|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 261 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 87
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported second-hand car for customs duty.
2. Application of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
3. Principles of natural justice in customs valuation.
4. Interim relief for release of the car.
Summary:
1. Valuation of Imported Second-Hand Car for Customs Duty:
The petitioner purchased a second-hand Jaguar car in the UK for £1323 and brought it to India. The Customs Department assessed the import duty at Rs. 13 lakhs, using a price of £18,999 from the World Car Catalogue, ignoring the auction price. The petitioner contested this valuation, arguing that the car's actual purchase price should be considered.
2. Application of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The petitioner argued that the Department ignored Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, which mandates that the value of imported goods should be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold in international trade. Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules should be applied in conformity with Section 14. The Court held that the valuation should start from the auction price paid by the petitioner, not the list price of a new car, as per Section 14.
3. Principles of Natural Justice in Customs Valuation:
The Collector of Customs (Appeals) noted that the petitioner was not provided with the World Car Catalogue, violating natural justice principles. The Court found that the Customs Authorities' arbitrary decision to allow only 55% depreciation for a 7-year-old car was unjustifiable and ignored the evidence provided by the petitioner, such as Tarker's Car Price Guide.
4. Interim Relief for Release of the Car:
Given the prolonged detention of the car and accruing demurrage charges, the Court ordered the release of the car upon payment of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3 lakhs. The petitioner was required to produce the car for monthly inspections by the Customs Department.
Conclusion:
The Court issued a Certiorari order, setting aside the Assistant Collector of Customs' valuation and directing a fresh assessment in line with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of 200 GMs to the petitioner. The request for a stay of the order was rejected.
-
1992 (8) TMI 86
Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of the value of imported goods by Customs Authorities.
2. Release of goods and warehousing charges.
3. Theft of goods from the warehouse.
4. Determination of customs duty on stolen goods.
5. Security for the claim of West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation.
Summary:
1. Enhancement of the value of imported goods by Customs Authorities:
The appellant imported defective Zinc Aluminium Sheets and declared the value at Rs. 2440.76 per metric ton. Customs Authorities assessed the value at Rs. 3,995/- per metric ton. The appellant challenged this enhancement, asserting no basis for it. The Court found that the Customs Authorities failed to apply the principles of valuation as per the Customs Valuation Rules and relied on irrelevant instances. The Court emphasized that the onus of proving mis-declaration lies with the Department and cannot be based on suspicion. The matter was remanded to the Collector of Customs for a fresh assessment after providing the appellant with all relevant documents.
2. Release of goods and warehousing charges:
The appellant sought the release of goods and claimed that warehousing charges should be borne by the Customs Authorities. The Court allowed the removal of goods to another warehouse on the condition that the appellant discharges the lien of the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation. The Supreme Court directed the appellant to furnish security of Rs. 10 lakhs for the warehousing claim.
3. Theft of goods from the warehouse:
Approximately 96 metric tons of goods were stolen from the warehouse. The Court held that no customs duty can be levied on the stolen goods and directed the Customs Authorities to consider this while determining the duty payable by the appellant.
4. Determination of customs duty on stolen goods:
The Court reiterated that the appellant is only liable to pay customs duty on the goods found after the theft and not on the stolen goods. This was not disputed by the respondents.
5. Security for the claim of West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation:
The appellant was directed to secure the claim of Rs. 23 lakhs by depositing Rs. 10 lakhs in fixed deposit and Rs. 8 lakhs in Indira Vikas Patra. The Court ordered that the security be retained until 30th November 1992, and if no proceedings are initiated by the Warehousing Corporation, the security should be returned to the appellant. The lien of the Warehousing Corporation on the goods was shifted to the security provided.
The appeal and applications were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the Registrar was instructed to act on a signed xerox copy of the judgment.
-
1992 (8) TMI 85
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Patta" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid under protest.
3. Applicability of amendments to Section 11B and Sections 12A, 12B, 12C, and 12D of the Act of 1944.
4. Principle of unjust enrichment.
Summary:
1. Classification of the product "Patta" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner, a partnership firm manufacturing stainless steel product known as "Patta," initially classified the product as "sheet" or "strips" under sub-item (ii) of Tariff Item No. 26AA. The petitioner claimed it should be classified under sub-item No. (ia) based on decisions in cases of M/s. C.D. Industries and M/s. Ae Vee Iron & Steel Works Private Limited. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur, rejected this claim. The petitioner's appeal was accepted by the Collector (Appeals), making the petitioner entitled to a refund of duty paid 'under protest'.
2. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid under protest:
The petitioner applied for the refund, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The petitioner's subsequent appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals), directing the Assistant Collector to grant the refund. Despite the Excise Department's appeal to CEGAT, which was dismissed, no refund was made. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excise duty.
3. Applicability of amendments to Section 11B and Sections 12A, 12B, 12C, and 12D of the Act of 1944:
The respondents contended that amendments effective from 20th September 1991, particularly Section 11B, barred the petitioner from any refund. The Court held that the amendments were not retrospective and did not apply to refunds due as a result of appellate orders. The Court emphasized that the entitlement to refund arises from the appellate order and does not require further adjudication by the Assistant Collector. The duty to refund is a statutory obligation under the provisions existing before the amendments.
4. Principle of unjust enrichment:
The respondents argued that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund based on the principle of unjust enrichment. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of tax illegally collected. The Court cited several precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, affirming that taxes collected without authority must be refunded, and the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be invoked to deny such refunds.
Conclusion:
The petition was accepted, and the respondents were directed to refund the excise duty with 12% per annum interest from the date of actual payment to the date of refund. The refund was to be made within two months from the date of the order.
-
1992 (8) TMI 84
Issues: Classification of manufactured product under Tariff Item No. 68, excise duty on rayon content in exported warpsheets, short levy on rayon cord.
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a dispute regarding the classification of a product manufactured by a company under Tariff Item No. 68. The petitioners contended that the product, known as warpsheet or tyre cord warpsheet, should be classified under Tariff Item No. 22 or alternatively under Tariff Item No. 18. The respondent department argued that the product is an independent item freely sold in the market and should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68.
The court analyzed the nature of the warpsheet, which consisted of rayon cords held together by cotton threads, and compared it to a reported judgment by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The court held that the warpsheet is essentially a rayon cord and not a new distinct product, therefore classifying it under Tariff Item No. 18 instead of Tariff Item No. 68. This decision was based on the premise that the warpsheet, being a component used in the manufacture of tyres, did not qualify as a separate marketable product under Tariff Item No. 68.
Regarding the excise duty on the rayon content in exported warpsheets, the court ruled that since the warpsheet was considered a rayon cord and exempt from levy for export under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, the duty claimed by the department was not applicable. This decision also disposed of the show cause notices related to the levy of excise on the rayon content in exported warpsheets.
The court further addressed the issue of short levy on rayon cord, which had already been decided in favor of the petitioners by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The court referred to the department's consistent classification of rayon cord under Tariff Item No. 18 since 1983, thereby rejecting the department's contention in the third show cause notice.
Lastly, the court dismissed the department's argument that the petitioners should pursue an alternate statutory remedy through an appeal to the Tribunal, stating that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was valid based on the Supreme Court's decision and the department's own actions. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and withdrew the requirement for the petitioners to furnish a Bank Guarantee.
-
1992 (8) TMI 83
Issues:
Claim of full remission of demurrage charges, denial of benefit of detention certificates by Bombay Port Trust, petition for amending the petition, premature writ petition, consideration of demurrage charges by B.P.T., agitating the issue of exemption of demurrage, undertaking to keep bank guarantee alive, disposal of the writ petition.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the claim of full remission of demurrage charges and the denial of benefit of detention certificates by the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.). The petitioners had previously challenged an order confiscating imported goods, leading to directions to file an appeal before the Tribunal. As the matter is sub-judice before the Tribunal, the High Court deemed the writ petition premature, with demurrage charges liability pending the Tribunal's final decision on the earlier order. The B.P.T. assured to consider the petitioners' claim for remission if successful before the Tribunal, urging a fair assessment without influence from prior rejections. The petitioners were allowed to keep the bank guarantee active until the Tribunal's decision and were given a timeframe to apply for relief regarding demurrage charges. The Court disposed of the writ petition, keeping all contentions open and no costs awarded.
The Chamber Summons sought to amend the petition, referencing extracts from a Remission Committee meeting where the demurrage charges remission claim was rejected. Despite the Tribunal's pending decision, the Court emphasized the premature nature of the writ petition, linking demurrage charges liability to the Tribunal's final ruling. The B.P.T. committed to impartially reviewing the petitioners' remission claim post-Tribunal decision, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. The petitioners were permitted to pursue demurrage exemption with the B.P.T. even if unsuccessful before the Tribunal, ensuring the issue remained open for future consideration.
The petitioners undertook to maintain the bank guarantee and agreed to approach the B.P.T. within a specified timeframe if seeking demurrage relief, with the B.P.T. mandated to decide on such applications promptly and in compliance with the law. The Court's order disposed of the writ petition, with no separate order on the Chamber Summons, leaving all contentions open and no costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the interplay between the Tribunal's pending decision, the B.P.T.'s commitment to fair assessment, and the petitioners' obligations regarding the bank guarantee and future applications for demurrage relief.
-
1992 (8) TMI 81
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad heard a case involving truck owners/drivers whose trucks were seized for violating Central Excise Rules. The petitioners were called to show cause for possible confiscation of their trucks and imposition of penalties. The court found that the petitioners' contentions should be addressed by the authorities during the show cause proceedings, not by the court under Article 226. The court noted that the petitioners had approached the court prematurely and allowed them to file a reply within thirty days. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 79
The High Court of Bombay considered the excisability of Copper Scrap imported by the petitioner, questioning whether it falls under Item 68 or Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Customs had opined that Item 26A applied, but the petitioner challenged this decision. The Court found the Kerala High Court's decision supporting Entry 68 more acceptable and directed reconsideration of the previous decision by a larger bench. The issue to be considered is whether the importer of Copper Scrap is liable to pay excise duty under Entry 68 or 26A of the Central Excise Tariff as it stood before April 1, 1981.
-
1992 (8) TMI 77
Issues:
1. Refund of duty under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978.
2. Implementation of orders passed by Appellate Collector and Tribunal.
3. Lack of information regarding appeal to the Supreme Court.
4. Contention regarding stay of tax realization pending appeal.
5. Applicability of order pending appeal.
6. Precedent from the Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court.
Analysis:
1. The case involves a show cause notice issued to M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya regarding payment under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as per the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Collector held the petitioner liable to pay duty, but the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal, directing a refund of the duty demanded. Another appeal against a similar order was also mentioned in the judgment.
2. The Excise Department's appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was dismissed, but the orders to refund the amount collected were not implemented by the respondents. The petitioner highlighted the lack of information regarding an appeal to the Supreme Court, while the respondents claimed to have filed a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) and a stay application.
3. The court noted that the Supreme Court had not granted any stay, emphasizing that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the operation of an order. The respondents' conduct in not providing details of the Supreme Court proceedings was criticized, and the court rejected the contention that no refund should be granted until the appeal was finally disposed of by the highest court.
4. Referring to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, the judgment agreed that filing an appeal in the Supreme Court does not prevent the effectiveness of the order under appeal. The court held in favor of the petitioner, directing the payment of the refunded amount within four weeks with an additional interest rate of 10 percent from the date of the Appellate Collector's order.
5. The court did not award costs and instructed the department to provide a xerox copy of the order to the advocates appearing for the parties, with the option to obtain a certified copy.
-
1992 (8) TMI 76
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, and directed a fresh order to be passed after giving the petitioner a show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Assistant Collector was instructed to pass the order within two months.
-
1992 (8) TMI 75
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of excise duty.
2. Applicability of amended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Requirement for documentary evidence to establish non-transfer of duty incidence.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court to order refunds post-amendment.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Refund of Excise Duty:
The respondent, a manufacturer of Service Station equipment, was directed by the first appellant to pay a differential duty of Rs. 1,15,502.57 for the period from 10-1-1979 to 31-3-1980. This order was appealed, and the third appellant remanded the matter, directing the first appellant to approve the price-list based on the sales value at the factory gate under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The first appellant approved the price-list, and the respondent filed for a refund of Rs. 19,83,225.64. The refund claim was initially rejected, but subsequent appeals and remands led to the first appellant being directed to reconsider the refund claim. Ultimately, the respondent filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 6260/87) seeking a mandamus for the refund, which was allowed by the learned single Judge, directing the appellants to refund Rs. 16,59,721.30 with interest.
2. Applicability of Amended Section 11B:
During the pendency of the writ appeal against the learned single Judge's order, Section 11B of the Act was amended by the Central Excise Amendment Act, 1991 (Central Act 40 of 1991). The amendment introduced specific conditions for claiming refunds, including the requirement that the incidence of the duty must not have been passed on to any other person. The amendment also stated that no refund shall be made except as provided in the amended sub-section 2, overriding any contrary judgments or orders.
3. Requirement for Documentary Evidence to Establish Non-Transfer of Duty Incidence:
The amended Section 11B required the applicant to furnish documentary evidence to establish that the excise duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise would then determine if the duty was refundable and, if so, credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless it fell under specific exceptions.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Order Refunds Post-Amendment:
The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel argued that post-amendment, the court had no jurisdiction to order refunds except as per the amended provisions of Section 11B. The court acknowledged the merit in this contention, noting that the amendments regulated the manner of refund and prohibited any tribunal or court from ordering refunds contrary to the amended provisions.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the order of the learned single Judge directing the refund was subject to the amended Section 11B. The respondent must seek the refund from the Assistant Collector in the prescribed form, providing necessary documentary evidence. The court set aside the learned single Judge's order but allowed the respondent to file a new application for a refund within eight weeks. The department was directed to pass orders on the refund application within three months. The court clarified that the limitation period under Section 11B did not apply since the duty was paid under protest.
Judgment:
The writ appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside, subject to the respondent's right to file a fresh refund application as per the amended Section 11B. The department was instructed to process the application expeditiously. No costs were awarded.
-
1992 (8) TMI 72
Whether the concession or exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification No. 41/80 can be claimed only in respect of goods which are partially or wholly exempt by virtue of Notification No. 35/79?
Held that:- The parts in the present case as well as the principal article of which they are part are both assessable to basic duty at the same rate. Since the duty payable on the part, even without invoking the notification, is not in excess of the duty payable on the article, the assessee cannot be said to have got a partial or complete exemption of basic duty by virtue of Notification No. 35/79. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim any benefit under Notification No. 41/80. This interpretation no doubt leads to an anomaly in marginal cases. If the rate of duty on the part had been 41%, the assessee would have been entitled to a complete exemption from auxiliary duty. On the other hand, if the rate of duty on the part had only been 39% or 40%, he would have to pay the auxiliary duty because the Notification does not apply to it in terms. Counsel, however, submits that such anomalies are inevitable in the case of provisions of this type and that, in taxing matters, it is imperative to concentrate on the language of the statute or the relevant statutory instrument. If the wording clearly imposes a tax or gives a relief, that should be given effect to. If the wording does not justify either the imposition or the relief, it should not be extended merely on the ground that there may be some unintended anomaly as a consequence of the interpretation or that the equities of the situation require a more liberal interpretation.
It seems absurd to say that when the part suffers a basic duty of 40% and the whole a duty of 40%, there will be a countervailing duty but that there will be no such duty where the basic duty on the part is 41% or more but reduced to 40% because of the 1977 notification. The correct position appears to be that the purpose and purport of the 1979 notification is to ensure that, in respect of the articles listed therein, the part should not suffer a higher duty than the whole. The 1980 notification likewise exempts this category of articles, which enjoy the benefit of the same or less duty on the part than that on the whole, from auxiliary duty. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 71
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner-company was entitled to claim deduction on account of surtax paid under section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether surtax paid by the petitioner-company was deductible expenditure in computing the company's income from business.
Analysis:
The High Court was presented with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, concerning the entitlement of the petitioner-company to claim a deduction for surtax paid. The petitioner had initially paid income tax and surtax for the relevant assessment years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for those years, seeking a deduction for the surtax paid, alleging it was omitted from the original assessments in error.
The Income-tax Officer rejected the applications based on a decision from the Special Bench of the Bombay Tribunal, which stated that surtax liability was not deductible when computing business income. Appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were also unsuccessful, leading to the reference to the High Court under section 256(1).
The High Court noted that several High Courts had ruled against allowing deduction for surtax paid, citing section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Various cases were referenced to support this position. However, the Gauhati High Court had a contradictory decision in Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 126, where it allowed surtax paid as a deduction. Despite this, the High Court emphasized that the issue was highly debatable, with a majority of courts ruling against the deduction.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, the High Court concluded that since the matter was debatable and multiple courts had ruled against the deduction, the application under section 154 was not maintainable. The court stated that if the petitioner disagreed with the assessment, they should have pursued an appeal or revision, not an application under section 154.
Consequently, the High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, against the assessee, indicating that the application under section 154 was rightly deemed not maintainable. As a result, the second question did not require an answer. The judgment concluded with each party bearing their own costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of reopening assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee disclosed fully and truly all material necessary for assessment, thus making the reassessment under section 147(a) unjustified.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of Reopening Assessment under Section 147(a):
The court examined whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of assessment under section 147(a) was not justified. The relevant assessment years were 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had initially based the assessments on the trading account and profit and loss accounts filed by the assessee without the balance-sheets, as they were not drawn up. The ITO later issued a notice under section 148, believing that the income returned was understated compared to the assessee's assets and holdings, leading to reassessment.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The AAC noted that the ITO had previously rejected the books of account for earlier years due to non-production of balance-sheets but did not call for balance-sheets for the years under consideration. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing that the ITO had the power to request the balance-sheet under section 142(1)(ii) but did not do so, indicating that the primary facts were disclosed.
2. Full and True Disclosure of Material Facts:
The court analyzed the meaning of "material facts" necessary for assessment. According to the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment. The assessee is not required to instruct the ITO on the inferences to be drawn from these facts. In this case, the assessee did not prepare balance-sheets, which were not attached to the returns. The court noted that under Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Form No. 2, the balance-sheet must be attached if prepared. Since the balance-sheets were not prepared, the court concluded that there was no non-disclosure of material facts.
The court also referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd., which held that non-disclosure implies the existence of material facts. If the balance-sheet was not prepared, it could not be disclosed. The ITO had the power to request the preparation of the balance-sheet under section 142(1)(ii) but did not exercise this power, indicating that the balance-sheet was not deemed necessary for assessment.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal and the AAC were justified in holding that the ITO was not justified in resorting to section 147(a) for reopening the assessment. The assessee had disclosed all primary facts necessary for assessment, and the ITO's failure to request the balance-sheet indicated that it was not a material fact. Thus, the reassessment under section 147(a) was not justified.
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the disclosure of income in the return and the genuineness of the disclosed income.
Issue 1:
The respondent-assessee disclosed an amount received in the return, which was later disputed by the Income-tax Officer. The question was whether the disclosure made by the assessee in Part IV of the return constituted inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, justifying the penalty imposition.
Issue 2:
Concerned with whether the disclosure of prize money receipts in the return could be considered as true and full disclosure within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, especially in the context of penalty imposition.
Issue 3:
The Tribunal assessed whether the Revenue had established, through positive evidence, that the impugned amount was income earned by the assessee during the relevant year, impacting the validity of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Issue 4:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation was challenged, questioning the justification of such deletion based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The High Court of Gujarat, in the referenced case, addressed the issues raised concerning penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee, an individual, disclosed income in the return for the assessment year, including an amount received from a source questioned by the Income-tax Officer. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the conclusion of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, however, deleted the penalty considering the disclosure sufficient. The High Court relied on a previous decision to establish that a presumption of concealment arises if the returned income is less than the assessed income, unless proven otherwise. As the assessee had shown the amount in the return, the court held that the penalty imposition was justified, rejecting the contention of false disclosure. The court emphasized the importance of proving the correct income to avoid penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the questions referred were answered in favor of the Revenue, upholding the penalty imposition.
-
1992 (8) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 28,965 (corrected to Rs. 47,190) for expenses incurred between August 15, 1970, and October 6, 1970, before the actual commencement of the business.
Summary:
1. Entitlement to Deduction of Expenses:
The primary issue was whether the assessee could claim a deduction for expenses incurred between August 15, 1970, and October 6, 1970, under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court for an opinion. The respondent-assessee, a private limited company involved in processing marine products, claimed these expenses as deductions in the assessment year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it, concluding that the business was set up on August 15, 1970. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the High Court.
2. Setting Up of Business:
The High Court examined the facts and determined that the business infrastructure was in place by August 15, 1970, when the assessee acquired a government godown. The court noted that the actual commencement of business activities, such as procuring fish, began on October 6, 1970. The Tribunal's finding that the business was set up on August 15, 1970, was based on relevant evidence and aligned with legal precedents.
3. Legal Precedents:
The court referred to several decisions, including Prem Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 654, CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 170, and Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 25, to establish the criteria for determining when a business is set up. The court emphasized that the business is considered set up when it is ready to commence, even if actual operations start later.
4. Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the assessee's business was set up on August 15, 1970, and the expenses incurred between that date and October 6, 1970, were deductible under section 37 of the Act. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 67
Issues:
Interpretation of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act regarding expenditure exceeding a specified amount made in cash for purchase of stock-in-trade.
Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm dealing in grains and grocery on a wholesale basis for the assessment year 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer disallowed payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 made in cash to three parties for the purchase of Guvar, an item of the assessee's stock-in-trade, under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, rejecting the argument that the payments were made in advance towards the purchase of goods. The Tribunal concluded that such payments for purchase of goods constituted expenditure falling within the purview of section 40A(3) of the Act.
The Supreme Court's decision in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 667 was cited, which clarified the interpretation of section 40A(3). The Court noted that the word "expenditure" in the Act is of wide import and includes all outgoings, such as payments made for purchasing stock-in-trade. The Court emphasized that section 40A(3) applies to payments exceeding a specified amount made in cash for acquiring stock-in-trade and other materials. The Court highlighted that the provision operates notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Act related to income computation, indicating its overriding nature.
The judgment affirmed that the expenditure for purchasing stock-in-trade is considered an outgoing that affects the determination of gross profits under commercial accounting principles. Therefore, the contention that the payments were advance payments for stock-in-trade was dismissed based on the Supreme Court's interpretation. The Court acknowledged that the case involved factual questions but proceeded to answer the reference due to the clear precedent set by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the question was answered in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and disallowing the deductions claimed by the assessee. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1992 (8) TMI 66
Issues:
Whether books valued at Rs. 5,324, allowed as revenue expenditure, qualify as 'plant' for development rebate under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of books valued at Rs. 5,324 for development rebate under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim for development rebate, stating that the books were not directly and wholly used for the business. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, ruling that books fell within the definition of "plant" under section 43(3) of the Act and allowed the development rebate. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that books are considered "plant" under section 32 of the Act if used for business purposes. The court referred to section 32, which allows deductions for depreciation on assets like machinery, plant, or furniture used for business, subject to certain provisions.
The court further analyzed the definition of "plant" under section 43(3), which includes items like books used for business purposes. Referring to the case law, the court highlighted the broad interpretation of the term "plant," emphasizing that it encompasses items like books that serve as tools in the taxpayer's trade. The court cited previous judgments, such as CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., affirming that books qualify as "plant" if they fulfill the functional characteristics of aiding in the business or profession. The Supreme Court also upheld this interpretation in the case of Scientific Engg. House P. Ltd. v. CIT, endorsing the view that items like drawings and business charts constitute "plant" under section 43(3).
Based on the legal precedents and the inclusive definition of "plant" in section 43(3) of the Act, the court concluded that books are eligible for development rebate. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the development rebate on the books valued at Rs. 5,324. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision and held that the books qualified as "plant" for the purpose of claiming development rebate under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1992 (8) TMI 65
Issues involved: Challenge to intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1990-91.
Summary:
The petitioners challenged an intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91. The intimation adjusted the total income of the petitioners, disallowing certain deductions and making additions based on revaluation reserves and changes in valuation methods. The court found that the adjustments made were beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) and were impermissible under the law. Specifically, the disallowance of a claim under section 115J was deemed unwarranted as the petitioners had not made a claim under section 80HHC, which required a specific certificate. The court referred to a previous judgment to support its interpretation of section 143(1)(a) and concluded that the intimation was erroneous and without jurisdiction, thus quashing it and setting it aside. The court directed the respondents to issue a fresh intimation order under section 143(1)(a) in accordance with the law and to make any necessary refund orders.
The judgment highlighted that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer were not in line with the provisions of section 143(1)(a) and went beyond the permissible scope of adjustments under the law. The court specifically noted that the disallowance of a claim under section 115J was unjustified as the petitioners had not claimed under section 80HHC, which required a specific certificate. Referring to a previous case law, the court emphasized that the intimation issued was erroneous and lacked jurisdiction, leading to its quashing and setting aside. The court directed the issuance of a fresh intimation order under section 143(1)(a) and instructed for any necessary refund orders to be made in accordance with the law.
The judgment concluded by quashing the impugned intimation dated July 22, 1991, and setting aside the claim for additional tax under section 143(1A). The court directed the respondents to issue a fresh intimation order under section 143(1)(a) following the legal principles established in the judgment and to make any consequential refund orders as required. The rule was made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 64
Issues involved: Impugning an order of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding adjustment of interest on securities in the return.
Summary:
The petitioner-bank challenged an intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which adjusted interest on securities not included in the return for the assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner contended that this adjustment was outside the purview of the section. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal despite acknowledging the error in the adjustment.
The court noted that u/s 143(1)(a), adjustments are permissible only under specific circumstances listed in the proviso. The adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was not covered under these provisions, rendering it without jurisdiction. Referring to a previous court decision, the court ruled the intimation as without jurisdiction and set it aside, along with the additional tax claimed. The respondents were directed to issue a fresh intimation in compliance with the law and refund any admissible amount to the petitioner.
As the original intimation was deemed without jurisdiction, subsequent proceedings u/s 154 and appeals were considered inconsequential, and any findings made therein were not binding on either party. The petition was granted in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 63
Issues involved: Challenge to notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act for reassessment of income for assessment year 1988-89.
Details of the judgment:
Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148
The petitioners, a company, challenged a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment of income for the assessment year 1988-89. The Assessing Officer proposed reassessment based on transactions related to a property, including a lease agreement and sale of reversionary rights. The court noted that the transactions occurred prior to the relevant assessment year, and there was no material for the Assessing Officer to believe that income had escaped assessment for that year. Referring to the case of Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC, the court emphasized that the belief for reassessment must be based on reasonable grounds, not mere suspicion. As there was no material to support income escaping assessment for the relevant year, the court held the notice u/s 148 to be without jurisdiction and set it aside.
Issue 2: Alleged interest income on advance
Another transaction under scrutiny was an advance given by the assessee-company to another entity for construction of a hotel, where no interest was charged. The Assessing Officer contended that interest income of approximately Rs. 3 lakhs had escaped assessment. However, the court observed that since no interest income was actually received by the assessee-company in the assessment year 1988-89, there was no basis for charging tax on income that was not earned. Citing the case of CIT v. A. Raman and Co., the court reiterated that income which could have been earned but was not received is not taxable. Therefore, the court found that the reasons for reassessment in this regard were also beyond the scope of section 147, and the notice u/s 148 was set aside.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act was without jurisdiction in both transactions and consequently set it aside. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
