|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 244 Records
-
1985 (1) TMI 159 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund on Returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... ard to the grant of refund in respect of the goods lost during reprocessing is erroneous. Rule 173L is a complete code in the matter of refund of duty on goods returned to the factory. When refund is admissible and when it is not admissible are laid down in the said rule. The rule is explicit and unambiguous. It says that the Collector may grant refund if the manufacturer claiming refund satisfies the Collector the conditions laid down in that rule. 13. In what circumstances the refund is inadmissible is set out in clauses (i) to (iv) (at the relevant time) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L. Thus, both positive and negative aspects had been provided in the rules. The rules in my opinion is more eloquent and it would be incorrect to state that rule is silent. 14. emsp After careful consideration of all the aspects, I allow these appeals and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct the Central Excise authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund of duty on short-landed goods ... ... ... ... ..... out that the photostat copies produced by the appellants do not contain the particulars of the packages in respect of which refund is claimed. 7. emsp It can be again said that the appellants had been callous in perusing their remedies. If they had taken proper care at proper time they could have saved the public time and expenses. But then that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the just claim of the appellants. 8. emsp In the result, I allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, MCD, for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order. The appellants are directed to produce the original invoice in respect of the cases which are shortlanded as per the certificate issued by the BPT. The Customs Authorities are at liberty to verify as to whether subsequent to the issue of the shortlanding certificate any of the cases had been traced and deliverd to the appellants.
-
1985 (1) TMI 151 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... en. This declaration requires an assessee to indicate the full description of the goods intended to be manufactured in his factory and the full description of the inputs intended to be used in the manufacture of each of the manufactured goods. By way of an amendment made by notification Nos. 295/77 to 178/77, a manufacturer had to furnish to the proper officer a statement furnishing the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the finished goods. We thus note that the statement to be furnished in terms of notification No. 178/77, as amended, is of a stricter type than the one required under notification No. 201/79. In the circumstances of the present case, we would hold that the earlier declaration given by the appellants should be taken as covering the purposes of the latter notification. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order disallowing credit in respect of raw materials used in the manufactured goods between 28-8-1979 and 30-11-1979 as well.
-
1985 (1) TMI 148 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s material difference between the facts of Nathalal Karsandas and the facts of this case as there is no evidence regarding existence of actual oral partnership having constitution which is low claimed and as the clarification made to the ITO dt. 4th Dec., 1981 does not constitute sufficient material to hold that condition of s. 184 are fulfilled, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to benefits of registration. As held in CIT, Calcutta vs. Kejriwal Traders (1969) 71 ITR 463 (Cal) registration has to be refused for the whole year in view of the position above. For this purpose we are not concerned with the actual of income at the end of the accounting period when Deepak was major. We have to see only whether the conditions of 184 are fulfilled in this case. As these condition are not fulfilled, for reasons given above, we uphold the order of the authorities below. 8. Appeal are dismissed. Stay petition No. 9 is filed as infructuous as we have decided the appeal on merits.
-
1985 (1) TMI 145 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... pplication for registration is not in order, he shall intimate the defect to the firm and give it an opportunity to rectify the defect in the application within a period of one month from the date of such intimation and if the defect is not rectified within that period, the ITO shall by order in writing, reject the application. Thus, according to the provisions of s. 185, if the ITO considers that the application for registration is not in order he shall intimate the defect to the firm and give it opportunity to rectify the defects in the application. No such opportunity was given by the ITO. The assessee, themselves filed the correct application later on. We have no hesitation in these circumstances, in coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the delay and even otherwise under s. 185(2) the assessee was entitled to a notice from the ITO which the ITO did not send for removal of the defect in the form of petition. 3. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 143 - ITAT PATNA
Assessment Year, Interest Income, Legal Representative, Levy Of Penalty, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... ment. 7. We have considered the rival arguments and the facts of the case. We have already held above that the order levying penalty was null and void legally as penalty was levied on a dead person and no show-cause notice was issued to the legal representative. Further we are also of the opinion that even on facts, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The assessee was a very old person. The income was taxable in his hands only by a fiction of law and it was not his actual income. The fiction of law was applicable by virtue of an amendment made only one year back. It can reasonably be held that the assessee may not have been aware of the said amendment. The decision of their Lordships of the Patna High Court in P.A. Patel s case is wholly in favour of the assessee. Respectfully, following the said decision, we hold that the levy of penalty was not correct even on facts. 8. As per reasons mentioned above, the appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 141 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... TD 303 (Bom) (SB) has considered the decisions of other High Court as to what extent there would be merger and has enunciated the ratio to which we have referred and in the light of which we have examined the facts of the present case. 11. In view of this, we would hold that the jurisdiction of the CIT to exercise his powers under s. 263 stood shut out because the question of admissibility as to deduction of bonus was a matter which could have been considered by the first appellate authority in the appeal filed before him which the disposed of by his order dt. 22nd Jan., 1983, which was even prior to the date of issue of notice under s. 263 by the CIT, which event took place only on 7th July, 1983. 12. In the view that we have taken on the question of jurisdiction, the appeal of the assessee succeeds and the order of the CIT under s. 263 is set aside. We, therefore, do not go into the merits of the disallowance as directed by the CIT. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 139 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... ecisions of other High Courts as to what extent there would be merger and has enunciated the ratio to which we have referred and in the light of which we have examined the facts of the present case. 11. In view of this, we would hold that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to exercise his powers under section 263 stood shut out because the question of admissibility as a deduction of bonus was a matter which could have been considered by the first appellate authority in the appeal filed before him which he disposed of by his order dated 22-1-1983 which was even prior to the date of issue of notice under section 263 by the Commissioner, which even took place only on 7-6-1983. 12. In the view that we have taken on the question of jurisdiction, the appeal of the assessee succeeds and the order of the Commissioner under section 263 is set aside. We, therefore, do not go into the merits of the disallowance as directed by the Commissioner. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 137 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... considering the law on the subject held that when properties are allotted tot he members of the joint family in settlement to avoid future disputes no gift tax is exigible. To this effect there is also another decision of the Tribunal in the case of GTO vs. Smt. Chinthamani Achi (1983) 4 ITD 237 (Mad). In the case of Bhupati Veerabhadra Rao the Tribunal has also taken note of the judgment of the Madras High Court in CGT vs. K. V. K. Veerappa Chettiar (1980) 121 ITR 854 (Mad) and CGT vs. Pappathi Anri (1981) 127 ITR 655 (Mad). 13. Considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the decisions of various Courts and earlier orders of Tribunal as settled above, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh given by each of the assessee to the said Kaliappan through a family arrangement will not be hit by the GT Act. Accordingly, we set aside the gift-tax assessment made by the authorities below in the case a assessee herein and allow the appeals filed by the assessee.
-
1985 (1) TMI 135 - ITAT JAIPUR
Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... tion. 19. We have held already that the service income received would be taxable under section 176(3A), and the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be set off against such income. We hold accordingly. 20. Regarding relief under section 80MM for both the assessment years, it is provided that the relief under Chapter VIA of the Act shall be limited to the gross total income before deduction of claim under Chapter VIA. In case for these two years, there is any income after set off of earlier years losses, the relief that is to be worked out would be limited to the income on account of service fees received of Rs. 5,930 and Rs. 5,000 for 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. 21. The last of the grounds is in respect of levy of interest under section 216 of the Act. Following the earlier paragraph, where we have dealt with the interest under section 217, we are of the view that interest under section 216 is not justified and the same is deleted. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 134 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... the period 10th April, 1977 till 31st Aug., 1977. The assessment for the period 10th April, 1977 till 31st Aug., 1977 should be made in the status of an unregistered firm since, admittedly, the assessee did not file any application in Forms Nos. 11 or 11A nor a copy of the partnership deed was filed within time. However, in respect of the period 1st Sept., 1976 to 9th April, 1977, the assessee has claimed that an application in Form No. 12 was filed within time and, hence, for this period registration should be allowed to the firm. We direct that this fact should be verified and if the assessee has, in fact, filed an application in Form No. 12 within time and in the proper manner, registration should be allowed to the assessee firm for period 1st Sept., 1976 to 9th April, 1977. 7. The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the Tribunal dt. 23rd Aug., 1984 in ITA No. 218/Ind/83 should be treated as amended, as indicated above.
-
1985 (1) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal of Expln. 2 to s. 139(8) and the decision of the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was not the same as that the assessee but for that matter alone the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be suffering from any mistake apparent from record. We have gone through the decision in the case of P.A.P. Chidambara Nadar and we find that in that case the earlier order of the Tribunal had been recalled because it was in conflict with another decision of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case. That circumstance does not prevail in the case of the assessee. In these circumstances, we do not see any merit in the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee with which seems to have been filed merely on the ground that the assessee has not been able to like the decision given by the Tribunal. The decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court (1984) 150 ITR 545 (AP) also does not help the plea for rectification made by the assessee. 5. The miscellaneous petition is rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 132 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... nged before the AAC. According to us, the assessment framed under s. 147/148 could be challenged in all regards as per provisions contained in s. 246(e) of the It Act, 1961. 5. Being of the above view, we would uphold the preliminary objection raised in these two appeals. The orders passed by the ITO, E-Ward, Ghaziabad being without jurisdiction are declared to be null and void and the assessees succeed on the basis of their preliminary objection raised in these two appeals. 6. There were other grounds taken in these two appeals with regard to the assessment of unexplained investment in the construction of Rama Talkies but since these grounds do not arise out of the order of the AAC, we would reject them. In any case, it is not necessary for us to decide these grounds as the assessees succeed on the basis of their preliminary objection and as the assessments framed on them by the ITO, Ghaziabad are being cancelled being without jurisdiction. 7. The appeal are allowed in part.
-
1985 (1) TMI 131 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ings on the finding that the ratio of the decision in Anwar Ali s case was applicable. Since the nature of the addition and the facts of the present case are exactly identical to that of assessment year 1973-74, we see no reason to distinguish this case. On the same basis we hold that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable to the facts of the present case as the additions have been made entirely on estimate basis by rejecting the cash flow statement of the assessee. This view is fully fortified by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nanalal Chunilal Kansara relied upon by the assessee. The case laws relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative are not exactly applicable to the facts of the case. Since the IAC himself has already applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali for the assessment year 1973-74 we do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail these judgments cited before us. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... and upheld the addition. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. After hearing Shri B. B. Khare, ld. counsel of the assessee and Shri K. K. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative, we are of the view that the assessee is to succeed on this point. The ld. counsel of the assessee filed a complete detail of the debtors. These debts have arisen out of the trading activities and there being no such provision for charging interest on trade debts no deemed income can be assessed as interest chargeable from these trade debts. The ITO himself accepted this position and did not assess such income in the asst. yr. 1981-82. We, therefore, do not have any hesitations deleting the addition made by the ITO on estimate basis when there is no actual income due to the assessee on the trade debts. 3. The next ground regarding charging of interest under s. 217(1A) is consequential to the first ground. It is accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... nd directed the ITO to consider the decision of the appellate authorities in the case of Shri Ravinder Kumar. If the decision of the appellate authorities in the case of Shri Ravinder Kumar goes against that of the ITO, then in that case the CIT will not be justified in assuming the power under s. 263 as there would be no order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the CIT has not recorded his finding in regard to the order of Shri Ravinder Kumar for the asst. yr. 1978-79 and did not consider the contentions of the assessee in that regard, we consider it necessary to set aside his order and restore it to his file with a direction that he will redecide the matter after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 4. The appeal was delayed and time barred by 9 days. The delay has been condoned after considering the application and the explanations of the ld. counsel of the assessee. 5. For statistical purpose the appeal shall be treated as allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 128 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... the Special Bench of the Tribunal. The subsidy in this case was received after the assessee actually purchased the various assets namely plant and machinery. The assessee was free to use the amount of subsidy received in any manner it deems fit and there was no direct nexus between the amount of subsidy and the cost of fixed capital investment made by the assessee. On the above facts we agree with the AAC that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal referred to above fully covers the issue and the assessee is not bound to deduct the subsidy amount from the written down value of the capital assets. The decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s Lucknow Producers Cooperative Milk Union Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case as that was rendered on a different set of facts. The order of the AAC is accordingly upheld. 4. In view of our order above the cross objection which supports the order of the AAC deemed to be allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI-D
Income, Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India. ... ... ... ... ..... ought on the statute book with effect from 1-6-1976 by insertion by the Finance Act, 1976 and assessment years involved in the case before the Hon ble Orissa High Court were 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 hence no grossing up provision was there. Accordingly on this issue we do uphold the grossing up of 20 per cent as upheld by the learned commissioner appeals . We will also add that on this issue the revenue is not in appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner Appeals while the assessee is. 21. In the net result, the appeals stand allowed to the extent as above and our final conclusions are as under (i) taxation income for both the assessment years involved in theses Appeals is the amount paid by the Government of India to the assessee-Appellant in the relevant accounting period and (ii) The grossing up on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has to be to the extent of 20 per cent i.e., as per section 115A and as held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
-
1985 (1) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ground regarding non-payment of interest in respect of refund on the short ground that no remedy was provided under s. 246(2) of the Act. 10. Shri Mehra also referred us to the following two judgments for his contention that the CIT (A) unjustifiably rejected the assessee rsquo s contention regarding payment of interest (i) Triplicon Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (Mad) 273 (1980) 126 ITR 125. (ii) Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 842 (Cal). 11. We are not referring to the above judgments because the judgment in Mahabir Prasad rsquo s case is a binding authority which we are legally obliged to follow. Beside, we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning and the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we direct the IAC (Asst.)/AO to pay interest to the appellant company in relation to refund worked out in its favour in respect of assessment year under appeal. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 125 - ITAT DELHI-C
Agricultural Land, Bad Debt, Certain Assets, Disclosure Petition, Net Wealth, Valuation Report
............
|
