|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ns proposed do arise and require our consideration. The Tribunal is directed to refer the question as to whether the Tribunal was correct in extending Modvat credit on inputs received under cover of endorsed invoice when such endorsement is not a document prescribed under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal shall also send a statement of case together with the materials relevant for answering the question.
-
2000 (12) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the products,de-oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction of topioca chips and sesame seed extractions are only ingredients of animal feed and not 'animal feed' by themselves falling under Tariff Heading No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975?
Held that:- While it is true that the decision in Sun Exports Corporation's case [1997 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] delved into animal feed but by reason of the factual situation as noticed the same is clearly distinguishable and, in fact, does not lend any assistance in the matter in issue.
It is on this perspective it cannot but be held that the oil cakes and rice bran as exported by the respondents cannot thus be termed to be animal feed warranting invocation of Heading 21 of the export tariff under the Customs Act. The judgment of the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any way. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 102 - SC ORDER
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ates) ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Despite his very persuasive argument, we are, on the facts available to us, unable to take a view other than that taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 101 - SC ORDER
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... ith the Registry reveal that no appeal against that judgment was preferred by the Revenue. If the Revenue did not accept the correctness of the judgment in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth 1993 204 ITR 866 (Guj), it should have preferred an appeal there against and instructed counsel as to what the fate of that appeal was or why no appeal was filed. It is not open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. For this reason, we decline to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court in this matter and dismiss the civil appeal. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth-tax Officer in accordance with rule 1B of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?
Held that:- As has been noted, it was agreed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the assessee and the Revenue before the High Court that rule 1B was not workable in the circumstances of the present case, which is clearly correct for it is applicable only to an income-yielding life interest. It is, therefore, difficult to see how it can now be argued on behalf of the assessee that rule 1B was correctly applied. In any event, we are in agreement with the High Court, and indeed, with the Tribunal before it, that even if rule 1B did not apply, the said life interest, if an asset, had still to be valued and be included in the wealth of the assessee, which is what section 7 required. In the absence of a rule which can apply to the valuation of a particular asset, that asset must be valued in the ordinary way, by determining what it would fetch if it were sold in an assumed market ; the value being what an assumed willing purchaser would pay for it. This is how the said life interest must be assessed, upon the assumption that the assessee's personal right to reside in the property during his life time is saleable.
For the reason aforestated, the judgment and orders under challenge are set aside. The question aforequoted is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The said life interest shall now be valued for each of the assessment years in question in the manner set out above.
-
2000 (12) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the application in Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, could be filed even after the assessment is completed ?
Whether the Income-tax Rules could not fix any time limit for submitting an application in Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?
Held that:- It is abundantly clear from the wording of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under rule 17 in Form No. 10 of the Rules. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary information. question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter of fact, this benefit of excluding this particular part of the income from the net of taxation arises from section 11 and is subjected to the conditions specified therein. Therefore, it is necessary that the assessing authority must have this information at the time he completes the assessment.
In the case in hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the Revenue that the High Court erred in answering the first question in favour of the assessee is correct, and we reverse that finding and answer the said question in the negative and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, we agree with Mr. Verma that it is not necessary to answer the second question on the facts of this case.
-
2000 (12) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
Return, Interest, Reassessment, Delay In Filing Returns, Assessment, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes
-
2000 (12) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the loan redemption reserve amount to Rs. 1 crore is a reserve and not a provision and is to be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of surtax ?
Held that:- The aspects taken into consideration by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court that there was no stipulation by the Government for creation of loan redemption reserve ; that the assessee had not kept to the schedule for repayment; that the assessee, on its own volition, had created a loan redemption reserve by making appropriation of profit of Rs. 10 lakhs each year beginning from 1970; that the total reserve amounting to Rs. 100 lakhs remained undisturbed till the year 1987 and in the year 1988 the same was transferred to general reserve and that the balance-sheet showed that the amounts credited to the "loan redemption reserve" were not invested outside the company but remained internally invested, on the facts found, were not relevant for determining as to whether the amount was an asset or provision. As held in Vazir Sultan's case [1981] 132 ITR 559 (SC), the true nature and character of an appropriation has to be determined with reference to the substance of the matter, one must have regard to the intention with which and the purpose for which the appropriation has been made, such intention and purpose being gathered from the surrounding circumstances. Vazir Sultan's case [1981 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME Court) also holds that if any retention or appropriation of a sum falls within the definition of "provision" it can never be a reserve but it does not follow that if the retention or appropriation is not a "provision" it is automatically a reserve. The fact that the amount has been set apart for redeeming liabilities makes it obvious that the intention is for clearing liabilities and not acquiring an asset. Bearing in mind these aspects, it is clear that the amount in question cannot be regarded as a "reserve". It has to be regarded as a "provision". Clearly the amount was set apart to meet a loan liability. It may also be noticed that the amount set apart is less than the respondent's liabilities. It cannot be regarded as an asset. The decision in Vazir- Sultan's case was not correctly appreciated by the High Court. In this view, the questions deserve to be answered in the negative.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and answer the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee,
-
2000 (12) TMI 96 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earlier Supreme Court judgment, it was held that the Tax Recovery Officer will only use the procedure in the Travancore Income-tax Act so far as it is possible to apply it. Hence we are of the view that necessary clarification is necessary to substitute the word Tax Recovery Officer instead of the word Department in direction No. 2 in paragraph 18 of the judgment. This petition is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 95 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Royalty, Special Deduction, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... erely declaratory of the law as it always had been since April 1, 1968, when the provisions of Chapter VI-A were introduced. On a parity of reasoning it must be held that section 80AB was enacted to declare the law as it always stood in relation to the deductions to be made in respect a the income specified under the head C of Chapter VI-A. The manner of deduction specified under section 80AB accords with the interpretation that we have placed upon section 80T, read independently. (underlined for emphasis) In fact, in Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. s case 2000 243 ITR 26 reference was made by the apex court to H. H. Sir Rama Varma s case 1994 205 ITR 433 (SC). The above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the mode of computation as indicated in section 80AB has to be applied while working out the incentives under section 80-O of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly. The matter shall be placed before the Division Bench for disposal on the merits.
-
2000 (12) TMI 94 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Revision, Ex Parte Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... iction as such it calls for my interference under writ jurisdiction. 7. Under such circumstances, I set aside the impugned order of the revisional authority and I direct the revisional authority to re-examine it within the four corners of s. 264 of the said Act except on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner before the assessing authority. He should examine the validity and legality of the impugned order of the AO on the given materials placed before him. This should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon notice to the writ petitioner/assessee and/or his authorised representative. 8. I make it clear that in spite of service of notice, if the assessee concerned and/or his authorised representative does not appear before the revisional authority, the authority concerned should proceed with the matter in its absence in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision, Application For Revision, Condonation Of Delay ... ... ... ... ..... xercise of a discretionary power vested in the statutory authorities. The discretion so vested is required to be exercised in a manner which would protect and promote the just interest of the assessee. The position of the assessee vis-a-vis the Revenue is not strictly adversarial, although more often than not, that is the manner in which the two parties perceive their role. The Revenue is not to be regarded as interested in scoring points against the assessee, but only in the just enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The discretion of the authority, therefore, on the facts of this case, was required to be exercised by bearing the aforementioned considerations in mind. The writ petitions are allowed in part, the impugned order for the assessment year 1995-96 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in this order. No costs. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... n sub-section (1) of section 214 refers to sections 207 to 213, there is no justification for looking only at section 211 as learned counsel for the Revenue wants us to do and conclude that unless the instalments are paid strictly as per section 211, interest is not payable under section 214 on the excess amount of advance tax paid during the financial year. It is to be noted that section 208 provides that advance tax shall be payable during the financial year. Section 211 deals with instalments of advance tax and due dates. Section 208 deals with conditions of liability to pay advance tax and at the relevant time referred to payment during the financial year, as noted above. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bakelite Hylam s case 1993 202 ITR 145. Therefore, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 91 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... do not suffer from any illegality or error or irregularity. The Assessing Officer in his detailed order passed on September 14, 1990, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act has clearly discussed all the relevant aspects of the matter and has come to a finding that the petitioner was guilty of keeping undisclosed income and since the money seized fell below the tax liability and the penalty as was assessed and charged by the aforesaid order dated September 14, 1990, it was allowed to be retained with the Revenue in terms of sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax has discussed all these aspects of the matter in his order under sub-section (12) of section 132 of the Act. No interference is called for in either of the aforesaid two orders. Based on our aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in both the writ petitions, which, accordingly, are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. M. Y. EQBAL J.---I agree.
-
2000 (12) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ion of Rs. 6,48,000 on account of estimated interest on the undisclosed advance of Rs. 27 lakhs detected from the loose sheets was not recorded in the books of account and it was undisclosed and unexplained advance. The explanation, affidavits, etc., filed by the assessee regarding this amount were not found acceptable. The Tribunal has relied in detail on the evidence in support of this finding. These are the findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. Shri Dhruv Agarwal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 78. In that case, the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits were genuine and were explained. In the present case, the Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the cash credits are unexplained. Hence, the above Supreme Court decision is distinguishable. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ation by an assessee for extension of time and the competent authority is bound to grant extension as a matter of course. For the same reason, we do not deem it necessary to comment upon the proposition laid down in the Azad Tobacco Factory (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1997 225 ITR 1002 (All) and Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1998 234 ITR 560 (Cal), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, and leave this point to be decided in some other case. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The order annexure P-17 is declared illegal and quashed with the direction to respondent No. 1 to pass an order extending the period stipulated in section 80HHC(2)(a) up to September 30, 1998. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits. We also direct that if the assessment has been completed in the meantime, adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner, then it shall be free to seek appropriate legal remedy for redressal of its grievance.
-
2000 (12) TMI 88 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... , it is crystal clear that the assessee effected sales to foreigners against convertible foreign exchange inasmuch as the sale transactions in question did involve clearance at customs, therefore, such sales could not (sic) be an export out of India. Hence, we do not find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has committed any error of law either in following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Babu and Sons case 1996 222 ITR 606 or in interpretating the provisions of Explanation (aa) to section 80HHC of the Act while extending the benefit of relief/claim of deductions under section 80HHC of the Act in favour of the assessee (respondent) on its counter sales to foreigners. Thus viewed, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the Revenue. Resultantly, this income-tax appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (annexure 3) stands upheld.
-
2000 (12) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Power To Remand
-
2000 (12) TMI 86 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... passed by the designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. We do not find any merit in the said contention. The order issued by the designated authority clearly shows, on the facts of this case, that he has assessed the income at Rs. 33,65,298. That, the said assessed income is determined only for the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme purposes. That, the designated authority was fully aware of the fact that there were certain heads of income on which there was no determination. That, the petitioner was also aware that on certain heads of income there was no determination by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Since none of the cited judgments deal with the controversy in hand, we have not discussed the said judgments. For the above reasons, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
2000 (12) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... has to be added. We find that the forums below, including the Tribunal, have taken into account the following aspects to determine that the expenditure has to be capital in nature, they are as follows (i) The know-how from the UK company had been acquired for enabling the assessee-company to establish and operate in India a plant of the manufacture of the range of linings, which were being manufactured, till before the agreement, by the UK company. (ii) The UK company had undertaken to make available to the assessee-company any improvements or modification in the methods of manufacture of the range of linings, and (iii) The agreement was for an unlimited period. Obviously, the addition on pro rata basis has to be vis-a-vis the plant and machinery and nothing else. That exercise shall be undertaken by the Assessing Officer, who shall determine the amount, which has to be added to the cost of plant and machinery. The reference is accordingly disposed of without being answered.
............
|
