|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 88 Records
-
1975 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Supplemental provisions ... ... ... ... ..... use notice has also been issued to her. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is valid or not is not a question which this court has been called upon to decide. But so long as proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the possibility of the confiscation of the amount in the event of the petitioner being found to have contravened the provisions of the Act is there, the amount in deposit has to be secured till those proceedings are over. It is not, therefore, possible for me at this stage to accept the petitioner s contention that a vicarious liability is thrown on her and that she is going to be vicariously held liable for the foreign exchange violation committed by her husband. All those questions are to be gone into in the adjudication proceedings initiated against the petitioner. This new contention also, therefore, fails. The result is, the writ petition fails and it is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (10) TMI 53 - ITAT RAJASTHAN
... ...
... ... ..... ithin the provisions of s. 10(1) of the CST Act in order to take benefit of the exemption provided therein. Sub-s. (2) to s. 10 of the CST Act makes it clear that the onus to prove that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sales referred to in s. 10(1), shall be on the dealer effecting such sale. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the Dy. CIT (A) that the dealer in this case had reasonable established that he met the requirements of law as laid down in s. 10(1) to get the benefit of exemption from liability to pay tax on inter-state sales of jawar and bajra in the present case. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the dealer also lead support to the view held by the learned Dy. CIT (A) in this case. In the circumstances, we hold that the Dy. CIT (A) had rightly rectified the mistake apparent on the face of the record under s. 17 of the RST Act r/w s. 10(1) of the CST Act. We, therefore, find no force in this revision and same is rejected.
-
1975 (10) TMI 50 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... at the list enclosed in the Notification is not exhaustive. This Notification also gives support to the view of the appellant that the machinery, tools, equipments, and accessories fall within the ambit of s. 8(3)(b) as involved in the process of manufacture. 4. These specific details explicitly available from r. 13 and s. 8(3), r. 13 and the related Notification sufficiently given scope for the classification of the goods as falling within the scope of the Articles mentioned in the Registration Certification and also as having been deployed in the process of manufacture. The view point expressed by the appellate authority that they are capital goods in nature has therefore no relevance or force in view of the specific positions adequately bone out by the provisions of the Act and Rules. 5. We therefore, do not find any scope or basis to sustain the view of the first appellate authority. The appellant succeeds in his claim. 6. In result, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,288.
-
1975 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... parate firms and therefore two separate taxable entities. If there is a case for aggregation, such a case has not been established before us. The authorities have not even suggested that there has been any camouflage or anything sham about the claim that there are two separate entities. They have been led by the concept of transfer under the General Law as explained by the Madras High Court in 21 STC 72 is pointed out the issue therein was different. Under the circumstances, we do not feel that the authorities were justified in including the turnover of Madras Drum Factory in the present appellant rsquo s case. We direct the elimination of such turnover. We would like to make it clear that out order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding to make an assessment on Madras Drum Factory as had been hitherto done. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is eligible for a relief on a turnover of Rs. 1,52,583.83 at 3-1/2 per cent and consequential surcharge.
-
1975 (10) TMI 47 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ould not be included under this Entry unless these are specifically included as in the case of entries like electrical goods under Entry 41, or bicycle under Entry 38. We have no material before us to suggest that Rosemary oil is ever treated by either the market or by the consumers either as a perfume or scent. In fact there is ample evidence to show that it is a base oil. Even as a base, it is not a primary base. It is one of the many basis. Again, it can be easily substituted. In view of these facts we are unable to uphold the view of the revising authority. We are of the opinion that the original assessment was correct. We do not find either the jurisdiction or the material to justify the revision made in the order dt. 30th March, 1974. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of revision dt. 30th March, 1974 is cancelled restoring the original assessment order dt. 30th April, 1973. The appellant is entitled to relief on a turnover of Rs. 9,203.56 at 4 per cent.
-
1975 (10) TMI 46 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the previous sellers. (b) As the tax is leviable on turnover and there is no provision either in the Act or Rules to identify them with related quantities, we find no scope for the type of treatment adopted by the authorities. (c) What the manufactures have chosen to do is to sell specific quantities including free units for an agreed consideration. This agreed consideration for the entire involved quantity at the point of first sale was properly subjected to assessment. The subsequent sales irrespective of the quantity aspect, may have to be treated as second and subsequent sales legible for exemption under r. 6. 11. In result we find no basis or scope to sustain the type of treatment adopted by the lower authorities. The appellant is found to be second and subsequent seller in respect of the turnover in dispute. The turnover under dispute is eligible for deduction under r. 6(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1975 (10) TMI 42 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... he liability of the assessee as expressed in Indian currency for making payment towards the whole or part of the cost of the asset. On such increased liability, extra deprecation would be available to the assessee. For statistical purposes this appeal is treated as allowed. ITA 971 mdash 6. ITA 971 is a consequential appeal. The point involved in this appeal pertains to the allowance of extra depreciation in terms of s. 43A of the IT Act, 1961. Inasmuch as we have disposed of this point in the manner indicated above, and inasmuch as the extra depreciation, to which the assessee is entitled under s. 43A is to be worked out denove, the present appeal becomes in our opinion, redundant. Therefore, without going into the merits of the orders of the ITO and the AAC on this point, we direct that the ITO would recompute the extra depreciation that the assessee may be entitled to in terms of s. 43 A of the IT Act, 1961. For statistical purposes, we will treat this appeal as dismissed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 41 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... o obligation to file the return either under s. 139(1) or under s. 139(2) of the Act. The assessee also took the plea that its income is subject to tax deducted at source under s. 195 of the Act and as such also the assessee was not obliged to file the return. The assessee was also under the impression that there was no income and as such no return was to be filed. From the aforesaid fact it is clear that there were reasonable causes which prevented the assessee from filing the return. Moreover, the conduct of the assessee has not been contumacious and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the assessee in conscious disregard of its obligation failed to file that return with a view to avoid taxation. Looking to the entire facts, circumstances and the probabilities of the case, we are satisfied that in this case no penalty is leviable. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the order of the AAC but on different grounds. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 40 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ed penalty proceedings and was of the view that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The ITO never initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. So on this point the finding of the learned IAC is wrong. 26. The decision relied on by the learned Departmental Representative are not applicable to the facts of the present case as such we do not think it necessary to discuss them in detail. In the Full Bench rsquo s case, before the Kerala High Court the point in issue was regarding imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a). As a matter of fact, the Hon rsquo ble High Court was not called upon the decide the scope of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. under these circumstances that decision also is not applicable in the present case. The other decisions also do not have any bearing on the point at issue and as such we do not think it necessary to discuss them. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned penalty order is cancelled.
-
1975 (10) TMI 39 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ent for gross profit shown by the assessee for the entire work appears to be fair and reasonable considering the various adverse factors affecting its margin of gross profit in this work. Looked at from any point of view, we are satisfied that the order of the AAC is right in respect of both the years and that there is no basis for the estimate of gross profit at 14 per cent by the ITO in respect of these two years. The ITO rsquo s estimate completely overlooks the adverse factors affecting the assessee rsquo s contract work at Sarni. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the orders of the AAC. Accordingly, the orders of the AAC are confirmed and the Department rsquo s appeals are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the assessee simply support the order of the AAC as justified. They shall be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, ITA Nos. 426 and 427 (Jab)/74-75 are dismissed. The assessee rsquo s cross objections are treated as allowed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 38 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... returns. It is quite understandable that, placed in that situation, he took some time to get the necessary information. It is also a fact that all these returns have been filed by the parties voluntarily, without waiting for a notice from the Department and their returns also have been substantially accepted by the Department and the taxes assessed on them have also been promptly paid. All these factors would indicate that the assessees have not acted in deliberate or conscious disregard of their legal obligations. On the other hand, it would go to show that they hastened to comply with the legal requirements as soon as it was practicable for them to do so. Having regard to these circumstances, we have to hold that the AAC has rightly held that there was reasonable cause for their failure to file the returns within the time and he has rightly cancelled the penalties levied on them. 6. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the AAC. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 37 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... r going through the account books which were lying with the Department. We think that the obvious connection of these two receipts, interest and commission both recorded in the same set of books lying with the Department cannot be ignored and so, it will not be possible to hold that the assessee had concealed the receipt of interest. There two matters are inter-connected, and we consider is as two aspects of the same business. 8. This will bring us to the alternative contention of the assessee that if penalty is to be based only on the difference between the income returned and the income assessed, he would have no objection. As our discussion above shows, the receipts from commission as well as interest are inter-mingled and cannot be separated, if that is so, there cannot be any concealment in respect of interest alone. We will, therefore, accept the assessee s alternative contention and hold that the penalty has to be reduced to Rs. 5,500. 9. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 36 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ntioned only in Form No. 10. Whether this time limit mentioned in Form No. 10 is in harmony which the provisions of the statute has been examined by the Madras High Court in the case of M.C.T. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust vs. 4th ITO, City Circle VI, Madras and Ors. reported in 182. They have held that the words in the prescribed manner in s. 11(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 do not confer power on the rule-making authority to prescribe a time limit for making an application for exemption under the section. Therefore, paragraphs 2 and 4 in Form No. 10 issued in pursuance of r. 17 of the IT Rules, 1962, are ultra vires in that the rule making authority has exceeded its limit in including in the Form the said two paragraphs. This view has also been accepted by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case quoted. We will, therefore, hold that the entire income of Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust is exempt. The Departmental appeal thereon is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 35 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... te, it appears to be so from the commentary under s. 47 in the Transfer of Property Act. If they are co-owners then the Supreme Court has pointed out in the case of Champaran Cane Concrn vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 49 ITR 152 (SC), that there will be no community of profits or loss. If there is no community of profits or loss then the income does not accrue to the BOI initially. The income goes directly to the members and it was only for convenience sake that one of them receives it on behalf of others. We will, therefore, hold that the status cannot be BOI. 12. As stated earlier, individual members are entitled to receive share of capital gains and they should be assessed directly and there is no other body which could be described as AOP, BOI or HUF which is interposed between the members and the income arising from cutting of trees. Therefore the assessment on the assessee as AOP or BOI is incorrect. The assessments have to be vacated. The appeals are allowed.
-
1975 (10) TMI 34 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... equate consideration. So the excess of market value of the gifted property over the amount of loan was treated as deemed gift. That is the basis for assessment. 3. These facts show that the nexus between what the husband gifted to the assessee-wife and what she gifted back is far too remote to say that what was gifted back was a gift out of the gift received by the assessee from her husband So s. 5(3) of the GT Act has no application. The gift tax authorities had proceeded on the basis of wrong facts to the effect that with Rs. 30,000 received as gift by the assessee from her husband she acquired one-third share in a cinema theatre and that later what she gifted back was that one-third share which had got enhanced in value. If that were the correct facts then the authorities may perhaps be right in the view they held. But in this case the facts are entirely different. 4. Therefore the appeal is allowed. The assessment is cancelled. The original assessment is restored to file.
-
1975 (10) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Natural justice - Cross-examination, voluntary - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... passed the order on the basis of the other relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of the irrelevant or non-existing grounds could not have affected the ultimate opinion or decision. The Court took the view that on the facts of the case though the first ground mentioned in the order was subsequently found not to exist and was irrelevant, that did not affect the order, inasmuch as, the Court was reasonably certain that the State Government would have passed the order on the basis of the second ground alone. Applying the ratio of these two decisions to the facts of the instant case before us, we are reasonably satisfied that the 3rd Respondent would have passed the same order on the basis of other material that was available before him and the exclusion of irrelevant material would not have affected the ultimate decision. 18.In the result, both the petitions fail and the rule in each is, therefore, discharged. 19.In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (10) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Export - Confiscation - Definition of - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... We are unable to uphold the contention of the learned Advocate-General that execution of the bond disentitles the appellants from getting a relief which they would otherwise get. 10.In view of what has been held above, namely, that there was no mis-declaration of goods to attract the provisions of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. that a declaration of value for foreign exchange was not material for the purpose of Customs Act that the goods were not either dutiable or export goods and that by making a wrong decision as to jurisdictional facts the Customs authorities could not confer jurisdiction upon themselves the appeal succeeds. The order and judgment of the Court below are set aside. The Rule issued on the 14th of July, 1969 is hereby made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. There will be a stay of operation of this order for a period of 6 weeks after the reopening of Court after the long vacation. Assent per S.K. Mukherjee, J. . - I agree. Rule made absolute.
-
1975 (10) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... illegal. In other words, without the amendment the bar, which could have been pleaded successfully after 14-9-1973 or 28-9-1973, vanished and there is nothing to prevent the Government Officers to take action against the petitioners. 13.No other question arises in the present proceeding nor was any other point discussed at the Bar. In the view, which we have taken the Criminal Application No. 357 of 1975 ought to be dismissed. 14.In view of this decision Mr. Saldhana says that he does not press Criminal Application No. 1242 of 1975 for return of the attached goods. He will make an appropriate application before the Magistrate, whenever the matter goes back to the Magistrate after the judgment which we have delivered. The learned Magistrate would undoubtedly deal with that application on merits if and when the same is presented to him. Consequently, Criminal Application No. 857 of 1975 stands dismissed and no orders are passed in Criminal Application No. 1242. Rule discharged.
-
1975 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
Import of goods in contravention of prohibition or restrictions — Adjudication order must be reasoned order — Classification of goods
-
1975 (10) TMI 29 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Zinc Callots liable to duty under Tariff Item 68 ... ... ... ... ..... assifiable under Item 68 I.C.T., which covers zinc manufactures, not otherwise specified. Significantly, at that point of time, zinc strips were covered under Item 68(4) I.C.T. 4. Government observe that it is settled law that if product is neither defined in the First Schedule nor is defined in the Act, it should be classified according to the meaning attached to it by those dealing with it, that is to say, to its commercial sense. The product punched out of zinc strips is known and sold to the dry battery manufacturers as callots and not as strips. Zinc callots have thus a distinct and separate identity in commercial nomenclature. Further, callots are not included in sub-item (2) of Item 26B of the CET. The inevitable conclusion that follows is that these would be classifiable as goods not otherwise specified under entry 68 of the CET. 5. In view of the above, Government find no reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
|
