|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 205 Records
-
1980 (7) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Beta Naphthol not liable to duty - Natural Justice - Affidavit - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ll of entry dated April 23, 1973 is held as illegal. I would not have interfered in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the conclusion reached by the authorities under the said Act had adopted any reasonable view in interpreting the entries. The view of the respondents is wholly perverse and against their own interpretations and stand as pointed above. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The subsequent consignments have been cleared by giving bank guarantees for the countervailing duty on Beta Naphthol and the relief to the petitioner can be granted by directing the Assessing Officers to release those bank guarantees. So far as the relief for the refund is concerned, the petitioner should move an application with the Competent Authority within one month for the refund of the illegal recovery of the countervailing duty and the respondents will make the refund thereafter by disposing of the application within six months. I make no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Handkerchiefs manufactured in mills are Cotton Fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... d in the manufacture of several of the items enumerated in the inclusive portion of the definition of cotton fabrics contained in entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, for example, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counter-panes, table clothes etc. It is not therefore possible to accept the plea put forward by the learned Government Pleadar that the fact the l the edges of the kerchiefs have been stitched will take the article out of the scope of the entry cotton fabrics . We find that the same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, West Bengal and Others (1975) 36 S.T.C. 575 with which ruling we are in respectful agreement. In the result, we affirm the decision of the Tribunal upholding the assessee s claim for exemption from sales tax in respect of the mill-made handkerchiefs and dismiss this revision petition. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Manufacture - Process of drilling holes, trimmings and chamferring of brake linings - Liability to duty
-
1980 (7) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Valuation - Vegetable products (Pakav) with cotton seed oil - Determination of - Affidavit in Rejoinder - Scope
-
1980 (7) TMI 101 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Dutiability of unsized yarn ... ... ... ... ..... on under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1975 and that Rule 10A of the said rules was not applicable. 6. Since the fact of clearance of yarn in cones in unsized form from the spinning department to the weaving department is not disputed and since there is nothing on record to show that petitioners ever cleared the impugned goods after sizing, Government hold that central excise duty under Item 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 should be charged on the yarn in the form in which it is cleared from the spinning department of the petitioners for further use in the weaving of fabrics, viz. on the unsized yarn i.e., on the unsized weight of the yarn. Since the revision application is allowed on the merits of the case Government do not consider it necessary to go into other question of time bar etc. raised in the revision application. 7. In view of the above, Government of India set aside the order-in- appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1980 (7) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Sale of goods at higher price subsequent to their clearance from factory - Effect on assessable value
-
1980 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Appeal - Computation of period of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... giving certain specimens of the type of orders which are normally passed by the Department. In these exceptional circumstances, the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration the said letter dated 14-3-1975. This letter indicates that the party bona fide believed that the period of limitation would run from the date of the letter as indicated therein. In view of these peculiar circumstances, the appellate order as well as the revisional order cannot be sustained and both are quashed. 4. Shri Dalal stated that the Department will give a hearing before the Appellate Collector at an early date and the notice of the hearing may be given to the Advocate on record Shri M.H. Alwaney C/o Wilfred Pereira and Co., Fazalbhoy Building, 45-47, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay-400 001. In the meantime, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the ends of justice, the further hearing of the Petition is adjourned to 13th October 1980. Not to be treated as part-heard.
-
1980 (7) TMI 98 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, State Warehousing Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... ties. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exclusion of this particular type of income in the computation of its income from business. So far as the second question is concerned, the view taken by the Tribunal is that though the provident fund scheme would not come within the ambit of s. 36(1)(iv), the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and came within the purview of s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act. The mere fact that the contribution could not come within the ambit of the provisions of s. 36(1)(iv) would not disentitle the assessee to claim the benefit under s. 37(1) if the requirements thereunder were satisfied. There is no dispute that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the Purpose of business. Therefore, it was deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business Accordingly, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 97 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ct, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969, is not retrospective in its operation. The same view has been taken by the Karnataka High Court in CWT v. C. S. Manvi 1978 114 TR 417, by the Allahabad High Court in CWT v. Ram Narain Agrawal 1977 106 ITR 965, and in CWT v. Chunni Lai Anand 1979 116 ITR 355 (All) and by the Madras High Court in CWT v. P. C. M. Sundarapandian 1978 114 ITR 367. Since the imposition of penalty is not recurring offence, the offence was complete on the date when the return was not filed as prescribed by law. The said offences were, therefore, committed when the returns were not filed on due dates, and so the penalties had to be computed in accordance with the provisions of law as it prevailed at the time of the commission of the offences. For the reasons recorded above, the question of law referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We order accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Multiple Shift Working ... ... ... ... ..... 0 of the normal depreciation allowance for the relevant previous year ? In view of the conflict of opinion between two, Division Bench decisions of this court we had referred the following question for decision to the Full Bench Whether having regard to rule 5 read with entry III of Appendix I, Part I, of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as applicable in the assessment year 1964-65, depreciation allowance for multiple shift working has to be allowed in proportion to the number of days on which the machinery or plant was used or an amount equal to the full allowance of normal depreciation ? The Full Bench has now answered the question by saying that the extra shift allowance has to be computed in proportion to the number of days on which the machinery or plant was used, and not at an amount equal to the full amount of normal depreciation. In view of the above, we answer the question referred in favour of the department, and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 95 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Competency To Appeal, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee and against the revenue. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the premises in question were being used as branch office of the assessee is not being assailed. The only question to be seen is whether the expenditure in question was incurred for the repairs of the premises or not. We have no reason to differ from the findings of the Tribunal that the premises in question being branch office of the assessee, necessarily required frequent or periodic repairs and retouches and thus had to be allowed as business expenditure. The mere fact that the repairs made are of a durable nature would not make the expenditure under consideration a capital expenditure. Sri Awasthy, the learned counsel for the revenue, could not point out any item to show that the expenditure incurred in that regard was of capital nature. That being so, we have no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 94 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... licable to the facts in the instant case. The payment by the Government is at the stage where the sandal trees have been removed, root and branch and the payment is on the basis of the net value of the sandalwood as may be fixed by the Government. The provision in this behalf appears to be for compensating the assessee in respect of an interest he might have had in the trees as an asset as it had grown on his land and with a view to compensate him in that behalf. It has no reference to any service or as a recompense to any act on his part in generating any capital asset. It is in the nature of a distribution of the proceeds of a capital asset and accordingly cannot be treated as a revenue receipt liable to tax under the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., that the sum of Rs. 17,482 received by the assessee from the forest department was not an income taxable under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 93 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Profits, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... er piece or parcel of land, the assessee had treated it as its business income and that it was also assessed as such. This circumstance, though relevant, is not conclusive in the course of the assessment proceedings for the subsequent years and its effect has to be judged in the light of the other relevant facts and circumstances on the record of the case in the subsequent year. In our opinion, the Tribunal has considered all the essential facts and applied the relevant test in proper perspective and arrived at a correct decision on a balanced consideration of all the circumstances. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the profit earned by the assessee in the two transactions in question was assessable as capital gains and not as business profits and that the finding of the Tribunal to that effect is eminently correct. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered accordingly. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 92 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Scientific Research ... ... ... ... ..... is indicates that the legislature was keen on providing for depreciation allowance whenever special allowance over a period was to be discontinued. We do not find any such restriction in regard to the assets in relation to which capital expenditure had been incurred subsequent to April 1, 1967. The Tribunal made some reference to the provisions of s. 43 wherein the actual cost was defined. This has no bearing on the question whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance or not. If the assessee is entitled to depreciation the method prescribed for calculating the actual cost had to be followed and that would not determine the entitlement to depreciation. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance in respect of the assets in regard to which capital expenditure had been incurred subsequent to April 1, 1967, is correct. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 91 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... of the Tribunal certain observations of Rowlatt J. in Graham v. Green 1925 9 TC 309 (KB) have been quoted and in our opinion they are apposite. The learned judge said (p. 312) What is a bet ? A bet is merely an irrational agreement that one person should pay another person something on the happening of an event. A agrees to pay B something if C s horse runs quicker than D s or if a coin comes one side up rather than the other side up. There is no relevance at all between the event and the acquisition of property. The event does not really produce it at all. It rests, as I say, on a mere irrational agreement. The receipts were inconsequence of the bets offered by the assessee and cannot be placed on any other footing as being receipts arising out of any business or occupation. The requirements of s. 10(3) of the Act were clearly satisfied by the assesses and the receipts were not taxable. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us assessment was made were taken to be cases of regular assessment. We do not think that any useful purpose could be served by referring to those cases, for the old Act did not contain any provision corresponding to s. 2(40) of the new Act. Thus, inasmuch as s. 2(40) confines a regular assessment to one made either under s. 143 or s. 144, we cannot read the regular assessment as occurring in s. 273 as applying to assessments made under s. 147(a). The lacuna, if any, in the Act can be corrected only by a legislative enactment, and not by a process of judicial interpretation. The Punjab High Court in Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 248 has taken the same view, and so has the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Chandra Singh 1976 104 ITR 77. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
-
1980 (7) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t there is no merit in this contention. The question whether the explanation put forth by the assessee for the delayed filing of the return, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which the Tribunal determined, is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal held that the explanation put forth by the assessee was plausible and accepted the same. The Tribunal further held that the revenue had failed to prove that the assessee intentionally withheld the filing of the return within time. For that matter, even the AAC had accepted the explanation put forth by the assessee, but partly. We do not find that the Tribunal took into consideration any irrelevant consideration. That being so, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact and thus the question which is sought to referred to this court for its opinion is essentially a question of fact. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this case and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Horse Racing ... ... ... ... ..... the expenses had not been incurred with the intention of extending entertainment to any third party or with the intention of providing any entertainment to the stewards or members of the managing committee or ordinary members of the assessee-club. The expenses were incurred as of necessity and constituted part of the expenses incurred for the holding of the business meetings. In our view such an expenditure incurred albeit for the purpose of serving food, refreshments, drinks, including liquor, at the business meetings of the members of the managing committee or of ordinary members in the case of an assessee which is a corporate body such as society or company, would be in the nature of administrative or business expenditure and would have no taint of expenditure, in the nature of entertainment. In the light of the above discussion, we endorse the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred for our opinion in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... Court in CIT v. Casino (P.) Ltd. 1973 91 ITR 289 (Ker). That was a case where the assessee was the owner of a hotel, but the question which the Kerala High Court had to decide did not pertain to the application of the appropriate rate of depreciation to the building in question. The learned judges had to decide whether the activity carried on by the assessee in the preparation of articles of food in their hotel would constitute manufacturing or processing of goods within the meaning of s. 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968. This case also is not a direct decision on the question of depreciation allowances. For the reasons which we have earlier set out in this judgment, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion in applying the higher rate of depreciation to the canteen building. The question of law referred to us is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 506.
-
1980 (7) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... se of ss. 15 and 16. Prima facie it appears that perquisite under s. 17(2) does not include a cash payment such as bonus paid. In our opinion, for a proper interpretation of the provision in s. 40(a)(v), weight has to be given to the expression whether convertible into money or not which implies that the benefit or amenity or perquisite spoken of in the section is something apart from money such as something in kind, which may be convertible into money or not. The expression whether convertible into money or not would not at all be appropriate when one considers a payment in cash. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the amount paid by way of bonus was not perquisite and, therefore, could not be taken into account in making disallowance on the basis of the restriction to be applied at 1/5th of the salary is correct. Accordingly, we answer the question in the first two references also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs.
............
|
