|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 492 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... the appellate authority, where orders in an appeal are reserved and yet to be announced. Counsel further accepts that in an appeal which may yet be filed by the assessee until 25th March, 1998, an ad interim relief may be sought. In the totally of circumstances, the petitioner Company may seek an ad interim relief in the appeal where arguments have been heard and orders are reserved or in an appeal for which limitation is available, according to the petitioner until 25-3-1998. 5. In the circumstances, this Court refrains from making any comment, which may prejudice the case of petitioner or the respondents Suffice to stay that with an alternative remedy provided the application of the petitioner, if moved, will be considered by the appellate authority in either of the two situations, in the appeal where orders are reserved or the appeal which has yet to be filed. 6. The present writ petition is not maintainable with alternative remedies available and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Drawback - Condonation of delay - Statutory rights ... ... ... ... ..... g practice or policies cannot override the statutory rights provided under the Act. The Central Government must consider the merits of the claim made and dispose of the application on merits. Admittedly, the same having not been done in the instant case, the impugned communication Annexure-B is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the impugned communication Annexure-B, dated 6th of February 1990 is quashed and the Central Government is directed to consider the application/representation filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-A, dated 10th of October, 1989 under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule issued is made absolute. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms stated above. 8. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
What is the date for determination of the rate of duty in respect of the goods imported by the appellant?
Held that:- In the present case the date of entry inwards of the vessel as well as the date of presentation of the Bills of Entry were prior to March 1, 1987 when the duty payable on the goods was reduced. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that duty was payable at 80%, the rate that was prevalent prior to the Notification dated March 1, 1987 and the benefit of the notification dated March 1, 1987, could not be extended to the appellant. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 130 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Exemption - Power ... ... ... ... ..... tored. 11. It is also not possible for this Court to direct the Central Government to extend the exemption to a class to whom it has not been extended. That is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Central Government which has the power to levy the duty under the Act and this duty is payable in the absence of any notification exempting in whole or part the duty levied under the Act. 12. Learned Counsel for the Central Government referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Kasinka Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (S.C.) 1995 (1) SCC 274 wherein the Supreme Court pointed out the wide discretion available to the Government in the matter of granting, curtailing, withholding, modifying or repealing the exemptions granted by earlier notifications, and the fact that the Government is not bound to grant exemption to any one if it so desires. 13. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 129 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Valuation (Central Excise) - Cash discount ... ... ... ... ..... rcumstance that the Department is bound by the findings of the Appellate Authority evidenced by Annexures A and B orders and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court, any decision to be taken on Annexures E and F notices to which the petitioner submitted his reply, shall be in consonance with the decision of the Appellate Authority evidenced by Annexures A and B. The respondents shall adhere to the findings of the Appellate Authority evidenced by Annexures A and B and also keep in mind the decision of the Bombay High Court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the decision of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the objection filed by the petitioner. A final decision on Annexures E and F shall be taken in consonance with the findings of the Appellate Authority evidenced by Annexures A and B and the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.
-
1998 (2) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... and they are liable to be dismissed. But however the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be given as a liberty to prefer a revision before the Central Government. The said liberty is already available under the Act itself and as such, no separate liberty need be given. But it appears that the petitioner has to prefer the revisions, within the time allowed under Section 35EE of the Act. But he has been prosecuting the petition before this Court under bona fide belief that he can invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the period consumed in this writ petition may be considered and condoned. 6.The petitioner is directed to prefer the revision to the Central Government within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents may dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the said view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... esult in the discharge of the show cause notice. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere at this stage when the petitioner is only required to show cause. 3. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has not been furnished with the necessary information and documents demanded is conceived, suffice it to say that on the date fixed for personal hearing the petitioner may show to the concerned authority the relevancy of the documents and the information sought for. We have no reason to believe that if the documents and informations are relevant and are not available with the petitioner as to why the authority would not accede, to the request of the petitioner. The question about the limitation can, as well, be canvassed before the concerned authority and at this stage it is not necessary for this Court to express any concluded opinion. 4. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is rejected in limine.
-
1998 (2) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Inquiry and Investigation - Summons - Testimonial compulsion ... ... ... ... ..... connection with the smuggling of goods. The person so summoned is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and produces such documents and other things as may be required. Therefore, the impugned summons cannot be set aside. The petitioner is required to appear and answer such questions and give such information regarding himself which do not tend to incriminate him. In our view the petitioner is also not entitled to assistance of a Lawyer at the time of recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 11. Thus, the petition is partly allowed and it is declared that the petitioner is a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) but he is bound to appear before the concerned officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act to answer such questions which do not tend to incriminate him. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms leaving parties to bear their own costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Search and seizure (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... s that I make one way or the other with regard to the sufficiency of the reasons or the fact whether the reasons were wholly relevant or not, might prejudice the outcome of the pending proceedings or may tend to influence one way or the other the decision making process in such proceedings. Any such comment may also adversely effect the interests of the parties or either of them. 7.I am however convinced that the requirements as contained in and prescribed under Section 105 of the Customs Act having been fully satisfied, this Court cannot issue the declaration that the search and seizure was illegal or contrary to Section 105 of the Customs Act. No other relief was claimed during the course of hearing of the petition nor was any other point urged, except with regard to the legality of the search and seizure in relation to the applicability of Section 105 of the Customs Act. 8.For the foregoing reasons therefore the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was undervaluation for the purpose of levy of Customs duty under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the invoices of the various consignments of ball bearings which were imported by the appellants?
Held that:- The documents seized during the search and seizure that were produced by the appellants before the Customs authorities (genuineness of which was accepted by the Addl. Collector of Customs) show that apart from Mirah Exports a number of other importers, namely, Skefko, Amul Engg., Krishna Engg. Works, Delhi, Jayaveer Forge, Davangere, Ajay Trading Co., Delhi, Ramgopal Lachmi Narayan, Bombay, Sanmukh Engineering Industries, etc. had also imported comparable quantities of similar bearings at the same or lesser prices as that of Mirah Exports and that discount from 50% to 70% on the list prices was the normal invoice price for a number of unconnected importers during the period. The Collector of Customs, while passing the orders dated December 5, 1986 and March 20, 1987 and the Tribunal in the impugned judgment have not taken note of the said documents and the fact that the importers had been given 50% to 70% discount on the prices indicated in the list price.
Thus the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the invoice prices as mentioned in the invoices for the imports of ball bearings by the appellants shall be treated as the value for the purpose of assessment of customs duty under Section 14 of the Act.
-
1998 (2) TMI 123 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal, because it had not made provision for the said amount in the accounting years relevant to the respective assessment years. In respect, of the assessment year 1975-76, with which the High Court was concerned, it was found that the said sum of Rs. 11,96,415 was not in respect of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 and, therefore, was not allowable as a deduction. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of the High Court and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 122 - SC ORDER
Estate Duty, Determination Of Rate, Share Of Lineal Descendent ... ... ... ... ..... ), came up in appeal and in the judgment reported as Asst. CED v. V. Devaki Ammal 1995 212 ITR 395 (SC), the view of the High Court was reversed and it was held that section 34(1)(c) of the Act was valid. This being so, the decision of the High Court in the present case has to be set aside and as the High Court did not go into the merits of the question, we remand the case to the High Court for deciding the case afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 121 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ved cannot be taxed as capital gain. Learned counsel for the Revenue only pointed out that the abovenoted decisions are on rights shares and not on the debentures. We are of the considered view that when rights shares or debentures are issued, there can be a fall in the value of original shares and that cannot be ignored while computing the capital gain on sale of such rights shares or debentures. If their value is included and that is not more than the cost invested in the share capital, the sale amount of rights shares or debentures cannot be taxed as capital gain. Thus, in view of the fact that those original shares were treated as capital assets and when there is no finding that the assessee is a dealer in shares and considering the decisions of their Lordships, relied upon by the Tribunal, if after including that gain, the value of the shares on that date falls short of the cost invested in the shares, no capital gain remains for tax. The rule is accordingly discharged.
-
1998 (2) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Fixed Deposit, Household Expenses, Interest Income, Protective Assessment
-
1998 (2) TMI 119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appeal Before AAC, Appeal To AAC, Delay In Filing Return, Reduction Or Waiver, Waiver Of Interest, Waiver Or Reduction
-
1998 (2) TMI 118 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Any Person, Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... the above reasons---particularly having regard to the scheme of the Act and use of the phrase regular assessment in various sections of the Act---we are of the view that in section 214, regular assessment has been used in no other sense than the first order of assessment passed under section 143 or section 144. If any consequential order has to be passed by the Income-tax Officer to give effect to an order passed by the higher authority, that consequential order cannot be treated as the regular assessment nor can the date of the consequential order be treated as the date of the regular assessment. When the assessee had paid more tax than the tax assessed in the regular assessment, interest cannot be charged under section 215 on the basis of any subsequent assessment or reassessment. In view of these undisputed facts and the position of law, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA J.---I agree
-
1998 (2) TMI 117 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... systems. An assessee following such a system may employ one method of accounting for one class of business or one class of customers or transactions and a different method for another class. If an assessee follows such a hybrid system and in respect of certain loan transactions does not follow the mercantile system of accounting for debiting interest to the accounts of the parties and crediting the same to the P and L a/c, no fault as such can be found with the system followed by the assessee . We have carefully considered the above submissions. However, in view of our finding that the liability accrued in this case on the date of the receipt of the approval of the RBI in the years under consideration, it is not necessary for us to examine this alternate submission. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer all the three questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 20. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 116 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrenchment Compensation, Such Employee ... ... ... ... ..... he Board would have power to entertain the petitioner s prayer for compounding in face of the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and, therefore, the court may at least quash the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as uncalled for. The contention cannot be entertained even for a moment for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner has to thank himself for having invited the pronouncement of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Secondly, the cause of action to the petitioner has arisen only at Chennai. If the Chief Commissioner or the Director-General decline the petitioner s prayer for compounding on the ground of the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, then he may file an appropriate writ petition in Chennai and therein lay a challenge to the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as well. However, we express no opinion thereon. The petition is dismissed as we find the petitioner not entitled to any relief within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
-
1998 (2) TMI 115 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... manner being influenced by any observation contained either in this order or in the order of the assessing authority dated January 28, 1998. The petitioner shall co-operate in the early disposal of the stay application and it is directed that the stay application shall be disposed of within thirty days from the date it is received by the appellate authority. Until the stay petition is disposed of by the appellate authority, as directed above, there shall be stay of recovery of tax pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner for the assessment year 1995-96, which is the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner. It is clarified that if the petitioner defaults in filing the application within the period of one week specified above, the order of stay hereby granted shall stand vacated. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xeroxed copy of this order on the usual undertaking.
-
1998 (2) TMI 114 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Income, Business Receipt, High Court, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... isfied that the present one is not a case where this court may feel persuaded to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. Whether or not the impugned order of assessment was liable to be annulled or an order of remand as made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified, are such questions as can very well be examined by the Tribunal exercising its appellate jurisdiction. We are not satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court allowing the petitioner liberty of bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner is at liberty to file the appeal and seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal praying for exclusion of time lost in prosecuting this petition under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.
............
|
