|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 237 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Rectification Of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... h could be rectified by him by his subsequent order dated 25-5-1984 ? 2. The facts of the case are fully brought on record by the learned Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. The point of difference was whether the issue is debatable in view of the conflicting decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hari Ram and of the Madras High Court in the case of V Devaki Ammal 3. At the hearing before me none appeared on behalf of the assessee. After hearing Shri Tarsem Lal, the learned Sr. D.R., I am of the view that this issue is finally settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CED v. V. Devaki Ammal 1995 212 ITR 395. Since the Hon ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, there is no more debate and the view taken by the learned Accountant Member stands confirmed. Accordingly, I concur with the learned Accountant Member on this point. 4. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 236 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Commissioner, Powers Of ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. 7. The above specific provisions also fully cover the issue. The learned CIT(Appeals) in this case before reducing the deduction under section 35B of the Act gave proper hearing and opportunity to the assessee. Over and above the Explanation itself gave jurisdiction to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order a pealed against was passed notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Appellate Authority as the case may be. Since the matter regarding deduction under section 35B has been the subject-matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), he was fully justified in resorting to the provisions of section 154 for amending the mistake which is also a statutory mistake beyond doubt. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order of the learned Accountant Member with which I concur. 8. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 235 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... s. In the meanwhile the assessee commuted and accepted a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. In such a case also, the loss cannot be laid to arise during the year. Even if it is to be treated as normal business loss, it can only be considered at the end of the 10 year period when the final instalment is due. Even if it is admitted that the transaction is a normal business transaction, then the loss can only be considered on the basis of the terms of payment as per the Resolution of the Board and that will arise only at the end of the 10 years period. There is, therefore, no reason to allow the claim during the present assessment year. The learned Commissioner was fully justified in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of Rs. 90,000 by his order under section 263 of the Act. On these facts, I fully agree with the learned Accountant Member. 8. The matter will go back to the regular Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... those credits were set aside by the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the submissions made by the learned authorised representative of the assessee. He, however, submitted that the assessee has not shown any reason as to why the information now sought to be filed before the Tribunal could not be furnished before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. After hearing the parties to the dispute, we find that in almost similar circumstances the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the case of Gopichand Nebhumal and Co. sister concern of the assessee, in ITA No. 3933/Ahd/1992. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we restore this issue also to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the first three appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 4502, 4503 and 4504/Ahd/1991 are allowed and ITA No. 3862/Ahd/1992 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 233 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... mpugned orders stand. With this direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs." From the above, it is clear that although in the writ petitions filed by the assessees the levy of interest under s. 139 and 215 was quashed, yet, the Hon'ble High Court gave fifteen days' time to the petitioners to file representations before the concerned officers to be disposed of in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we restore the question with regard to the levy of interest under s. 139(8)/215 to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee and also taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 which though given in the context of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C, will have bearing on the question of levy of interest under s. 139/(8)/215 also. 25. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 232 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Alleged Bogus Purchases ... ... ... ... ..... and there is no material on record to show that price of goods was inflated. All these questions are required to be examined in accordance with law. Therefore, setting aside of penalty order is fully justified on facts and in the circumstances of the case. In the light of the above decision, I fully agree with the view of the learned A.M. His order of remand for reconsideration of issue is fully justified. The matter will now go to the regular Bench which heard the appeal for passing an order as per the majority view. T.N. CHOPRA, A.M. 29th March, 2001 In conformity with the opinion of the Hon ble Vice-President, dt. 17th Jan., 2001, we restore the matter relating to leviability or non-leviability of penalty in question to the file of the AO. He is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of findings of fact given by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal of the assessee and in accordance with law. 2. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 231 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Failure To Get Accounts Audited ... ... ... ... ..... dabad Bench B of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that there is no justification for levy of penalty under s. 271B in the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee could entertain bona fide belief that the turnover of dealing in shares made on behalf of various buyers and sellers of shares through the assessee in the capacity of sub-broker is not includible for determining the applicability of s. 44AB. Such bona fide belief was fortified by the fact that in several past assessments and the assessments for subsequent years, the AO himself has not initiated any penalty proceedings under s. 271B. Such bona fide belief constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of s. 273B which justifies the cancellation of penalty levied in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the AO was directed to cancel the penalty. Most respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to cancel the penalty under s. 271B. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 230 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ating to registration of the firm and the finding of the Assessing Officer that the remaining partners were benamidars of Shri H.J. Patel. 2. As per order sheet entry dated 6-1-2000 signed by the Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it is revealed that the Hon ble President nominated Shri Vimal Gandhi, the Hon ble Vice-President as Third Member to hear and decide the aforesaid point. 3. The Hon ble Vice-President has expressed his opinion on the points of difference between the learned Brothers vide opinion dated 23rd February, 2001. The Hon ble Vice-President has held that the partnership firm has satisfied all the conditions of the partnership and requirements of getting registration under the Income-tax Act. The firm was held to be genuine firm and is entitled to grant of registration. The learned Vice-President agreed with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member on the points of difference. 4. In the result, Revenue s appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 229 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... o occasion to consider the issue of levy of capital gains under section 45 as a result of reduction of share capitals since he came to the conclusion that accumulated profits possessed by the company exceeded the distribution made to the shareholders on reduction of share capital. While reversing the conclusion of the Assessing Officer and deleting the addition on account of dividend under section 2(22)(a) the CIT(A) did not apply his mind to the issue of levy of capital gains under section 45 particularly since the distribution made by Alkapuri on reduction of share capital has been treated as transfer by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the various decisions cited above. We would in the circumstances set aside the issue of levy of capital gains to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the issue of levy of capital gains may be re-examined in the light of the aforesaid discussion and observations. 49. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 228 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Business Expenditure, Allowable As ... ... ... ... ..... lowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no consequence to the Department and one should have thought that the Department would not fritter away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging from the references that come up to us every now and then, the Department appears to delight in raising points of the character which do not affect the taxability of the assessee or the tax that the Department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other. 17. to 22. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2001 (3) TMI 227 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income From House Property, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... nt given to bank by the assessee was factually wrong. It is also not the case of the assessee that the stock register maintained by him was found to be correct on verification by the other authorities. Accordingly, we are of the view that lower authorities were justified in making/confirming the addition in principle. 10. However, we find merit in the alternate contention of the counsel for the assessee that only a peak amount should be assessed. It appears from the Annexure to the assessment order that the A.O. has added all the figures of difference relating to various months for making the addition. In our considered opinion, this approach is erroneous. It is only the peak amount which can be assessed. From the perusal of stock statement, we find that the peak amount is of Rs. 64,960 which would cover the entire difference. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is modified and the addition is restricted to Rs. 64,960. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... n dispute that these balls are used in the process of manufacture of the final product. These are excluded from the purview of Modvat Credit on account of specific exclusion provided in the Rule itself. We do not find substance that these balls are parts of the plant as they are by themselves equipments capable of performing a complete function that is of removing fluorides which otherwise will poison the PACOL Platinum catalyst. The ratio of the decision in New Vikram Cements is not applicable as in that case the Tribunal came to the conclusion that grinding balls were neither apparatus, appliances nor parts of machine. 10. 8195 We, therefore, hold that Heat Transfer Oil, Caustic Soda Lye, Hydrochloric Acid, Cation and Anion Resins, Chlorine, Betz C-38, C41 and 2020 and Sulphuric Acid are inputs eligible for Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and that Modvat Credit is not available in respect of Ceramic Alumina Balls. The Appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... in this time-limit. They have kept on taking adjournment from time to time before the Tribunal instead of approaching the concerned post office to get an endorsement. Ultimately, the post office have stated that the appellants have approached beyond the preservation period of documents and in the circumstances, they could not certify about its delivery. Appellants have by their conduct shown negligence both before the Tribunal as well as before the Commissioner inasmuch as they ought to have known from the Commissioner the result of their appeal after having argued the matter. The appellants have not proved that they have not received the cover despatched by the department. The latch is clear on record which does not call for taking a lenient view for condoning the delay. The reason given is not sufficient. As such, the COD application is rejected. In view of rejection of the application on limitation, the appeal along with the stay application gets dismissed as time-barred.
-
2001 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... ed goods. This appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner, New Delhi. 2. I have heard Shri Rajesh Chhibber, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, ld. JDR for the respondents. The ld. Counsel for the appellants is relying on the decision of CEGAT in the case of M/s. Inalsa India Limited v. CCE - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 417 (T) and another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Havells Industries v. CCE - 2000 (36) RLT 798 (T) in which it is held that the manufacturer cannot be asked to reverse the Modvat credit in respect of the finished goods in respect of which the Central Excise duty is remitted. I find force in these submissions. In the Board s Circular No. 66/88-CX., dt. 6-9-1988 similar instructions are issued. I, therefore, allow the appeal and hold that the appellants are not required to reverse the Modvat credit in respect of the finished goods which have been allowed to be destroyed by the Commissioner on remission of Central Excise duty.
-
2001 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Yarn ... ... ... ... ..... n CCE v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645, the Supreme Court has held that doubling or multifolding of yarn does not result in the emergence of a new commodity, and that the yarn continues to be yarn. The departmental representative has no answer. During the relevant period, there was no deeming provision in the tariff to deem such doubling or multifolding to be manufacture. 3. Accordingly we hold that these processes do not amount to manufacture. Hence duty was not payable, or penalty imposable, or the goods or plant and machinery liable to confiscation. 4. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Interest ... ... ... ... ..... (2) of the Central Excise Act. In the present case, payment of duty which had not been made took place before the issue of demand. In the circumstances, I am of the view that both Section 11AC and Section 11AB are not attracted for imposition of penalty and demand of interest. With regard to the submission that the proceedings have also imposed Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for imposition of penalty, this Tribunal has already held that when penalty has been imposed under Section 11AC, even while other provisions relating to penalty had also been invoked in the proceedings, it has to be held that the penalty was imposed under 11AC only and not under other provisions. Thus, in the instant case the penalty demand has to be held to be made under Section 11AC only. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the penalty imposed and the interest demanded have to be treated as not legally correct. I hold so and set them aside wit consequential relief if any, to the appellant.
-
2001 (3) TMI 214 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Confiscation, fine and penalty (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... We find that no fine can be imposed without declaring the Market Price by the adjudicator. Fine imposed is therefore not upheld. (h) We find that admittedly the importers are a well known Actual user of the parts, under imports, are regular importers of the same. We would instead follow the decision in the case of Indian Sugar and General Egg Co. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 907 (Tribunal) wherein considering the imports to be Actual Users the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed was set aside even though a licence offence was established by the Tribunal, however, the order of confiscation on merits, of goods valued at 15.77 lacs was sustained. We find that in this case, there are no reason for ordering a penalty under Section 112(a) on the importers, keeping in mind the Actual User Status and the fact that there was no Licence issue involved for imports made in this case after the Licensing authority regularising the same. 6.In view of our findings, we set aside the order, allow the appeal.
-
2001 (3) TMI 212 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... 35B of the Act declining to admit the appeal of the assessee. The provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Act will not apply to such an order. 2. The application is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 211 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ection 112 (a) would not be sustainable inasmuch as any such findings would be beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The order of the lower appellate authority upholding such penalties also, therefore, cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the impugned goods are subject matter of provisional assessment and that such provisional assessment is yet to be finalised. This position is evident from the operative part of the order of adjudication in this case. Without a finalisation of assessment, there was no warrant for any penal action against the importer or their employees as proposed in the show cause notice. 7. In view of our findings recorded above, we are unable to sustain the orders passed by the lower authorities. We set aside both the orders and allow the present appeals. It is upto the Customs authorities to finalise the assessment first and then proceed against the appellants in accordance with law as well as the principles of natural justice.
-
2001 (3) TMI 210 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... at they all connived and evaded the payment of Central Excise duty. They had not been recognised directly or indirectly as independent units. Rather both the authorities below had recorded concurrent findings that these were one unit constituted by members of one family with a view to evade the appropriate payment of Excise duty. Similarly, in the last case Shriram Central Processing decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/79-84/2000-NB (DB) the ratio of the law laid down in Gajanan Fabrics Distributors was followed but that ratio in the instant case, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the discussion made, cannot be made applicable. 17. In the view of the discussion made above, both the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to above are perfectly valid and do not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such the same are upheld. 18. Consequently, all the six appeals of the appellants being without merit are accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
............
|
