Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 292 Records

• 1992 (1) TMI 135 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... TO disallowed under r. 6D a sum of Rs. 15,714. It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) that the disallowance ought to have been restricted under r. 6D at Rs. 11,745 as per calculation submitted by the assessee company. The CIT(A) directed the ITO to work out the disallowable amount under r. 6D by taking total expenditure for the whole year rather than taking the expenditure of the individual tour in consonance with the decision of the Tribunal in the case reported in S.V. Ghatalia vs. ITO (1983) 37 CTR (Trib) (Bom) 68 (1983) 4 ITD 583 (Bom). 19. After hearing the learned representatives we are of the view that there is no justification in interfering with the findings given by the CIT(A), as the view taken by the CIT(A) is based on the decision of the Tribunal. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice. The view taken by the CIT(A) is, therefore, confirmed. 20. In the result assessee s appeals are allowed and the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 134 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
  

  Assessment Proceedings, Income From House Property, Original Assessment, Rental Incom

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he amount of tax paid by him exceeds the amount with which he is properly chargeable under this Act for that year, he shall be entitled to a refund of the excess. The credit of prepaid taxes paid within the financial years will also have to be given regardless of the fact that no estimate/statement of advance tax was filed by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the considered view that irrespective of the question whether the tax paid by the assessee in the financial year without furnishing the estimate/statement of advance tax is or is not to be treated as advance tax, it must be taken into account for the purpose of levy of interest under section 217 as well as under section 139(8). The assessing authority is, therefore, directed to calculate the interest chargeable under sections 217 and 139(8), if any, after taking into consideration the entire amount of advance tax paid within the respective financial years. 13. In the result all the appeals are treated as partly allowed

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 133 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Refund (Customs) - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... - that only cases of disputed assessments and not those of short landed goods can qualify for benefit available under Explanation to Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once an assessment is provisional, for whatever reason, the said benefit of computing the period of limitation from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof will be available to an importer even if the basis of claim is short-landing. This is for the simple reason that until the reconciliation of imports with the contract is carried out duty incidence is not finally known and hence also the amount due for refund. 4. In view of the said discussion, the refund claim does not appear to be time-barred as held by the authorities below. Government, therefore, remand the case to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration after taking the above observations into consideration and also after hearing the applicants in person. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 132 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Baggage - Precedents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that Collector (Appeals) erroneously held that the adjudicating authority did not record any finding in regard to the party s contention that he wanted to declare the gold chain and get a TBRE. The Deputy Collector has clearly rejected this plea. 22. On the facts of the case in hand it is held that the reference by the Collector (Appeals) to non-existence of a list under Rule 7(2) in the circumstances of this case was totally unwarranted. Even otherwise on merits, this was not a fit case to grant option of re-export of the goods, which are clearly in the nature of trade and commercial goods and which were recovered from the respondent in the green channel. In the result the review application succeeds and the Order-in-Appeal, is hereby set aside under Section 129DD ibid and in its place, Government restores the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Collector in its entirety. 23. By this order, the revision application filed by the respondent is also disposed of as rejected.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
  

  Modvat/Cenvat

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the Modvat facilities can be claimed even in respect to final products manufactured after withdrawal of the notification on 1-10-1987. But on the analysis as aforesaid the petitioner s right to get the credit utilised for payment of the duty in respect of the final products manufactured within 1-3-87 to 1-10-87 cannot be denied and hence the order of the Assistant Collector in Annexure-13 refusing to allow the same must necessarily be set aside. 9.In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order in Annexure-13 is set aside and the opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to utilise the credit in respect of the duty paid for the glass bottles lying in stock as on 1-3-1987 or thereafter till 1-10-1987 to be utilised for payment of duty on the final products manufactured within 1-10-1987. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-. Assent per J.M. Mahapatra, J . - I agree.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Rectification of provisional assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... matter irrespective of the fact that the matter was dealt with in the writ petition specially in view of the latter exemption notifications made in this case with retrospective operation and the writ petitions were only about the provisional assessments under Section 7B. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals with the direction that the assessing officer will now take up the matter and make final assessment orders in accordance with law. We leave open all the questions of law arising on the applicability and scope of the exemption orders and the applicability of Section 8(2A) in respect of inter state sales now in dispute. 3. In view of the fact that the assessment relates to 1983-84 and the matter has been pending since then, the assessing officer will now take up the matter and make final assessment orders on a priority basis at the earliest. Any direction regarding the deposit of tax under the provisional assessment should await the fresh order of the assessing officer.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 129 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Penalty for misdeclaration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ission is granted. It is difficult, in the circumstances of the present case, to say, merely because there is some difference in the figures referred to by the Government as a potential loss and the actual loss of revenue, as eventually calculated, that the discretion has been arbitrarily exercised. It is to be remembered that while Government of India s order of debarment is based on a rough estimate, the potential figures are based on actuals both in regard to the quantity as well as in regard to value. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that though there is some difference between the figures mentioned in the Government order and the demand made against the appellant eventually, there is no arbitrariness in the determination of the period of debarment which can give room for interfering under Article 136 of the Constitution after the High Court has upheld the period of debarment. 4. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal. We, however, make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
  

  Refund - Quantification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant is refundable and thereupon he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund . The fund is defined by Section 2(ee) to mean the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12C and the money credited to the fund is required, by reason of Section 12D, to be utilised by the Central Government for the welfare of consumers in accordance with Rules in that behalf that it might make. 4.It is submitted, and rightly, that the order under appeal can operate only subject to the aforesaid provisions. Thus, the writ petitioner shall now have to establish before the first appellant that the incidence of the excise duty in question had not been passed on by it to any other person and, if any amount is found to be refundable, the first appellant shall credit the same to the said Consumer Welfare Fund. The order under appeal, is modified in the aforesaid terms and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the categories of yarn referred to earlier manufactured by the assessee, could be brought within the terms of Tariff Item No. 18B(ii)?

  Held that:- The contention urged on behalf of the appellant has to be accepted. Items 18 to 181 form one group of entries dealing with composite yarn of various categories. Item 18A defines cotton yarn as yarn in which cotton predominates in weight. Item 18B talks about woollen and acrylic spun yarn as yarn, in which wool or acrylic fibre or both predominates or predominate in weight. Item 18C deals with silk yarn in which silk predominates in weight and so on.

  The word `predominate', in the context of a composite yarn made of different types of yarns, has a very simple meaning namely that the percentage of the particular yarn with which one is concerned should predominate over the weight of the other constituents of the composite yarn. This being so, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal so far as the items of composite yarn which which we are concerned. We hold that they fall under Item 18B(ii) and that the duty should be levied accordingly. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
  

  Exemption - SSI exemption - Clubbing of clearances - Writ jurisdiction - Show cause notice stage - Held that: - Mere blood relationship or sharing of staff, some temporary common employment, similarity of product is also not sufficient to draw an inference that the two units should be clubbed together

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
  

  Prosecution - Evidence - Confession - Rendering of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... an be relied on. In this confessional statement, the appellant has admitted that he was in possession of these articles recovered from his possession since, the recovered articles have been admitted to be his own though for other purposes, as such, non examination of the recovery witnesses has got no effect, more specifically when other witnesses examined by the prosecution, on scrutiny are found to be trustworthy and their evidence is credible. Thus the recovery of the articles has been established from the possession of the appellant for which there is no explanation and so, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. In the result the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant is confirmed and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is in jail and he will serve out the remaining period of sentences and also make payment of fine as given by the trial court.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Recovery proceeding stayed by High Court till adjudication completed by department

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ation or revival of recovery proceedings seems plainly unfair and unjust. 6. We, accordingly dispose of this petition with the direction that subject to the petitioner s filing a certified copy of this order on each of the respondents within two weeks the recovery of the impugned demand dated 12th September, 1989 (Annexure 6 to the petition) and warrants of sale dated 16th January, 1991 and 30th January, 1991 (Annexures 11 and 12 to the petition respectively) shall remain stayed until the decision in the matter in dispute as envisaged in this Court s judgment and order dated 9-5-1991 (Annexure 14 to the petition). It is made clear that this order shall have no effect or operation in case the petitioner s representation dated 21-5-1991 (Annexure 16 to the petition) has already been decided and disposed of in compliance with this Court s direction dated 9th May, 1991. 7. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of requisite charges within three days.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Appeal - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was ever objected to which could necessitate an enquiry into disputed questions of fact. In this view of the matter we do not find it necessary to do so. 22. In our opinion, it was a fit case where the short delay in filing the appeal in question should have been condoned by the Appellate Authority and the appeal should have been entertained and decided on merits. 23. In view of what has been said above, we allow the writ petition in part and quash the order dated 21-8-1979 passed by the respondent No. 2, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to this writ petition and the order dated 22-11-1982, passed by the respondent No. 1 a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the same on merits treating the same to be well within time, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Secondary packing

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... terms of sale or established practice are available, then it is a matter amenable to an easy verification by the concerned authority. If materials be present, but the authority had erred, a superior authority or a constitutional court could rectify the error and give the deserved relief, if the necessary grounds in that behalf are made out. The paucity of the material is self-evident in the case. The petitioners could not convincingly or effectively demonstrate any error in the assessment of the materials made by the Assistant Collector. A vague plea of mutual understanding , and a loose concept of incremental sale efforts , would not be an effective substitute for clear terms and the categoric conditions which could be reasonably expected in transactions of this nature. In that view of the matter, this contention too has to fail. 12. In the result, even the attenuated contentions put forward by the petitioner have to be rejected. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund - Limitation - Credit of Money Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ct, 1961 would not apply to the powers and duties of an Excise Officer functioning under the appropriate provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Moreover it is nowhere pointed out that it was brought to the notice of the Excise Officer concerned that all the relevant conditions for availing of the credit were fulfilled by the assessee and even so the Excise Officer refused to grant credit. Thus, in our opinion, on facts as well as in view of the different object and different provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Limited (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. 15. No other contention is urged. In above view of the matter, both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits there is no substance in the petition. The petition is therefore required to be rejected. 16. In the result the petition is rejected. Rule discharged.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Import Licence - Revalidation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the Subsidiary Licences for AM 83 is justified. 3. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that, in addition to the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant should be given relief by way of directions to the Respondents as under (1) The Respondent shall, within eight weeks from today, issue Subsidiary Licences for AM 83. Such licences shall be revalidated for a period of six months from the date on which they are issued or despatched whichever is later (2) The Subsidiary Licences for AM 84 to AM 88 shall, within a period of eight weeks from today, be revalidated for a period of six months from the date on which they are revalidated or despatched, whichever is later. 4. The Appeal is allowed and the Order of the learned Single Judge modified to this extent only. There shall be no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, on the payment of requisite charges, to be supplied within 7 days of the case papers reaching the Department.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Stay/Dispensation of predeposit of duty - Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... am not satisfied that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion properly in this case by asking the petitioners to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- considering the facts and circumstances of this case that both the petitioners are not financially sound. It is well settled that the Tribunal has to take note of the hardship under these Central Excise and Customs Act, 1924. In my view it has not been taken note of by the Tribunal. As such the petitioners are before me. 4. After hearing Mr. K. Thamizhmani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Jayachandran learned Addition Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am fully satisfied with the case of the petitioners and that the impugned order has to be set aside on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within four weeks from today. On such deposit the Tribunal shall hear the appeal of the petitioners and dispose it of on merits. These petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eme Court is not enough to deny the petitioners the refund of the duty paid. I am of the view that the contention of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners has to be accepted. The mere filing of appeals before the Supreme Court without obtaining an order of stay therein will not be a sufficient ground for the Department to retain the duty paid by the petitioners. If the Department is vigilant, it should have obtained an order of stay. I am also informed that the appeals before the Supreme Court have been preferred in March, 1991 and almost a year is going to be over in two months since the filing of the appeals. As such, I do not see any justification for the respondents to retain the paltry amounts with them. Considering the fact that the petitioners are all small manufacturers, a direction will issue to the respondents to refund the amount in each case to the respective petitioners on or before 29-2-1992. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
  

  Refund claim - Refund of excise duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of the duty of excise paid by the applicant is refundable and thereupon he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund . The fund is defined by Section 2(ee) to mean the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12C and the money credited to the fund is required, by reason of Section 12D, to be utilised by the Central Government for the welfare of consumers in accordance with Rules in that behalf that it might make. 4. It is submitted, and rightly, that the order under appeal can operate only subject to the aforesaid provisions. Thus, the writ petitioner shall now have to establish before the first appellant that the incidence of the excise duty in question had not been passed on by it to any other person and, if any amount is found to be refundable, the first appellant shall credit the same to the said Consumer Welfare Fund. 5. The order under appeal is modified in the aforesaid terms and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

  ---

• 1992 (1) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund - Limitation - Refund - Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Constitution of India. Assuming that under Article 226 of the Constitution, we could exercise our discretion, in our opinion it would not be proper exercise of discretion to grant the relief to the petitioner. 16. Even on merits, the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner did not submit the account to the Collector within the period of limitation. Thus the department has been deprived of the opportunity to make appropriate verification at the relevant time. Therefore, even on merits, it is not correct to say that the claim of the petitioner is just claim and that it is rejected only on technical ground. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is liable to be rejected. It is clarified that the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Thus on each of the aforesaid grounds the petition is liable to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. Rule discharged.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 15