|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 123 Records
-
1979 (4) TMI 43 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... hen the IT Department was able to lay hands on evidence and documents incriminating to the assessee from where extra income could be proved, considering the material on record and the entirety of the circumstances and the fact that there was a difference of income between the original returned income and the revised returned income and no particular of item of income had been pointed out to explain that the revised returns were merely the result of inadvertent mistake or omission, coupled with the statements of the partners of the assessee firm as also the submissions made by the learned authorised representative before the AAC there is no escape but to hold that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by filing original returns and that the imposition of penalties in the case of the assessee was called for and the penalties sustained by the AAC were rightly imposed under the law. 12. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 42 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... 15th Dec., 1978, in the reasons recorded by the ITO, a specific reference was made to the particular hundi banker who was found to be a mere name lender, specific transaction of loan appearing in the assessee s books was indicated and reference was also made to the depositions of the creditor as recorded by the ITO assessing him. In all the above cases, facts indicating a direct nexus between the material found by the ITO and the formation of the belief by the ITO were to be found in the reasons recorded by the ITO and submitted to the CIT for his satisfaction under s. 151(2) of the Act before initiating reassessment proceedings under s. 147(a) and s. 148 of the Act. All these cases, therefore, fall in the ratio of 103 ITR 437(SC). In the present case, facts establishing any such direct nexus between the material and the formation of the belief by the ITO are absent and the reassessment proceedings cannot, therefore, be upheld as validly initiated. 15. The appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 41 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... tly. As regards the question of interest under s. 139 and 217, the issue is appealable since the assessee was denying its liability to be assessed to interest (108 ITR 961). Since we have decided to cancel the assessments, naturally no interest would be payable either under s. 139 or under s. 217. We would have considered it proper to send the matter back on some issues to the AAC. However, as stated above we have already taken a decision holding the assessments in question to be illegal. It would not, therefore, be necessary to send the matter back now. We have considered it necessary to give out findings on the various issues raised by the assessee and the Department in order to cut down and avoid multiplicity of litigation. 22. As we have held the assessments in question to be illegal, we would cancel the assessment orders for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. 23. In the result, the assessee s appeals are allowed and the Department appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 40 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... xtra wealth being available to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 26,000 and his conduct only showed that he was taking technically a consistent stand in the wealth-tax proceedings. It is also accepted on behalf of the assessee that so far as extra wealth-tax was concerned this was to cost the assessee a very paltry amount of wealth-tax which happened to work out to about Rs. 48. Further the penalty levied can also not be upheld as the WTO has not, at all, dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee in his explanation dt. 23rd March, 1974. The AAC has considered those contentions and we have also dealt with those and the conclusion that follows is that the assessee could not be penalised for a default under s. 18(1) (c). The assessee has correctly relied upon the three Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions, which, certainly, go to support him. Consequently, we confirm the order of the AAC under appeal, and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 39 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... shant Land Corporation for which disclosure under s. 3(1) of Ordinance of 1975 was made. According to the learned counsel out of Rs. 6,598 the sum of Rs. 1,000 was added twice and this was the amount being deposited standing in the name of housing society. This amount came out of the gift made by the assessee. It was also contended that this addition was uncalled for. It was contended that the addition of Rs. 4,598 made by the ITO was also wrong. This amount formed part of the profit attributed to Shri Vijay who is partner of M/s. Desai Patel and Co. Under the circumstances, this addition was also uncalled for. 32. In our opinion the contentions of the assessee must be accepted. The learned AAC after considering the evidence on record deleted the addition in question. The finding of the AAC is fully supported by the evidence on record. Thus the learned AAC was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,598. 33. In the result, the three appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 38 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... terested in adjustment of losses carried forward or unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. There is no provision of the IT Act which makes it obligatory for an assessee to claim an expenditure, deduction or a relief allowed by the Act, whether he likes it or not. It is open to him to forego such a relief. The consequences may be different and may affect the assessee differently. But we do not see how the IT Authorities can force on an assessee an adjustment which he does not want. If that be so between two assessees one claiming on adjustment of carried forward loss computing 80HH relief and another foregoing such claim where could be no difference as far as interpretation of the provisions of s. 80HH are concerned. This is possible only if the income from the undertaking of the backward area unaffected by any adjustments of carry forward loss, depreciation unabsorbed etc. is made the basis of computation. 4. The assessee s claim is accepted and the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court has erred in interpreting Section 196A of the Code so as to incorporate therein the provision regarding authorisation enacted by Section 187A of the Act?
Held that:- Section 196A of the Code does not envisage any application whatsoever and, therefore, no Application at all is necessary for action under that section. Even if it be held that such an application was inherent in the scheme of the section, it would not follow that the same had to be made by a person holding the type of authorisation envisaged by Section 187A of the Act. Holding that no application was at all needed for the accord of consent provided for in the section, and that, in any case, such an application need not have been made by a person authorised in the manner spoken of by Section 187A of the Act, we repel the argument raised to the contrary on behalf of the accused-respondents. It follows that in the instant case the requirements of both the sections, namely, Section 196A of the Code and Section 187A of the Act were fulfilled before the complaint was filed so that, as found by the High Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Appeal allowed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 36 - SC ORDER
Prosecution (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... watches which he recovered by opening the cupboard with the keys (which he took out from the window). It was also found that the appellant had keys of the flat with which the flat was opened and searched by the Customs Authorities. We do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Blowers with electric devices - liability to duty - Contempt of Court - Words and phrases - 'Device' - Meaning of
-
1979 (4) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Seized goods - Storage and upkeep charges ... ... ... ... ..... s were seized from the petitioner s premises. So it was for the Department to make arrangements for the storage and proper upkeep of the said articles. As the goods were kept in the above-mentioned places and not in any warehouse, charges for storage and upkeep etc. on the same could not have been levied on the petitioner under Section 63 of the Act. Mr. P.C. Misraj, the learned Counsel appearing for opposit parties 1 and 2 could not show any legal provision under which the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case could be made legally liable to pay the said charges. 5. On hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties we are satisfied that the order in Annexure 5 directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,379. 96 P. was not legal. Accordingly, the order in Annexure 5 so far as it relates to the payment of the said amount is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case each party to bear his own costs.
-
1979 (4) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Re-seizure of goods ... ... ... ... ..... remises, the arguments of Mr. Banerjee are rejected and the impugned seizure is quashed and the respondents are directed to return the goods to the petitioner forthwith. The Rule is made absolute only to the extent as indicated above. 15. There will be no order as to costs. 16. Let it be recorded here that this order will not affect the pending proceeding, if any, or any future proceeding under Chapter XIV of the Act relating to these goods against the petitioner. 17. Let it also be noted here that the Customs authorities were directed in the aforesaid Civil Rules to return these goods to the petitioner and therefore they should have given full effect to the aforesaid order and should not have tried to circumvent it by any circuitous method or by wrongful usurpation of power which is not warranted by law. 18. Prayer for stay of this order is refused. 19. Let the learned Advocates on record of both the parties be each supplied with a plain copy of the order by the Department.
-
1979 (4) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Cost of packing - "Meaning of returnable" ... ... ... ... ..... ty to adopt its own remedy for its recovery. This relief has not been specifically prayed for in the petition. We have given this direction as a consequential relief following upon our reading down the definition of value . 21. 8195 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The respondent shall pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. 22. 8195 It appears that in pursuance of the interim order made by this Court, the petitioner has furnished the Bank Guarantee. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pay to the petitioner the costs incurred by them for furnishing the Bank Guarantee. The respondents shall do so within two months from the date on which the petitioner submits respondents a statement of costs in this behalf. 23. 8195 Whatever amount is found refundable to the petitioner as a result of this order shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the petition until payment and the respondents shall pay it to the petitioner.
-
1979 (4) TMI 31 - JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Valuation - Sales to independent buyers - Representative character - Sales to a relative - Effect - Cost of secondary packing - Equalised freight - Uniformity of Trade Discount - Excise duty - Nature, scope and taxable event - Chargeability vis-a-vis Valuation - Validity - Price list - Provisional
-
1979 (4) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Loss by accident whether includes theft - Remision of duty - Scope - Demand raised without show cause notice - Validity of - Alternative remedy - Existence of
-
1979 (4) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT
Accident Insurance - Appeal To High Court dismissed on delay in filing Appeal - Held that:- High Court's view that the lawyer's ignorance about the law was no ground for condonation of delay is not acceptable.
This does not automatically secure a visa for the petitioner into this court under article 136. There must be manifest injustice or gross misappreciation or perversity in factual findings. We have examined the merits of the matter to the extent available on the record and have heard counsel for the petitioner. He has hardly convinced us that the merits of the case call for any intervention at all. Appeal dismissed.
-
1979 (4) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... filed application for registration on October 8, 1969, and submitted the return of income for the assessment year 1969-70 on December 9, 1969, as a registered firm. In these circumstances, there was no scope for the petitioner to think that he was not required to file the return as the firm was unregistered. It is submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is perverse and not rationally possible. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was reasonable and sufficient cause on account of which the assessee was prevented from filing the return within limitation ? Hence, we allow the application and require the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law to this court within three months from the receipt of this order. No order as to costs.
-
1979 (4) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... o him on account of absence of notice inasmuch as the petitioner has received a notice in the matter of transfer of appeal. Now, it may be pointed out that by the transfer of the GIR case, decided by the ITO, by virtue of the impugned order of transfer, the transferee-ITO acquires jurisdiction to reopen the case, if so advised. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by the impugned order of transfer. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent for the Board to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before ordering the transfer of the case. Consequently, the order of transfer passed without due compliance with s. 127(1) of the I.T. Act is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow this petition, set aside the order of transfer and leave it open to the Board to pass fresh order for transfer, if so advised, in accordance with law. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (4) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... In view of that admission, it was held that in such circumstances it would amount to laying an impossible burden of proof on the department and making the provision for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) wholly unworkable if, even after the assessee had admitted that the omission could be treated as concealed income, the department had still to prove by independent evidence that the assessee had concealed its income. That case is distinguishable on its own facts because in the case before me there is nothing to show that the assessee had admitted that it had concealed its income. In the result, the answer is that setting aside the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000 upon the assessee is in accordance with law provided under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood amended at the relevant time with effect from the 1st of April, 1964. Therefore, the reference is answered in the affirmative. The parties will bear their own costs. S. SARWAR ALI, Actg. C.J.--I agree.
-
1979 (4) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Raw Material, Reconstruction Of Business, Tax Concession
-
1979 (4) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Necessity Of Question Of Law, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... assessee asked for time on May 4, 1963, for filing the return for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, and from this fact, which, according to Mr. Mehta, is conclusive, it must be inferred that the returns for these two years had not been filed on May 4, 1963. All that we can say is that it was possible for the Tribunal to have come to the conclusion to which Mr. Mehta has persuaded us to arrive at. It is all a question of inference and if the Tribunal thought it fit to accept the contention advanced by the assessee and refused to draw an adverse inference against him on the basis of the representation made by his authorised representative, we cannot say that the finding is based on no evidence or is perverse or is rationally not possible. In our opinion, it is not a fit case in which we should call for a statement from the Tribunal. These applications are, therefore, dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of each of the above three cases. No order as to costs.
|
