|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 130 Records
-
1976 (2) TMI 149 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... own published by the McGraw Hill Book Company, New York and London, at page 538, may be read Cotton waste from spinning mills consists principally of short fibres that have been rejected by machines in the process of combing and carding and also floor sweepings, odds and ends from weaving, and various scraps. It is thus clear that in the process of separating the seeds from the fibres that this waste product is taken out. The fact that waste cotton could be put to use to several purposes including as raw material in rayon manufacturing after due processing is not a ground for holding that it is neither cotton nor cotton waste, but some other product, which is exigible to tax under section 5(1) of the Act. Cotton and cotton waste have distinct meanings. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the commodity is a product called lint , exigible to tax as general goods. In the result, the revisions are allowed with costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 148 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 must stand annulled. 7.. The writ application is allowed in part. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the opposite parties to satisfy the demands raised by the Cuttack-1 (West) Circle for the period ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 out of the excess deposits made in the Rourkela Circle for the corresponding period. If there be any excess amount to be paid after adjustment is effected, for the balance amount, the petitioner s liability under the Act shall continue and the petitioner will be obliged to satisfy the same. We further direct that the penalties levied under section 13(5) of the Act for the aforesaid two periods in respect of the Cuttack-1 (West) Circle assessments, shall stand quashed. The prayer of the petitioner to require the Commissioner of Sales Tax to redispose of its application for consolidated returns stands rejected. We direct the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding. MOHANTI, J.-I agree.
-
1976 (2) TMI 147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aside the order of penalty. The Tribunal is not correct in stating that the assessing officer had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. In fact, the assessing officer, after discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. The use of the word suppression shows that what the assessing officer found was wilful non-disclosure. If it was not a wilful non-disclosure, the assessing officer would have stated as merely omissions. The use of the word suppression clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty merely on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure. These two tax revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the penalty is set aside. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the trust deed was void and fraudulent?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. It cannot be said in the present case that the trust deed executed by the settlors is prima facie fraudulent or a colourable transaction. It will, however, be open to the sales tax authorities to avoid the document by bringing a properly constituted suit, if so advised. We would also like to make it clear that any observation regarding the validity of the document that has been made in this case by us will be confined only to the materials that have been placed before us and will not prejudice the merits of either party in a suitable action which may be brought.
-
1976 (2) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Power to order costs It is duty of Court to consider each case on merits, Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court
-
1976 (2) TMI 134 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Meetings and proceedings - Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed ... ... ... ... ..... st respondent not to give effect to the resolution passed on January 29, 1976, cannot be granted as that will amount to preventing the statutory authority from exercising his statutory function under the Indian Companies Act. So long as the resolution dated January 29, 1976, passed at the meeting had been recorded in the minutes of the company, the first respondent has to proceed on the basis of the minutes and record the resolution passed at the meeting in view of section 195 of that Act. As and when a shareholder or a person interested successfully challenges the validity of the meeting then it is possible for the petitioner or any person interested to approach the first respondent to modify the entries in his record. But when the resolution passed in the annual general meeting has not been held to be invalid by any court so far, no mandamus can issue to the first respondent not to perform his statutory duties. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... the company as revealed in the correspondence at its face value, it means that Kantilal Shah, the director in both the transferor and transferee companies, indulged consciously in manipulation of accounts and fabrication of documents. By this method, he also inflated the figures of his own company while being generous to oblige a friend. These are criminal acts. By their nature they are serious. Another act of the directors of the transferee-company, Jaifabs Textile Mills Private Ltd. was to keep the order of amalgamation passed by this court a guarded secret. Both the transferor and transferee companies continued to issue cheques to their creditors, many of which bounced. Having regard to the material circumstances before the filing of the petition and thereafter, it is a fit case in which I should not award costs to the company. The court lacks in power to saddle the officers (of the company) personally with costs. In the circumstances, the application for costs is refused.
-
1976 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... resuming business in the foreseeable future has been fully made out. Under clause (c) of section 433, a company may be wound up by the court if it suspends its business for a whole year. Under clause (e), a winding-up order can be made if the company is unable to pay its debts. In my opinion, the Registrar has fully made out a case both under clauses (c) and (e). In the result, the petition is allowed. Messrs. M.K. Brothers (Private) Ltd., Kanpur, is directed to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The order may be advertised in one issue each of a newspaper in the English language and a newspaper in the regional language circulating in this State at the discretion of the Registrar of Companies. The order shall also be served on the managing director of the company. The official liquidator shall take over custody of the property and effects and books and papers of the company and shall proceed in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
company’s failure to comply with part XI not to affect its liability under contracts, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... rule would not lead to injustice and would receive recognition in foreign countries. I, therefore, hold that a court in this country has no jurisdiction over a company incorporated in a foreign country merely by reason of the fact that such foreign corporation may have an office within the jurisdiction of such court, except in respect of cause of action arising at the place where its office is located. I also hold that in applying that rule, the fact that the office in question may have been registered with the Registrar of Companies as the principal place of business of such foreign corporation in India under section 592(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, would make no difference. Applying that rule to the admitted facts of the present case, I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try the present suit. The preliminary issue framed by me must, therefore, be answered in the negative and against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff s suit is dismissed with costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... ue a notice before imposing the penalty after a period of about 2 years. The ITO did wait for this period but did not call for the explanation of the assessee. Imposition of penalty in such circumstances cannot be justified, as it is bad in law. 8. Regarding the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the order is bad for the same reason. Moreover, on facts the basis for imposition of penalty is not reasonable. The non-addition of interest by the assessee would not be taken to be concealment as according to the assessee the amount of interest had been paid but he was not able to substantiate this explanation by adequate evidence. The personal expenses were also shown as such in the profit and loss account and thus there was no intention of concealing any facts from the Department. The penalty has not to be imposed for inadvertent omission. The order imposing penalty, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. The orders of the ITO are, therefore, cancelled. The appeals are allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 98 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... ormal hospitality to customers and should not be treated as entertainment expenses. We find that no details were available for these expenses and merely it was stated that they were entertainment expenses. However, from the very volume of expenses, it appears that they could not be in the nature of entertainment and they appeared to be normal shop expenses of the assessee. We direct that the amount should be allowed as a deduction as they were not, in fact, entertainment expenses. 7. In the asst. yr. 1973-74, there is ground regarding the claim of bad debt of Rs. 1,945. The AAC has held that there was nothing to show these debts in these years. Before us also no further evidence has been produced in this regard. Most of the items are old and there was nothing to show that they related to this year and nothing happened in the course of this year to make it bad debt. We confirm the disallowance. 8. The appeal for 1972-73 is allowed and the appeal for 1973-74 is allowed in part.
-
1976 (2) TMI 97 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that in the absence of the availability of capital account in the firm, the assessee could not file the wealth-tax return. As soon as the figures were available, the wealth-tax return was filed. He, therefore, submitted that the delay was due to a reasonable cause. 6. Having heard the arguments, we are of the view that the AAC was justified in cancelling the penalty as he found that the delay in the filing of the return was due to a reasonable cause. The assessee rsquo s major wealth was in the shape of his capital in these two firms and in the absence of the accounts of the firm being finalised, the position of the capital account could not be ascertained. In view of this the delay was properly explained. The fact that the assessee did not file petition for could not take away the assessee rsquo s contention that the delay was due to reasonable cause. We therefore, uphold the order of the AAC. 7. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 96 - ITAT PATNA-A
... ...
... ... ..... uge addition. He also submitted that the AAC had not held that the profits should be estimated on the basis of net receipts. 7. Having considered the arguments, we are of the view that the AAC was justified in deleting the addition made by the ITO. The ITO has not mentioned any defects whatsoever in the manner of proper maintenance of the books and defects in them. The AAC, on the other hand, found the books to the deleted and also found that the materials were always in the custody of the Government and the assessee could not make any profit on such payment which were included in the gross receipts. He also found the results to be reasonable in there circumstances. He, therefore, held that the result shown by the assessee should be accepted. The AAC did not lay down any principle that in all cases net payment should be the basis for considering the profits. Considering all the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the AAC. 8. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 91 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... is the case. But I am not aware of the conditions and trade that prevailed in that year. The ITO has not relied upon this aspect when making the estimate. Shri Habib Ahmad also relied upon the margin disclosed by certain other merchants of Durg and stated that the assessee whose business is carried on in a village must have earned a better margin. Shri Habib Ahmad has not placed before me particulars of the margin of profit of the merchants of Durg in earlier assessment year. Therefore, I cannot say whether the margin shown by these merchants can be considered as of any guidance in the case of the assessee. 5. Having regard to the available material and all the circumstances of the case, I hold that the margin of profit disclosed by the assessee is not unreasonably low. Therefore, I hold that no addition is called for. I direct that the addition of Rs.1,800 sustained by the AAC is deleted. 6. The assessee s capital is allowed and the departmental Cross Objection is dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 88 - ITAT MADURAI
... ...
... ... ..... ivery charges for the goods sold and will clearly fall within the charges for delivery admissible under s. 2(h) of the CST Act, and s. 8(5) is not in any way hit by the Amendment s. 8A and the G.O.P. 3824, Revenue, dt. 25th Sept., 1960 we withdrawn only on 30th Jan., 1974 and till that date, the appellant was eligible to get the benefits of the exemption granted under the said G.O. It is the opinion of the AAC that s. 8A overrides the privileges granted under s. 8(5) and G.O.P. 3824, Revenue, dt. 25th Sept., 1960 became inoperative, in consequences of the amendment and passing of another G.O. rescinding the privileges. On a careful consideration of the view expressed of both sides, we are inclined to agree that the G.O.P. 3824, Revenue, dt. 25th Sept., 1960, was in force during the year of assessment (1971-72) and that the appellant is eligible to get the exemption. Accordingly the order passed by AAC on this point is set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 87 - ITAT MADURAI
... ...
... ... ..... essment year under appeal (i.e. 1969-70) falls between 1960 and 1974 during which period, the relevant notification exempting packing charges from tax liability under the CST Act was in force. We agree with the learned Authorised Representative that the Government Order exempting packing charges was in force at the time of determining the impugned assessment. The appellants further relied upon 32 STC 377 for getting the benefit under G.O. 3874, Revenue, dt. 26th Sept., 1960. We have also decided in similar cases which came up for disposal in M.T.A. Nos. 388/74 and 68/75, that the assessee are eligible for exemption towards packing charges under the G.O. 3874, Revenue, dt. 26th Sept., 1960. Inasmuch as the present assessment falls within the relevant period, the inclusion of packing charges in the taxable turnover of the appellants is not sustainable. Accordingly we allow the appeal directing the assessing authority to delete the sum of Rs. 23,358.55 from the taxable turnover.
-
1976 (2) TMI 84 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the ITO as pointed out by Shri Raghavan for the Revenue. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram vs. Volkart Bros. Reported in, a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. The ITO who made the original assessments was fully aware of the entirety of the facts of the case as set out above and he has not given any finding on the said facts that the assessee was carrying on the business of live-stock breeding. The succeeding ITO appears to have taken the view that the assessee was carrying on the business of live-stock breeding. When on the same set of facts two different views as aforesaid are taken that itself shows that that the mistake is not a mistake apparent on the record. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the order of the AAC. 6. The appeals of the Revenue fail and are dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 81 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ropriate order to be passed by the Tribunal is an order modifying the Commissioner rsquo s order and permitting the assessee to plead for waiver before the ITO particularly when the Tribunal is inclined to hold the view that the CIT is right in thinking that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. After considering all the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appropriate order which we should think fit to pass in this case is to cancel the impugned order and not to modify the same. The opinion of the Commissioner of Income-tax that this is a case where interest ought to be charged may or is likely to prejudice the assessee in her claim for waiver which she may put forward before the ITO particularly when we realise that levy of interest by the ITO or refusal for waiver is not an appealable order by the assessee to any of the appellate authorities. 6. So we allow the appeal. We cancel the order of the CIT.
-
1976 (2) TMI 80 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... year 1974-75. While claiming that the disallowance was improper the assessee has claimed allowance of at least two items, Rs. 1,130 as presentation articles which really did not constitute entertainment. The last item represented expenditure incurred by the assessee for supplying tea, food etc. To the staff as well as visiting customers. There is no element of entertainment in this. Having considered the facts of the case and heard the parties, we see no reason to allow the expenditure of presentation articles like cycle and brief cases. With regard to the other item of expenditure of entertainment, having regard to the fact that this enures partly to the staff by way of meeting expenditure, we would allow an amount of Rs. 2,000 under this head. The other items of disallowed. Out of the claim of Rs. 14,071 we, therefore, direct an allowance of Rs. 2,000. 10. The appeal for the assessment year 1973-74 is allowed and the appeal for the assessment year 1974-75 is partly allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 79 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... rt of the money paid by the purchaser goes only towards reimbursement to the assessee of what he spent on behalf of the purchaser. The decision in Raja Bai Nikkam vs. CIT(1) has no application here. This was a case where buses were sold and in no selling the buses as a unit brokerage was incurred. The claim for the allowance of the brokerage was rejected and this was upheld by the High Court. Whether brokerage is paid or not, the buses continued to have the same value as realised. If the building is not demolished there would be no scrap and the value of the scrap cannot be equal to what is fetched without deducting the expenses of converting the building into scrap. The assessee rsquo s claim has therefore, to be allowed and we accordingly do so. If in the case reported in 65 I.T.R. at page 496 the buses were to be broken into different parts and some expenditure had been incurred for this, we are not sure, such expenses would not have been allowed. 5. The appeal is allowed.
|
