exemption provision does not apply to the facts of the case, the charge under section 5 can relate only to the property or interest that passes on the death of the deceased and it cannot apply to properties or interest that did not pass on the death of the deceased . Thus, a plain reading of sections 5, 6 to 17 and 22 of the Act would go to show that the property gifted by the deceased in the present case in favour of a public charitable trust before a period of six months from the date of death of the deceased is not chargeable to estate duty. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the Department. Accordingly, this T.C.P. is dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... . Ltd. v. Government of Madras 1974 96 ITR 165 has taken the view that section 5(e) of the Act cannot be interpreted in such a restricted manner. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows (at page 167) We are unable to accept this view of the Tribunal. We are of the view that the expression for the purpose of the land is much wider in scope than the expression for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income from the land . Section 5(e) is in the nature of a residuary clause and would take in not only those expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the agricultural income but also very many expenses involved in carrying on the agricultural activity as an occupation. If the expenses are reasonably connected with the holding of the land and using it for the purpose of agriculture, we are of opinion that those expenses will come under the expression for the purpose of the land . For the reasons stated above, we see no ground to admit this case. It is rejected.
-
1995 (6) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... before it, for supporting the action taken for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD of the Act. The order clearly falls short of this requirement. In our opinion, the point is concluded by the above decision also. Since no satisfaction has been arrived at by the respondent on the basis of objective facts and no reasons have been recorded for coming to a positive conclusion as to why there was difference of more than 15 per cent., the order cannot be sid to be in accordance with law and must be quashed and set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated April 28, 1995, at annexures E and E-1 passed by the appropriate authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to complete the necessary formalities within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order of the court including issuance of clearance certificate. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Account Books, Assessed Income, Cash Credits, Inaccurate Particulars, Income Returned, Penalty Proceedings, Returned Income Less Than 80 Per Cent
....
|