|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 71 of 71 Records
-
1964 (10) TMI 11
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the five annas share of the income of Amrit Chemicals or any part thereof for the year January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1955, accrued to the assessee and whether it could be charged in its hands ?
Held that:- In the present case at the date when Ashokbhai acquired the right to receive a share of profits, there was no subsisting joint family and his share of the profits was not received by him on behalf of the assessee.
There was in this case no assignment of the profits which had already accrued to the assessee. Profits accrued to Ashokbhai and on the date on which they accrued, the assessee had because of the deed of partition no interest in the profits. The revenue authorities could not claim that profits, which under the instrument of partition did not accrue or arise to Ashokbhai as representing the Hindu undivided family, must, for purposes of taxation, be so deemed. The High Court was, therefore, right in answering the question in the negative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 10
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments on the Administrator-General of West Bengal as an individual and not as representing the shares of the various beneficiaries under the will of the late Raja P. N. Tagore separately was in accordance with law ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the said Administrator-General at the maximum rate was legal ?
Held that:- Section 41 of the Act is not applicable in the present case as the appellant received the income on his behalf and not on 4 behalf of the five sons of the deceased Raja. In view of the above, the answers to the two questions set out in the beginning of the judgment must be in the affirmative. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed
-
1964 (10) TMI 9
Whether the relationship between the assessee and the non-resident fell within the meaning of the expression 'business connection' as used in section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tat Act ?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case any profits or gains accrued or arose or could be deemed to have accrued or arisen to the non-resident on account of the business connection of the non-resident with the assessee during the previous year under consideration ?
Held that:- The activity of the assessees in procuring orders was not as agents of the non-residents in the matter of sale of goods manufactured by the latter, nor of procuring raw materials in the taxable territories for their manufacturing process. Their activities led to the making of offers by merchants in the taxable territories to purchase goods manufactured by the non-residents which the latter were not obliged to accept. The expression " business connection " postulates a real and intimate relation between trading activity carried on outside the taxable territories and trading activity within the territories, the relation between the two contributing to the earning of income by the non-resident in his trading activity. In this case such a relation is absent. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 8
What is the effect of the proviso to section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)?
Held that:- the construction for which Mr. Jain contends is a reasonably possible construction. In fact if the words used in the proviso are literally read, Mr. Jain would be justified in contending that the requirement that reasons must be recorded applies even to cases falling under it. On the other hand, if the obvious object of the proviso is taken into account and the relevant previous back ground is borne in mind, it would also seem reasonable to hold that in regard to cases falling under the proviso, an opportunity need not be given to the assessee, and the consequential need to record reasons for the transfer is also unnecessary, and this view is plainly consistent with the scheme of the provision and the true intent of its requirements. We would accordingly hold that the impugned orders cannot be challenged on the ground that the Board has not recorded reasons in directing the transfer of the cases pending against the assessee from one Income-tax Officer to another in the same locaity. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 7
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to claim bad debts amounting to ₹ 38,35,654 or any lesser sum ?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to claim two sums of ₹ 10,15,000and ₹ 98,892 as a business loss or as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The appeal will therefore be partially allowed. The answer to the first question recorded by the High Court will be discharged, and it will be recorded that the bank is entitled to claim under section 10 (2)(xi) ₹ 15,00,000 as bad debts in the year of account ending June 30, 1947. On the second question, the answer will be in the negative. Appeal allowed in part
-
1964 (10) TMI 6
Whether the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition in exercise of its discretion as the question raised by the 1st respondent involved complicated questions of fact and law which could not be satisfactorily disposed of in a summary proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution?
Whether on the facts stated and omitted to be stated in the affidavit, no right to relief was disclosed and, therefore, the High Court should have dismissed the petition in limine?
Whether either on the basis of the existence of a will or on the basis of intestacy, the notices served on E. D. Sadanandan on behalf of all the legal representatives of late S. P. Sadanandan were sufficient to sustain the assessment against the estate of S. P. Sadanandan?
Whether in any view, the order of assessment would be effective against E. D. Sadanandan, and the order of the High Court couched in very wide language should be clarified so as to confine it only to the claim of the 1st respondent?
Held that:- This court has held in more than one decision that the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for refusing to issue an appropriate writ under article 226 of the Constitution if fundamental rights are affected. The High Court, therefore, rightly disposed of the petition on merits.
Except the affidavit filed by the Income-tax Officer, which is vague to the extreme, and that filed by the respondent, which is equally unhelpful, no material has been placed before us. The records of the income-tax proceedings on which the learned judges of the High Court have fully drawn upon are also not available to us. On the scanty material it is impossible to come to any definite conclusion on any of the points posed by us. We, therefore, with some reluctance, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to it for fresh disposal. The parties will have opportunity to file fresh affidavits and to place all the relevant material before the High Court to enable it to come to a definite conclusion
-
1964 (10) TMI 5
Whether the Assessing Officer rejected the Registers other than the Sale Contract Register and the Yarn Production Register and that, though the Appellate Authority and the High Court did not in terms reject the said Registers, they relied upon the said two Registers maintained by the appellant himself and, therefore, the findings arrived at by them are findings of fact which should not be disturbed in appeal under article 136 of the Constitution?
Held that:- The scope of the enquiry before the Assessing Officer should not be limited in the manner suggested by the High Court. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider afresh the entire material that has already been placed before him, and such other material, such as registers which have been maintained but are admittedly not produced, and other relevant evidence as may be brought before him, and come to a conclusion in regard to the question of unaccounted yarn in the light of the directions given by this court and those given by the High Court in other matters. The Assessing Officer shall not in any case increase the tax liability on this point over and above that he has initially assessed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 4
Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules regarding excise duty on package tea manufacturing.
2. Allegations of evasion of excise duty by not bringing all loose tea purchases into licensed premises.
3. Legal obligation of a licensee to bring all purchases of loose tea into licensed premises.
4. Authority of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to impose duty and penalty based on speculation.
5. Compliance with Central Excise Rules regarding manufacturing and removal of package tea.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of rules concerning excise duty on package tea manufacturing. The petitioner, a holder of an L-4 license for manufacturing package tea, was required to bring all loose tea purchases into the licensed premises for packaging, subject to excise duty upon removal. The process of packaging is considered manufacturing under the Act, attracting excise duty upon removal from the premises.
2. The issue of alleged evasion of excise duty arose as the petitioner also dealt in loose tea outside the licensed premises. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise suspected that the petitioner may have converted loose tea into package tea without paying the required duty. A show cause notice was issued based on this suspicion, leading to the imposition of duty and penalty by the Assistant Collector.
3. The legal obligation of the licensee to bring all loose tea purchases into the licensed premises was contested. The rules cited by the Department's counsel did not explicitly mandate such an obligation. While the rules aimed to prevent duty evasion, there was no provision restricting a licensee from dealing in loose tea outside the licensed premises.
4. The judgment questioned the Assistant Collector's authority to impose duty and penalty solely based on speculation, without concrete evidence of the petitioner dealing with the tea as package tea. The absence of material showing such dealings rendered the imposition of duty and penalty illegal.
5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the Assistant Collector's order and making the rule absolute with no costs. The judgment emphasized that as per the existing rules, a licensed manufacturer was not prohibited from dealing in loose tea outside the licensed premises, provided there was no evidence of converting it into package tea to evade excise duty.
-
1964 (10) TMI 3
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Tariff Item 26AA(iv) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Assessment of excise duty on pipe fittings manufactured by the petitioner.
3. Proper calculation of excise duty based on the value of pipes used in manufacturing pipe fittings.
4. Opportunity for the petitioner to demonstrate the manufacturing process of pipe fittings.
Analysis:
The judgment by Tarkunde, J. of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay involves a petition filed by The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. challenging orders passed by the Inspector of Central Excise regarding the assessment of excise duty on pipe fittings. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of Tariff Item 26AA(iv) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which includes pipes and tubes under the excise tariff. The petitioner, a manufacturer of pipe fittings, contested the assessment of excise duty on the basis that the pipe fittings were not covered under the said tariff item.
The Finance Act of 1962 included Iron and Steel products, including pipes and tubes, in the central excise tariff. The Inspector of Central Excise assessed excise duty on the pipe fittings manufactured by the petitioner, considering them as falling under Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The petitioner appealed this assessment, arguing that the pipe fittings were distinct from pipes or tubes and should not be subject to the same excise duty.
Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court noted a misunderstanding regarding the assessment basis for pipe fittings under Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The respondents contended that the duty should be levied on the value of the pipes used in manufacturing the pipe fittings, not on the fittings themselves. The court referred to a letter from the Central Board of Revenue clarifying that duty on pipe fittings should be recovered at the pipe stage, indicating the duty should be based on the value of the pipes used in manufacturing the fittings.
The court acknowledged the petitioner's grievances, emphasizing the need for the proper assessment of excise duty. It directed the set-aside of the demand notices and the appellate decision, instructing the respondents to re-assess the excise duty after allowing the petitioner to demonstrate the manufacturing process of the pipe fittings. The re-assessment should consider whether the fittings were made directly from pipes and calculate the duty based on the value of the pipes used in manufacturing the fittings.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the previous assessment and providing an opportunity for a fair re-assessment of excise duty based on the clarification of Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The judgment highlights the importance of accurate assessment and calculation of excise duty in line with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1964 (10) TMI 2
Whether the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to revise the certificate of registration issued after due enquiry, and rejected the petition holding that drawing instruments, photographic materials, colours, chemicals, electricals, machinery and building materials such as cement, lime are not comprehended in the expression "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" within the meaning of Section 8(3)(b) read with Rule 13?
Held that:- We are not prepared to agree with the High Court that in order that "electrical equipment" should fall within the terms of Rule 13, it must be an ingredient to the finished goods to be prepared, or "it must be a commodity which is used in the creation of goods." If, having regard to normal conditions prevalent in the industry, production of the finished goods would be difficult without the use of electrical equipment, the equipment would be regarded as intended for use in the manufacture of goods for sale and such a test, in our judgment, is satisfied by the expression "electricals." This would of course not include electrical equipment not directly connected with the process of manufacture. Office equipment such as fans, coolers, air-conditioning units, would not be admissible to special rates under Section 8(1).
Set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer be modified by de
-
1964 (10) TMI 1
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 33(5) - status of the firm - business at Kano in Nigeria and in which the assessee was a partner along with one Lahorewala and was having a share of sixty per cent. as against the share of forty per cent. of the said Lahorewala.
|
9911796707
