|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 274 Records
-
1990 (1) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... y limitation statutorily prescribed, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would still be available provided the petition is filed within 3 years of the date of the knowledge. Article 265 of the Constitution was pressed in aid by the Bench. 6. Thus in either view, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the amount of excise duty paid by it on scantlings between the period 1-3-1975 to 17-11-1980 irrespective of whether or not the payment was made under protest. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division II, Ghaziabad, is directed to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner on scantlings during the period 1-3-75 to 17-11-80 within two months from the date on which the certified copy of the judgment is submitted before him by the petitioner. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 8. A copy of this judgment will be given to the parties on payment of usual charges within a week.
-
1990 (1) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Whether 'industrial coconut oil' was included within the expression `coconut oil' and as such the same was canalised item, it could not be imported by the petitioners?
Whether the Collector of Customs (Kandla) had jurisdiction to confiscate the goods and to release the same to the petitioners by imposing redemption fine?
Held that:- Tribunal failed to consider the question of bona fide in proper perspective. The High Court and this Court had requested the extenuating circumstances in determining the legality of the import, but nonetheless those factors and circumstances are relevant in determining the quantum of redemption fine. The Appellate Tribunal was bound to consider those facts and circumstances in determining the quantum of redemption fine. Moreso, because the Tribunal had itself observed that the Collector's order imposing redemption fine of Rupees five crores was not based on any material, but it refused to consider the reduction of redemption fine merely on the ground that the importers had failed to place additional material other than those which had already been considered by the High Court and the Supreme Court while determining the legality of the import. In our opinion the Tribunal committed apparent error in refusing to take into account the extenuating circumstances leading to the import of the disputed goods for purposes of determining the quantum of redemption fine. Allow the writ petition and remand the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to determine the question of quantum of redemption fine.
-
1990 (1) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there were adequate materials for the authority being satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods?
Held that:- Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case. Appeal is allowed and the detenu is to be set at liberty
-
1990 (1) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the distributors were related persons and hence the prices charged by these distributors to their purchasers should be taken as the assessable value?
Held that:- In view of the fact that the distributors of the appellant were finally held not to be related persons regarding the appellant in cases where excise duty has been levied on the footing that the distributors of the appellant were related persons and hence, the price at which the goods were sold to them could not be regarded as the normal price and the excise duty collected in respect of the difference between the price at which the goods were sold by the appellant to its distributors and the price at which the said goods were sold by the distributors to independent buyers, calculated as aforestated, must be held to be excess levy.
The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund where excise duty has been assessed and collected from the assessee at a higher rate on the footing that the wholesale distributors of the assessee were persons related to it, that is, in respect of the .other categories of sales, namely, retail sales, sales to dealers, sales to State Transport Undertakings and export clearances.
-
1990 (1) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Pipe fittings such as elbows, bends, reducers - Classification of goods under residuary Entry - Dutiability - Manufacture
-
1990 (1) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aluation Officer, therefore, is not bound to value the unquoted shares by adopting the method prescribed by rule 1D. The Valuation Officer is to value the unquoted shares by estimating what it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. How such shares are to be valued has been specified by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan 1972 86 ITR 621 and CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38. The Valuation Officer is not bound by the provisions of section 7(1) and the rules framed thereunder and has to value the shares under section 7(3) and in the case of unquoted shares, the valuation is to be in the manner specified in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. This is what is evident from the aforesaid observations in our judgment. In our opinion, even though a question of law arises in this case, the same is academic because of our earlier decision in the assessee s own case. Dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e value of the gift was to be the price paid for the land. It is contended by Shri Pandey that this conclusion of the Tribunal is uncalled for because, according to section 4 of the Gift-tax Act, the market value of the property had to be determined. In our opinion, the question as to what has to be the value of the gift is a pure question of fact. The assessee had contended that the value should be Rs. 15,140, whereas the Gift-tax Officer had concluded that the value of the gift should be Rs. 3,37,792. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there was a restriction placed on the transfer of the land and, in fact, for the first ten years, there was a complete prohibition of transfer by sale and it was because of that reason that the Tribunal had adopted the value of Rs. 15,136 instead of Rs. 3,37,792 adopted by the Gift-tax Officer. In our opinion, this conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a conclusion of fact and no question of law arises. Dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wever, gave a direction that, as and when the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court was allowed and if any enhancement in the compensation is allowed, then the Wealth-tax Officer would be at liberty to rectify the assessment and value the claim in the light of the enhancement. The assessee went up in appeal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this direction could not be given. In our opinion, the question sought to be raised is concluded by a decision of this court in CWT v. S. K. Dass 1986 161 ITR 292, according to which the valuation is to be as on the basis of the award or order already passed. There is no provision in the Wealth-tax Act whereby rectification can be made merely because, at a later date, compensation has been enhanced. The answer to the question, which is proposed, is self-evident and we see no reason as to why a reference should be called for. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Cash Credits, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... er of Income-tax himself. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that it is not possible that an order passed on May 14, 1986, was served only on February 27, 1987. Merely on this conjecture, it is not possible for us to conclude that the order dated May 14, 1986, was not served on February 27, 1987. The affidavit of the Commissioner of Income-tax has not been rebutted by the respondent in any way. It was open to the respondent to have placed on record material to show that the service of the order dated May 14, 1986, was or must have been made prior to February 27, 1987. In the absence of any such averment, we see no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Commissioner of Income-tax which supports the averment in the petition to the effect that the said order of the Tribunal was received only on February 27, 1987. In our opinion, the petition has been filed within time. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income, Property ... ... ... ... ..... late Tribunal, we find that, while fixing the cost of construction, it has taken into consideration various factors, viz., the rates to be applied for the estimate of cost of construction should be U.P. P.W.D. rates and not the Central P.W.D. rates and that, on the materials before it, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified at all in considering that the structure was cross between R.C.C. structure and load-bearing structure. Thereafter, the Tribunal has considered the report of the valuer. Thus, in our opinion, the cost of construction that has been arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the present case is wholly based on relevant considerations and appraisal of the materials on record. In our opinion, no statable question of law arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 125 (Rupees one hundred and twenty-five).
-
1990 (1) TMI 64 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... articulars or details, it is for the petitioner to so urge the same before the Income-tax Officer. If the documents are retained by the Central Excise Department, the petitioner can apply for certified copies of the same, and, for this purpose, it can make appropriate submission before the Income-tax Officer. Exhibits P-2, P-4 and P-5 do not call for interference at this stage under article 226 of the Constitution. The matter is only at the notice stage. The assessee has a duty to co-operate with the Department. If any document called for is not available to the petitioner because it is taken by the Central Excise Department, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get certified copies of the same. The appeal is pending before the Central Excise Collector and a stay was given by him. These matters will be considered by the respondent at the time of completing the assessment proceedings. There is no merit in this writ petition. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 63 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... he Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and the provisions of section 61 of the Act were not attracted. The contention cannot be upheld. The Supreme Court has held in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 1971 82 ITR 50, that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake. In the instant case, the question as to what property passed on the death of Haribux Poddar was, as pointed out by the Tribunal, a debatable issue. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the Assistant Controller had no jurisdiction to rectify the order of assessment. For all these reasons, our answers to the three questions referred by the Tribunal to this court are in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded by the office of this court to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
-
1990 (1) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Questions Relating To Title To Property, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... t has a further case that the property itself belonged to the petitioner s father as, at the time of purchase, the petitioner was a minor aged only 13 years and normally the petitioner would not have independent source to buy the property. This is a very cogent material which has got to be evaluated. Even so, the further question will arise as to whether the document was handed over as per exhibit R-2 (a) for the arrears due from the petitioner or those due from his father. To decide the above questions, factual details are to be gathered and evaluated and evidence has to be let in before the appropriate authority. Proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India are not appropriate to adjudicate questions relating to title or disputed questions regarding the manner or purpose for which documents of title were handed over to the Department by way of security. In this view of the matter, I deny jurisdiction. The original petition is without merit and it is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Any Person, Clearance Certificate For Registration ... ... ... ... ..... required to be registered compulsorily under the Registration Act can be avoided by one of the contracting parties by refusing to obtain the certificate. To my mind, having regard to the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 230A of the Act which is no more than to protect the interests of the Revenue to recover all taxes due and to hold accountable the person who is the purchaser as to the source of his funds for purchase which forms the consideration for the sale, more liberal view is called for. However, I feel compelled and bound by the decision already rendered by this court subject to the view I have expressed as to the more liberal view which is needed to be taken on the rule of construction in favour of the affected persons in fiscal statutes. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. If an appeal is presented to the Division Bench, the Division Bench is bound to consider the two views expressed. Subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ady made reference, we do not find any justification to call for any reference. Question No. 3 raises a question of fact. The valuation of ornaments does not raise any question of law. The submission made by learned standing counsel that the first valuer s report was not taken into consideration has no substance. The Commissioner, while determining the valuation, had looked into all the three valuers reports and recorded a finding in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal, while endorsing, examined it afresh and arrived at the same conclusion. It cannot be said that the report on all the aspects was not given due weight. In the circumstances, all the five applications are rejected. There shall be one set of costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 59 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assets, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e additions made in the income-tax assessment of an assessee are part of his real income and are includible in the net wealth of the assessee on the relevant valuation dates in view of the provisions of section 2(e) and (m) of the Act, unless it was found that the intangible additions were not available with the assessee on the relevant valuation dates. Following that decision, with which we respectfully agree, our answer to the question referred to this court is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the intangible additions made in the income-tax proceedings could be treated as the assets of the assessee for the wealth-tax assessments in the light of the provisions of section 2(e) and (m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded by the office of this court to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
-
1990 (1) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... y belonged to her, it would have been easier for her to explain the source of income and she need not have waited for three months. The challenge in this writ petition is against exhibits P-1 and P-3 orders of the first and second respondents. Section 132 gives power to the Income-tax Officer to conduct a search. If the search was conducted with mala fide intention or arbitrarily, this court may interfere. Even non compliance with statutory requirement is a ground for interference. In the absence of any such ground, it is to be held that the search was conducted in exercise of the statutory duty of the Income-tax Officer. There is no irregularity in applying the presumption under section 132(4A). Both the authorities found that the possession of the room from which the amount was recovered was with the assessee, even though the house belongs to his only daughter. I find no infirmity in the orders. There is no merit in the original petition. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference To High Court, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rt and the same has been followed. Though curiously enough the Andhra Pradesh High Court has not cited the decision, yet they stated that the Delhi High Court has taken the view which has been expressed by us in Sharbati Devi s case 1986 159 ITR 549 (Delhi). The decision in CIT v. Jai Parkash Om Parkash Co. Ltd. 1964 52 ITR 23 (SC) and CIT v. Managing Trustee, Jalakhabai Trust 1967 66 ITR 619 (SC), which are to the effect that it is not for a court to decide an application under section 256(2) without going into the merits of the case, is of no assistance to the petitioner s counsel for, as we have already observed, though a question of law does arise, the answer to it is self-evident or academic. To this limited extent, the court is entitled to go into the merits of the question which is proposed in order to see whether the answer to the question proposed is academic or is self-evident. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 56 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, Liability To Tax, Property Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... e actual rents realised from the property. It was also submitted by Sri Castelino that there was no further appeal against the order of the administrator made in exercise of the powers of the Taxation Appeal Committee. The administrator confirmed the demand and directed that it should be enforced with effect from April 1, 1980, only. It was, therefore, argued by learned counsel that the petitioner having accepted the order of the administrator, it is not open to him now to challenge the demand by way of a writ petition. I agree with the contentions of Sri Castelino, both on facts and law. The petitioner has failed in his attempt to dispute his liability under the Act and also as to the basis for the enhancement. A further appeal is provided under the Taxation Rules to the District Judge. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy so far as the enhancement of the rental value is concerned. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 55 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Reference, Return ... ... ... ... ..... ioner, that the interest is lower than what was payable when the original assessment was framed. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no increase of interest payable by the respondent. In our opinion, the question involved is a pure question of law and it cannot be said that the answer thereto is self-evident. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in dismissing the Revenue s appeal on the ground that, prior to April 1, 1985, there was no provision to increase interest levied under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, consequent to an order under section 154, when the facts of the case show that interest originally levied under section 139(8) was much higher and that there was as such no question of enhancement in this case ? No order as to costs.
....
|
