|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 584 Records
-
2005 (4) TMI 592
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2005 (4) TMI 592 - SC. Justices Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker delivered the order.
-
2005 (4) TMI 591
The High Court of Bombay disposed of the petition filed by the parties under joint signatures with no order as to costs. The minutes of order dated April 19, 2005 were filed and marked for identification.
-
2005 (4) TMI 590
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act for deduction in export business profits.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of a partnership firm to 100% deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act for income earned from export business. The assessing authority initially rejected the claim, providing proportionate deduction based on total turnover and export turnover. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that deduction should be allowed in proportion to export turnover. However, the Tribunal, following a precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee, granting 100% deduction under Section 80-HHC for export business profits.
The revenue, dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, sought to challenge it by requesting the Tribunal to refer the question of law to the High Court. The Tribunal initially rejected this request, leading the revenue to file petitions before the High Court. Eventually, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question for consideration. The main contention raised by the revenue was that the Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction solely based on separate books of accounts maintained by the assessee, contrary to the legislative intent of Section 80-HHC(3)(b).
The High Court analyzed the circular issued by the Board, clarifying the computation of deduction under Section 80-HHC(3)(b). The circular emphasized that the deduction should be based on the entire profit of the business, apportioned according to export turnover relative to total turnover. It highlighted that the legislative mandate was to compute the profit of the entire business, not segregating export profits. The Court noted that the Tribunal's reliance on separate books of accounts was misplaced, as profits should be computed as per the Income Tax Rules, not based on accounting practices.
Referring to precedents from the Kerala and Madras High Courts, the High Court emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting Section 80-HHC(3)(a) and (b). The Madras High Court's decision, which focused on separate accounts maintained by the assessee, was deemed incorrect in light of the specific provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the revenue, holding that the assessee was not entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80-HHC for export business profits.
-
2005 (4) TMI 589
Issues:
Penalties under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(a), and 273(2)(b) for various assessment years.
Analysis:
The case involved penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(a), and 273(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for different assessment years. The penalties under section 271(1)(c) were imposed for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1981-82 to 1986-87, while penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b) were specifically for the assessment year 1986-87. The penalties were challenged, leading to a reference to the High Court by the Tribunal in Delhi for an opinion on the matter.
The facts of the case revolved around a search and seizure operation conducted at the residential premises of the husband of the assessee. The search revealed undisclosed investments in fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) by the assessee. The assessee admitted to the undisclosed investments and opted to include them in her assessment to avoid prolonged litigation. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) based on the undisclosed investments.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty proceedings, ruling that there was no concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal specifically noted that the conditions for penalty under Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record satisfaction regarding the taxable income of the assessee in earlier years. The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered her capital and investments but clarified that these did not necessarily constitute income earned in those years.
During the High Court proceedings, the Department's counsel argued in favor of upholding the penalty, but the respondent-assessee did not appear. The High Court examined the Tribunal's findings and concurred with the decision to set aside the penalty order. The High Court concluded that the return of income had been accepted by the Department, and there was no evidence of concealment of income by the assessee. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty order. The High Court's judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the lack of evidence of income concealment and the failure to meet the conditions for imposing penalties under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.
-
2005 (4) TMI 588
Case: Supreme Court Citation: 2005 (4) TMI 588 - SC Order
Judges: Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Decision: Special leave petition dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 587
Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act based on the interpretation of the Delhi School Education Act and the entitlement to exemptions under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The High Court, consisting of Judges Swatanter Kumar and Madan B. Lokur, heard the appeal challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 19th July, 2004. The Tribunal's finding stated that the assessee-society, which had been running schools for several decades, could take donations for development and building funds as long as they maintained separate accounts for these donations. The society could utilize these donations for educational purposes, including constructing buildings, in line with the objects of the society. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal, confirming that the assessee was entitled to exemptions under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court noted that these findings were primarily factual and did not raise any legal questions or substantial questions of law. The Court found that the Tribunal's approach was not in conflict with established legal principles, and no contradictory judgments were presented to challenge the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and the Income-tax Act concerning the acceptance of donations by educational societies for specific purposes. It emphasizes the significance of maintaining separate accounts for donations and utilizing them in accordance with the objectives of the society to qualify for exemptions under relevant tax laws. The judgment underscores the need for factual findings to support legal arguments and the absence of substantial legal questions in certain cases, leading to the dismissal of appeals challenging such findings.
-
2005 (4) TMI 586
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal, challenge to the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment year 1997-98.
Condonation of Delay: The High Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit.
Challenge to Tribunal Order: The appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act challenged the Tribunal's order regarding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to investigate the source and identity of shareholders, and the onus on the assessee to prove the genuineness of share application money transactions.
Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction: The Court clarified that the identity of shareholders can be investigated by the Assessing Officer, and while this is a finding of fact, not a question of law, the assessee had provided evidence to establish the genuineness of the share application money transactions.
Evidence Presented: The assessee had submitted relevant evidence, including affidavits, share application forms, confirmations from applicant companies, Board of Directors Resolutions, and bank details, to prove the legitimacy of the share application money received.
Tribunal's Finding: The Appellate Tribunal, based on the evidence presented, concluded that the share application money from the companies in question was genuine, as the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders were established, and the addition made by the CIT(A) was unjustified and deleted.
Creditworthiness of Shareholders: The Tribunal noted that the share applicants were Income-tax payees, indicating their existence, and emphasized that the evidence provided by the assessee proved the genuineness of the transactions, leading to the deletion of the addition.
Conclusion: The Court found that no questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law, arose in the case, given the overwhelming evidence establishing the legitimacy of the share application money transactions.
-
2005 (4) TMI 585
The appellate tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, citing a High Court decision that Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand a matter even after an amendment to Section 35A(3).
-
2005 (4) TMI 584
Challenged the Judgment of High Court gave the benefit of probation u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("POB Act") to the second respondent and Maintained the conviction - Without calling for a report from the Authorities relating to the conduct - Previous conviction - HELD THAT:- In our view, there was no good reason for letting the respondent off by granting to him the said benefit of POB Act particularly, keeping in view the large scale irregularity and unauthorized constructions carried by the builders in Delhi despite strict direction of the Municipal authorities and despite of the Courts passing various orders from time to time against the unauthorized construction. The High Court also failed to take into consideration that the respondent has been in jail for three days and had not put in substantial period in custody. The High Court vide its order impugned in this appeal has observed that there is no allegation that the respondent is a previous convict. In fact, as could be seen from the annexures filed along with this appeal, the respondent has been convicted for offence under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act.
Non-production of the order and even non-mentioning of the conviction and sentence in the criminal Case tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. A litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all documents which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well on the opposite party. The second respondent, in our opinion, was not justified in suppressing the material fact that he was convicted by the Magistrate on an earlier occasion. Since the second respondent deliberately suppressed the crucial and important fact, we disapprove strongly and particularly, the conduct of the second respondent and by reason of such conduct, the second respondent disentitled himself from getting any relief or assistance from this Court. We, however, part with this case with heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of the conduct and behaviour but direct that the second respondent to pay a sum of ₹ 10,000 by way of cost to the appellant herein.
The offender can only be released on probation of good conduct under this section when the Court forms an opinion, having considered the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that in a particular case, the offender should be released on probation of good conduct. The section itself is clear that before applying the section, the Magistrate should carefully take into consideration the attendant circumstances. The second respondent is a previous convict as per the records placed before us. Such a previous convict cannot be released in view of Section 4 of the POB Act. The Court is bound to call for a report as per Section 4 of POB Act but the High Court has failed to do so although the Court is not bound by the report of the Probationer Officer but it must call for such a report before the case comes to its conclusion. The word "shall" in sub-section (2) of Section 4 is mandatory and the consideration of the report of the Probationer Officer is a condition precedent to the release of the accused as reported in the case of State v. Naguesh G. Shet Govenkar and Anr. [1969 (7) TMI 124 - THE GOA DAMAN AND DIU JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT] and a release without such a report would, therefore, be illegal.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs of ₹ 10,000 to be paid by the second respondent to the appellant.
-
2005 (4) TMI 583
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on delayed payment of interest (interest on interest).
2. Applicability of Sections 214, 244(1A), and 220 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Equity in taxation matters.
4. Precedent and binding nature of Supreme Court judgments.
5. Applicability of judgments from other High Courts.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Payment of Interest (Interest on Interest):
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to cancel the order denying interest on delayed payment of interest and to direct the respondents to grant interest for the period of delay. The petitioner argued that under Sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, interest is payable if a refund is delayed beyond three months. The petitioner emphasized that the revenue's delay in refunding interest, which amounted to lakhs of rupees, should attract further interest. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Gujarat High Court (D.J. Works v. DCIT) and the Supreme Court (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi) to support the claim. The revenue countered that neither Section 214 nor Section 244 provided for payment of interest on interest and that a writ of mandamus could not be issued in the absence of a statutory provision.
2. Applicability of Sections 214, 244(1A), and 220 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that Sections 214 and 244(1A) recognized the right to recover interest on excess payments and that the revenue's failure to refund interest promptly should attract further interest. The petitioner also pointed out that under Section 156, any amount due to the revenue, including interest, must be paid within 30 days, failing which interest is payable under Section 220. The revenue argued that the Income Tax Act did not provide for payment of interest on interest and that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel the revenue to act contrary to the law.
3. Equity in Taxation Matters:
The petitioner contended that it would be violative of Article 14 to allow the revenue to recover interest on interest but deny the same right to the assessee. The revenue argued that equity had no application in taxation matters and that the principle of unjust enrichment should not be invoked to grant relief. The court noted that the principle of preventing unjust enrichment had been recognized in Indian Contract Act and applied in taxation matters, emphasizing that the cause of justice should prevail.
4. Precedent and Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments:
The court emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi had affirmed that the revenue could be made liable to pay interest on interest. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the Supreme Court's decision was based on estoppel, noting that the Supreme Court had also endorsed the principle that the question was rightly answered in favor of the assessee.
5. Applicability of Judgments from Other High Courts:
The petitioner relied on judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi High Court (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Goodyear India Ltd.) to support the claim for interest on interest. The revenue cited a contrary judgment from the Bombay High Court (Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax). The court preferred the view expressed by the Delhi High Court, which had held that interest was payable on the total amount due to the assessee, including interest, if the refund was delayed.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest based on the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi. The court set aside the order dated 09.09.97 and directed the department to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also highlighted the principle that the revenue could not challenge a decision it had accepted in one case in another case without just cause, reinforcing the principle of consistency in legal interpretation. The writ petition was allowed, and the department was directed to comply with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court granted a stay of the order's operation for three weeks.
-
2005 (4) TMI 582
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest deduction under sections 36(1)(iii) and 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Treatment of shares of a company as investment or stock-in-trade for claiming loss on valuation.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Deduction
The appeal was against the disallowance of interest deduction amounting to Rs. 13,41,215 by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee, an investment company, utilized borrowed funds for acquiring shares as investment and stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest deduction entirely, stating the primary objective was to acquire controlling interest rather than earning dividends. The ld. CIT(A) allowed deduction for interest to the extent of Rs. 96,040 for shares held as stock-in-trade. The remaining interest was deemed non-deductible under sections 36(1)(iii) and 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee argued that borrowed funds were fully used for business purposes, emphasizing the main object of the company to deal with shares and stocks. Citing various case laws, the assessee contended that interest on borrowed funds for share investments, whether for controlling interest or dividends, should be deductible under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and legal precedents, held that interest expenditure was allowable under section 36(1)(iii), overturning the disallowance by the ld. CIT(A).
Issue 2: Treatment of Shares as Investment or Stock-in-Trade
The second set of grounds pertained to the treatment of shares of a specific company as investment or stock-in-trade for claiming a loss on valuation. The shares were initially shown as investment but later as stock-in-trade in subsequent balance sheets. The revenue authorities rejected the claim, asserting the shares were held as investment. The Tribunal noted the conversion of shares from investment to stock-in-trade in later balance sheets. However, as the issue was not thoroughly examined, it was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the conversion claim based on entries in the relevant year's books of account and any board resolution. Additionally, the AO was instructed to assess the claim in line with section 45(2) of the IT Act and accept the loss if the conversion was genuine. Consequently, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai covers the issues of interest deduction disallowance and the treatment of shares for loss valuation, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.
-
2005 (4) TMI 581
Issues involved: Validity of Circular No.38/2000-Cus dated 10th May, 2000 challenged in various High Courts.
Summary:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the validity of Circular No.38/2000-Cus dated 10th May, 2000, which had been challenged in multiple High Courts. The High Court of Delhi, the Gujarat High Court, and the Calcutta High Court had all quashed the circular in separate judgments. Special Leave Petitions were filed against these decisions, with some being dismissed and others withdrawn. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the lower court decisions and dismissed the Civil Appeals without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 580
Whether the property in the goods had passed to the Government of India?
Whether the certificate dated 23-9-1999 issued by the Government, to the effect that these goods were for use by the Government and for no other purpose and the letter of the Chief General Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle dated 23-9-1999 wherein it is claimed that the articles belong to the Union Government do not alter the position in law?
-
2005 (4) TMI 579
Whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while undertaking judicial review of an administrative action relating to award of a contract?
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the CONCOR awarding the contract to the appellant?
-
2005 (4) TMI 578
Title: Supreme Court Judgment 2005 (4) TMI 578 - SC Order
Judges: Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Decision: Delay condoned. Review petitions and connected papers examined, no merit found. Petitions dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 577
Issues:
Interpretation of Explanation 5(2) to section 271(1)(c) for penalty imposition under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Explanation 5(2) to section 271(1)(c)
The case involved a question of law regarding the justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on whether conditions laid down in Explanation 5(2) to section 271(1)(c) were fulfilled, leading to the imposition or non-imposition of a penalty. The assessment year in question was 1989-90, where a search revealed undisclosed income, cash, jewellery, and investments. The assessee declared income during the search and seizure proceedings and moved for settlement. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) after concluding that Explanation 5 did not apply. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the assessee's declarations were covered by Explanation 5, indicating a clean-breast confession of undisclosed income to avoid prolonged litigation. The Tribunal emphasized the intention behind Explanation 5(2) to expedite tax collection and avoid disputes. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal concluded that the conditions of Explanation 5(2) were met, justifying the non-imposition of the penalty. The High Court, in line with the precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee, citing similarities with a previous case, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of avoiding unnecessary litigation and facilitating tax collection efficiently.
Conclusion:
The judgment primarily focused on the interpretation and application of Explanation 5(2) to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, highlighting the significance of voluntary disclosures by the assessee to streamline settlement proceedings and expedite tax collection. The decision underscored the importance of avoiding prolonged litigation and cooperation between the assessee and the tax authorities.
-
2005 (4) TMI 576
Issues:
1. Reward payment dispute regarding information on clandestine import.
2. Interpretation of the High Court order regarding reward amount and interest.
3. Contempt petition and the role of the Supreme Court in the matter.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the reward payment for providing information on clandestine import of machinery without duty payment. The Department confirmed the import, levied duty, and penalties based on the information provided by the Respondent. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, making it final. The Respondent received an initial reward amount, followed by a writ petition in the High Court for the final reward.
2. The High Court directed the payment of the final reward amount with interest, setting a deadline for payment. A Rewards Committee was formed, which determined the compensation payable and made a partial payment. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, found no merit in challenging the High Court order as the Committee had decided on the payable amount. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal did not imply acceptance of the compensation amount or affect the Contempt Petition pending in the High Court.
3. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that reward payments are discretionary and not a vested right, considering them as ex-gratia payments. Therefore, the Court set aside the High Court's direction to pay interest on the ex-gratia payment and the portion awarding costs. The Court concluded by dismissing the Civil Appeal, except for the modifications mentioned, and upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the reward payment.
-
2005 (4) TMI 575
... ...
... ... ..... . For Respondent(s) Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... r, JJ. ORDER Appeal admitted.
-
2005 (4) TMI 573
Issues Involved:
1. Remission of duties on expired beer under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Prohibition against recovery of duty or interest on expired beer.
3. Temporary restraint on recovery of duty or interest pending final resolution.
4. Permission to destroy expired beer.
5. Whether the petitioner firm is vicariously liable for penalties imposed on its employees.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Remission of duties on expired beer under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner, a partnership firm trading in Marine Stores, imported 823 cases of beer stored in a licensed private bonded warehouse. The warehousing license was suspended and later canceled, but the Tribunal set aside the cancellation and penalties. The petitioner sought remission of duties under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the beer had become unfit for human consumption and thus should be destroyed. Section 23(1) states that if imported goods are lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs must remit the duty. The court found that the goods had deteriorated and were unfit for human consumption, thus satisfying the criteria for remission under Section 23(1).
2. Prohibition against recovery of duty or interest on expired beer:
The petitioner argued that no duty should be levied as the goods were not cleared for home consumption. The court noted that the goods were stored in a licensed bonded warehouse, and duty would only be payable if the goods were taken out for home consumption. Since the goods had deteriorated and were not removed for home consumption, the court held that the respondent authorities could not demand any duty.
3. Temporary restraint on recovery of duty or interest pending final resolution:
Pending the final resolution of the petition, the petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from recovering any duty or interest. The court granted this interim relief, preventing the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner based on the letter dated 3-2-2004.
4. Permission to destroy expired beer:
The petitioner sought permission to destroy the expired beer, which had become unfit for human consumption. The court directed the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to destroy the goods in the presence of a proper officer within two weeks. The destruction process was to be carried out in compliance with environmental laws to avoid pollution or degradation.
5. Whether the petitioner firm is vicariously liable for penalties imposed on its employees:
The respondent argued that the petitioner firm was vicariously liable for penalties imposed on its employees for violating various provisions of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal had set aside the penalties and the cancellation of the warehousing license, finding no contravention of the Act by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was not liable for the penalties, as the Tribunal's findings had become final.
Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, directing the respondent authorities to permit the destruction of the expired beer and remit the duty under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court emphasized that no duty was payable as the goods were not cleared for home consumption, and the petitioner was not vicariously liable for the penalties imposed on its employees. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
........
|
9911796707
