|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Adjudication - Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... - For making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. 9.In view of the aforesaid position, I dispose of the petition with direction as under - The aforesaid order(a) Annexure E, F and G are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the appropriate authority to consider(b) the question of levy and collection of the duty from the petitioner in conformity with the aforesaid notification and pass appropriate order within a period of four months from today in accordance with law under intimation to the petitioner. 10.With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands finally disposed of with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1995 (1) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... id criteria, I find that it is manifestly bereft of due application of mind. 12.I, therefore, find that the aforesaid order (Annexure P/13) is not sustainable and deserves to be mortalised for fresh but proper consideration of the point in issue. 13.In view of the directions that I am making in this petition, I have found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the matter and have elected to leave the matter to be decided by the Appellate Authority afresh with no fetters on its discretion. 14.In the result, I dispose of this petition with the directions as under The order (Annexure P/13) is hereby quashed (a) The respondent No. 4 (Collector Excise and Gold Appellate(b) Tribunal, Delhi) shall take up the application for stay and decide the same within a period of one month from today in conformity with law by reasoned order after hearing both the sides on this question. 15.The petition is, thus, allowed in terms indicated above with no order as to costs. Copy on usual charges.
-
1995 (1) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Adjudication - Goods seized viz. Polyester Filament Yarn ... ... ... ... ..... he invoices in original of the seized goods vide letters dated 16th November, 1994 and 31st October, 1994. In view of that statement and also in view of the order passed by the authority as aforesaid on 30th September, 1994 the authority concerned will now issue fresh orders on the claim of the petitioner for the release of goods taking into consideration the facts and circumstances stated above regarding claim of total exemption pertaining to both Zip Fasteners and Narrow woven fabrics. Since the matter of seizure is pending for long, it is appropriate that the authority may pass the orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner before him. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 6. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week on payment of necessary charges.
-
1995 (1) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
The special leave petition filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court do, in our opinion, amount to gross abuse of process of court, a fact which would be evident from the facts stated hereinafter. While we agree that the Revenue Authorities have been lax in not moving for early disposal of the matter, in this Court at any rate, that does not explain, condone or justify the conduct of the appellant. So far as plea of fairness in action is concerned, it is well to remember that fairness is not a one-way street. The authorities are undoubtedly bound to act fairly but so is the assessee — more particularly, when he seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court. No person has a licence to act unfairly and yet call upon others to act fairly. Civil appeal is dismissed with costs. The costs payable by the appellant to the respondents are assessed at ₹ 15,000. It is further directed that in case any duty is found payable pursuant to the show-cause notice mentioned above, the same shall be payable by the appellant with interest @ 18% p.a. calculated from the date of show-cause notice up to the date of payment.
-
1995 (1) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Issue of show cause notice - Held that:- There could be no reason for the issuance of a show cause notice for the period subsequent to the notice as in that case the necessary corrective action could always be taken. But Rule 10 with which we are concerned as well as Sec. 11A to which a reference is made in the case of Rainbow Industries [1994 (10) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the show cause notice which must be issued within the time frame prescribed in the said provisions must relate to a period prior thereto as the purpose of the show cause notice is recovery of duties or charges short-levied, etc. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention that the ratio of the decision in Rainbow Industries is that under Sec. 11A past dues cannot be demanded. We must, therefore, reject that contention. The observations in the said decision must be confined to the facts of that case. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the show cause notice was time barred under the main part of Section 11A? - Held that:- Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to the said sub-section are more than one and if the excise department places reliance on the proviso it must be specifically stated in the show cause notice which is the allegation against the assessee falling within the four corners of the said proviso. In the instant case that having not been specifically stated the Additional Collector was not justified in inferring (merely because the assessee had failed to make a declaration in regard to waste or by-product) an intention to evade the payment of duty. The Additional Collector did not specifically deal with this contention of the assessee but merely drew the inference that since the classification list did not make any mention in regard to this waste product it could be inferred that the assessee had apparently tried to evade the payment of excise duty. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the value in this case cannot be determined under Section 4(1)(a)?
Held that:- In view of the refusal/failure of the appellant to produce(c) the relevant data and material called for by the authorities, it must be held that the value in this case cannot be determined under Section 4(1)(a). It has to be done only under Section 4(1)(b). The appropriate rule under which the valuation has to be determined in this case is Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 68 - SC ORDER
Financial Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... which the same point was involved for decision has already been dismissed, vide order dated September 14, 1990. This special leave petition is also, therefore, dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 1982. Taken on board. Civil appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 can be applied to a suit, claim or action to enforce any right in property held benami against a person in whose name such property is held or any other person, if such proceeding is initiated by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner thereof, prior to the coming into force of section 4(1) of the Act?
Held that:- The Division Bench erred in taking the view that section 4(1) of the Act could be pressed in service in connection with suits filed prior to the coming into operation of that section. Similarly, the view that under section 4(2) in all suits filed by persons in whose names properties are held no defence can be allowed at any future stage of the proceedings that the properties are held benami, cannot be sustained. As discussed earlier, section 4(2) will have a limited operation even in cases of pending suits after section 4(2) came into force if such defences are not already allowed earlier. It must, therefore, be held, with respect, that the decision of this court in Mithilesh Kumari's case [1989 (2) TMI 111 - SUPREME Court] does not lay down the correct law so far as the applicability of section 4(1) and section 4(2) to the extent hereinabove indicated, to pending proceedings when these sections came into force, is concerned. Accordingly, the question for consideration is answered in the negative. The registry will now place all these matters before an appropriate Division Bench for disposing of them on the merits in the light of the answer given by us.
-
1995 (1) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Period Of Not Less Than Seven Years ... ... ... ... ..... parties under this loan agreement of December 1, 1961. The terms of the agreement as modified provided for repayment by December 1, 1968, and thus the repayment of this loan was during a period of not less than seven years, that is, so spread over a period of not less than seven years counting from the date of the first advance under this agreement of December 1, 1961. In view of this conclusion, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the loan of Rs. 50 lakhs was to be repaid not within a period of seven years. In our opinion, the finding reached by the High Court on the basis of the subsequent correspondence between the parties which resulted in the modification of the agreement does not suffer from any infirmity in the present case to require us to take a different view. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court s answer to the questions of law referred to it for decision do not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... y for normal work or engaging in a gainful employment or occupation, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of twenty thousand rupees. The record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner suffered from a permanent physical disability as regards the right eye (i.e., blindness) and as such the petitioner was entitled to claim deduction in conformity with the aforesaid provisions. The orders impugned in this writ petition are thus vitiated and deserve to be incinerated. In the result, I allow this petition and quash the orders annexures P-1, P-3 and P-9, and hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the advantage of deductions in accordance with section 80U of the Act. The respondents shall, therefore, assess the petitioner for the assessment years in question in accordance with this direction. The petition is thus allowed in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.
-
1995 (1) TMI 64 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Incentive Bonus, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... er and employee, the commission received by the employee was assessable as income from salary. In the aforesaid premises, we answer the question formulated by us in favour of the Department and against the assessee and hold that the incentive bonus which the assessee as the Development Officer gets from the employer, the Life Insurance Corporation, partakes of the character of salary as defined under section 17 of the Income-tax Act and is chargeable to income-tax under section 16 of the Act. So far as question No. 1 formulated by the Tribunal is concerned in view of our earlier answer to the question formulated by us, once it is held that it is salary, then the only deductions that can be claimed and available are under section 16 of the Act, and consequently the Tribunal was not justified in allowing deduction at the rate of 40 per cent. on account of expenses. Both the questions are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. K. L. ISSRANI J.--- I agree.
-
1995 (1) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... ly. According to sub-section (1), where the income or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person or where the individual shares of specified persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown, tax shall be charged on the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. This provision applies to the 15 per cent. of the income which is credited to the charity account, since the shares are indeterminate or unknown and the individual shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown. Therefore, in regard to the 15 per cent. of the income, tax shall be charged in accordance with section 164(1) of the Act. We answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court will be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Default In Payment, High Court, Levy Of Penalty, Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... amount outstanding became payable under section 13(2) and the persons in default became liable to penalty at 1 1/2 per cent. of the amount of tax remaining unpaid for the first three months and 21/2 per cent. of such amount for the period subsequent to the said three months. The view taken by the Division Bench that the consequences of default in the nature of penalty under section 13(2)(ii) were automatic is, therefore, applicable with equal force to a default committed within the meaning of section 41, sub-section (2), of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act also. There is, therefore, no merit in the submission of Mr. Sarangan that the effect of an order of stay as interpreted by this court in the aforesaid case cannot be accepted in the case of a default under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. In the result, these writ petitions have no merit and must fail and are hereby dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, without any orders as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 61 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Assessed Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the authority pursuant to the order under section 132(5) was found not liable to be treated as income and hence not liable to be taxed. As would be apparent on a reading of the facts, the case before this court is one relating to seizure of cash, etc., on a raid and the amount claimed was the penalty which was set aside by the appellate authority. Therefore, there is no scope for the assessee to pay any advance tax and as such the question of refund of any advance tax was not at issue. Hence, the facts of the aforesaid decision are distinguishable. It has not been brought to the notice of this court as to whether the Supreme Court has set aside the aforesaid decisions of the Punjab and Haryana and the Delhi High Courts. In my opinion, they laid down good law. I am inclined to accept the views expressed by the aforesaid two High Courts. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P-6 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get interest as prayed for.
-
1995 (1) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
High Court, Orders Passed, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... r hearing, but learned counsel for the petitioner himself obtained some time for submitting papers for the purpose of the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that until and unless the paper book of the second appeal is prepared and ready, the hearing of the appeal cannot be expedited by the Tribunal and he has already taken steps to submit the necessary papers for the purpose of preparation of the paper book, so that the appeal may be heard expeditiously. However, this could not prevent the petitioner from moving the second application for stay and the Tribunal will exercise its independent judicial mind for decision after hearing the petitioner on the stay application even though the hearing of the second appeal is being expedited. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges.
-
1995 (1) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Partner In Firm, Partnership Deed, Passing Of Property, Principal Value, Rate Purpose, Share Value
-
1995 (1) TMI 58 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... o that effect has been passed. The charge must be clear and unambiguous. During the relevant period no such provision has been brought to our notice by which a charge with regard to the liability could be enforced against a disrupted Hindu undivided family. The provisions of section 18(1)(a) have been deleted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989. This amendment cannot be taken into consideration and in accordance with the law as it was in existence there being no specific provision creating liability of penalty on disrupted Hindu undivided family, the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty of Rs. 25,485 levied under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rejection Of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... CIT v. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi 1985 151 ITR 353 (Bom), the court observed as under It was held that secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee, earned in an earlier assessment year can constitute a fund, though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently. In the instant case, the assessee acquired the gold during the latter half of the assessment year and it could be that the undisclosed income earned in that very year constituted a fund from which the asset was acquired. Considering the view taken by this court in the case of Tyaryamal Balchand 1987 165 ITR 453, we find no justification for the addition of Rs. 20,714 on account of sales on arhat basis from undisclosed sources as the addition has already been made by enhancing the gross sales and gross profit. Consequently, we answer question No. 1 in favour of the Department and against the assessee while we answer question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Principal Value Of Estate, Rate Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property has to be aggregated with the principal value of the estate of the deceased for the purposes of rate of duty. In view of the specific language of clause (c) of section 34(1) the validity of which has already been upheld by the apex court, the interest of the lineal descendants is liable to be included and, therefore, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the share of lineal descendants in coparcenary property was not includible in the principal estate of the deceased for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c). Following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the share of the deceased (?) in the self occupied portion was liable to be excluded for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|
