|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 280 Records
-
1996 (6) TMI 100 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Failure To Pay Advance Tax, False Estimate, Penalty Proceedings, Show-cause Notice, Total Income
-
1996 (6) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Appropriate Authority, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Claim For Depreciation, Financial Year, Previous Year, Purchase Price, Sale Proceeds, Short-term Capital Gains
-
1996 (6) TMI 98 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Fair Market Value, Valuation Date, Valuer's Report
-
1996 (6) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Natural justice - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... other alternative but to set aside the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, Custom House, and remit this case back to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing in the writ petitioner. 3. I make it clear that the Deputy Collector of Customs shall intimate the date of hearing of the matter at least a fortnight before such date is fixed. I have not gone into the merits of the disputes raised against the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs which would be decided afresh in accordance with law by the Deputy Collector of Customs. The Deputy Collector is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order. This impugned order is therefore set aside. This writ application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. 4. There will be no order as to costs. 5. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order upon usual undertaking.
-
1996 (6) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ). 5.In the case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel, the appellate authority viz., CEGAT had already fixed the hearing of the stay petition on filing of the appeal. Therefore, in that case, this Court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of non-exercise of jurisdiction whereas the case on hand is a clear case of non-exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, the case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, cannot be an authority to decline relief to the petitioner. 6.For the above reasons, we direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the stay petition within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further direct the 2nd respondent not to take any further steps pursuant to the Detention Order No. 38/93 dated 4-6-1996 pending passing of the orders by the 1st respondent. Any further action pursuant to the said detention order shall abide the orders of the 1st respondent. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Customs - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s Act by verifying whether the petitioners satisfy clauses (a) to (f) of proviso to sub-section (2). 6.Considering the aforesaid submission and the proviso of Section 27, in this case, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is required to decide on merits whether the petitioners are entitled to get refund of the duty and interest paid by them under protest. 7.In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs is directed to decide whether the duty and interest paid by the petitioners under protest should be refunded to the petitioners or whether it should be credited to the fund as envisaged under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs would decide the said question within a period of two months from today if the petitioners furnish the necessary information within a period of 15 days from today. 8.Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Customs - Writ Jurisdiction - Additional duty ... ... ... ... ..... ity being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation. 9.Further the question is also concluded by recent decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company reported in 1990 (84) E.L.T. 401 (SC), wherein the Court after considering the provisions of Section 27(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 has held that it is not permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. It is held that power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. 10.In this view of the matter, this petition is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Customs - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation. 6. Further, the question is also concluded by recent decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (SC), wherein the Court after considering the provisions of Section 27(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 has held that it is not permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. It is held that power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the state act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. 7. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT KARNATAKA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Undue hardship ... ... ... ... ..... bunal had passed the order honestly, bona fide and having regard to the plea of undue hardship as canvassed by the appellant then no error of jurisdiction or misdirection by the Tribunal can be inferred. In Para 14 of the judgment it has been held that In the facts and circumstances of case and all the relevant factors, namely the probability of the prima facie case of the appellant, the conduct of the parties, have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The purpose of the Section is to act in terrarium to make the people comply with the provisions of law. 28.Applying the law of the land as declared by the Supreme Cours of India, to the facts of the present case, in my opinion no good grounds have been made out for interfering with the impugned orders placed at Annexures-F and H. Any how, because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, the time for pre-deposit is extended till 30-6-1996. Subject to this, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,500/-.
-
1996 (6) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ty is without any legal basis. Shri U.N. Sharma, learned counsel has made a statement at the bar, that so long as the interim application and waiver application is not decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad where the appeals of the petitioner are pending, realisation of the demand concerning which the appeals are pending, shall not be made. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement of Standing Counsel, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that so long as the applications of the petitioner praying for interim orders and waiver of demand and penalty are pending, the petitioner shall not be called upon to deposit the same. The Commissioner is however directed not to adjourn the case and decided the applications, if not appeals themselves, if possible on the date fixed on within two months from today. 5. Certified copy of this may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within twenty four hours.
-
1996 (6) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Section 11D of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Legislative competence - Demand - Statute - Enforcement of
-
1996 (6) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Natural justice - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... ng manner (a) The reply to the show cause notice be filed by the writ petitioner within 2 weeks from this date. (b) The adjudicating authority shall dispose of the adjudication proceedings within one month thereafter positively after giving hearing to the writ petitioner and after passing a reasoned order in accordance with law without giving any unnecessary adjournment of the hearing of the adjudicating proceedings to the writ petitioner. 7.It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the disputes raised by the writ petitioner against the final order of adjudication which is being set aside by this order. All points are kept open to be decided by the Commissioner of Customs in the adjudication proceedings. 8.For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9.There will be no order as to costs. 10.All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order upon the usual undertaking.
-
1996 (6) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Jurisdiction - Release of seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... application is being decided today on the prayer of Mr. Sarkar that was made on the other day that he will rely on the records only and shall not file any affidavit in opposition to this writ application. 10.Since no affidavit in opposition to this writ application has been filed, allegations made in the writ petition, however, shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. 11.Mr. Sen has drawn by attention to another aspect of this matter. Relying on 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., he submits that some strictures to the Adjudicating Authority should be given as the Adjudicating Authority has not yet complied with the direction made by the CEGAT which is binding on the Adjudicating Authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not feel interested to give some strictures on the Adjudicating Authority. 12.All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order upon usual undertaking.
-
1996 (6) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Jurisdiction - Nature and Scope ... ... ... ... ..... n at this stage of proceeding to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the assumption of jurisdiction in the contextual facts by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution is wholly mis-placed and unwarranted. 20.In that view of the matter the stay application succeeds and since no useful purpose would be sub-served in keeping the appeal pending - the appeal also stands disposed of with an order to the effect that the order of the learned Trial Judge stands set aside and quashed. The writ petition is also dismissed upon treating the same on the day s list. The Writ Petitioner is directed to produce the documents as has been directed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence with utmost expedition. The undertakings given by the Appellant stand discharged. No order however, as to costs. 21.Prayer for Stay made but refused. 22.Xerox Certified Copy of this Judgment be made available to the parties with expedition.
-
1996 (6) TMI 86 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Disallowance Of Cash Payments, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... as no way left for the assessee except to pay in cash. In the nature of things whether in the statute, rules or circulars, all the contingencies cannot be enumerated exhaustively. Parliament referred to the inadequacy of facilities in section 40A. The rule-making authorities illustrated some of the circumstances in the Rules. The Revenue supplemented the further circumstances when exemptions can be claimed and allowed. From the decision, it appears that there may be various circumstances which can be regarded as exceptional and unavoidable. Therefore, in our opinion, in view of the decision of this court in Paul Brothers case 1990 186 ITR 356, the finding of the Tribunal was erroneous. Accordingly, we answer question No. 2 also in negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati. N. S. SINGH J. -- I agree.
-
1996 (6) TMI 85 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... cer to see whether the firm is genuine or not before registration of the firm. The Income-tax Officer cannot allow registration of a firm which is not genuine. The Income-tax Officer in this case discharged his obligation by asking the assessee to produce all the partners. He was also right in holding that there would be no difficulty to produce the partners. From the record, we do not find that the partners appeared in the subsequent years. It is also not indicated for what reason the assessee failed to produce the partners. In view of that, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer had rightly cancelled the registration and the Tribunal was also right in upholding the decision of the Income-tax Officer. In view of the above, we answer the questions in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1996 (6) TMI 84 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Fluctuation In Rate, Foreign Exchange, High Court, Interest On Refund ... ... ... ... ..... s entitled to interest. In the show-cause notice, nothing is indicated. The notice is, therefore, vague. It may be that the Commissioner might have come to the conclusion from the record of the case that there is delay attributable to the assessee but then in that case, the same should have been mentioned in the notice. In the absence of that, it can be said that the notice is vague. The Assessing Officer before whom the proceedings commenced and concluded, who is seized of the facts of the case, would be the best person to mention in his order if at all he is of the view that the delay in concluding has occasioned due to the delay caused by the assessee. Even by filing the affidavit before this court, no material is placed. Therefore, in the absence of any material, it can be said that the notice is vague so far as the second question is concerned. In the result, the impugned notice at annexure C is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 83 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ave been not used for the business of the assessee merely by reason of the same being under repair. The Bombay High Court held that the vehicles continued to be in use for the business of the assessee even though the same were under repair. The decisions cited by Mr. Joshi, namely, (1) CIT v. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Co. Ltd. 1969 71 ITR 319 (MP) and (2) CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. 1982 133 ITR 884 (Guj), however, gave a contrary view. After going through the various decisions we find that the expression used should have a wider meaning so as to include not only actual but also passive user. Therefore, we agree with the contention of Dr. Saraf. In the present case, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion after appreciating the fact that the factory was used for some period. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that view. In view of the above, we answer the questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. S. B. Roy J. ---I agree.
-
1996 (6) TMI 82 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... s valid and sustainable and income therefrom if any, can only be considered in the hands of those persons concerned and that being so and in view of the circumstances and in view of the different authorities, there was no question of any gift of the properties by the assessee-mother to the children. . . . In our considered view, this conclusion was also not necessary in deciding the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having not referred to any custom or customary practice prevailing among the Mohammedans in its order/judgment, the questions become academic, therefore, we decline to answer questions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 being redundant. The question No. 2 is accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 81 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Supreme Court
....
|
