|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 241 Records
-
1984 (11) TMI 81 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... enged in appeal before the AAC and it was submitted that the difference between the said valuation had arisen because of the fact that the WTO had not taken into account the value of shares exemption under s. 5(1)(XX) amounting of Rs. 2,750 and sequiturs under s. 5(1)(xvi-a). The AAC held that the assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs. 2,750 provided the necessary certificate in prescribed proforma was submitted by the assessee. As regards the other item, the AAC for the same reasons as recorded by him in case of determination of share of the firm Vepar directed the WTO to allow the claim of the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the AAC for the same reasons as set out in this order while dealing with the assessee s claim for determination of his share in the M/s Vepar. In other words for the same reason as set out in ground No. 1 we uphold the decision of the AAC. 7. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 80 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... rasoda expenses and miscellaneous expenses and against the said order of the AAC, the revenue had not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal even though it had preferred an appeal against the said order of the AAC wherein he had held that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) were not applicable to the assessee-trust. In this view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how the revenue can come up in appeal against the order of the AAC on this point. In fact, in the fresh order passed by the ITO on 13-3-1982, the ITO had failed to carry out the directions of the first order of the AAC, dated 17-9-1979. In the impugned order dated 29-11-1983, the AAC has simply directed the ITO to allow deduction of rasoda expenses and miscellaneous expenses to the extent claimed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 79 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... see or considered by the ITO in the order appealed against . There is ample evidence on the record to show that the ITO had applied him mined to the source of income of the assessee-HUF in the aforesaid three firms with a view to determine its taxability or not. In the hands of the assessee-HUF. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the sub-missions made on behalf of the assessee that the enhancement made by the Commissioner (A) was on account of incidental or collateral examination of any matter by the ITO in the process of assessment. In other words, once the assessee s claim for partial partition is negatived in view of the insertion of sub-s. (9) in s. 171 of the Act, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the entire case of the assessee falls to the ground like a house built of cards. In this view of the matter. we have no hesitation to hold that the Commissioner (A) had a jurisdiction to enhance the assessment in the manner he did. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 78 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Officer in the order appealed against . There is ample evidence on the record to show that the ITO had applied his mind to the source of income of the assessee-HUF in the aforesaid three firms with a view to determine its taxability or not in the hands of the assessee-HUF. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the enhancement made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was on account of incidental or collateral examination of any matter by the ITO in the process of assessment. In other words, once the assessee s claim for partial partition is negatived in view of the insertion of sub-section (9) in section 171 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the entire case of the assessee falls to the ground like a house built of cards. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) had a jurisdiction to enhance the assessment in the manner he did. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... p to proprietary concern took place on 1-1-1977, i.e., three months before the starting of the relevant previous year, Rs. 25,438 could not be brought to tax in the year under consideration. Further, I entirely agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the amount which, if at all, could be brought to tax would be Rs. 23,038 and not Rs. 25,438 as has been held by the income-tax authorities. However, in view of my decision on the first two submissions made on behalf of the assessee and accepted by me, it is not necessary to discuss any thing further on the alternative submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. For all these reasons, I hold that the income-tax authorities were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e), and in including Rs. 25,438 in the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The same is, therefore, deleted from the total income of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Writ application - Demand - Recovery ... ... ... ... ..... or move this Court if so advised. We have not referred to the decisions or indicated any views as the matter is yet to be examined by the departmental authorities and expression of our views one way or the other might prejudice an independent examination by them. Until petitioner s stand is examined and a decision is taken, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner to implement the notice under Annexure 7 or consequential action therefor . 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the concerned authority had no jurisdiction to issue the present show cause notice as per Annexure 1. This question of jurisdiction along with the other points raised on behalf of the petitioner shall be duly examined by the authorities keeping in view the observations and directions of this Court contained in the judgment noted above. Accordingly, we do not entertain this writ application which is dismissed. 4. The Misc. Case is also accordingly dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Hypalon-40 - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal upholds the contention of the Customs Department. I, therefore, direct that the respondents-customs authorities shall permit the petitioners to clear the consignment of Hypalon-40 imported by the petitioners which have now arrived at Calcutta per S.S. Robert-E-Lee on the petitioners paying customs duty on the basis that the said goods are synthetic rubber and furnishing security for the difference of the duty which would be payable by the petitioners if the goods were treated as synthetic resin. The security for difference of duty shall be furnished in the form of a bank guarantee or any other security to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The customs authorities shall issue Wharf Rent Exemption Certificate, if necessary. The goods shall be released within 3 days after the bank guarantee is furnished. 37. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
-
1984 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Countervailing duty - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Audit objection ... ... ... ... ..... on notification issued under the Central Excise Act could have no bearing to determine liability to pay countervailing duty under the Customs Tariff Act. The Division Bench also held, in effect, that if imported goods met the conditions for exemption from excise duty laid down in an exemption notification under the Central Excise Act, they would be entitled to that exemption in regard to additional duty. 11. Quite apart from this, the petitioners have acted on the Customs authorities representation. The petitioners having satisfied the requirements laid down by the Customs authorities therein, the Customs authorities cannot be permitted to go back on the representation, and that because of an audit objection. 12. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer b(i), (iii) and (c). The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition. 13. Rule accordingly. 14. The bank guarantees given by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order shall stand discharged.
-
1984 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Dutiability - Demand - Demurrage Charges ... ... ... ... ..... o justify the stand of the Customs authorities. In so far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, therefore, the petition must be made absolute. 4. In so far as respondent 4 is concerned, it would I think be better for the petitioners to apply to it for remission of demurrage. There is a bank guarantee given at the interim stage which protects respondent 4. The petitioners shall apply for remission within a period of four weeks from today and respondent 4 shall dispose of the application within 8 weeks thereafter. Respondent 4 shall not enforce the bank guarantee for a period of 4 weeks after the petitioners have been informed of the decision upon the application for remission. 5. In the circumstances, respondents 1, 2 and 3 are restrained from requiring the petitioners to pay to them customs duty upon the 17 cases in the sum of Rs. 2,98,350/-. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition. There shall be no order as to the costs of respondent 4.
-
1984 (11) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appeal - Withdrawal of ... ... ... ... ..... material such as that mentioned in that paragraph in regard to consignments governed by the arrangement. 24. The three consignments of the petitioners could be cleared by them freely and without any conditions once the appeal from Bhatt J s judgment in the Nagesh Hosiery Mills case was withdrawn. In that the impugned orders does not permit such clearance it is bad. 25. The order dated 18th April 1981 is quashed and set aside. 26. Under the interim order in the petition the three consignments have been cleared. 27. The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of this petition. 28. Rule accordingly. 29. The bond given by the petitioners to the Prothonotary and Senior Master pursuant to the interim order shall stand duly discharged. The petitioners shall be at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs. 26,120/-, with accrued interest, deposited by them with the Prothonotary and Senior Master to the credit of this petition in lieu of the sureties required by the interim order
-
1984 (11) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dutiability - Rate of duty - Compounded Levy Scheme withdrawn ... ... ... ... ..... d give relief, if there was merit in the same. 21. Even otherwise, the alternative plea urged by the petitioner did not require any investigation of facts and was essentially a legal plea on the basis of facts that were not at all in dispute. In this view also, Government should not have declined to examine this plea and grant relief if there was merit in the same. 22. Admittedly the Act and Notification No. 169/72, dated 24th July, 1972 do not provide for multiple levy on the very manufactured article. Assuming that on the basis of the later notifications, blended yarn was separately dutiable, in such an event also, the higher rate of duty, if any paid on the fabric, should have been ordered to be adjusted by Government. 23. On any view of the matter, the impugned orders which are manifestly illegal are liable to be quashed. I therefore, quash the impugned orders and make the rule absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Refund under Writ Jurisdiction - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... to protect the interest of the nation is committed to Parliament and the legislatures of the States. We are referring to this aspect only to alert their attention to the present state of law. 8. In my opinion, in that judgment it is quite clear that the Court has a discretion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to entertain the application. It has also judicial discretion to entertain the application if the delay is explained. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner was running from pillar to post for the redress of his grievances before he made the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate order. 9. In the circumstances, therefore, in my opinion, the rule should be made absolute. The respondents are directed to refund Rs 12,488.15 paid by mistake by the petitioner to the respondents. 10. The payment must be made within 6 months from today or may be adjusted to future duties.
-
1984 (11) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
"Intercom" is not "telephone" - Statute - Tariff Schedule ... ... ... ... ..... examine and decide the alternative contention urged by Sri. Bhat. But, as my order is subjected to appeal, I propose to examine the same and state my views briefly on that question also. 24. Item No. 68 residuary item introduced by the Annual Finance Act from 1st March, 1975, makes every manufactured article that is not expressly governed by any other specific entry to excise duty under that item from that day. Assuming for purposes of argument that the equipment manufactured by the petitioner was a telephone excluded from duty in item No. 33D of the Act, in such an event also, it was dutiable to excise duty under the residuary item from 1st March, 1975. Sri Rangarajan also did not rightly dispute this position. 25. In the light of my above discussion I hold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in the case. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... set aside. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports shall be entitled to issue fresh show cause notices to the 5th respondent and the Petitioners and to decide whether or not the licences should be cancelled after giving the 5th respondent and the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. In view of the fact that Miss Grewal, even now Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, will be a crucial witness, it is desirable that the inquiry be conducted by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports himself. 16. In Writ Petition No. 1131 of 1981 The drugs have, upon the basis of an interim order dated 15th October, 1981, been cleared upon the Petitioners furnishing bank guarantees. The bank guarantees cannot be discharged at this stage, but shall be kept alive until the Chief Controller decides whether or not the licences should be cancelled. In this regard, the Petitioners have liberty to apply to this Court for further orders. 17. No order as to cost. Rule accordingly.
-
1984 (11) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances ... ... ... ... ..... ise and others (1980 Excise Law Times Page 600). It was held Item No. 29-A applied only to those parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances which were ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units. As admittedly the appliances which has been subjected to duty are not ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units, the petition was not liable to pay any excise duty and his case is squarely covered by the decision mentioned above. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order passed by the Collector, Central Excise and demand notice issued in pursuance of it are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Refund - Aerated waters - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... een paid under protest. Explanation. - Where any duty is paid provisionally under these rules on the basis of the value or the rate of duty, the period of six months shall be computed from the date on which the duty is adjusted after final determination of the value or the rate of duty, as the case may be. The petitioner claimed the refund, as earlier stated, sometime in 1979. The claim for refund was clearly barred by time. 11. There is yet another legal obstacle in the way of the petitioner. The claim made by the petitioner company for the refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 12th February, 1980. The remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner but it did not exhaust the statutor y remedy available to it and rushed to this Court. On the facts of this case I see no sufficient ground to invoice the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 12. For the reasons stated I find no merit in the petition and dismiss it with costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 2000/-.
-
1984 (11) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n alternative remedy, both against the order of seizure and the order requiring them to show cause, under Chapter 6-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the view which we have already taken, we find it unnecessary to go into this question. 10. In view of the aforegoing discussion all these four writ petitions are dismissed. 11. An Oral request was made as contemplated by Article 134A of the Constitution of India for the grant of certificate of fitness to file an appeal before the Supreme Court as contemplated under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. 12. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Dhawan appearing for the respondents, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law of general importance, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, is involved. The prayer for the grant of certificate is accordingly refused. 13. A copy of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.
-
1984 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... , 1979 to 7th September, 1979 was rejected upon the ground of limitation. Whereas in this case, excise duty was recovered without authority of law, it must be refunded and this order too must be struck down. The petitioner shall also be entitled to recover excise duty paid under protest between 7th March, 1981 and 1st April, 1981 when, I am told, the notification rescinded. 10. The Excise authorities shall be entitled to ascertain whether the amounts claimed are correct. 11. The order dated 2nd April, 1981 and the two orders dated 8th April, 1981 are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall refund to the petitioners, after ascertaining the correctness thereof, the amounts claimed in the two refund applications dated 7th March, 1981 and the amount of excise duty paid between 7th March, 1981 and 1st April, 1981. Such refund shall be made within a period of six weeks from today. 12. The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition. 13. Rule accordingly.
-
1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the company was not entitled to the exemption granted by notification dated April 6, 1984 as it had cleared the goods earlier without paying central excise duty, but on furnishing bank guarantees under various interim orders of courts?
Held that:- We do not have the slightest doubt that the orders of the learned single judge as well as Division Bench are wholly unsustainable that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the company and should never have been made. Even assuming that the company had established a prima facie case, about which we do not express any opinion, we do not think that it was sufficient justification for granting the interim orders as was done by the High Court. There was no question of any balance of convenience being in favour of the respondent-company. The balance of convenience was certainly in favour of the Government of India. Governments are not run on mere bank guarantees. We notice that very often some courts act as if furnishing a bank guarantee would meet the ends of justice. No governmental business or for that matter no business of any kind can be run on mere bank guarantees. Liquid cash is necessary for the running of a Government as indeed any other enterprise. We consider that where matters of public revenue are concerned, it is of utmost importance to realise that interim orders ought not to be granted merely because prima facie case has been shown. More is required. The balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the making of an interim order and there should not be the slightest indication of a likelihood of prejudice to the public interest. We are very sorry to remark that these considerations have not been borne in mind by the High Court and an interim order of this magnitude had been granted for the mere asking. The appeal is allowed with costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Return ... ... ... ... ..... m as the same have no bearing, in the light of my discussion, on the issue. It would be wrong and dangerous to import into the consideration of the entries in the First Schedule to the Industries Act, things which are germane to the consideration of an entry under entirely a different statute, especially when the purpose and object of the Legislature are also different. Further, the necessity of making reference arose as a doubt was expressed by the referring Bench on the correctness of the judgment of this court in East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, 1972 30 STC 489. But that question again does not arise as the judgment in East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. s case was under the Sales-tax Act, which has no bearing so far as the case in hand is concerned. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
....
|
