|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 387 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Business Expenditure, Allowability ... ... ... ... ..... aid amounts has been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts are income of the appellant from other sources is not based on evidence. 21. Applying the test of human probabilities (as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case) in the present case before us, it is quite clear that Shri S. Thakkar s statement stands uncontroverted and the assessees claim of having paid commission to Shri S. Thakkar is a big hoax being played on the Revenue. The whole transaction smacks of a shady deal. 22. In the light of the detailed reasoning given by us we endorse the action taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of commission said to have been paid by the assessees to M/s. VAP Corpn. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance. We have also discussed the relevant-judicial principles in the light of reported case laws while drawing our conclusion. 23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 47 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... was no dispute regarding the payment of purchase price as well as royalty by the assessee and the dispute was confined only to the matter of quantification of the purchase price as well as the royalty. The decision does not help the assessee. 17. For the reason discussed above, we hold that the liability on account of damages for breach of contract amounting to Rs. 7,14,824 did not arise or accrue during the period relevant for assessment year 1988-89 under appeal and therefore the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this ground. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is therefore reversed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 18. Before parting with this order we may note that we have considered the various judicial authorities cited before us by both the sides even if these are not specifically mentioned in the order. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 46 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Deduction, Income Of Co-operative Societies ... ... ... ... ..... 12.5 lakhs on the ground that it was only in the nature of provision for expenses and the assessee had not incurred any liability to make a payment for the said amount during the relevant accounting period. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on the ground that the liability had not crystallised during the relevant accounting year and that it was not quantified precisely on the basis of actual expenditure. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions in Mysore Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1966 61 ITR 572 (Bom.) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mysore Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1970 78 ITR 4 and also on the decisions in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corpn. 1967 65 ITR 643 and in CIT v. Hazaribagh Coal Syndicate (P.) Ltd. 1989 177 ITR 135/1990 49 Taxman 259 (Cal.). 12. Since no convincing explanation to rebut the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) has been placed before us, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. 13. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 45 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Book Profits ... ... ... ... ..... rty per cent of such book profit. 11. In the present case, as already stated the assessment year involved is 1989-90 and the accounting period is six months period from 1-7-1987 to 31-12-1987. Section 115J came into existence by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1988. It is true that the accounting period of the assessee in the present case falls before the said date of 1-4-1988. However, section 115J is applicable in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1988 but before the 1st day of April, 1989. Hence the relevant provisions of Section 115J are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the said provision and the CIT(A) had clearly erred in law in misconstruing the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances the Revenue s appeal is bound to succeed. 12. Accordingly we reverse the impugned order of the CIT(A). 13. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 44 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ry it has been found that Account No. 27969 belonged to Shri Moin Uddin, S/o Shri Nadim Uddin, r/o 18/144, Mantola, Agra. It has not been controverted by the Department nor anything on record to show that the assessee was having any link with the said Moin Uddin. We accordingly, delete the addition of Rs. 10,000 and so far as the additions on the basis of Dharam Kanta receipt are concerned, it was the duty of the assessee to explain as to how he was preserving Dharam Kanta receipt of old ornaments weighing 80.550 gms. He failed to explain the same and we are of the considered opinion that the addition was quite justified and confirm the same. But we direct the AO to calculate the value of 80.550 gms. at the prevailing rate of Dharam Kanta receipt dt. 5th Aug., 1983 and to make necessary addition. 11. In the result, the appeal in ITA Nos. 4524, 4525, 4526(Del)/1999 and 3198(Del)/1993 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 4527(Del)/1991 is allowed in part.
-
1999 (5) TMI 43 - SC ORDER
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... delay is also unsatisfactory. 2. The learned Attorney General submits that the delay is shocking and the manner in which the file has been dealt with even more disturbing. He states that the Union proposes to hold an inquiry into the matter. We record this statement. 3. So far as the merits are concerned the two judgments relied upon by the Tribunal, i.e. Bhasir Oil Mills v. Union of India, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 305, and U.P. Solvent Extractors Assn. v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 18, have been approved by this Court in A.P. Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association and Others as Union of India and Others, 1998 (8) SCC 384. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal at all. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Confiscation - Import ... ... ... ... ..... n should be exercised in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, the appellant could not state the quantum of fine, as also the amount of Customs duty to be levied upon the writ petitioner by the authority concerned. 24. For the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in interfering with the order under appeal as the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge cannot in the opinion of this Court be said to be contrary to law. The Respondents have also complied with the said order. 25.However, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we extend the time for passing a final order by the appropriate authority by three months from the date of communication of this order. 26.With the aforementioned modification this appeal is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 41 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Refund of security ... ... ... ... ..... richment to petitioner not to be attributed when a competent tribunal passed order upon legality of claim made by petitioner. 8. In this particular case it will be seen that the first application was for refund which was filed on 13-12-1993 and thereafter reminders were issued from time to time as will be seen from paragraph 7 of the writ application but the refund was made only on 5-3-1997 after a lapse of almost 3 years. The order of the appellate Tribunal is on 7th September, 1993 vide Annexure-C to the Writ application. So, the petitioner is entitled to the interest from 13-12-1993 to 5-3-1997 9 p.a. on the amount of Rs. 85,600/-. The interest shall be paid by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order after necessary calculation. 9. This disposes of the writ application. No costs. 10. The petitioner may obtain the certified copy of this order and may produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of this order.
-
1999 (5) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ appeal - Maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad against which the writ petition was preferred had the complexion of an order made in exercise or purported exercise of appellate power. The fact that main appeal is still pending before the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad, would not make any difference in that while passing any order of interim nature, even if it be an order of exemption under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Commissioner acts as an Appellate Authority exercising appellate power. In the circumstance it would not be necessary to go into the question whether Clause (a) of the last part of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, is attracted. The report submitted by the Stamp Reporter merits to be sustained qua the objection made by the learned Counsel. 3.As a result of the above discussion the appeal fails and is dismissed as not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
-
1999 (5) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Stay order - Modification of - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ally disposed of by ordering that in regard to the pre-condition of deposit the impugned order shall be substituted by this order, that, upon deposit of Rs. 11,50,000/- by Mr. Chakraborty s clients within a period of four weeks from date hereof, the Tribunal shall accept the same as a sufficient compliance of Section 35F and proceed to hear the appeal. To that extent the impugned order shall stand substituted and modified. 10.In spite of requests by Mr. Roy Chowdhury I did not permit filing of affidavits. Allegations and submissions in the petition, however, cannot be taken as admitted on his part. 11.The order and observations will not in any manner affect the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal on merits. 12.The order and observations are generally prima facie and made only for the purpose of explaining the substance of the order which is made. 13.Parties, Tribunal and all others concerned will act on an authenticated copy of the Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (5) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternate remedy - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... and Salt Act provides an efficacious remedy of filing an Appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. Though this petition was filed in 1993, normally I would have examined this matter on merits, but since the points raised are such, which require factual examination of various statements and documents which could properly and effectively be done by CEGAT, I feel it proper that the petitioner may file an Appeal within four weeks from today. The petitioners would be free to file an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit as it is stated that the business of the Company has been closed. The Tribunal would consider the matter sympathetically and pass an order on the stay application within one month from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. If the Appeal is filed within the aforsaid period, no objections regarding limitation would be raised. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Interest on delayed refund ... ... ... ... ..... ppellate Tribunals or any Court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or as the case may by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section. 5. We find no ambiguity in the aforesaid provisions of explanation to provisions of Section 11BB of the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was entitled to refund and the same was paid to it after more than 3 months. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to interest on the said payment of refund. We direct the Tribunal to allow interest on the amount of refund. Consequently, we set aside the observations made in Para 11 of the order dated 28th August, 1998 passed by the Tribunal. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of interest which the petitioner is entitled. The matter is disposed of finally.
-
1999 (5) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... impugned order has been passed. Section 35F requires the adjudicated dues to be deposited before the appeal can be entertained but the proviso confers power on the appellate authority to waive the condition of pre-deposit on such condition as it thinks fit if the condition of pre-deposit is likely to cause undue hardship to the appellant. It is in exercise of that power that the learned Commissioner has partially waived the condition of pre-deposit and directed that only a sum of Rs.1 lac towards the duty and Rs. 10,000/- towards the penalty be deposited within 15 days. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the order passed by the Commissioner is quite reasonable and no interference in exercises of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. However, in case the petitioner has not already complied with the order, it is permitted to comply with the same by the 20th of May, 1999. The writ petition is disposed of.
-
1999 (5) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ught for exhibition, after display, normally they are sold at lesser price. There is always depreciation of the machinery. The finding which has been recorded that the machineries were operated is not challenged. Once there is operation of a machinery, it amounts to its use and as such, the refund could be claimed only under Section 74(2) of the Customs Act and not under Section 74(1). The decision which has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application, because, in that case, the machineries were not put to any use at all, and distinctions were drawn between the provisions of Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act. Section 75 of the Customs Act refers to the use in the manufacture of goods. There is no such contemplation under Section 74 and therefore, the use for exhibition would be covered under the term used under Section 74(2). The refund has rightly been granted. No case for interference is made out. Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 34 - SC ORDER
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... n the present case and in the light of the fact that the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was in fact available before the Tribunal. The Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prickly heat powder - Words and Phrases - "Daily use" ... ... ... ... ..... 3 and not under the Heading 33.04 dealing with cosmetics. The circular dated 20th November, 1997 and the dicision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 20th November, 1997 holding that Nycil prickly heat powder is to be classified under Heading 33.04 are hereby quashed as far as the product of the petitioner is concerned. It follows that the show cause notice dated 26th November, 1997 also stands quashed. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there will be no Order is to costs. 20. Order . - By this application, the learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out a typographical error in the last para of the judgment. We agree with the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the third line of the last para of the judgment the Tariff Entry should read as 30.03 and not 33.03 as it presently occurs there. The application is accordingly allowed. The correction is being made in the original judgment also under our initials. The application stands disposed of.
-
1999 (5) TMI 32 - SC ORDER
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... h Court. We are of the view that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition directing the appellant to avail the statutory alternative remedy. 3. Even on merits the specific finding of the Tribunal that the claim of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 71/78 will not be available in view of the exemption availed by them under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71 appears to be correct. The fact that the appellant enjoyed the exemption or concession under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71 is not disputed and if that be so, the exemption under Notification No. 71/78 will not be available to them. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right, and there is no case for interference. 4. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 31 - SC ORDER
Imports - Mutilation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... 5 with the direction that the respondent shall produce the requisite certificate regarding the mutilation of the goods from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bati, Uttar Pradesh within three months of clearance. I am of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in deleting Condition No. 5. 3. I set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of learned Single Judge including Condition No. 5. The special leave petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (5) TMI 30 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rom the order under appeal that these are not different from the other cases in the sense that the Tribunal has followed its earlier different orders in these appeals as well. Moreover, these appeals were admitted, as noticed already, to be heard along with other connected appeals. We do not find any good ground to pass order on merits in these appeals alone as it is on fact that the appeals filed against the order of the Tribunal relied on for passing the common order under appeals were dismissed by this Court on the ground of limitation. Mr. Bajpai also brought to our notice that a three member Bench had considered the issue in Machine Builders v. Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur 1996 (83) E.L.T. 576 (Tribunal) and rendered a detailed judgment ultimately remanding the matter to the authorities. 4. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to leave the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. On that view, these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of additional duty of customs (CVD) under Section 3(1) of the Customs Act, 1975 on import of asbestos fibre - whether manufacturing activity taken place or not - applicability conditions of levy of duty of excise on import of goods for the purpose of levy of CVD
Held that:- there can be no manner of doubt that additional duty which is levied under Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act is independent of the customs duty which is levied under Section 12 of the Customs Act. Secondly, it has been held by the Three Judge Bench in this case that excise duty is leviable if the article has undergone production or manufacture. The observation in Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works case which seems to suggest that even if no process of manufacture or production has taken place the imported articles can still be subjected to the levy of additional duty does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the measure for levy of additional duty is the quantum of excise duty leviable on a similar article under the Excise Act.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion it follows that on the asbestos fibre imported into India the appellants were not liable to pay any duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The High Court, therefore, erred in discussing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
Allow these appeals with the result that the writ petitions filed by the appellants stand allowed. The demand of additional duty from the appellants is quashed but the respondents shall not be liable to refund any additional duty realised so far from the appellants.
....
|
