|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 135 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Profits And Gains Of Shipping Business, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, we do not agree with the contention of Shri. Dastur that the earlier Circular had nothing to do with the computation of business income or the provisions in sections 28 and 43A. We entirely agree with the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the earlier years in Anchor Line Ltd. s case and hold that by insertion of the provisions of section 44B, the Circular issued by the Board in 1942 was withdrawn and the provisions of section 44B are applicable in making the assessment of the assessee. 7. In the case of the Patna High Court relied upon by the assessee, these non obstante provisions were not there. Therefore, the said case, in our opinion, does not help the assessee to contend that the earlier decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the Patna High Court in Sriram Agrawal s case. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT (A) and reject the assessee s appeal on this point. 8 to 13. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues)
-
1987 (7) TMI 134 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... on relating to structure would have been paid to the bank and the bank could have legally claimed refund of Rs. 30,12,520 from the assessee. The assessee could not have had any defence against refund of the amount. This also indicates that said amount represented advance payment of rent in the form of interest-free deposit and not price of any property sold. 33. As far as rent is concerned, it is well settled that under mercantile system of accounting, the yearly rent receivable every year would represent income of that year. The deposit which is liable to be adjusted in future every year in payment of rent would not represent income of the year in which deposit is made. The assessee has filed copies of two decisions of the Tribunal laying down this proposition. We need not refer to them in detail because that principle is well established. 34. For the reasons given above, we hold that addition of Rs. 28,00,000 was not justified. We delete the same. 35. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 133 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... . The ITO had taken than into consideration while completing the original assessment. There was no information which had come into his possession in consequence of which he should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The report of the audit on a question of law cannot be regarded as information. The change of opinion on the part of the ITO would not entitle him to assume jurisdiction under s. 147. 5. Such a question had also cropped up for consideration in the case of the assessee in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its decision dt. 20th Feb., 1986 in ITA No.515 (Alld) of 1983 had cancelled the reassessment. The appeal of the Department is dismissed. 6. In its cross objection, the assessee has merely supported the action of the AAC in cancelling the reassessment made by the ITO. In view of what has been held above, the cross objection of the assessee becomes infructuous and hence is dismissed as being infructuous.
-
1987 (7) TMI 132 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Assessment Year, Inaccurate Particulars, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... t of view. With respect, we have to say that we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept this point of view. According to us, total income assessed can be a positive figure or a negative figure. According to us, clause (a) of the Explanation will apply both in cases where there is positive total income or where there is negative total income, on assessment. We do not think that the word assessed is to be construed to mean that the intention of legislature was to confine the operation of clause (a) only to such cases where there was positive figure of total income. We see no justification as to why clause (a) should not apply to cases where there is negative total income. 22. We hence hold that penalty for concealment of income is imposable in respect of the concealment of Rs. 2,14,364 on account of the wrong claim of depreciation, as made by the assessee. We direct that minimum penalty may be imposed. 23. In the result, the appeal of the department is partly allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 131 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... the subject matter in the present appeal before us. 11. As indicated earlier in the instant case admittedly the re-assessment was completed in pursuance of the notice under s.148 and hence such assessment in view of the above two decisions, is not a regular assessment . For levy of interest under s. 139(8), interest would have to be worked out on the amount of tax payable as determined on regular assessment after adjustment of advance tax etc. Similarly, charging of interest under s. 217 can be made by the ITO if he finds, on making a regular assessment that the assessee has not filed estimate of advance tax etc. Thus, on the facts of the case and in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Courts noted above, levy of interest on the facts of the case not be valid, even otherwise. 12. Thus in view of what we have discussed above, the order of the AAC on the points involved are modified to the above extent. 13. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 130 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... the same upto the maximum limit of Rs. 50,000 in respect of various other assets such as bank balances, shares etc. 16. The CWT(A) however set aside this portion of the assessment order directing the WTO to re-examine the question whether the land in question was agricultural or not. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 171 (1982) 136 ITR 621 (Guj). He also asked the WTO to examine the question of exemption under various provisions of s. 5. 17. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the orders of the CWT(A) since the matter is before the WTO to be decided on merits. We decline to interfere. 18. The assessee has preferred a C.O. for asst. yr. 1978-79. At the time of hearing, however, the ld. counsel stated that same was not being pressed. 19. As a result the Revenue s appeals for all the three years are partly allowed whereas the assessee s C.O. is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... granted by the ITO by separate order dt. 14-12-4978 u/s. 184(7) of the Act. If the CIT was of the view that granting of registration/continuation of registration was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue he ought to have set aside the order of the ITO passed u/s. 184(7) of the Act with appropriate directions. Since he has not done so, the ITO was not justified in treating the assessee as URF in the manner he did. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. 1958 34 ITR 130. Since the entire proceedings in the matter of registration is bad in law, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders of the IT authorities in the present proceedings. The net result of our decision would be that the assessee has to be assessed as R. F. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in the quantum proceedings is allowed and that filed in the matter of registration is dismissed, as infructuous.
-
1987 (7) TMI 128 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Business Loss Or Deduction, Allowability of ... ... ... ... ..... nce it could recover certain amounts from M/s. Radhakishan in future, the same could be brought to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act. In other words, the revenue would not suffer even if deduction of Rs. 4,65,121 is allowed u/s 28(i) of the Act. In our view, the various reported decisions relied on behalf of the assessee clearly support the stand taken on behalf of the assessee that Rs. 4,65,121 could be allowed either as bad debt or as business/trading loss. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting the assessee s claim for deduction of Rs. 4,65,121, though on different ground. 12. In view of our aforesaid decision, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no interest could be charged u/s 217 of the Act. In other words, we would uphold the order of the.Commissioner (Appeals) on both the issues involved in the present appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 127 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... by the ITO taxing 50 per cent of the income of the trust in respect of 23 beneficiaries mentioned in Schedule II, it is too late in the day for the assessee to urge that even the assessment as originally framed was bad in law. In the instant case, the only issue which we have to decide is whether the ITO was justified in raising the levy of tax from Rs. 35,103 to Rs. 1,10,473 in the manner he did. In our view, the provisions of section 161 of the Act are not only very clear, but unambiguous. Therefore, in a case where two views are not possible, if by misreading the section or miscalculation of the rate provided in the section a mistake is committed such a mistake would come within the purview of section 154 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee. We would therefore set aside CIT(A) s order under appeal and restore that of the ITO. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 126 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
A Firm, A Partner, Accounting Year, Applied To ... ... ... ... ..... rights etc. Taking all these into account we would hold that 50 of the amount claimed be allowed as a deduction and the balance 50 be disallowed. This appears to us to be reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. We are of the view that provisions of section 40A(8) would not apply since the amount paid during this year is as per Clause A of the dissolution deed namely a percentage of the profits and not clause B which relates to interest. We would also like to state that we have considered all the decisions cited before us by the parties while deciding this matter. 20. Before we part with this appeal we would like to observe that the CIT has disallowed a sum of Rs. 7,93,187 which is also the figure mentioned in the grounds of appeal. This is however at variance with the figure of Rs, 7,73,187 mentioned in the P and L A/c. The ITO is directed to verify the correct figure while giving effect to our order. 21. As a result the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 125 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... this view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how the decision in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. has any application to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case. We make this observation as the Hon ble Supreme Court has not totally ruled out tax planning within the framework of law . 14. As the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case of Mayabhai Laxmichand (HUF) are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, we do not deem it fit to discuss any thing further in this regard. 15. According to us, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two decisions in the cases of Shantikumar Jagabhai and Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai as well as in the aforesaid unreported decision in the case of Kanailal Motilal and Co. clearly support the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. 16. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the AAC under appeal. 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed
-
1987 (7) TMI 124 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Hindu Undivided Family, Assessment After Partition ... ... ... ... ..... ere to be received by the members of the HUF. It is also pertinent to note that the sale documents were not executed between the karta of the assessee-HUF and the purchasers but were executed between the purchasers and the members of the assessee-HUF separately in respect of their share in the property in question. These documents also contain recitals stating the fact of division /partition of the land in question amongst the members of the assessee HUF. This fact is also recorded in the Baroda Kasba Talati s record vide entry No. 8478 dated 23-2-1976. On the proper appreciation of these facts, we are of the view that the assessee s claim for recognising and recording the partial partition of the land in question should have been accepted by the IT authorities. We would, therefore direct the ITO to record and recognise the partial partition of the land in question as claimed by the assessee by passing a fresh order u s 171 of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 123 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... , New Delhi in the case of Sangmermer India Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 725 (Tri.) (Appeal No. ED/SB/A. No. 1346/85-D, decided vide Order No. 20/87-D, dated 9-1-1987) took a similar view. A Single Bench of this Court under its order dated 21-5-1986 (per M.C. Jain, J.) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1052/84, Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2811/85 - Collector of Central Excise v. M/s. Fine Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. decided on 12-2-1986, took a similar view and allowed the writ petition filed before him. 7.Consequently we hereby allow the writ petition and declare that no manufacturing process is involved in cutting marble blocks into slabs and, excise duty is not payable under the Act. The impugned notices dated 20-9-1982 (Annexure 5), 15-6-1982 (Annexure 6) and 15-3-1983 (Annexure 7) are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Body building activity on chassis of motor vehicles ... ... ... ... ..... , the respondents have conceded that no cess is being levied in view of the instructions by the superior authorities and the cess already recovered may be refunded. 8. In view of the aforesaid the petition of the petitioner is allowed. It is held that the body building activity of the petitioner on the chassis of the motor vehicles falls under Tariff Item No. 87.07. In view of the fact that the body building activity of the petitioner falls within the monetary limit prescribed in the notification he is not liable to basic excise duty in view of the Notification No. 175-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The petitioner is also held entitled to the refund of the excise duty which he has wrongly paid to the revenue if it has not recovered the same from the customers. As regards cess, there is no dispute before us in view of the return filed by the Revenue. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The security cost, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1987 (7) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... e in circumstances so as to require a change in the quantum of the bail order, that can be adequately done by taking resort to Sec. 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my view, it is high time that the bail bonds are suitably amended so as-to ensure the attendance of the accused for the purpose of facing trial not only before the learned Magistrate who grants the order of bail, but also before any other Court to which the case maybe transferred or committed. On this being done, the aforesaid harassment which is caused to the accused can be eliminated. 7. In the result, this Petition is allowed and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed not to take the Petitioners in custody and call upon them to furnish fresh bail bonds. Instead, the Petitioners shall continue to be on bail both before the proceedings before the learned Magistrate as also during the trial before the Court of Sessions, if the case is committed to that Court. Rule absolute in the above terms.
-
1987 (7) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Samples - Cotton yarn ... ... ... ... ..... s taken the officers cannot base the test results on the sample for the entire goods manufactured during the period till the next sample is taken. But in this case the petitioner has not shown that anything has been done between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966 to produce a lesser count of yarn than the one represented by the sample taken on 14-9-1966. We are not therefore inclined to accept the petitioner s contention that the test reports cannot be taken to represent the count of yarn for the entire quantity manufactured between 14-9-1966 and 20-10-1966. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on similar facts in Government of India v. The Chirala Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (1980 E.L.T. 174 A.P.). In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere on this ground either. 4. The points raised in the other appeal also are the same and, in the foregoing circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... e the notification effective. Printing the Official Gazette and stacking them without releasing to the public would not amount to notification at all. If the above ratio is to be applied to the facts of the present cases, the petitioners could not be brought within the mischief of the Customs Notification No. 40/87 and the pulses imported by them will have the benefit of the exemption under the earlier Customs Notification No. 129/76, which alone prevailed at the relevant point of time. Thus the petitioners have to succeed in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. The petitioners had other grounds to urge and since they have succeeded on the above point, the other grounds were not pursued. 2. I find that the petitioners pending the writ petitions were obliged to furnish Bank guarantees for the purpose of clearing the pulses imported by them. Now the petitioners have succeeded, the Bank guarantees furnished by them will stand cancelled.
-
1987 (7) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Machinery - Words and Pharses - 'Punjabi Chappals' ... ... ... ... ..... ation. If we apply the first rule of interpretation, even it if comes under item 72(2), it will have to be assessed under item 72(15). Finally, though it may not be pertinent for the interpretation of the article, we may also mention the bona fide nature of the import of the machinery as a relevant consideration in this case. It is not the case of the department that the appellants had imported the machinery for making anything other than boot or shoe. It is not the case of a person camouflaging or under the guise of importing a particular machinery, imported machinery for a different purpose. Obviously, this is a case of bona fide import for the purpose of making boot and shoe by a manufacturer of footwear. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Government is not sustainable and, accordingly we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the Central Government. The rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Evidence - Import under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ther accused. 9. Shri Patwardhan on placing reliance upon the statements of the Petitioner dated the 22nd October 1984 and 23rd October 1984, submitted that the said statements were confessional statements of the Petitioner and the same could be acted upon, especially when they are corroborated by the confessional statements of accused No. 1. In my view there is no merit in this contention. I have gone through the aforesaid statements of the Petitioner and I do not find them to be confessional statements and hence there can arise no question of seeking corroboration thereto. All that the said statements contain are certain admissions and all those admissions have been set out hereinabove as being the material as against the Petitioner and the same cannot lead to an inference that the Petitioner has committed the offences in question. 10. In this view of the matter, the process issued by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the same shall have to be quashed. Rule absolute.
-
1987 (7) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bail order - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... t they shall report to the Petitioner every day between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. for a period of one month, commencing from the 3rd of August 1987. At the end of the said period they shall appear before the trial Magistrate and the trial Magistrate will thereafter decide whether to continue the said attendance or relax the same. As the order of bail granted to the Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 is of an unduly inadequate amount of Rs. 2000/- having regard to the nature of the offence, this is a fit case where the said bail amount deserves to be substantially enhanced. The bail amount of the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who are drivers is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount and the bail amount of the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6 is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are granted two weeks time from today to furnish the aforesaid enhanced amounts of bail. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
............
|
