|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 235 Records
-
1983 (8) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Show Cause Notice — Words and phrases — `Notice in respect thereof is given' — Interpretation of — Confiscation and penalty
-
1983 (8) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, BOMBAY
Breakage - Shortage in the storage due to breakage admissible - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... es of glass to lie scattered on the floor of the bonded store-room which is trodden over by workers many of whom may be barefooted, nor is it reasonably practicable for a manufacturer to await the arrival of an Inspector of Central Excise every time a flask breaks in the process of manufacture and storage. We find that the Assistant Collector failed in his statutory duty to apply the provisions of Rule 223A in the matter of giving an allowance for the breakage which was a natural cause within the meaning of Rule 223A. 11. The upshot of the above suggests that the Appeal falls to be allowed, and it is declared that the orders passed by defendants 1 to 3 on 3-6-1976, 25-4-1975 and 17-12-1973 respectively, and the consequential demand dated 15-9-1976 made by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Poona II, for Rs. 58,975.68 P. together with the demand of penalty of Rs. 200/- are set aside as being not binding on the appellants. 12. The Appeal is allowed with costs throughout.
-
1983 (8) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Reserves, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ; reserves " by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal and the High Court. But counsel urged that there was no material to show the exact nature or character of the amounts described as " unremitted foreign income " or that they had the same character as " retained earnings ". Counsel submitted that perhaps these amounts were those which had not been remitted by the branches in foreign countries other than Indian branch to the head office in the United States of America. After going through the order of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court it is very clear that the submission of counsel is ill conceived and that both the expressions are used in one and the same sense and the amounts described in either way have the same character. In fact, the Tribunal has observed that it was not disputed before it that the nature of both the items was one and the same. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... ent Cos. Ltd. v. CIT 1983 141 ITR 318 Section 214(1) would apply to cases, Madras High Court Where the refund is simultaneous with the regular assessment but if the refund is delayed, the assessee would be entitled to interest up to the date of refund under s. 214(2). Whenever an assessee paid advance tax in excess of the tax found to be due, he would be entitled to interest under s. 214(2) read with s. 219 up to the date of refund if the refund is made or has to be made after the regular assessment. Delhi High Court After the introduction of sub-s. (2) in s. 214, whatever may be the interpretation that might be placed on the expression, regular assessment contained in s. 214, there is no escape from the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to refund along with interest up to the date of refund. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to refund the amount with interest by or before 3rd October, 1983.
-
1983 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... re provision made by the assessee towards the liability to tax. In this case as already stated, the actual amount due on the relevant date, i.e., on October 1, 1969, was only a sum of Rs. 2,85,137 and that alone is deductible under sub-r. (3) of r. 19A, and not a sum of Rs. 3,66,566, for which provision has been made in the balance-sheet. In our view, the Tribunal has correctly understood r. 19A and its decision does not call for any interference. We are aware that r. 19A(3) has been struck down by a decision of this court in Madras Industrial Linings Ltd. v. ITO 1977 110 ITR 256, and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. However, we proceeded to dispose of this case on the basis that even if r. 19A(2) is valid and were to be followed, the decision of the Tribunal has to be accepted as correct. In this view of the matter, question No. 1 also is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay costs to the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (8) TMI 50 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e considered in the assessment proceeding and were not believed, a different interpretation could not be put on these circumstances in penalty proceedings. Where the assessee produces no fresh evidence and presents no additional or fresh circumstances in the penalty proceedings, he would be deemed to have failed to discharge the onus placed on him and the levy of penalty on the assessee would be valid. It will also be open to the Tribunal to have this aspect of the law in view while dealing with the matter afresh. We, accordingly, are of the opinion that the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act as it stood amended at the relevant time. The case is accordingly sent back to the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
1983 (8) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Registered Firm, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... arain Agarwala v. CIT 1970 75 ITR 1, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has also made some observations in the nature of obiter that in the case of a registered firm if full effect is not given effect to the depreciation allowance in any past year, then the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation becomes depreciation of the current year in the hands of the partners, and if one of such partners is carrying on no other business such partner can necessarily set off unabsorbed depreciation against income under other heads. In the light of what is discussed above and from a plain reading of a. 32(2) of the Act, the Tribunal, in our judgment, was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1972-73 cannot be allowed to be adjusted while computing the income of the assessee-firm for the year 1973-74. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 48 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ring to the said direction, the petitioner made a grievance before the Commissioner. The scope of the revision, therefore, was whether the ITO erred in law by straying away from the direction given by the Tribunal. It was not correct on the part of the Commissioner to I do not consider that comparable cases are to be again taken into account in determining the income. The limits of the exercise of jurisdiction had been fixed by the Tribunal. The ITO was to operate within that. In revision the ambit of the exercise could not be widened. In our opinion, therefore, the Commissioner went wrong in giving a go-dy to the mode, directed by the Tribunal, to be followed while making the assessment. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner in revision as in annex. 4 and remit the matter to him for a fresh disposal in accordance with the observations contained herein. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. B. K. BEHERA J.-I agree.
-
1983 (8) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... ent and not a fictional person, e.g., a HUF or a firm. After the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, s. 54 has been amended by the Finance Act, 1982, with effect from April 1, 1983, and the section now begins as Where, in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset to which the provisions of section 53 are not applicable, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house-property (hereafter in this section referred to as the original assets) ........... The intention of Parliament has thus been made clear by limiting the benefit of s. 54(1) only to individuals who are assessees. This amendment appears to be a clarification of the idea which was already underlying s. 54 of the Act. In the result, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... nt and the percentage cannot be reduced in proportion to the part of the year during which the undertaking was in productive operation. Mr. Srinivasan, however, relied upon the following observation of the Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd. 1982 134 ITR 592 at 598 The section itself no doubt contemplates the percentage of relief being toned down or reduced proportionately to the period of working of the undertaking. It may be stated that the Delhi High Court was not considering the question we are called upon to answer. . Secondly, the above observation has no support from the wordings Of s. 80J. We, therefore, cannot, with respect, accept the soundness of that reasoning. On the contrary, we find ourselves unhesitatingly driven to the opposite conclusion, regard being bad to the legislative purpose underlying s. 80J. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 45 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... . Shiv Parshad. 1984 146 ITR 397 (P and H) has expressly ruled that if a binding decision of this court covers a question sought to be referred to the High Court then so far as the Tribunal is concerned no referable question can be said to arise even if the given question raises a question of law, We entirely concur with the view that the Division Bench in Shiv Parshad s case has taken and, therefore, return the question unanswered. The learned counsel for the assessee-firm sought to challenge the correctness of this court s decision in Raman Industries case 1980 121 ITR 405. The decision in that case has been followed and approved by the later two Division Benches in CIT v. Sadhu Ram 1981 127 ITR 517 (P and H) and CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Rai and Co. 1981 132 ITR 897 (P and H). In view of the consistent view of this court, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken in Raman Industries case. In view of the above, the reference is returned unanswered. No costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... r than those of the trust. The amounts spent or for the purposes of the trust from out of the income computed in the aforesaid manner, should be not less than 75 per cent. of the latter, if the trust is to get the full benefit of the exemption u/s. 11(1). In CIT v. Trustee of H.E.H. The Nizam s Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust 1981 127 ITR 378, the Andra Pradesh High Court has accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with the principles of accountancy for the purpose of determining the income derived from the properties held in trust. In CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities 1982 135 ITR 485 at 495, the Madras High Court observed The income from the properties held under trust would have to be arrived it in the normal commercial manner without reference to the provisions which are attracted by s. 14. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orial links relate to advancement of loans at Bhilwara and further relate to accrual of right of repayment and corresponding liability thereof at Bhilwara in view of the principle that the debtor should seek the creditor, which we have found to be applicable in the present case, in the absence of any contract to the contrary. We may also state that while considering the assessability, taxability or applicability of any beneficial provision or in interpretation of facts or inferences to be drawn from the facts if two views are possible, then, in our opinion, that view should be taken which may be beneficial to or in the interest of the assessee. In the light of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of interest amounting to Rs. 35,300 accrued to the assessee in Part B State and not in Part C State. The reference is answered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (8) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... , such contracts would be hedging contracts. This shows that even the Commissioner, while requesting the Tribunal to make a reference to the court, took it that the finding of the Tribunal was that the contracts in respect of raw materials had been entered into by the assessee in order to safeguard against loss through future price fluctuation in respect of the contracts for purchase and sale of manufactured goods and it is too late in the day for him to contend before us that this was not so. While calling upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case before this court, the Department did not make any attempt to question the correctness of the said finding. We are accordingly of opinion that even the second question has also to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1983 (8) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Income ... ... ... ... ..... isions of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Articles (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1973. It was urged that in view of the provisions of the control order, the assessee could not have obtained the higher rate of profit as estimated. It was, therefore, contended that the Tribunal was not justified in applying a gross profit rate of 6 on the declared sales. The contention cannot be upheld. The Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the assessee itself had shown profit at more than 2 in some years in spite of the provisions of the Control Order providing for sale at a price not exceeding a margin of 2 for the wholesale dealers. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in applying a G.P. rate of 6 on the sales for the respective years. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (8) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... asoning of the Tribunal that there is no bar on the assessee claiming relief under s. 32 in respect of an asset for which deduction has been allowed in any previous year cannot hold good and since the amendment has been brought into force from April 1, 1962, the same is applicable to the assessment year in this case. In view of the said amendment, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now pronounced on the ground that the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, in so far as it amended s. 35 of the I.T. Act, 1961, has been challenged before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending consideration. In view of the said circumstance, we are inclined to grant leave. The assessee is, therefore, granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment in this case.
-
1983 (8) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... r year in future, this apparent detriment to the Revenue will get adjusted and disappear. Therefore, in view of the findings of the Tribunal that the change of the method is bona fide and is intended to be followed in future, year after year, the change has to be accepted by the Revenue, notwithstanding the fact that during the assessment year which is the first year when the change of method is brought about it has resulted in a prejudice or detriment to the Revenue. So long as the method of valuation adopted by the assessee gets recognition from the practising accountants and the commercial world for valuation of stock-in-trade, the adoption of that method cannot be questioned by the Revenue unless the adoption of that method is found to be not bona fide or restricted for a particular year. In view of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (8) TMI 38 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the statute applicable thereto. I, therefore, think that grave injustice would be caused if this aspect of the matter is also not gone into by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is hereby directed to go into this question as well in respect of assessment year 1961-62 while deciding the quantum of penalty after hearing the parties and give its decision in accordance with law. So far as the token penalty of Rs. 500 for the assessment year 1960-61 is concerned which was levied against the assessee and to which he has acquiesced, the Tribunal is directed to decide the quantum of penalty in accordance with the Act of 1961 after hearing the parties and the assessee will not be entitled to take the plea of prerequisites as envisaged in s. 273 (a) and (b). With these directions, both the cases are sent back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in view of the directions and observations made as above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S. R. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1983 (8) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... wered the question of law referred to us by the Tribunal in the affirmative and against the assessee. The applicant has sought a certificate to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court from the aforesaid order passed by us. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this is a fit case in which the certificate prayed for by the applicant should be granted. No decision of the Supreme Court on the question involved is brought to our notice. The question involved is about the interpretation of the provisions of s. 54 of the Act and it is not disputed that it is a substantial question of law of general importance. In our opinion, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The application is, therefore, allowed. The applicant is granted certificate to prefer an appeal against the order dated January 20, 1983, passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 108 of 1981. There shall be no order as to the costs of this application.
-
1983 (8) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Body Of Individuals, Status ... ... ... ... ..... h the question at issue arising in this case and are distinguishable. The editors, Kanga and Palkhivala, in The Law and Practice of Income-tax (Supplement to 7th edn., 1982) at pages 15 and 16, have commented that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Deccan Wine and General Stores case 1977 106 ITR 111, is incorrect. In The Law of Income-tax by Sampath Iyengar (7th edn., 1981), Vol. I, the matter has been exhaustively discussed at pages 409 to 411. In the light of the above, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the facts that the second question referred to us was not pressed by the counsel for the Revenue, we are not answering that question. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
....
|
