|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 249 Records
-
1984 (1) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Zinc - Callots ... ... ... ... ..... ought to be treated as zinc sheets within the meaning of Tariff Item 26B (2). The manufacturer contended that there were not zinc sheets. Upon the evidence the court came to the conclusion that the demand made by the excise authorities for excise duty on the flat form of zinc produced by the petitioner s factory at an intermediate stage of the process of manufacture of dry cell batteries was correct. This would seem to establish that the view that the material out of which the callots are punched is classifiable as zinc sheets or strips and is exigible to duty under Tariff Item 26B(2) is upheld. 13. To conclude, it appears to me that the better view to take is that callots are exigible to duty under Tariff Item 26B(2). In view of this conclusion, I do not go into the alternate contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to claim the benefit of an exemption notification. 14. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to costs. Rule accordingly
-
1984 (1) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Freezer meant for utilisation only as a part of an ice-cream manufacturing plant ... ... ... ... ..... hlet shows that the freezer only has application in one or more phases of ice-cream production. 7. It would appear, therefore, that the freezer is meant to be utilised as a part of an ice-cream manufacturing plant and has no utility by itself. If cannot, therefore, in my view, satisfy both requirements of Tariff Item 29-A, viz., that it must be a refrigerant appliance and that it must be sold or offered for sale as a ready-assembled unit. 8. In this view of the matter, the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 9. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 1,81,231/- towards customs duty. The respondents had undertaken to Court at the interim stage to make a refund of such amount as is found in excess. The respondents are, therefore, directed to refund to the petitioners the amount of the countervailing duty levied by reason of the application of Tariff Item 29-A to the freezer within a period of eight weeks from today. 10. Rule accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rebate on excess production of sugar ... ... ... ... ..... gatived by the Division Bench in the decision referred to above. The Division Bench has expressly taken the view, on a plain reading of the Notification, that rebate is permissible on the entire excess production over the average as provided in the Notification. 3. The claim made by the petitioners by Exh. G is to the extent of Rs. 7,88,795.92. The details of the claim show that this claim is made in respect of the quantity of sugar manufactured in excess of the average. Having regsrd to the construction which the Division Bench has placed on this Notification in the above decision, there is no doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the rebate claimed and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) of the petition. The result is that impugned orders Exhs. H , J and L are quashed and a writ is issued in terms of the prayer clause (b) of the petition in favour of the petitioners. 4. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute with costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYD
Paper - Poster paper is classifiable ... ... ... ... ..... irrespective of the purpose for which they are specified, item 68 does not come into play and does not render such goods liable to duty. But, the aforesaid observations do not render any support to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. All that was laid down in the said ruling is that where goods are specified for the purpose of taxability or for the purpose of exemption from liability to duty in any of the Tariff Items 1 to 67. Item 68 would not be attracted to such goods. In the instant case, we have come to the conclusion that poster paper falls under Tariff Item 17 and it is liable to duty at the rates specified in sub-item (2) of Item 17 and, therefore, Tariff Item 68 read with the explanation is not applicable to poster paper which is dutiable under Tariff Item 17. 18. Thus, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200/-.
-
1984 (1) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Evidence in Departmental proceedings - Departmental proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e the proviso to Section 132 affords protection. 8. We do not think that the order of the Customs Authorities declining to stay the proceedings is vitiated by any erroneous exercise of discretion. Appropriate consideration has been made by him. It is pointed out on behalf of the Customs Authorities by their counsel that in view of the complexity of the issues involved, the number of accused in the case and other circumstances it is likely that the criminal proceedings may take considerable time for its finalisation and apart from the fact that it will be difficult to preserve the evidence available up to that time the delay in the imposition of any penalty in the event the case is found to be one in which penalty is imposed may also prejudice the Department. Whatever that be on the facts stated in the order impugned we see no reason to hold that there has been any erroneous exercise of discretion. Hence, we dismiss the Special Civil Applications. Notice discharged. No costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Freight, Trade discount, excise duty and other taxes alone excludible - Sale promotion etc. not excludible
-
1984 (1) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there has been any error in principle or in law in the method of valuation arrived at by the courts below in adopting " fifteen " to be the multiple for computation of capitalized value of certain agricultural lands acquired in the years 1971 and 1972?
Held that:- In the premises, when the rate of return on investment was 8.25% in the years 1971 and 1972, a person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect 2% to 3% more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment and, therefore, the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalization could not, in any event, exceed " ten ". Ans as the State Government, however, contends that the proper multiple to be applied should be 12 1/2 in computation of the capitalized value of the lands in these cases having regard to the rate of return of 8% at the relevant time, i.e., on the date of the notification under s. 4(1) of the Act. In view of this, it must be held that the multiple of 121 should be applied in the computation of the capitalized value of the lands
The appeals must succeed and are allowed. The judgments and decrees of the High Court are modified by directing that the compensation awarded for acquisition of land should be reduced by one sixth in these cases wherever the amount of compensation has been determined by the method of capitalization. The respondents shall get solatium at 15% on the compensation computed on the above basis and shall be paid interest at the rate decreed by the courts below
-
1984 (1) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
High Court, Municipal Taxes, Practice, Rates, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... order that no irreparable injury is occasioned. The court has, therefore, to strike a delicate balance, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, lest larger public interest is not jeopardized and institutional embarrassment is eschewed. For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed. The order passed by the High Court dated August 25, 1983, restraining the Siliguri Municipality from recovering a graduated consolidated rate on the annual value of the holdings in terms of the amended provisions contained in ss. 123 and 124 of the Bengal Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1980, is set aside. We wish to place on record that Shri Venugopal, appearing with Shri Naro Narayan Gooptu, has given an undertaking on behalf of the Siliguri Municipality that the municipality shall refund the difference between the revised and the old rates within three months of the order of the High Court in case the writ petition is finally allowed by the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he principle that in the absence of any evidence that the remuneration agreed to be paid was not for services rendered to the firm but was a profit in lieu of the investment of the family funds in the business, the irresistible conclusion will be that the salary/remuneration paid to an individual member of the family was not the income of the family, but was in consideration of the contract of service and by way of compensation for services rendered by him. I am in complete agreement with the reframing of the question and the conclusion that Rs. 18,000 received by Shri Budhia by way of salary is not a share of profit of the family (HUF) and it is his individual income for services rendered by him personally to the firm, M/s. R. K. Budhia and Co. I concur with the conclusion and answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. I agree with the assessment of costs payable by the Department to the assessee.
-
1984 (1) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... efore completing the assessment. In Assam Surgical Co. v. CBDT 1984 145 ITR 400 (Gauhati) the transfer of case under s. 127 from Gauhati to Delhi was justified for the purpose of facilitating co-ordinated investigation and assessment. There, searches were conducted in the business and residential premises of the petitioners in Gauhati, which revealed concealment of large income. Searches conducted on the group based at Delhi has also revealed concealment of income plus the connection of the petitioners with the Delhi group. The Division Bench of this court in Sagarmal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. CBDT 1972 83 ITR 130, is clearly distinguishable where it was held that facility of investigation would not be sufficient reason for transfer of a case and would not be in compliance with the requirements of s. 127. In that case no reason was given for transfer of the case but here the facts are different. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Vacancy Allowance, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... of limitation, it would not be fair to refuse relief to the petitioner on that technical ground. The said principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case. Upon consideration of the respective submissions made and as detailed hereinbefore and also in view of the statement made by Mr. Samar Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction from his clients that the Department is contemplating to recall the said impugned order of assessment and to recompute the income under the head Income from house property , I direct that the impugned order of ITO be quashed and he should proceed to determine the vacancy allowance afresh in accordance with law. In the result, I make the rule absolute, quash the impugned order of assessment with liberty to the respondents to recompute the income from house property of the petitioner in the light of the observation of the AAC, as referred to hereinabove, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 59 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 50 at p. 55 The principle that is applicable in tax statutes is that the income is subject to tax in the hands of the same person only once. Thus, if an association or a firm is taxed in respect of its income, the same income cannot be charged again in the hands of the members individually and vice versa. Now, in the instant case, it is admitted that the income in question has been taxed in the hands of the AOP consisting of the assessee and other heirs of late Cowasji. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the same income could not be again charged in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in deleting the income accruing to the assessee from her share of the estate of her late husband. Therefore, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1984 (1) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... aforesaid house property admits of physical division, which has admittedly not been made. The letter of the Government-approved valuer has not been accepted as sufficient to indicate that a physical division of the property is not possible. In view of this finding of fact recorded in the present case, it is clearly sub-cl. (i) of cl. (a) of the Explanation to s. 171 of the Act, which is attracted and, in the absence of a physical division of the property itself, the assessee s claim of partition of this house property cannot be accepted. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in the view taken by it. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is as under That the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee s claim for a partial partition of the property situated at 18, Golf Links, New Delhi, was neither covered under cl. (a)(i) nor under cl. (a)(ii) of the Explanation to s. 171. The reference is answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... the advancement of the object of general Public utility within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the Act, and as such the income from securities held by the assessee-council would be exempt from any tax liability under s. 11 of the Act. (emphasis added) Thus, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held in the aforesaid case that the primary or dominant purpose of the assessee-council is the advancement of the object of general public utility, within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the Act and further that the income from securities held by such assessee would be exempt from any tax liability under s. 11 of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee-Bar Council. The second question is answered in the negative and also in favour of the assessee-Bar Council, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra s case 1981 130 ITR 28.
-
1984 (1) TMI 56 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Law Amending Procedure, Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty
-
1984 (1) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... ly without jurisdiction, are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise, every one of the reasons given by the AITO to hold that the income derived from the lands standing in the names of the soils should be included in the income of the petitioner are manifestly illegal. Section 36 of the Act that was invoked by the AITO was wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. A person is undoubtedly entitled to adjust his affairs and reduce his tax liability which cannot be called as hoodwinking the Government, as expressed by the AITO. In this view also, the proceedings initiated by the AITO, the orders made thereon and the demand notices issued thereto, which are manifestly illegal, are liable to be quashed. In the light of my above discussion, I quash the impugned notices, assessment orders and demand notices issued by the AITO against the petitioner. Rule issued is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the cases, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the price of the land, the instances of sales should be of similar plots of land in similar locality. Mr. Ashok Bhan has fairly admitted that there is nothing on the record to show as to where the D.L.F. Industrial Estate and Sectors 27-A, 27-B, 27-C and 27-D are situated and where Sector VI is situated. He also admits that there is nothing on the record to show that the plots demarcated in the said industrial estate and the sectors were of similar size. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly excluded from consideration the rates of plots in the said estate and the sectors. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that there is no material on the record to hold that the fair market value of the property in question was more than the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The finding is one of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs.
-
1984 (1) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... urpose of business must be viewed in the larger context of the assessees business, necessity or expediency. The expenditure of payment of compensation incurred by the assessees has to be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process of the assessees. The portion of the buildings thus saved from alteration or demolition remained as a business stock available for sale flat-wise. The assessees by this outgoing of Rs. 4 lakhs procured the portion of the building by which the assessees made profit. The payment is not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and is permissible deduction in arriving at the business profit. The Tribunal is right in holding that it is a permissible deduction in arriving at the profit of business of construction and sale of building, the outgoing being allowed in one assessment year. We answer the reference against the Department and in favour of the assessees with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1984 (1) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Litigation Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... 05 (Bom). The assessee who had been elected as a member of the local board of the Reserve Bank of India incurred in the previous year expenses of Rs. 7,500 in successfully defending a suit brought some time after his election for a declaration that his election was invalid. The Bombay High Court held that the expenditure was not capital in nature inasmuch as it was not an expenditure incurred in creating or in originating the source of income or in bringing it into being but in preserving it when it was already there. The accent was on the aspect of preservation rather than bringing into existence any new asset. The same is the position in the instant case also. Accordingly, in our view, the second submission of the learned counsel for the Department is also not tenable. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs as no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
-
1984 (1) TMI 51 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Notice To ITO U/S 11(2) ... ... ... ... ..... of extension of time. The lone voice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah and Co. v. CIT 1974 93 ITR 297, holding the contrary view that the ITO was not bound under the provisions of any Act or the Rules made thereunder to pass any order on the application for extension of time, received after the expiry of the date given in the notice under sub-s. (2) to s. 139, to our mind, with due aspect to the Hon ble judges of that court, is not sound and in line with the predominant and appropriate view taken by a majority of the High Courts and especially by this court. The aforesaid view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court alone was the axis on which the appellate decision of the Tribunal revolved, and to our view not rightly. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the question referred, as mentioned at the outset, is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We, however, make no order as to costs. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL J.-I agree.
....
|
