|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ petition - Jurisdiction - Appeal - Period of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s stayed subject to the petitioner s furnishing security of property, moveable and immoveable, twice the value of the amount, to the satisfaction of the Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh. That order shall remain in operation for a period of 60 days during which the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the Appellate Tribunal to seek its further extension/modification/variation as it suits its interests. After the expiry of 60 days from today, unless extended/modified/varied by the Appellate Tribunal beforehand, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated. Similarly, the temporary licence granted to the petitioner, unless extended/renewed under orders of the Appellate Tribunal beforehand, shall stand expired by efflux of time. 7. With these directions, the objection of the respondent is sustained and the petitioner is relegated to its appellate remedy. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs valuation - Penalty - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... ere willing to produce false evidence and it was impossible to rely upon the statement of such person . We do not find material upon the record which bears out the finding about false evidence. We do not, therefore, subscribe to the finding that it was not possible to rely upon the appellants statement in regard to their explanation about the misdeclaration of weight. We remand the matter to the Collector for reconsideration on this count. 31. In the result, we allow the appeal to this extent that the order of the Collector, dated 24th April, 1974, the order in appeal, dated 16th January, 1978 and the order in revision, dated 20th October, 1979 are quashed and set aside insofar as they relate to the charge of misdeclaration of weight. The matter is remanded to the Collector to consider the appellants explanation in this regard. The Collector shall hear the appellants and shall then pass a speaking order. This shall be done within 8 weeks from today. 32. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption with fixed expiry date - Withdrawal prior to such date hit by promissory estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... There is no material in this behalf and, therefore, I am not prepared to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Government. In the result, I must necessarily come to the conclusion that the withdrawal of this exemption, which was available upto March 31, 1979, is against law and, therefore, the Government must be made to hold on to this exemption upto March 31, 1979. 23. In the view that I have taken, it has now become not necessary for me to go into other controversial questions which have been set out in this petition. 24. I, therefore, pass the following order 25. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 26. However, at the request of Mr. Advani, the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners, pursuant to the interim order, dated November 27, 1978, to continue for a period of eight weeks from today. Thereafter the bank guarantees to be cancelled and to be handed over to the petitioners. 27. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Redemption fine - Refund with interest - Customs - Detention Certificate - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... a) and (b) of the scale of rates fixed by the Port Trust. 7. Mr. Talyarkhan has drawn my attention to a corresponding resolution of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay which provides for reduced demurrage charges if the detention of the goods is in connection with import trade control formality or for analytical or technical test other than the ordinary processes of customs appraisements. 8. I, therefore, pass the following order 9. I direct that the respondents should refund the amount of fine paid by the petitioners, pursuant to the order Ex. K to the petition together with the interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum from January 12, 1984 till payment. The amount should be paid within a period of three months from today. 10. I further direct that the respondents should issue a detention certificate for detaining the petitioners goods for I.T.C. formalities within a period of six weeks from today. 11. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Valuation - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... a mistake of law, being a mistake in regard to what has to be taken into account for the purposes of determining the assessable value. 6. By reason of the Explanation to Section 4 the Appellants had no authority to recover excise duty on the basis of an assessable value which included the element of a trade discount. It has repeatedly been held that where the payment is received without authority of law, the limitation provided by Rule 11 does not apply. See (1985) 19 E.L.T. 373 and (1985) 22 E.L.T. 334 . 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. 8. By reason of the interim order in the appeal, the Appellants have deposited the amount of Rs. 3,32,000/- in court and the Respondents have withdrawn the same while furnishing a bank guarantee of the equivalent amount. Mr. Master affirms that this deposit was made after ascertaining the amount of excise duty refundable to the Respondents. The bank guarantee given by the Respondents shall, accordingly, stand discharged.
-
1987 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Seizure - Presumption as to duty payment - Offence ... ... ... ... ..... ady stated, was realised out of the said security deposit. 36. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the respondents could recover from the security deposit a sum of Rs. 6974.70 p. towards excise duty since ex-facie the seized tobacco represented the duty-paid stock of the petitioner. 37. Thus, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances above, the writ petition succeeds in part. 38. The relevant adjudication orders (Annexures E , F and G ) are hereby quashed only so far as they relate to recovery of excise duty of Rs. 6974.70 p. (Rupees six thousand nine hundred seventy-four and paise seventy) from the petitioner and the respondents are hereby directed by the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from this date. The respondents are further directed not to proceed any further against the petitioner in the matter. 39. There will be no order for costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Central Excise duty - Exemption - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... sdiction by the Central Excise Officer, a writ could issue without calling upon the assessee to exhaust his remedies. And in the instant case, the show cause notice as already seen, is absolutely without jurisdiction. Moreover, as held by the Supreme Court, in Hridaya Narain v. Income-tax Officer, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 33 that where the petitioner files a writ petition instead of availing of the statutory remedy and the High Court entertains the petition and gives hearing on merits the petition cannot thereafter be rejected on the ground that the statutory remedy was not availed of. 51. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to withdraw, recall and cancel the impugned show cause notice dated October 3, 1985, being Annexure A to the writ petition and to refrain from giving any effect or further effect thereto or taking any action thereon. 52. There will be no order for costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abatement, Offences ... ... ... ... ..... is of some new materials gathered by the Department. In the instant case, there is nothing in the complaint to show that the documents so recovered-during the seizure had been placed before the petitioner. Factually, there is no basis for the allegation that the petitioner had acted in furtherance of a common intention, along with the first accused or conspired with him or even abetted him in filing false returns. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are true, there would still be no basis to hold that the petitioner had committed any of the offences alleged against him. Continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, would be an abuse of the process of law which this court under its inherent jurisdiction is bound to prevent. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 151 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in so far as it relates to the present petitioner, are quashed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the finding of the Commissioner that the subsidy was towards the cost of the plant and machinery granted by the State Government. But this finding has not been upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the subsidy was not granted for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the plant and machinery. In view of this finding, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the amount of capital subsidy was not deductible in computing the actual cost of the asset, as defined by section 43(1) of the Act, for the purpose of calculating the depreciation and investment allowance admissible to the assessee. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (7) TMI 85 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and an earlier Division Bench decision of this court in Kalpnath Rai v. CIT 1985 151 ITR 281. The question referred to us in regard to this very assessee for the assessment year 1968-69, subject-matter of Taxation Case No. 57 of 1975 disposed of on November 21, 1984 1987 163 ITR 666, having been answered in favour of the assessee, the present reference also must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I, therefore, hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the cost of materials supplied to the assessee by the military authority was not liable to be included in the total receipts of the assessee for calculating its profits for the assessment year 1974-75. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, but Without costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. B. N. AGRAWAL J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... re fact that the penalty proceedings were initiated earlier did not confer any right on the assessee. We respectfully agree with the decisions given by this court in the cases of CIT v. Om Sons 1979 116 ITR 215 and Ratan Deo v. CIT 1987 163 ITR 837. It may also be pointed out here that in the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, by which section 274(2) was omitted, there is no saving clause to the effect that the proceedings for penalty initiated prior to the coming into force of this Act would continue to be governed by the Act unamended by this Act. From this it is clear that Parliament did not intend to confer jurisdiction on the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to levy penalty even in a case where the penalty proceedings were initiated prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1987 (7) TMI 83 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ardian had in fact consented to the admission of the three minors, Baby Avani Mehta, Master Apoorva Mehta and Master Sandeep Mehta, to the benefits of the partnership. Since such an opportunity has not been given, it has now become necessary to give such an opportunity to the assessee. In these circumstances, we decline to answer the questions referred with an observation that the Tribunal, while passing final orders under section 260 of the Act, shall call upon the assessee to produce evidence, if any, in his possession to show that the guardian of the said three minors had in fact consented to their admission to the benefits of the partnership in January, 1975. We make it clear that the evidence called for need not be by direct evidence of such consent but can be inferred from the conduct or other evidence, if any. The Tribunal shall look into the material, if any, produced in pursuance of such a direction and pass appropriate orders. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1987 (7) TMI 82 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Orders Passed By Tribunal, Relief From Double Taxation ... ... ... ... ..... eign income which is not subjected to tax in this country. It seems to us that the Amritsar Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cloth Traders case 1979 118 ITR 243, which has since been overruled. We are unable to agree that the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramanathan Chettiar s case 1973 88 ITR 169, supports the assessee s claim for deduction of tax treating the entire income as doubly taxed income ignoring the fact that one-half of such income was not subjected to tax at all in this country. Having regard to the above, we consider that the Income-tax Officer was right in restricting the relief to only one-half of the foreign income which accrued or arose to the assessee and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal were in error in extending that relief to the entire foreign income. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 81 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... ne would say that a chattel belongs to X if he merely had the right to use it for five years. Nor do I think it is an apt use of language to say that landlord s fixtures belong to the leaseholder. The ultimate conclusion was that the lessee who had beneficial interest arising under the lease for even such a long period as 99 years, could not claim to be the person to whom the machinery and plant belonged. It is comforting to note that the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeal considerably contributes strength and support to our conclusion as reached above. We might further note, as did the Court of Appeal in the above decision, that mighty minds like those of Macnaghten J. and du Parcq L.J. had similar trends of thought. (See 1938 4 All ER 673 and 1939 2 All ER 94 (CA)). In the light of our discussion, we have no hesitation to negative, on the facts and circumstances disclosed, the claim of the assessee for depreciation. We answer the cases in the manner indicated above.
-
1987 (7) TMI 80 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... fy matters which are capable of debate and argument. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the power was erroneously exercised by the Income-tax Officer under section 154. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri M. J. Swamy, mentioned that while the decision of this court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1980 121 ITR 339, supported the view that interest cannot be allowed, there are two decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jagannath Narayan Kutumbik Trust 1983 144 ITR 526 and CIT Parmanand Bhai Patel 1983 144 ITR 871, taking a contrary view. It is not necessary for us to examine the impact of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as, in our opinion, the proceedings initiated on August 30, 1977, were not based on any judgment of this court which was binding in the State of Andhra Pradesh. We accordingly answer the two questions referred in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 79 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... gement, because in their place, their mother became a partner. Even otherwise, it may be that it was open to them to establish their rights by a proper proceeding at law. But that possibility cannot be a ground for refusing registration, nor can it be said that the partnership deed violates subsection (4) of section 30. Sub-section (4) of section 30 merely declares the rights of minors whose connection with the partnership is severed. It has no relevance or bearing upon the validity of the partnership deed concerned herein. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the grounds upon which the Tribunal refused registration are unsustainable ill law. The Income-tax Officer ought to have granted registration on the basis of Form No. 11A filed on December 15, 1975. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., by saying that the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under section 185 of the Act. Reference answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 78 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... tter for the Income-tax Officer to choose. The power that can be exercised under section 143(2) to correct the assessment made under section 143(1) does not exclude Income-tax Officer s power to reopen the assessment under section 147. If the ingredients of section 147 are satisfied, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to exercise that power notwithstanding the fact that there are other remedies open to him under the Act. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the reassessment under section 148 is vitiated because the Income-tax Officer failed to invoke his power to correct the assessment already completed under section 143(1) by issuing a notice under section 143(2). Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the validity of reassessment jurisdiction invoked by the Income-tax Officer. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... essarily to be incurred by him as a result of his being posted in a city. We agree with respect with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in D. R. Phatak s case 1975 99 ITR 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Gujarat High Court in Bishambar Dayal s case 1976 103 ITR 813 (MP) and S. C. Pgnatale s case 1980 124 ITR 391 (Guj) on the same question. Amount paid to the assessee on account of this allowance, in our view, does not come within the definition of income or total income nor within the purview of the computation or charging sections under the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the above reasons, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the said questions, it is not necessary for us to answer question No. 3. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. We record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered by Dr. Pal as amicus curiae. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 76 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... r passed in May, 1985, by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal in relation to the assessments of the assessee to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. This order is said to reverse the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the year relevant to this appeal that the said land was not agricultural land. A reference to the dates shows that this order could not have been on the record of the Income-tax Officer at the time he considered the appellant s application for rectification. What is relevant is what in fact was then on the record by reference to which the Income-tax Officer could find whether there was an error or not. We must, therefore, ignore this order. In conclusion, therefore, the order of the learned single judge rejecting the writ petition in limine is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Mr. Dwarkadas applies for a stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. Having regard to what we have set out, we see no reason to stay our order.
-
1987 (7) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Exemptions, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... distinguishing the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal 1974 97 ITR 393. It should also be stated that the said decision of the Gujarat High Court in Chhotalal Mohanlal s case 1974 97 ITR 393 was reversed by the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal 1987 166 ITR 124. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. So we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Before parting, we should express our sincere appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. P. R. Raman, Advocate, who acted as amicus curiae, at our request. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
....
|
