|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ting authority the Assistant Collector of Customs to determine the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants as well as their claim regarding the exemption of excise duty. 6.Though the learned Single Judge had decided the issue on merits, and had given a finding, since the adjudicating authority had not applied his mind, and decided the question, and also we having found that the matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority for proper consideration as to the disputed question of facts, it is necessary that the findings of the learned Single Judge on this aspect alone have to be set aside. 7.Accordingly, the findings of the learned Single Judge in this regard on merits of the claim of the appellants are vacated. The appeals are ordered accordingly and the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector of Customs for the purpose of proceeding with the adjudication process afresh. No costs. Consequently, the above C.M.Ps. are dismissed as unnecessary.
-
2001 (6) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Additional customs duty (Countervailing Duty) ... ... ... ... ..... been over-ruled by the Larger Bench in the instant case, the contention of writ petitioner in the present case is bound to be held as not tenable. 12. 8195 In the result this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The rule nisi issued by this court on 1st October, 1982 is discharged. The writ petitioner is directed to pay the duties as demanded by the Customs Authority within a period of six weeks from the date and in default the Customs Authority will be at liberty to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the writ petitioner in favour of the Collector of Customs in terms of the said interim order dated October 1, 1982. Similarly the bond executed in favour of the Collector of Customs can also be invoked by the Customs Authority in case of default. 13. 8195 Since this writ petition involves interpretation of the three bench decision and the five judges bench decision of the Apex Court I suo moto grant stay of operation of this order for a period of fortnight from date.
-
2001 (6) TMI 63 - SC ORDER
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... R We have read the order of the High Court (see 2000 241 ITR 124) and the statement of case. Given the facts and circumstances, we do not think that any interference with the order of the High Court is called for. The civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Salary or Professional Income, Incentive Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... in the view has been taken on incentive bonus while considering the applicability of section 40A of the Income-tax Act. That incentive bonus forms part of the salary. Once the standard deduction under section 16 of the Income-tax Act is allowed, no further deduction is warranted from the bonus receipts. We are in agreement with the Andhra Pradesh High Court. When the employee received bonus from the employment while in employment for the extra work, this is nothing but forms part of the salary and once the standard deduction is allowed to the assessee as employee -treating his income as salary income there is no question of any further allowance out of the- bonus or commission received from the employment. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference application so made is, accordingly, disposed of. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of the dictated order on the usual undertakings.
-
2001 (6) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income, Interest, Business Expenditure, Capital or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... also the Tribunal went through the advertisement in a Marathi newspaper issued on the occasion of Diwali and on an examination of the said advertisement, came to the conclusion that it was an expenditure necessary to maintain cordial relationship between the Karkhana and its members and, accordingly, they came to the conclusion that the aforestated amount constituted revenue expenditure. This is a pure finding of fact. We do not wish to interfere with the said finding. In any event, no substantial question of law arises. We hereby confirm the decision of the Tribunal on this point. Accordingly, this question is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Under the above circumstances, the following order is passed ORDER Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 60 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Revision, Powers of CIT ... ... ... ... ..... Trunk House 1983 139 ITR 182 held that it cannot be disputed that the assessing authority in the summary proceedings under section 143 may accept the return as it is without holding any enquiry. Consequently, it would follow that the Commissioner of Income-tax must have some material on the file which may compel him to pass an order under section 263 of the Act that the matter needs to be further enquired into. In the present case, the assessing authority accepted the return filed by the assessee whereby deduction for the lease rent to the extent of the amounts mentioned above was accepted. From the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax it is nowhere mentioned as to what was the material with him to order enquiry into the matter by the assessing authority. For the foregoing reasons, the reply to the questions in the opening paragraph is in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue. The Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
2001 (6) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Sale Of Shares, Deemed Gift ... ... ... ... ..... e, does not, with respect, commend itself to us. This is the import of rule ID also. Still further, it deserves mention that in the present case the deemed gift had been made on March 20, 1979. The value has to be seen on that date. The balance-sheet as on March 31, 1979, did not exist on that date. In fact, learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to refer to any evidence to indicate as to when it had been actually prepared. In this situation, the view taken by the Tribunal is absolutely in conformity with law. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, the question as referred by the Tribunal, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is held that for working out the value of the deemed gift of March 20, 1979, reference could be made to the balance-sheet of the company as on March 31, 1978, and not to the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1979. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Registration of Transfer Deed ... ... ... ... ..... put in possession and was enjoying the property as a lease holder. There cannot be different criteria for transfer of capital asset. For the purpose of tax even if the document, i.e., conveyance, is not executed but the transferee exercises all the rights of the true owner, one cannot emphasise for taxation purposes that unless and until the deed of conveyance transferring the rights in property is executed, the transferee is not liable though he did everything which is required for acquiring a property. As pointed out, the vendor is not permitted in law to dispossess or question the title of the vendee. Under the circumstances, our answer would be that transfer of immovable property of the value exceeding Rs. 100 can be said to have been effected on the date of execution of the document. In view of this answer, it is not necessary to answer further questions. Registry shall place the matter before the Chief Justice for placing it before appropriate court for final hearing.
-
2001 (6) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revision, Not Justified ... ... ... ... ..... fect is to the effect that for the said assessment years the assessee had paid more interest. 13. We need not go into all the details with regard to the interest earned or paid by the assessee as we do not desire to go into the merits of the case. It would be for the revisional authority to look into all the claims which the assessee is to make before the revisional authority. 14. As stated hereinabove, in our opinion, as the respondent revisional authority did not look into the merits of the case and rejected the revision application, we quash and set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and direct the revisional authority to reconsider the revision application on merits after hearing the assessee or its representative. 15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order No. HQ. 1/181 (263)/AR.7/99-2000 dt. 23rd March, 2001 is quashed and set aside, The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... n the first of April of the relevant assessment year. The fact that some of the activities in relation to which the claim was made had been undertaken in the earlier years does not come in the way of such claim being made. It is the duty of the AO to apply the law as it stood in the year of assessment and it is not open to the Revenue to deem a repealed figure for an earlier assessment year a deeming to remain in the statute book in respect of the assessments in which the activity in relation to which the claim has been made had been undertaken in the earlier years. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in the view it took and the question referred to us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled for the claim for deduction under s. 33A(7), proviso (ii), of the Act as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1982, at the rate of Rs.35,000 per hectare? is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 55 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Salary And Perquisites, Capital or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he question involved herein is , purely a question of fact which is only to be determined by the revenue authority and not to be interfered with by this court, we clearly say that taking into account the observation made in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. s case 1955 27 ITR 34 (SC), though the questions of fact, would not be ordinarily interfered with by this court, the same can be brought under the judicial scrutiny if such finding of facts have not been properly appreciated by the income-tax authority. In the case in hand, the Tribunal faultered in looking into the factual position in its proper perspective. Accordingly, in view of the matter, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal resulted in reversion of the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be sustained in law. This answers question No. 2 in the negative accordingly and in favour of the assessee. For the reasons, the observations and the discussions made above, this reference is answered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Amounts Not Deductible, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... of commercial expediency so as to keep the workmen satisfied and to see to it that the workmen got the benefit of the provident fund. Such a payment made for the purpose of earning the profits of business or in the course of earning profits of the business satisfied all the conditions of section 37. The High Court held that the Tribunal in that case was right in holding that the sum paid by the assessee by way of provident fund contribution even during the period prior to the recognition of the provident fund was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in treating the contribution of Rs. 38,824 to provident fund scheme of Human Resources Organisation Pvt. Ltd. as allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Investment Deposit Account, Deduction Under Section 32AB, Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... fession . From a perusal of the records it shows that the assessee is the owner of the tea gardens and it derives income from selling tea leaves. The investment in the shares is not a business of the assessee. The deduction under section 32AB is allowable only on the basis of profit from business or profession and not from the income from other sources. When investment in shares is neither a business nor a profession of the assessee, the dividend income received from those shares on account of shares held by the assessee cannot be treated as income from the business or profession . In view of the facts in the case in hand, the Tribunal has commuted a mistake in directing to allow the deduction to the assessee under section 32AB, on the dividend income. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference so made is disposed of accordingly. All parties are to on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reassessment Not Valid ... ... ... ... ..... ot the situation in the present case. To conclude (i) the petitioner had disclosed ail the primary facts necessary for the purpose of the assessment, (ii) on the facts there was no material for holding a belief and the respondent could not have reason to believe that there was any escapement of income chargeable to tax, (iii) the reasons recorded show that instead of independent application of mind the Assessing Officer merely chose to adopt the line of action point ed out by the internal revenue audit, (iv) the entire affidavit-in-reply goes to show that though the respondent was aware that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner, the recording of reasons was a colourable exercise for assumption of jurisdiction. In view of this fact situation, all the three petitions are allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned notices dated February 5, 2001 (annexure A). Rule made absolute. The Revenue shall pay the costs of the petitions at Rs. 2,500 each.
-
2001 (6) TMI 51 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Article Found on Search ... ... ... ... ..... enged as being perverse, in the sense set out above, that a question of law can be said to arise. This judgment on the other hand supports the Revenue. The Supreme Court ruled that when a finding of fact of the Tribunal is perverse, then a question of law can be said to have arisen. In the case on hand the Tribunal s finding according to us is nothing but a perverse finding based on no evidence. Before concluding we must also take notice of the fact that this very assessee in a writ petition filed by him sought for return of these documents in his capacity as the Hindu undivided family. In these circumstances, cur answer to the reference is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and References Nos. 39 and 40 of 1996 are accepted. Reference No. 38 of 1996, is rejected. The order of the Tribunal in Ref6rences. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1996, are set aside and the order of the assessing authorities and the appellate authorities are confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... this point. We, in fact, adjourned the matter for a week. However, Mr. Desai has submitted that he has no instructions in the matter. That, he is not able to answer the aforestated query of the court, particularly when the duty has been paid by November 30, 1995. Conclusion Before concluding, it may be mentioned that our attention has been invited to the assessment order passed by the same officer for the assessment year 1998-99 where an identical position has taken place. For that assessment year also, the value of the closing stock lying in the bonded warehouse was not increased by the value of duty. The same officer has accepted the contention of the company in the context of section 43B. The same officer has accepted the returns. He has passed an assessment order on that basis. This order is confined to the facts of this case only. For the aforestated reasons, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned notice dated March 31, 2000, is set aside. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... has claimed the weighted deduction on a commission paid to the U. K. selling agent, under sub-clauses (ii), (iv) and (viii). When the commission is not allowable under sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, which has been allowed by the Tribunal, if the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction on payment of commission to the U. K. gelling agent is allowable under sub-clause (ii) or (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, that can be considered by the Tribunal. We remand the matter back to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is accordingly directed. We further direct that the matter be decided within six months from the date of service of the signed copy of this order. However, we also answer the questions referred in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2001 (6) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... l know-how even after the expiry of the period of the agreement, there is no doubt that the benefit the assessee has got is of enduring nature. Considering the view expressed by their Lordships in the case of Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. 1997 224 ITR 342 (SC), we find that the Tribunal has commuted error in treating Rs. 2,00,000 as revenue expenditure. The expenditure, the assessee has incurred before the commencement of the production on use of the technical know-how which has been transferred by the INA to the assessee acquires the benefit of enduring nature. Thus, we are of the view that the expenditure is capital expenditure. The Income-tax Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of assessee. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference, thus, stands disposed of accordingly. All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2001 (6) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e do not find substance in this submission. The Revenue in its appeal had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) to the extent it went against the Department. It could not deprive the assessee to challenge the said valuation in its appeal. The order passed in the appeal filed by the Revenue would not operate as res judicata in the appeal filed by the assessee as the point involved the appeals is different and distinct. The point regarding the applicability of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act and rule 1BB had not been examined by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue. On the merits we find that the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this court referred to above. As the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this court referable questions of law do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... be given to the prosecution to prove the allegations contained in the complaints which would constitute the offences alleged by producing materials before the trial court and also to establish that section 279(1A) would not get attracted on the basis of the materials to be produced before the trial court. It is also open to both parties to place the materials before the court during the course of trial to establish their respective contentions. With the above observations, the petitions are dismissed. Consequently Criminal M. P. Nos. 2727 to 2730 of 1999, are closed. Since the present complaints are pending from 1988, the trial court is directed to go on with the trial and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed not to put any more hurdle to the continuance of the trial and he shall co-operate for the disposal of the cases to enable the trial court to comply with the directions given by this court.
....
|
