|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 88 Records
-
1975 (10) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH,
Unmanufactured Tobacco - Transfer of ... ... ... ... ..... mined but statements are made that the office of the Superintendent. verified from the documents on the record. Even the numbers of the application of removal form and transport permit mentioned in the order of the Superintendent do not tally with the number of those numbers mentioned in the show cause notice. Under such circumstances we find hat there is no proper enquiry ii., the matter as to whether duty paid tobacco was transported or not by Bhai Laxmandas while effecting the sale-note in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, pass the following orders 10. 8195 The petition is allowed. The orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dated 20-3-1968, 4-1-1969 and 3-11-1969 respectively are quashed. The department is free to institute enquiry about the breach of the provisions of Rule 32, if any, against the petitioner as well as Bhai Laxmandas, considering the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Penalty paid be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1975 (10) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
"Use of power or steam" - Meaning of - Soap Stock used in manufacture of soap - Scope and effect - Appellate and Revisionary orders
-
1975 (10) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Set-off/refund of duty - Criteria for payment ... ... ... ... ..... fy the authorities concerned on this question. The relevant notification in this behalf also cast a duty on the petitioner to satisfy the taxing authorities on this question and it is then only that the petitioner would be entitled to a set off of the amount which has already been paid by way of tax. 14. For the aforesaid reasons these petitions are allowed and the different impugned orders passed in this behalf by the respondents are quashed. The burden shall be on the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authorities by placing the relevant record before them to prove that on a particular quantity tax had already been collected and that on such material, tax had further been imposed and collected. On such proof the petitioner shall be entitled to a set-off for the amount which it had already paid and if there be excess amount it shall be entitled to a refund. 15. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of security deposit be refunded back to the petitioner.
-
1975 (10) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDE
Confiscations of tobacco ... ... ... ... ..... be held that the petitioner has not indulged in any misuse of the sale note. The only question is whether there was delay as alleged. In the sale note the starting time is mentioned as night 9.00 hours . The time when the vehicle reached the destination is not noted. In the order of the Assistant Collector (1st respondent) dated 6-4-1971 in paragraph 2 it is stated that under Rule 32(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 34, the period of validity of sale note No. 34, dated 3-7-1969 has expired by dawn on 4-7-1969. The case of the petitioner is that he reached the destination by 8.00 A.M. on 4-7-1969, and this is not disputed. So, I do not see any conceivable delay which warrants such a drastic step of confiscating the tobacco. 6. For these reasons I quash the orders of the respondents and the petitioner shall be entitled for the refund of the entire amount that is deposited by him. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed without costs. Advocate Fees Rs. 100/-.
-
1975 (10) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Summons or order ... ... ... ... ..... which we have to interpret in this case. The wording used in the rule interpreted in those decisions was if none of the methods indicated is available service may be effected by affixture. There is no such provision in Section 153(b) of the Customs Act. We think the methods indicated in Section 153(a) are alternative methods any one of which could be attempted in the first instance. The different modes of service provided by the rule also support the view either tendering to the person (apparently when it is feasible) or attempting to serve on his agent (apparently when one is available) or by sending by registered post. To say that an attempt to tender notice must be made in cases where it is not feasible or even possible or that an attempt should be made to serve on an agent when there is no agent or none is known to exist would be to make the section unworkable. 3. We see no reason to interfere. We dismiss this appeal but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1975 (10) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT
Whether condensed skimmed milk fell within the Exemption Notification No. G.S.R. 339, dated the 1st March, 1970 and not within the excluded Item 13 of that notification?
Held that:- In Item 13 of the notification when the Government added the words "whether sweetened or not" it did mean to classify the condensed milk of sweetened or unsweetened variety but did not intended to include in Item 13 condensed skimmed milk whether sweetened or unsweetened.
Even assuming that the petitioner had a manufacturing licence under Section 6 of the Act only for manufacture of condensed milk that by itself will not take condensed skimmed milk out of the Exemption Notification and include it in the excluded Item 13. For the purpose of levy of excise duty, therefore, condensed skimmed milk remains included in the Exemption Notification. Appeal allowed - direct the respondents not to enforce their demand of excise duty
-
1975 (10) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... company became liable to pay on account of acts of omission and commission prior to the date of the winding-up order that the liability would arise. If the assessment order or the order of penalty was passed within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the relevant date, namely, August 20, 1968, it would be entitled to priority in the light of what we have stated above. Under these circumstances, we allow O. J. Appeal No. 2 of 1975 to the extent to which priority can be granted as pointed out above and as regards Company Application No. 26 of 1973, the liquidator will give priority to the sales tax dues and income-tax dues in the light of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs in either of these two matters as the provision of law was not clear at the time when the rival contentions were taken up. Company Application No. 26 of 1973 will now go back to the learned single judge for being dealt with according to law in the light of what is stated herein.
-
1975 (10) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, The Constitution, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ond question referred to us does not at all arise for consideration and we would refuse to answer the same. As regards the question No. 3, the same would not be needed to be replied as it is not necessary to consider the alternative contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-assessee before the taxing authorities with reference to section 10(14) or section 16(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At this stage we may note that the Appellate Tribunal has not referred the question to us, whether the compensatory allowance could be considered to be perquisite. But as an argument was advanced on behalf of the department, we have dealt with the same by negativing the department s contention that it could be considered to be the perquisite as well. Let the reference be returned to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for passing a consequential order in accordance with this judgment. However, under the circumstances, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1975 (10) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agricultural Produce, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ity for a higher price. The fact that the movable property now in question springs from, or is the product of, agricultural operations carried out by the owner, or tenant of agricultural land, does not lead to the conclusion that the profit of a trader who has no interest in the land but who buys and sells the movable property in the course of his trade is agricultural income as defined in the Act. We are in respectful agreement with these observations. The reference must be, as it is, in that view answered in the negative and in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax as follows The Tribunal was, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, not right in holding that the portion of the assessee s income arising from the sale of rice in so far as it related to paddy supplied by the members of the society was exempt under section 14(3)(i)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner shall have his costs of these proceedings. Hearing fee Rs. 100, if certified.
-
1975 (10) TMI 19 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en the condition imposed by section 34(3)(a) is satisfied. The Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporations Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, Income-tax Officer, for accepting the assessee s contention that even if for the year in question the assessee was not entitled to allowance of development rebate, the Income-tax Officer is obliged to calculate the same for the purpose of carry-forward. In our view a bare construction of the sections supports the decision of the Tribunal and it is unnecessary to examine precedents. The scheme contemplates the computation of development rebate which has to be carried forward in the manner prescribed by the statute to be allowed in such years when the condition imposed under section 34(3)(a) of the Act is satisfied. In. our view, the decision of the Tribunal is in accord with the statutory provision and no error can be found. The application of the revenue must accordingly fail. PANDA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, High Court, Income Tax Act, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... incurred immediately when according to the agreements machinery and plant were supplied and transferred to the assessee-company. It was in the calendar year 1962 that the assessee-company debited the price of plant and machinery to the account of plant and machinery. The fact that the disbursement of that liability was spread over a period of five years would not, in our opinion, make any difference. In that view of the matter, therefore, we do not think that the Tribunal was in error in treating this expenditure as capital expenditure and reversing the order of the Additional Commissioner directing to treat this amount as revenue expenditure. In that view of the matter we answer the questions referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1974 and Income-tax Reference No. 136 of 1974 in the affirmative. In Income-tax Reference No. 78 of 1975, we answer both the questions raised by us in the affirmative. The Commissioner shall pay costs of these references to the assessee.
-
1975 (10) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... en a revised return is filed under section 16(3), there should be a further provisional assessment It is contended that, when a revised return is filed, the first return should be deemed to have been withdrawn. In our opinion, this is entirely fallacious. There could be only one return and what is contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 16 is a revised return, which cannot be understood without the original return. In that sense, once a provisional assessment has been made on the basis of a return, or a revised return, before such an assessment was made, section 18 does not contemplate, nor does the second proviso to rule 7, that there should be yet another provisional assessment in the light of the fresh particulars given. We are of opinion. therefore, that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is right in his view that the revised return will, be taken into account at the final assessment proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (10) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Family Property, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... disclosed for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Act as expeditiously as possible. It is not permissible, that amounts in deposit in banks should be frozen as has been done by exhibit P-1 order for any length of time as it would be prejudicial to the 1st respondent in each of these cases and we consider prejudicial to the revenue because any harm that is done to the business of the assessees would certainly reduce the capacity of the assessee to pay any tax that may have to be imposed on them and might make recovery of that tax impossible. We, therefore, direct that further steps will be taken as expeditiously as possible. We are unable, with respect, to agree with the learned judge that the order, exhibit P-1, in each of the cases should be vacated. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal, allow these writ appeals and dismiss the originally petitions subject to what we have stated above. We, direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1975 (10) TMI 15 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... ee. As found here by the Tribunal, the primary health centre was the property of the Government. Assessee made a substantial contribution to meet the costs of erection in consideration of the fact that a health centre located near the factory premises would provide treatment to the ailing workmen. Under the State Employees Insurance Act assessee had obligation to maintain a hospital or meet the expenses on treatment. Taking an overall picture of the matter, the Tribunal recorded the finding that, in the facts of the case, it was business expenditure. We are not inclined to take a different view. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 12,137, donated by the assessee to the Collector, Balasore, for the construction of the primary health centre building at Rupsa is an admissible revenue expenditure. The assessee shall have its costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. PANDA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... unal on this question of fact is without any evidence or that the finding is perverse, irrational or arbitrary, and a specific question in such terms is raised before us, the assessee cannot now contend that the Tribunal has gone wrong in its finding. Here no such question has been raised, and, therefore, the only inference that can be drawn, on the basis of the unchallenged facts, is the inference that the Tribunal itself has drawn. (See Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manna Ramji and Co. and Rameshwar Prasad Bagla v. Commissioner of Income-tax). In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this Tax Referred Case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1975 (10) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, High Court, Income Tax Act, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... the use of the words further be reduced , the legislature has clearly indicated that the deduction of municipal taxes contemplated by the proviso and the Explanation to sub-section (1) as they existed prior to April 1, 1969, has to be made and, thereafter, the amount so determined has to be further reduced as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 23, so far as self-occupied properties are concerned. Under these circumstances the conclusion reached by the Tribunal regarding the legal effect of section 23, sub-section (2), in respect of self-occupied property is correct and it must be held that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that while calculating the annual letting value of the property in question in the occupation of the owner for the purpose of his residence, municipal taxes have to be deducted. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1975 (10) TMI 12 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Additional Evidence, Appeal To AAC, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... al with the claim in accordance with law. It is conceded before us that the claim regarding the status of the assessee as also registration of the firm are dependent upon the acceptance of the claim of partition. If the assessee fails to establish his claim of partition as alleged, the claim of status as also registration of the firm would stand rejected. In case the claim of partition is accepted, these two questions have to be independently examined on their own merits. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, these two questions cannot be answered at this stage. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the assessee has succeeded to establish his claim of partition, these two questions have to be examined on the basis of the materials available before the Tribunal and in case the assessee fails to establish his claim of partition, these questions must be taken to have been concluded against the assessee. We make no order as to costs of these references. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... by the assessee from the insurer for damage caused to its goods. The claim for compensation for damage caused to the goods had been settled with the insurer and the sum so settled did not include any excess profit. The excess profit arose entirely due to the devaluation. This excess amount was in the nature of a windfall, being the unexpected fruit of devaluation, and it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a receipt arising from business though it may be said in a sense to be a receipt in the course of business. We hold that the Tribunal had correctly held that the sum of Rs. 13,455.75 received by the assessee was not a receipt arising from its business within the meaning of section 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1975 (10) TMI 10 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... iction to initiate a proceeding for imposition of penalty. Once it is conceded that the appellate authority had jurisdiction to rectify the defect appearing in the order of the Income-tax Officer and in case rectification required enhancement, the first appellate authority having that power, an enhancement made by the first appellate authority by following the requirements of law cannot be challenged. We are not prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Ray that the order imposing the penalty by the the Income-tax Officer was a nullity. Undoubtedly, there was a mistake and, therefore, an error had crept into the order imposing the penalty. The appellate authority was wholly within jurisdiction to rectify it. That has been done in this case. There is hardly any scope to be aggrieved by what has been done by the appellate authority much less does a question of law arise out of the order. We, accordingly, reject the application but make no direction for costs. PANDA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Recovery Proceedings, Tax Recovery Officer ... ... ... ... ..... petition along with the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Murtizapur, and direct the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, to get the appeal filed on June 14, 1968, before the Sub-Divisional Officer withdrawn to his own file and treating it as an appeal under rule 86(a), hear the parties and decide the same according to law. During the present proceedings a sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited by the petitioner. The same would be refunded to the petitioner. As we have found that the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction and as on the record there is an order confirming the sale of the two fields, i.e., Survey Nos. 155 and 156 mentioned above, the petitioner is not entitled to remain in possession thereof. The petitioner to hand over the possession to the auction-purchaser within one month. If his appeal succeeds, it is obvious that he will be restored back to the possession. Though the petition is thus allowed, we do not make any orders as to costs.
|
