Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (3) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 88 of 88 Records
-
1964 (3) TMI 8
Seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... difference of fine if such a fine ultimately imposed by the adjudicating authority was in excess of the sums already collected from him. By reason of this undertaking the petitioner would be entitled to possession of the goods till an order adverse to him is passed. What all the department can demand from the petitioner is only the payment of the fine in lieu of confiscation. I cannot understand how when this specific undertaking has already been recorded, the department can now demand that the goods should be returned to the department or their value estimated at Rs. 300 should be deposited. 5.The goods were released on a proper undertaking and it is not open to the department to make a demand of this description pending final order upon the matter. In this view, a writ of prohibition will issue. It will be open to the department to enforce either the undertaking or the security bond whichever is available for their purpose in due course. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1964 (3) TMI 7
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... annot be asked to go into facts again. Lastly it was contended that the first warrant issued in the name of Mr. J.N. Gaur had exhausted itself after the search of House No. 15 and thereafter the search was carried out by the police under the Arms Act and the seizure of gold by the police could not attract Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. There is no trace of such a point in the petition and it appears to have been raised for the first time in this appeal perhaps because the other points mentioned earlier stand concluded against the appellant by several decisions of this Court. The point now sought to be raised is not one on which an affidavit by the opposite side would not have been necessary if the High Court had considered it good and allowed it to be taken to trial. We cannot allow this new point to be raised because to do so would be to hear the appeal on a point which the High Court was not even called upon to consider. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
-
1964 (3) TMI 6
Manufacturer - Connotation of - Constitution - Alternate remedy - Existence of ... ... ... ... ..... tory is oil manufactured by the factory and the factory is liable to pay excise duty thereon. If it is the owner of the factory which manufactures the oil who is to be treated as the manufacturer of the oil, it follows that the person who supplies the oilseeds cannot be the manufacturer. This strengthens the conclusion to which I have already arrived that the petitioner is not the manufacturer in respect of the vegetable non-essential oils manufactured by the other oil mills out of oilseeds supplied by it. 7. The petitioner not being the manufacturer was not liable to be assessed to excise duty on the oil in dispute and accordingly the demand notices and the order of detention of the oil were illegal. In the result 1 allow the writ petition, quash the demand notices and the order of detention and direct the respondents not to recover the excise duty from the petitioner in pursuance of the said demand notices. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs from the respondents.
-
1964 (3) TMI 5
Income from the building called 'fort' is agricultural income within the meaning of s. 2(1)(c) of the IT Act and accordingly exempt
-
1964 (3) TMI 4
Set up a cement factory as a separate unit - factory was actually set up and was ready for production in Feb., 1958 - Meanwhile, the Act came into force on April 1, 1957 - Taking advantage of the Act, the assessee claimed exemption for the three assessment years - assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)
-
1964 (3) TMI 3
Setting up of plant - Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1) of the WT Act for the three asst. yrs. 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 - Held, Yes
-
1964 (3) TMI 2
Search - extent of the seizure was far beyond the limits of section 132 - action was mala fide in the sense that there was abuse of power conferred on the ITO by s. 132 of the Act - since the act being mala fide, the proceedings should be quashed by court by issuing a writ of mandamus
-
1964 (3) TMI 1
Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment which had become final ... ... ... ... ..... Court, and so far as it is concerned, the authority of the Supreme Court in Atmala Nagaraj s case holds the field, and as it is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, it must be held that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction on the facts as mentioned above to reopen on the basis of his notice under section 35(5) of the Act the assessment on the assessee, which had already been finalised before the 1st April, 1952. This argument, in our view, is unanswerable and it must, therefore, be held that the enhanced assessment in the order dated the 16th October, 1958, of the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (5) of section 35 of the Act is without jurisdiction and of no effect. This order and, in consequence, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated the 7th May, 1962, are quashed by a writ of certiorari. As the legal question involved in this case is not free from difficulty, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
|
|