|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 266 Records
-
1983 (11) TMI 86 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ue. Having failed to do that the ITO had offended the principle of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) was properly advised in the matter in ignoring those findings and recording his finding only regarding the finding and pleas made out by the ITO in the original draft assessment order. A consideration of the findings of the IAC would have reduced the order to be one affected by illegality arising from the disregard of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, we turn down the plea of departmental representative that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the finding of the IAC. In our consideration the findings of the IAC could not be relied on to assail the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter. In this view, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and his findings do not show any error or infirmity in our view which may require our interference. We uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
-
1983 (11) TMI 85 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Acquisition Of Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... e, has been recorded by the competent authority that the understatement was done with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor or the transferee. There must be a clear and conclusive finding, based on material to show that evasion of tax liability by the transferor or the transferee was the object of understatement. Unless there was a finding based on material, the prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under section 269C for the issuance of the notice to acquire the properties cannot be fulfilled. In this view of our finding, it is not possible to uphold the action of the competent authority to acquire three properties which he had initiated without fulfilling the prerequisites prescribed in the Act for taking any action to acquire the property under Chapter XX-A. Accordingly, we cancel the order of the competent authority and direct that the properties should be released forthwith if already acquired. 5. The appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 84 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Computing Cost, Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... ion of Rs. 1,75,000 as part of minimum guarantee amount. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue is incorrect and it is reversed. The decision of the Tribunal, on which the assessee relied, is of no assistance as it was not rendered in the context of rule 9B. 4.1 The next question relates to the assessee s alternative plea. The alternative plea has force and the assessee is entitled to deduct the amount of publicity expenses actually incurred of Rs. 63,270. This amount is already allowed by the ITO in the assessment order and is to be allowed to the assessee against the amount of Rs. 1,75,000 allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the prayer of the revenue in ground of appeal No. 2 that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) be reversed and the order of the ITO be restored on this issue. We restore the order of the ITO by accepting the assessee s prayer for allowing of expenses of Rs. 63,270. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue succeeds partly.
-
1983 (11) TMI 83 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... essment under sub-section (4) of section 23 in the wake of notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Act was given to him... So the issue raised before the High Court was issue of service of the notice under section 34, which issue could certainly be raised in an application under section 27. The issue sought to be raised by the assessee before us is of a different nature as he is contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the ITO to act under section 147. The assessee s counsel lastly also referred to a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Rajab Ali Farishta s case to say that the assessee s contention went to the root of the case and should have been decided first. This authority cannot apply in the assessee s case at this stage when we are dealing with the statutory provisions of section 146 and the appeals provided. The scope of appeal against an order under section 146 is as stated by us above. 10. In the result, we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee as incompetent.
-
1983 (11) TMI 82 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... hare. The department could not successfully contend that because the assessee had given a reply dt. 6th January 1983 to the said notice, the requirements of affording the opportunity of hearing as contemplated u/s 263(1) had been satisfied. We have gone through the notice as well as the assessee s reply thereto and we are of the view that on the basis of the material on the record it could not be said that the assessee had an adequate opportunity of hearing with reference to the property Akash Deep which was the subject-matter of the assessment. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT should be set aside and that the ld. CIT should be directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee with reference to the assessee s share in the house property Akash Deep . We hold accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 81 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e reasonable cause for the delay and, therefore, in view of all these facts the matter should be restored to the file of the ld. AAC. The assessee had filed before us an affidavit dt. 17th May, 1982 to the effect that the partner Vijai Kumar was suffering from kidney trouble and that in Form No. 6 for the extension of time this ground had been mentioned and that the ITO had allowed time for filing the return on this application. In view of all these facts which are relevant as also the additional evidence we set aside the order of the ld. AAC and restore the matter to him for deciding the assessee s appeal afresh on merits after examining the assessee s application in Form No. 6, the affidavit filed before us and after giving and opportunity to the department of hearing and after examining whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The ld. AAC can, in his discretion call for a report from the ITO. 7. The assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 80 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e reasonable cause for the delay and, therefore, in view of all these facts the matter should be restored to the file of the ld. AAC. The assessee had filed before us an affidavit dt. 17th May, 1982 to the effect that the partner Vijai Kumar was suffering from kidney trouble and that in Form No. 6 for the extension of time this ground had been mentioned and that the ITO had allowed time for filing the return on this application. In view of all these facts which are relevant as also the additional evidence we set aside the order of the ld. AAC and restore the matter to him for deciding the assessee s appeal afresh on merits after examining the assessee s application in Form No. 6, the affidavit filed before us and after giving and opportunity to the department of hearing and after examining whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The ld. AAC can, in his discretion call for a report from the ITO. 7. The assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 79 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner (Appeals), the ITO present there was asked by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as to what was the non-disclosure of primary facts at the time of initial assessment proceedings and the reply of the ITO present there was that the assessee-HUF had very much undervalued the property. There was no non-disclosure of primary facts alleged. As already observed above, on facts it could not be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment of the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), namely, that the reopening of the assessment under section 17(1)(a) was without any proper jurisdiction. We, accordingly, uphold his order. There is, therefore, no force in the appeal filed by the department, which must fail and be dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 78 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... which case different considerations would prevail but a case where the assessee had disclosed the value of perquisite relating to rent free accommodation on the basis which is required to be adopted ordinarily as per the above rule, the working of the fair rental value etc., has to be made by the ITO in consultation with the assessee and therefore, it could not be said that the assessee on the facts of the case had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed the particulars of his income in relation to the value of perquisite regarding rent free accommodation. 9. So far as the value of free use of car is concerned, it was pointed out earlier that the value of the same has been included in the past and therefore, it would not be said that omission to disclose the value of said perquisite was a deliberate Act. In our view, therefore, the AAC was justified in cancelling the penalty for both the years. We uphold the decision of the AAC and dismiss these appeals.
-
1983 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Hindu Undivided Family, Assessment After Partition ... ... ... ... ..... the appeals. In view of our order in IT Appeal No. 1393 (Ahd.) of 1980, we reject these appeals. Per Shri K.T. Thakore, Accountant Member --- I have gone through the order as proposed by my learned brother, the Judicial Member, carefully, I agree with the conclusion reached by him fully. However, I have my reservations about the observations made in para 5 of the order as proposed by him. In my view it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether a partition between the members could be recognised or not. Firstly, because the matter is not free from doubt and secondly, the controversy in this regard has become academic in view of the acceptance of alternative contention raised by the assessee that the family arrangement has to be recognised. As a consequence, the interest on the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was not exigible to inclusion in the hands of the assessee-HUF. Subject to above observations the assessee s appeal be allowed and the department s appeals be dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 76 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Partnership Deed, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... proposition that a partnership deed which makes a minor a partner is invalid would apply only to a case where other persons, who are majors, are making a minor a partner and not to a case where a minor himself on attaining majority becomes a partner with effect from a date when he was a minor. Further, applying the aforesaid decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of P.N. Sarmah, we are of the view that the partnership deed in this case did no more than conform to the statutory legal position as explained in that decision and quoted above. 7. The Supreme Court decision in the case of R.C. Mitter and Sons, cited by the Commissioner, is not applicable because here there is an actual partnership deed and not a record of an oral partnership entered into earlier. We are, therefore, of the view that the registration in this case should have been granted to the firm. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner and restore that of the ITO. 8. The appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... essee was not engaged in manufacturing activity. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was given deduction under section 35D of the Act, on the ground that it was an industrial undertaking. Further, Schedule XI to the Act contains list of items of articles and things for the manufacture of which the assessee is not entitled to deduction under sections 32A and 80J. In the said Schedule textiles does not appear as an item. On the contrary, textiles appear in Schedules V and IX to the Act. This clearly shows that a person engaged in the manufacture of articles used in textile industries would be entitled to claim deduction under sections 32A and 80J. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing activity and, therefore, was entitled to deduction as contemplated under sections 32A and 80J. In this view of the matter, we would set aside the order of the Commissioner under appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... notice board of the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prev.), in accordance with the requirements of section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. No reply as so far been submitted by the petitioner and that the case is still pending. The learned Counsel for the Central Government produced before us the envelopes which were returned by the postal authority on account of non-service of the notice. We are fully satisfied that the statement made in the counter-affidavit regarding notice is correct. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the return of the recorders. However, since the cases are pending, we would direct that in case the show cause is filed within two weeks from today either before the customs authority or the excise authority, the same should be entertained and disposed of in accordance with law. 6.In the result, subject to the observation and directions made above, this application is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Refund - Writ Jurisdiction - Limitation - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... er, indicate that in case we were inclined to allow the petition and direct refund of the amount, we would have preferred to follow the course indicated by the Supreme Court in its decision in N.S. Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1976 S.C. 1152, by issuing suitable directions to ensure refund of the money directly to the consumers, instead of the petitioners, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner very rightly did not dispute the petitioner s liability to refund that amount to the consumers to whom it belongs. However, this situation not having arisen, no further discussion of the aspect is necessary, even though both sides have argued this point also with considerable vehemence citing decisions of some High Courts, which it is unnecessary to refer for the reasons stated. 12. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order, for costs. The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1983 (11) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Imported goods auctioned by the Port Trust Authorities due to delay in clearance ... ... ... ... ..... .R. 1965 S.C. 1740 (Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others). In my judgment, it is improper for a public authority like Bombay Port Trust to raise such contention. Apart from that fact, the contention has no merit. In the first instance, the period of limitation has no application to the writ proceedings and this Court would be very slow in refusing the relief when justice is loaded on the side of the petitioner. Secondly, it is improper for the Port Trust to seek undue enrichment by raising such technical contention. Respondent No. 1 has no defence to the claim of the petitioner and it is not fair to defeat the claim on technicalities. In my judgment, this is a fit case in which this Court must exercise jurisdiction and grant relief to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 27,192.67 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1983 (11) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Classification of goods - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... tant Collector and thereafter to the Collector (Appeals) and to the Tribunal when the matter is already concluded by the notification issued by the Central Board of Excise. The Assistant Collector is the competent authority to decide as to under what classification item the particular commodity falls and to pass an order of assessment on that basis. The question whether the commodity produced by the petitioners falls under the item cement or not, is a mixed question of fact and law and much depends upon the facts and materials which would be produced by the petitioners before the assessing authority. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of these cases I am clearly of the view that these writ petitions are premature and the petitioners have adequate and efficacious alternative remedy and are not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The writ petitions, accordingly, fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - Taxes to be excluded - Scope of ambit - Insurance on transportation ... ... ... ... ..... to have been paid, should be allowed even if they are paid periodically to the relevant taxing authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of taxing statutes/rules. 3. It is clarified that the cost of insurance mentioned in the judgment as part of the cost of transportation which is to be included as a deduction is the transit transport insurance covering transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery. 4. Where a company has more than one factory located at different places and the prices at the depots is the same irrespective of the lack of identification of the goods from a particular factory of production, the deductions as set out in this judgment and as explained in this order shall be computed and allowed on the basis of such price. 5. This order shall be by way of clarification of the judgment delivered on 7th October, 1983. 6. The matters shall also be listed on 18th November, 1983 and shall be heard in court at 2 p.m.
-
1983 (11) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... -materials. Shri Dave very rightly submits that the mere fact that raw-material for manufacture of fan-guards was supplied by M/s. Rallis India Limited in respect of the order booked by the said Company cannot lead the Assistant Collector to the conclusion that the petitioners are not the manufacturers but M/s. Rallis India Limited are and, therefore, the exemption under notification is not available. The assumption of the Assistant Collector in this regard is entirely unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case and the action of the Assistant Collector in compelling the petitioners to take out L-4 licence and pay excise duty is entirely illegal and unsustainable. 5. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners at the time of interim order passed by this Court to stand discharged.
-
1983 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aluminium strips made out of duty paid aluminium wire rods in coil are again liable to duty ... ... ... ... ..... , it is futile for the petitioners to claim that the notice dated May 29, 1970 is worked out and therefore the proceedings could not have been started. The claim made in the show cause notice was not decided by the Superintendent and the Assistant Collector was the proper forum to decide the same. 8. A faint submission was also advanced by Shri Bhandare that the contents of the show cause notice were vague, but the submission has no merit, because the petitioners never made any grievance about the same before any of the authorities below and perusal of the notice does not indicate any vagueness in the same. In my judgment, there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs. The respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners with the Prothonetary and Senior Master in accordance with the interim order. The respondents to withdraw the amount after a period of four weeks from today.
-
1983 (11) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Seizure and confiscation of video cassette recorders not valid when there was no material on record nor presumption available for forming the 'reasonable belief' that the goods were smuggled goods
....
|
