|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 172 Records
-
1980 (8) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... CIT (a) has also discussed in the order the applicability of s. 216 of the IT Act and not s. 217. 14. After hearing the learned representative of the parties, we are of the opinion that interest under s. 216 was wrongly charged in this case. There is no evidence to show that any estimate of advance tax as per the provisions of s. 212 (3) was filed and there was no question of levy of any interest under s. 216 of the IT Act. There is no merit in the contention of the learned representative of the Department that interest was charged under s. 217, but it was wrongly mentioned as under s. 216 as there is no material on record to support the above contention. On the other hand, we find that the ITO has in fact charged interest under s. 216. Since no interest was chargeable under s. 216 in this case, we delete them of interest demanded from the assessee under s. 216. 15. In the result, the ITA No. 3535 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the ITA No. 3536 is allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... ee on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Addl. CIT vs. M. Ranga Pai and Ors.(2) and the decision of the Madras High Court reported in CIT vs. Rikadas Dhuraji and Anr. (3). On facts it was urged that the fair market value determined by the ITO could not be said to be correct. Three valuers had given three different reports and it could not be said that what the ITO had ultimately adopted was the correct value. Further, it was submitted that in order to invoke s. 52(2) the Department has to establish that something more than the stated consideration passed hands and evidence to this effect was lacking. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. The Tribunal has been following the decisions of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts in preference to the decision of the Kerala High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the AAC was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,485. 5. The appeal by the Revenue accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... he exception provided in s. 150(1) cannot be availed of, if at the time the order (which became the subject-matter of appeal, revision etc.), was made, any back-assessment in respect of an earlier year would have already become barred, This provision is intended to preserve the finality of orders made in such earlier assessment years. Thus if the taxability of interest on arrears of rent on agricultural land in the assessee s assessment came to be determined by the Supreme Court only now, this decision of the Supreme Court would not enable the ITO to back assess the assessee for asst. yrs. which were beyond the period of four years on the date of the order of assessment which ultimately went up to the Supreme Court . Accordingly, we hold that the reassessment made in this case cannot stand and the same is, therefore, quashed. In the view we have taken it is not necessary to pronounce upon the other contentions arising in this appeal. They are left open. 8. Appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 109 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... e property on account of said declaration is not permissible. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that finding of the learned AAC is not correct. Provisions of s. 3(1) r/w s. 13 of the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976, are special and independent. The relief allowed under the said section is statutory and as such, will have to be allowed. 10. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the AAC. 11. In our opinion, the finding of the learned AAC is not correct. The declaration under s. 3(1) r/w s. 13 of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1976 is independent and is statutory. The relief allowed to the assessee under the aforesaid provision is independent and as such, will have to be allowed separately. The assessee shall get relief accordingly in all the years under consideration. 12. In the result, appeals Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332, 333 and 334 (JP)/70 are allowed in part. Remaining appeals Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278, 279 and 280 (JP)/79 are dismissed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 108 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... ll get 15 per cent share of profit in the firm. Both the new partners also were required to bear the losses. Aforesaid facts would go to show that in case of Shri Naresh Sharma also there was no transfer without consideration. Shri Ramesh Sharma previously was a partner of the firm and in due course of time he gained considerable experience in the business. So, in the year of account his share of profit was increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. 5. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that there was no transfer of any profit without consideration. As a matter of fact, there is no material on record to show that increase in share of Shri Ramesh Sharma and admission of Shri Suresh Sharma and Shri Naresh Sharma as a partner in the firm was without consideration. Thus the ld. AAC was not correct in holding that there was gift of deemed gift of Rs. 22,066 in favour of the persons concerned. So, the addition in question is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... nsfer of the machinery by the assessee-firm which continued as a firm with a mere change in the constitution. The ld. Deptl. Rep. submitted that the provisions of s. 155(5)(ii)(c) the assessee had utilised the amount credited to the reserve account for purpose other than the business of the undertaking in so far as it was not disclosed in the balance-sheet originally. This contention is without force when it is seen that the development rebate reserve has not been withdrawn and as a matter of fact it did find a place in the revised balance-sheet which was field by assessee before the ITO. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivram Poddar (2) which is followed by the Karnataka High Court in Sangam Silks (1) clearly supports the stand of the assessee that there was no violations of s. 34(3)(b) of the Act. We therefore uphold the order of the AAC for all the three years under appeal. 10. In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue fail and stand dismissed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 106 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rety of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials on record in this case, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the AAC that, on merits, there is no justification for the levy of penalty for all the four years under appeal. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to consider the legal contentions raised by the learned departmental representative before us on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling in 103 ITR 772. 8. In the cross objections, the assessee s learned counsel had raised the plea that the penalty proceedings are barred by time for the asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In view of our above finding that on facts, there was no justification for the levy of penalty for all the four years under appeal, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this contention. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1980 (8) TMI 105 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... mount to reviewing of the findings of the ITO and substituting a new case which is not at all open to the departmental representative to do. For the sake of argument, let us examine the new plea so laboriously and vehemently sought to be urged by the Revenue. We have construed the partnership deed cl. No. 12 in a preceding para and come to the conclusion that clause referred to a provision for charity by making deduction out of net profits and found nothing wrong with the equal division of the balance amount of profits amongst the partners. It cannot be said that the ITO could not entertain such a view about the equal division of profits, this may be the reason for his not choosing to raise any such objection. In any event, our view taken above on merits also will show that there is no substance in this new plea of the Revenue. 8. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the registration be granted to the assessee firm for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... a valid method for determining the fair market value of house properties. Later on, the Survey Squad by adopting a different method estimated the fair market value of the said house property at a higher amount. Since the regular assessments made by the WTO by accepting the valuation as shown by the assessee cannot be regarded as legally incorrect orders or orders vitiated by any error, it was not permissible for the WTO to reopen these assessments merely on the ground that by adopting a different method of valuation, the Survey Squad had estimated the value at a higher amount. The action of the WTO therefore really tentamounted to a change of opinion and virtually had the effect of making piece-meal assessment which cannot be permitted under s. 17 of the WT Act. We, therefore, confirm the order of the AAC cancelling the reassessment made by the WTO under s. 17 of the WT Act for the four assessment years in question. 14. In the result, the departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Seizure and confiscation - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... vernment of India notification of 1977, either personally by himself or in the presence of other revenue officers, and in due course issue a certificate after the distribution is over. As the original period of six months has already expired, it is hereby directed that the distribution shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 14. After the dictation of the above judgment on the 19th of this month, and before it could be signed after being typed, Shri Jeshtmal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made a motion that there should be a specific direction in regard to the sum of Rs. 20,100/- which had been given as guarantee and which the first respondent has now called from the Canara Bank and kept in deposit in the customs treasury. In my opinion, a direction in this behalf is necessary. The first respondent shall return the said amount to the petitioner after the receipt of the report in regard to the distribution of 47 bales of goods as indicated earlier.
-
1980 (8) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Recovery of Penalty - Attachment ... ... ... ... ..... ainst the firm, he is liable to discharge the liability. The liability, if any, of the petitioner in respect of the penalty imposed against the firm cannot be enforced on the basis of a certificate that has been issued only against a firm. Therefore the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar are without jurisdiction. Accordingly attachment effected by him is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 7. Sri Hakeem, Central Government Junior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent, submitted that this should not prejudice the Customs authority from realising the penalty that has been imposed against the firm of which the petitioner was admittedly a partner. Penalty imposed as such is in no way affected by this order and it would be open to the authorities to take such proceedings as is open under law for realisation of the penalty. 8. The attachment of the property and notice as per Exhibit A are quashed. Parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
De-oiled rice bran - Sal Seed Contractors and Nigar Oil Seed Contractors ... ... ... ... ..... icials in this State. For all these reasons, we feel that there is no case made out for interference in the writ petitions at this stage. Representations to the show cause notices will be made within 4 weeks from today. It is also brought to our notice that when stay was granted by this Court, it was directed that the petitioners should furnish bank guarantee for the amount demanded. The bank guarantees will be continued or renewed until the disposal of the adjudication proceedings before the authorities under the Customs Act. 7. In regard to Writ Petitions 942, 944, 963 and 973 of 1977, the petitioners are manufacturers of Sal seed extractions and Nigar oil seed extractions. Though all the contentions referred to above do not apply to the petitioners in these cases, inasmuch as even in these cases, questions of fact are involved, the same order as made in these writ petitions will cover these cases also. 8. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, but without costs.
-
1980 (8) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Beta Naphthol is classifiable under Item 69 CET ... ... ... ... ..... dents has found impossible to do in the face of the view which is taken by the Department itself in the subsequent trade notices. No justification is, therefore, available to the Department for treating Beta Naphthol differently at earlier points of time, as has been done by the Union of India and the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs. 5. On the view taken subsequently by the Department itself, we must quash the decision of the Union of India, the Appellate Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector who had taken the view that Beta Naphthol was excisable under Tariff Item 14D. We must also consequently quash the demand notice issued on 27th August, 1976 which is made on the footing that Beta Naphthol was excisable under Tariff Item 14D. Consequently the petitioners should be entitled to the refund of such duty as has been recovered from them on the footing that Beta Naphthol was excisable under Item 14D. The petitioners to get the costs of this petition.
-
1980 (8) TMI 99 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Furnace skull or skull scraps not liable to duty ... ... ... ... ..... ds viz. furnace skull, are nothing but left over on melting steel scrap for the manufacture of steel castings and that skull cannot be regarded as steel melting scrap. Like M/s. Electro Steel Castings Limited, the applicants have also offered these goods to certain exporters for export out of India because in advanced countries like Japan, some processes are said to have been evolved by which they are able to recover steel from skull scrap. The fact that such scrap contains only about 5 of metal and 95 of waste is confirmed in the case M/s. Electro Steel Castings Limited. The mere fact that no such test was done in the particular case would not warrant a different view when the description of the goods has not been challenged at any stage by the lower authorities. In fact, another sample of the applicants on test has also confirmed the same result 5. Government accordingly set aside the order in appeal and allow the revision application and order consequential relief if any.
-
1980 (8) TMI 98 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Electricity - Staff quarters is not included in industrial unit - Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... xemption from State Excise duty has been given by way of specific exemption notification only confirms the view that unless the electricity consumed in the staff quarters attached to the assessee s industrial unit is specifically exempted by means of a notification the same is chargeable to Central Excise duty. Further the Government consider that the assessee s contention that they do not charge their workers for supply of electricity consumed in the staff quarters is not at all a relevant consideration for extending the benefit of Notification No. 52/78 to the electricity consumed therein so long as the notification on its plain meaning does not specifically provide for such an exemption. 4. In view of the above, the Government of India are of the view that impugned order-in-appeal is not proper, legal and correct and therefore set aside the order-in-appeal thereby restoring the order in original dated 23-1-1979 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundri.
-
1980 (8) TMI 97 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Calcined petroleum coke - Suo motu refund - Admissibility ... ... ... ... ..... this period was not covered by the said order in appeal. 5. Government agree that identical issues having already been decided in their favour as mentioned by the applicants, these decisions will equally apply in this case. Government accept the applicants contention that the impugned goods are capable of being sold in unpacked condition and therefore the cost of packing should not be included in assessable value. Govt. accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal and order for the consequential refund. 6. As regards the applicants other claim for suo motu refund relating to the period from 1-10-1975 to 10-10-77, Government observe that it does not arise from the impugned Order-in-Appeal which alone can be subject matter of Revision Application under the law. 7. Government therefore regret their inability to go into the applicant s claim for the period 1-10-75 to 10-10-77 at this stage. This claim is therefore dismissed as falling outside the scope of the revision application.
-
1980 (8) TMI 96 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... irst mould manually and in which compressed air is also used would be squarely covered by S. No. 1 of the table annexed to Notification No. 329/77. 4. Furthermore, Government consider that S. No. 3 of the table of Notification No. 329/77 is ruled out in this case because the end product that is the impugned goods are not complete or fully manufactured by the mere use of manually operated process at the stage of the 1st mould, as contemplated for cases falling under S. No. 3 needless to say that Exemption Notification have to be interpreted strictly. 5. Government consider that the other point raised by the petitioners regarding alleged discrimination in favour of similar goods, would in no way affect the merits of their Revision Application, though the alleged would doubtless be referred to appropriate quarters for necessary action. 6. In view of the above the order-in-appeal is correct in law and does not warrant interference. The Revision Application is therefore rejected.
-
1980 (8) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Appeal filed to wrong authority on the advice of department - Computation of time limit ... ... ... ... ..... tion 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 4. Government see considerable force in the petitioner s contention that the delay in the filing of their appeal had largely occurred due to the wrong advice given to them by the Assistant Collector. Government consider that but for this advice, the petitioners would not have failed in filing their appeal in time as seen from the steps taken by them from time to time to secure necessary relief. Government are therefore of the view that this is a fit case where the date of receipt of their revision application which they filed on 16-1-79 in pursuance of their advice of the Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 8-12-78 should legitimately be treated as the date of filing of the appeal in that case. The appeal thus being in time, it should appropriately be considered by the Appellate Authority on its merits. 5. Government accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal with directions to dispose of the petitioner s appeal on its merits.
-
1980 (8) TMI 94 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Millboard and Strawboard ... ... ... ... ..... y interpreted, means that the presence of both screening and mechanical pulp in the mixed waste papers is optional and therefore the benefit of the notification cannot be denied on the ground that the Mill Board manufactured by the petitioners did not contain mechanical pulp. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 93 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Confiscation of truck - Mens rea not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... tion subsequently revealed. His contention is that he should not be penalised when he was neither the owner of tobacco nor was deliberately involved in the offence. He has also pleaded that the fine in lieu of confiscation of the Truck was on the high side considering that the fine in lieu of confiscation of nonduty paid tobacco was only Rs. 2000/-. 4. Government consider that the petitioner s plea of absence of mens rea would have been relevant only if any penalty had not been imposed on the owner. Since the fact of involvement of the Truck in the carriage of non-duty paid tobacco is not disputed, the confiscation of the Truck notwithstanding the fact of absence of mens rea on the part of the owner could not be said to be bad in law. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Government reduces the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/- only and modify the order-in-appeal accordingly. The revision application is otherwise rejected.
........
|
