|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 132 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Exemption, Gold Bonds ... ... ... ... ..... erest and it would lose assignability. Although it maybe called a bond, actually it is no longer a bond. On the maturity date, it is merely a document of title to the gold. Its presentation to the Reserve Bank would entitle the holder of that document to the delivery of the gold. As rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, the Reserve Bank is merely custodian of the gold, of which the assessee is the owner. Since the gold bond could not be assigned after the maturity date, its exemption from gift-tax would be of no relevance. The notes on clauses regarding the amendment to gift tax on which the assessee s advocate relied cannot be taken into consideration for ascertaining the nature of this document for which only the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto have to be taken into account. We, therefore, hold that the exemption claimed by the assessee is not available. The document of title to the gold is a taxable asset. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 131 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Rubber Estate ... ... ... ... ..... language of section 80AA bears the interpretation which we have put and as such said interpretation should be preferred to one canvassed by the representative of the assessee. 11. The learned representative of the assessee has relied on an unreported old decision of the Tribunal in which it was held that provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80M should be ignored in view of the provisions in section 80AA. If this had been the only decision of the Tribunal on this point we would have been bound by it despite the contrary view which commends itself to us. However, we find that view similar to one which we have taken has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Madan Mohan Lall Shriram (P.) Ltd. v. IAC 1985 12 ITD 21 in a subsequent decision. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. We accordingly set aside the direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restore the computation made by the Income-tax Officer. 12. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Deduction, Profits And Gains From Newly Established Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... bmissions. It is not under dispute that the Balance Sheet of the company as on 30th June, 1979 was approved by the annual general meeting of the shareholders held in December 1979. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. has clearly laid down that the appropriations made by the annual general meeting of the shareholders relate back to the year to which the accounts adopted by the annual general meeting pertained. In these circumstances, there appears to be no justification to take out the amount of provision for interim dividend amounting to Rs. 3,75,000 shown in the Balance Sheet as on 30th June, 1979, which was approved by the annual general meeting of the shareholders held in December 1979. On this issue, therefore, the orders of the revenue authorities appear to be justified and do not call for any interference. 6. The other grounds raised in the appeal before us were not pressed at the time of hearing. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year, Interim Dividend, Previous Year, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... he other facts which have been narrated hereinabove. We would, therefore, hold that the CIT (A) was justified in confirming the inclusion of the dividend income of Rs. 68,04,000 in the assessment year under appeal. 8. Before parting with this appeal, we must take note of the alternative argument taken by Shri Irani without prejudice to all the other arguments advanced by him, namely that direction should be given for allowing credit for tax deducted at source in the event of our holding that the amount of interim dividend becomes taxable in the assessment year 1980-81. In fairness, we would have to accept this argument and direct that the amount of tax deducted at source should be allowed as a credit while giving effect to our order. We would direct that credit should be given for the amount of tax deducted at source while computing the total income of the appellant company while giving effect to our order. Subject to these directions, the appeal will be treated as dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 128 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Unexplained Investments, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... carrying on business in gold and gold ornaments, there was no material before the Income tax Officer to hold that the assessee had derived income from business of gold or gold ornaments. So no income from business of gold ornaments was assessed. What is presumed, as income is the unexplained investments in gold and gold ornaments seized on 03.06.1975. The presumption is raised u/s. 69 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of any deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of fine paid by the assessee. We accordingly hold that the amount of fine i.e. Rs. 35,000 was not allowable as deduction either u/s. 37(1) of the Act, as expenses of the business or u/s. 28 of the Act as business loss on the facts of the present case. We set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this point and restore the disallowance made by the Income tax Officer in respect of the amount of Rs. 35,000. 16. The departmental appeal is allowed. The cross objection is dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 127 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Method Of Accounting, Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ere drawn up between the two parties. We are, therefore, of the view that the income on account of interest of Rs. 48,000 accrued and arose to the assessee in the assessment year 1979-80 and was rightly treated as income. 17. As regards the treatment of commission for assessment year 1981-82, it is not disputed by the revenue that there was culmination of the agency agreement. It is in respect of the same amount of commission which was actually received in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 which was taken as income in this year and deleted by the AAC on the reasoning that this was so included in assessment year 1979-80. While dealing with the taxability of the commission in 1979-80, we have already held that it was income of that year and, therefore, taxing the same income in assessment year 1981-82 would not be proper and, therefore, the AAC was justified in deleting the income in that year and we hold so. 18. In the result, both the appeals fail.
-
1987 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... . Oil Mills, is disputed. On this issue, the finding of the CIT (A) was that the claim of the assessee that this was done by mistake by the claim of the assessee that this was done by mistake by the Accountant is not at all accepted as the Accountant could not have acted on his own but under the instructions of the assessee only. The learned CIT (A) had confirmed that this was concealed income on the part of the assessee and confirmed the penalty to this extent. Finally, in view of our observations, made in the earlier paragraphs, and as the facts stand as they are, the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was no concealment on his part and, therefore, the penalty as was levied by the ITO at Rs. 40,000 by treating the sums of Rs. 31,872, Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 32,086 as concealed income is fully justified and accordingly we restore the penalty as was levied by him by setting aside the order of the CIT (A) partially. 6. In this result, the Departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... ll on account of the accountable persons. He, therefore, allowed the claim of this liability. 36. We have heard both the sides and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below along with other papers placed before us for our consideration. We find that the Appellate Controller did consider the various aspects of the matter and material facts found by the WTO in the assessment orders before giving the above relief. In our opinion, the order of the Appellate Controller on the point is quite valid and reasonable. No interference is called for. 37. The last item of the liability is in respect of payments due to different clubs of Rs. 1,758. We have heard both the sides and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. Having regard to the facts brought out in the orders of the authorities below, we find that the relief was quite proper. 38. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1987 (8) TMI 124 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... tion was already made in value of closing stock disregarding value shown by the assessee and therefore, ultimate effect gets adjusted by adopting the cost only for purpose of closing stock valuation and that is why probably the assessee rightly did not agitate further against addition in quantum of assessment. Hence to proceed, it is an admitted position that the assessee has been following the standard principle regarding stock valuation at cost or market value whichever is lower with regard to the shares in hand. The market value of the shares in hand has to be arrived at on the basis of open market considerations and clearly on this basis the valuation of the shares in hand would be much lower, the method adopted to arrive at the market value is not in doubt. Therefore, on this aspect also there is no reason to infer that there was either concealment or furnishing of the inaccurate particulars once the shares are taken as forming part of closing stock. I therefore, agree.
-
1987 (8) TMI 123 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Depreciation, Allowance of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... d urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in deleting Rs. 2,115 from the total income of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the action of the Commissioner (Appeals). In this connection, he pointed out that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court would be applicable as we have to consider the relevant provisions of the Act, prior to the amendments made thereto. 25. On due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we do not find any substance in the stand taken on behalf of the revenue. In our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in deleting Rs. 2,115 from the total income of the assessee. We would, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point. 26. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the first two years are partly allowed and that of the other two years are allowed. The appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 122 - CEGAT, BOMBAY-LB
Import - Agent
... ... ... ... ..... cts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay should be allowed as held by Member (Technical) of the West Regional Bench, Bombay. 39. These papers may now be forwarded to the W.R.B., Bombay for final disposal of the appeal. FINAL ORDER 40. The difference of opinion between the two Members of the West Regional Bench was referred by the President to a Bench of 3 Members in terms of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act. The reference Bench has now recorded their findings. The appeal of the Collector of Customs, Bombay is required to be disposed of on the basis of the majority view in terms of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act. In majority opinion, the appeal of the Collector of Customs, Bombay succeeds and is allowed. Accordingly, Board s Order No. 917 of 1980 dated 28-11-1980 is held to be incorrect and illegal and is set aside and the order No. S/10-115A/80 IIIA, dated 30-5-1980 passed by Collector of Customs, Bombay is restored.
-
1987 (8) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Aeroplane spare parts - Exemption notification
... ... ... ... ..... ugh these will not be legible. But the aeroplane cannot take off from the ground to begin its flight. Nor can it land if it should be airborne by some magical means, without the wheels and their tyres. There is a very vast difference between the tyres in the aeroplane and a gramophone needle or a typewriter ribbon or a light in the aircraft. 13. The counsel for the Indian Airlines quoted these judgments (1) 17 STC 96 (2) 22 STC 202 (3) 26 STC 108 14. Aeroplane tyres are parts. These tyres are claimed as spare parts for servicing the department had nothing to contradict this claim before the bench by the learned Counsel for Indian Airlines, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee. He, indeed, elaborated his argument by saying that the Airlines do not manufacture aeroplanes. Nor do they sell the tyres they are used only to service their aircraft which periodically need to have their tyres replaced. Therefore, the tyres meet the provisions of Notification No. 99/81 -Cus. 15. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Estoppel - Promissory estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... . In the present appeal, although the respondents had sought an adjournment to put in such affidavit, no affidavit has been filed and the question has, therefore, not arisen for consideration. 3. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondents shall levy customs duty on the PVC resin which arrived at the Port of Bombay on or before 31st March, 1981 at the rate prescribed in the notification dated 15th March, 1979. The respondents shall refund to the appellants excess duty, if any, collected from them upon the said imports within 8 weeks from today. 4. The appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 30,06,001.60, with accrued interest, if any, deposited by them in Court pursuant to the order dated 12th December, 1980 passed by the learned single Judge at the time of admission of the writ petition. 5. Upon Mr. Bulchandani s application, such withdrawal is not permitted until after the expiry of a period of 8 weeks from today. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... of the Appellate Collector and the revisional order directing such appropriation by way of adjustment are wholly illegal and without justification. I am in agreement with these observations and, therefore, this petition will have to be allowed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Shah appearing for the respondents submits that the matter may be remanded back to the Government of India who had passed the order in revision. I find no substance in this submission of Mr. Shah. The order is clear. Government had not decided that the goods would fall under Item 33(3). That question had been clearly left open to be decided by the lower authorities after hearing the parties afresh. In these circumstances, there will be no question of remanding the matter back to the Government. 7. In the result, rule made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. Amount to be paid to the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dutiability - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... time or the other. I have seen the petition as a whole. The petitioners have made a categorical statement on oath that the product is not marketable and is not known to the trade as a commodity which is. The onus is heavily on the department to show as to how the same is marketable. Therefore, in my view it is clear that this intermediate product cannot be considered as goods within the meaning of the term under the Act and in that event it is not possible for the department to call upon the petitioners to pay any excise duty relying on Tariff Item No. 43.1, therefore, pass the following order ORDER 13. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (b) (i), (iii) and (iv) of the petition. 14. The bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the interim orders to stand discharged and the same be cancelled by the department and handed over to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today. 15. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Departmental Instructions/Clarifications - Writ jurisdiction - Show cause stage ... ... ... ... ..... to the main Special Civil Application will be binding upon the parties concerned. That is a matter which has to be decided by the properly constituted quasi-judicial authority and any instruction or clarification such as Annexure J will not bind the quasi-judicial authority in deciding the above said contentions raised by the petitioners herein. The quasi-judicial authority without being obsessed by such clarification or trade notices, if any, in pursuance of such clarification will decide the issue as and when it comes up before them. As on date, the petitioners have to give explanation for the show cause notice issued by the Department. We are of the view that it is premature for the petitioners to approach this Court at this point of show cause stage. For all these reasons we have stated above, we do not find any merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein and accordingly, the Special Civil Application is dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Cotton Linters Pulp - Internationally known and understood as such - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... nion, this argument cannot hold good, as there is no estoppel against a wrong classification. 15. As regards the chemical test report, it is clear that the analysts have clearly stated that the sample is made of pulp and it is a form of a cut-piece. Thereafter, it is stated that such an item can be considered as filter paper made of cotton linter pulp, which is purely an opinion. There is no reason as to why I should not accept the contention of the petitioners that the item has been imported as cotton linters pulp as internationally known, and understood, and as per the licence. 16. If that is so, the petitioners must succeed and I, therefore, pass the following order Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b)(i), (ii) and (iii). However, as regards prayer (iii) is concerned the amount to be refunded together with an interest of 15 from the date of the petition till payment. Payment to be made within a period of 8 weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs
-
1987 (8) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Arrest - Bail - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... he special order, as contemplated in the latter part of Section 59.I find no ambiguity in construing the phrase under the special order of a Megistrate so as to take resort to the principle of ejusdem generis , as submitted by Shri Merchant. In this view of the matter, I find this case to be one which requires interference in the impugned order granting bail. Consequently, the order of bail is cancelled and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to be taken in custody for a period of seven days. At the expiry of the said period of seven days, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 will be produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate when it will be open to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to apply for bail and to the petitioner to apply for extension of custody remand, and the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate will, then, proceed to decide the case on its own merit. On surrender of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, their bail bonds to stand cancelled.Rule absolute.
-
1987 (8) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ jurisdiction - Show cause notice for short levy/non-levy ... ... ... ... ..... must also be fulfilled with an intent to evade payment of duty. Here again it will require examination at length whether, when in view of this Court s decision then prevailing there was no under-payment of duty but the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, it can or cannot be a case of suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade payment of excise duty. 3. Having regard to the above discussion and keeping in view the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case Mysore Rolling Mills Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 50 (S.C.) and this Court s decision in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Goa in Writ Petition No. 23 of 1986, dated 13th January 1987, we do not find this case to be a fit case for interference at this stage in writ jurisdiction. The petition is summarily rejected with no order as to costs. Status quo to continue for four weeks on order.
-
1987 (8) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Duty already recovered from Customs ... ... ... ... ..... to follow the view taken by the majority in the I.T.C. case. 3. We find that this was also done by a Division Bench of this court sitting at Goa in the case of Rapidur (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 222. The learned judges based their judgment upon the majority view in the I.T.C. case and upon the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 813 1978 E.L.T. (J 154 (S.C.). The learned judges found the latter judgment to be squarely applicable to the controversy and not a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court cited by counsel on behalf of the authorities, namely, State of M.P. v. Vyankatlal, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 901. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 5. The respondents are directed to ascertain the amount of refund due to the appellants as aforesaid for the period 1st July 1977 to 27th September 1979 and 1st January 1980 to 20th January 1980 and to refund the same within 8 weeks from today. No order as to costs.
............
|
