|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 284 Records
-
1991 (8) TMI 125 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Amnesty Scheme, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... n Chettiar 1965 55 ITR 630 observed that it was not correct to state that filing of the second return was of no consequence at all while considering the liability of the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act. All the facts and circumstances commencing with the filing of original return and ending with the assessment may be taken as relevant, considering the assessee s liability for penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act. 19. In our opinion, the third return satisfies the conditions laid down in the amnesty circulars. There is no evidence of detection of concealment by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, we hold that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax Act, 1961, has been wrongly imposed and levy of impugned amounts of penalty for the respective two years under appeal was wrongly confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). We direct that penalty be deleted for each of the two years under appeal. 20. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 124 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Central Excise, High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... way of litigation expenses. We are of the opinion that the right to litigate or attempt to get back the gold is not an asset, the value of which can be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act. This is not an asset which is capable of exact or reasonably accurate valuation. In fact, it is not an asset in the strict sense of the term in view of the hazards of protracted litigation with consequential financial strain that such litigation would entail. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in holding first that this was a right exigible to tax within the meaning of section 2(m) read with section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act and in further valuing such right, in our opinion, on a somewhat ad hoc basis at 15 of the market value of the gold under the relevant valuation dates. We would, therefore, completely reverse this portion of the order of the CIT(A). 11. In the result, the appeals by the revenue would be dismissed and those by the assessees allowed
-
1991 (8) TMI 123 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Valid Notice ... ... ... ... ..... human error but it does not help the revenue in situations as that of the present case. Here the issue of the notice is a condition precedent and its proper service is equally important to bestow jurisdiction on the ITO to re-frame the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In absence of the proper and valid notice and in absence of proper service, the entire proceedings for reassessment and the assessment order framed thereafter, in our opinion, becomes void and invalid in the eyes of law. The various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and of Hon ble Allahabad High Court, cited above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, in our opinion, apply with full force to the present case. Hence, taking all those decisions into consideration, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) was perfectly correct and does not call for any interference. The issues are decided accordingly. 13. As a result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (8) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... o accept the explanation, then the burden will stand discharged. The additions made in the hands of the assessee which have been partly confirmed in further appeals were made on estimate basis by partly disbelieving the assessee s explanation. The explanations submitted by the assessee with regard to the various items of disputed additions raise preponderance of probabilities in favour of the assessee s contention also. In view of this, we are of the view that the assessee has proved the absence of any guilty intention or blameworthy action on the part. The explanations submitted during the course of assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings constitute sufficient material by which the assessee has discharged his burden of proving that the difference between the income declared and the income finally assessed did not arise out of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. The penalty levied on the assessee is, therefore, cancelled. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 121 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... to be a road transport vehicle. The decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shah Construction Ltd. relates to development rebate in the case of dumpers. It has been specifically observed in the said decision that it was the assessee s case that dumpers had been purchased to secure an efficient system of transport . It was found in said decision as a fact, that dumpers were identical to trucks except for some minor variation. It was because of these findings that the dumpers were held to be road transport vehicles in said decision and development rebate was denied. As already stated trak-shovel in the present case is not akin to dumper. It is essentially an earth moving machinery and not a vehicle for transporting persons or goods. Consequently, that decision of Bombay High Court would also not be applicable. Considering the entire circumstances, we confirm the decision of CIT(A) on this point and reject the ground raised by the Department. 10. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 120 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... revaluation of the assets of the assessee company. The ITO held that the expenditure was capital in nature and on that ground has disallowed the same. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. We find that the ITO has not considered the purpose for which the revaluation had been done. It is the case of the assessee that revaluation was one for obtaining loans from the bank. When the revaluation was done as part of process for obtaining loans from the bank, the expenditure would fall in the revenue field. As stated in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) what is to be seen is as to in what field the expenditure would fall. Expenditure connected with obtaining of loan from the bank would certainly fall in the Revenue field and as such would be allowable as deduction. We, accordingly, direct the ITO to allow deduction of the said amount. 18. The departmental appeals are dismissed while the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 119 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... een explained in the said circular, inter alia, saying that if the employer pays tax on such excess remuneration (beyond Rs. 4,000 per month) to the Central Govt. the perquisite represented by the tax so paid by the employer will also be exempt from further taxation in the hands of the foreign technician. With this observation, this point is set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. The next ground relates to levy of interest under s. 217 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) has directed the ITO to grant consequential relief to the assessee in the matter relating to levy of interest depending on the relief granted on the quantum of additions. No further arguments in relation to this ground were addressed by the learned counsel. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in relation to the said findings. 13. In the result the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
1991 (8) TMI 118 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... and compensatory payment. It was held that payment of damages or interest to the extent it is compensatory in nature is an allowable deduction. The Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court while coming tot he aforesaid conclusion also took into consideration the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi sugar Mills Co. In another judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Organo Chemeckal Industries and Anr. Vs Union of India AIR 1979 SC 1803 it has been held that damages under P.F. Act under s. 14 are to be given to the employees. It must include interest for delayed payment. However, the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court directly on the same point is binding. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court, the relief granted by the CIT(A) by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,524 on account of P.F. penalty is set aside and the addition of this amount made by the ITO is restored. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 117 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Co-operative Society, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... facts and evidence existing on records confirming the denial of exemption to the appellant society in fact, correctly implement the real object behind the insertion of these exemption provisions, otherwise any group of professional and technical experts will form co-operative society and will get the unintended benefit under this provision in respect of income derived by supplying collective professional and technical expertised skill and services under the garb of collective disposal of labour of its members. 3.14 In the light of our above discussions and aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance of assessee s claim for grant of exemption/deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3.15 Before we conclude, we will like to express our feelings that Shri K.K. Boliya, the learned Sr. D.R. presented his case in a very candid and splendid manner. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (8) TMI 116 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Firm,Registration,Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ssistance. The same comment would apply to another decision to which our attemption was drawn by the assessee s counsel viz. Shan Progetti S.P.A. v. Addl. CIT 1981 132 ITR 70 (Delhi). No decision has been cited on behalf of the assessee in which rental income in the above circumstances has been held to be liable to be computed in accordance with the provisions pertaining to computation of income of profits and gains of business. I accordingly hold that the ITO was justified in assessing the rental income in accordance with the provisions relating to assessment of income from house property and allowing only such deduction as are admissible in computation of such profits. It may be mentioned here that in the case of Indian City Properties Ltd. all other deductions which were inadmissible in the computation of income under the above head were disallowed. I accordingly set aside the order of the AAC on This point and restore the order of the ITO. 9. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 115 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Duty Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... r as the goods which were imported (Section 74). For this purpose special shipping bill is presented that enjoins upon the proper officer to make detailed examination to establish the above identification. Secondly market value of goods should not be less than the amount of drawback claimed (Section 76). Now when goods exported are admittedly irreparable their value is nothing and hence less than the drawback claim. 4. Goods were exported for repair and return following the procedure prescribed under Notification 204/76. The export was made under a white shipping bill, without fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Sections 74 and 76 of the Customs Act 1962. Identity of the subject goods was not established and market value thereof not verified to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Government, therefore, observe that the findings of the Collector (Appeals) are correct and sustainable in law. 5. In the result the revision application fails and is accordingly rejected.
-
1991 (8) TMI 114 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... is no evidence that any re-export direction was given to the applicant at any stage. Instead, while, after her marriage to an Indian, when she is going back to Pakistan, her jewellery is detained i.e. during the actual process of re-export. The applicant on the other hand has acted bona fide although and kept the department fully in the picture. Instead Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice and confirmed duty demand. At no point of time, the applicant was asked to re-export the subject jewellery. The rate of duty being 250 the demand is prohibitive and in effect tantamounts to confiscation of goods (valued at Rs. 11550/-) by demanding duty of Rs. 39,270/-. 6. Taking into consideration totality of the case, Government are inclined to accede to the applicant s request for re-export. Accordingly the subject jewellery lying detained, is allowed to be re-exported within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The revision application is allowed accordingly.
-
1991 (8) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - Incidence of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ubject matter of this Writ Appeal. This plea of the larned counsel for the petitioners deserves acceptance. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is an order made by one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) on 2-8-1988 in WP No. 1681 of 1988, suggesting a reference of this question to a Bench larger than a Division Bench. Such decision may form a guidance for the second Appellate Authority, who is now seized of the matter. We find that the reference is yet to be made and answered. Accordingly, we deem it fit to vacate and we do vacate the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge that if the petitioner has passed on the excise duty to its consumers, it would become ineligible to claim the refund, The second Appellate Authority, namely, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras which is seized of the matter shall decide the question, taking note of the law that may get settled. This Writ Appeal is ordered in the above terms. No costs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Valuation (Central Excise) - Trade discount ... ... ... ... ..... has held that unless there is an arrangement between the assessee and the buyer that packing shall be returned, it cannot be said that packing is returnable. The relevant observations are as under What is required for the purpose of attracting the applicability of the exclusion clause in S. 4(4)(d)(i) is that the packing must be returnable by the buyer to the assessee. The question which has to be asked in each case is Is the packing in this case returnable by the buyer to the assessee and obviously it cannot be said that the packing is returnable by the buyer to the assessee unless there is an arrangement between them that it shall be returned. Here, in the present case it is not the contention of the petitioner that there was any such arrangement for return of the packing by the wholesale buyers to the petitioner nor is there any evidence to that effect. 8. Hence, there is no substance in this petition and is, therefore, rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... their powers under the provisions of a statute, they can so exercise in accordance with the law and the limitations prescribed in the statute itself. They cannot go beyond the provisions of the statute and exercise a power which they do not possess under the statute. In our considered opinion, an Assistant Collector while exercising his power under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act cannot refuse to allow refund of an illegally collected levy by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. We further hold that the issuance of a notice under Annexure-1 is wholly misconceived and without jurisdiction. 8.In the premises, as aforesaid, we quash Annexure-1 and direct the Assistant Collector to dispose of the petitioner s application filed under Section 11B of the Act within two months from the date of receipt of our order in accordance with law. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Order per D.M. Patnaik, J. . - I agree.
-
1991 (8) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Adjudication - Demand - Erroneous refund - Review - Recall of order - Dutiability - Rate of duty
-
1991 (8) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ent. We enquired from Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, as to whether there is any material to indicate that the duty was, in fact, passed to the customer and Shri Mehta very fairly stated that there is none. In these circumstances, we are unable to find any justification for not refunding the amount to the petitioners. Shri Mehta submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the refund only of the amount which has been found due by the Assistant Collector and the petitioners cannot demand the amount which was negatived by the Assistant Collector. This submission is correct. 5. Accordingly, rule is made partly absolute and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,22,699.75 to the petitioners within two weeks from today. In case, the Department fails to do so, then the amount shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 15 per annum from today till the date of repayment. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1991 (8) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lso take notice of the truth of the fact of sinking of the Monolithic Buddha statue, on which account the Hydra-jack could not be used in India, and in view of the declaration in the shipping bill, though the Hydra-jack was to be used in India, we think there is substantial compliance with the requirement of the Notification dated 6-2-1965. Accordingly we hold that the petitioner is entitled to drawback at the rate of 98 in accordance with Section 74(1) of the Customs Act. 24. In this view of the matter, this petition partly succeeds as the petitioner has confined its claim before us to recovery of 98 of the customs duty paid as drawback. Since 85 of the duty has already been received back as drawback only the balance 13 of the duty as drawback is payable. The balance 13 of the unpaid duty drawback amounts to Rs. 6,84,123/-. This amount be paid to the petitioner within one and a half month from today. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not award any costs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appeal - Condonation of delay - Writ jurisdiction - Appellate Tribunal's order ... ... ... ... ..... is rejected. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal is such that the appeal itself should be deemed to have been disposed of having regard to the observations of the Tribunal that the stay petitions and the appeals are also dismissed. On that aspect, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the remedy before this Court will not lie. The learned counsel for the petitioner while answering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, relied on certain case law to show that the disposal could not be said to be a disposal on merits of the appeal and therefore the stand taken by the respondents is misconceived. Having regard to the fact that I have concurred with the order of the Tribunal on the question of absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, I consider it unnecessary to deal with this aspect and render a finding. The writ petition therefore fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Writ Jurisdiction - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... he Customs Act, as it stood, at the material time in the year 1982. The provisions of Section 27 apply in the case of any import made by an individual for his personal use or a Government or an educational research or a charitable institution or hospital under clause (a) of sub-section (1). In case of any other import, provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 will apply. But in this case, no import has taken place at all. In a case, where money was paid in advance on mistaken assumption, but no import actually took place, the Customs Authority cannot refuse refund of the money on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition succeeds. The Customs Authorities are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 52,793.80 to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date. The Writ Petition is finally disposed of as above. All parties are to act on the signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
............
|
