|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 237 Records
-
1986 (3) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Mere affixation of label on the goods will not make the company a manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... their identity nor do they become some new or different product. 7. emsp In view of the clear finding of the Appellate Collector in this regard, the respondent cannot now contend with any conviction that the appellants have failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the impugned goods had discharged their duty liability at the time of clearance from their factory at Bombay. As regards his other contention that duty paid goods could not be received by the appellant in his factory without prior permission of the Central Excise authorities and without following procedure prescribed, this cannot be disputed. However, failure to follow the prescribed procedure cannot justify demand for duty in respect of goods on which, as per the order of the Appellate Collector, it is shown that duty has already been paid at the place of origin. 8. emsp In the light of our above findings, we set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and allow the appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... f a particular tariff entry cannot be automatically applied in interpreting an altered tariff entry. In the present case, apart from the admitted position that technically and chemically acrylic fibre is a non-cellulosic fibre, there is internal evidence in the tariff entries themselves, as we have discussed in detail, when the legislature wanted acrylic fibre to be considered as a non-cellulosic fibre and when not to be so considered. We think the cited decisions have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. ensp In the above view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the Delhi High Court rsquo s judgment in the J. K. Synthetics Ltd. case (supra). Nor that of the Supreme Court in 1973-A.I.R.-S.C.-78. 20. emsp Summing up, we are of the view that the lower authorities were right in classifying the 3 blends of yarn in dispute under Item 18 III(ii) and charging duty thereunder. We uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 177 - CEGAT ,NEW DELHI
Customs - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... e manufacturers to show that they had not asked for the airconditioner or radio/cassette as extra fittings. However, they have failed to furnish a copy of the order. We also have taken note of Note 2 to Section XVII of the Customs Tariff and agree that as per this note, these items cannot be considered as parts and accessories of the product imported. 7. emsp As regards trade discount, there is no basis in law for the argument that for purposes of assessment under Customs Act, Section 14(l)(a), trade discount as otherwise generally admissible, should be allowed even if not allowed in respect of goods actually imported. The question of considering allowing trade discount would arise only if actually extended to the importer. 8. emsp We have also carefully considered the CEGAT decision in Order Nos. 24-27/85-A dated 15th January, 1985 (supra) and we agree that this decision fully covers both the points at issue. Respectfully concurring with this decision, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 161 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... it is a sound business proposition to humour the senior partner by allowing his sons to utilise the funds of the firm upon concessional terms. If so the entire borrowed money has to be taken as used for business. Secondly one should be slow to depart from 1980-81 decision, all the more so because, there are no additional funds made available. On the contrary there is same plough-back of profits. Thirdly appears to be a mis-statement in so far as charging of interest to debtors for goods is concerned. Thus substantial funds of weavers, not bearing interest were available. Coupled with the fact that there are no fresh advance, this year, we agree with Sri Shah that the borrowings were all for genuine business needs, no part having any direct nexus with the interest free advances. Taking all these facts into consideration we hold that the interest claim is allowable in full. 7. The second point in appeal regarding accrued commission was not pressed. 8. Appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 158 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Rate Of, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ction (4). Therefore, no interest can be levied under section 217(1A). We would, therefore, reject the contention of the revenue in these grounds. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of our learned brothers and hold that the same reasoning would hold good even for the year under appeal. We would, therefore, accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee and hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any interest under section 217(1)(a) and, accordingly, delete the interest of Rs. 1,31,844 charged by the ITO under section 217(1)(a). If it is to be held that interest has been charged by the department not under section 217(1)(a), but really under section 217(1A), even then the assessee is entitled to succeed in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal referred to above. 15. The learned counsel did not press ground No. 12 relating to levy of interest under section 139(8) of the Act. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 157 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Income From Other Sources, Deductions, In Respect Of Winning From Lottery ... ... ... ... ..... and not for earning or making such income. The details of court expenses and other expenses for encashment were not furnished before the authorities or before us. Such expenses in our view do not fall for consideration under section 57(iii) in view of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and other courts cited supra. Such expenses were incurred only after earning or making the income and not for earning or making such income. In this view of the matter the Commissioner was right in exercising his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 but he was not correct in disallowing the cost of tickets which was allowed by the ITO and which has a direct nexus or connection with the winnings from lottery. However, he was quite justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 69,000 which was wrongly allowed by the ITO. There is no dispute about the statutory deduction under section 80TT. Accordingly, we accept the claim of the assessee partly. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 155 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... and the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court and, therefore the Calcutta case must be considered to be no longer representing good law. Having considered the various contentions, we are of the view that the Bombay and the Gujarat case having considered the earlier decisions on the point, the view taken in those decisions i.e., Bombay and Gujarat should be followed. In such a view there was no infirmity in the present case in S.S.N. Subbu and S.S.N. Dhanasekar signing both as individuals and as representing their respective HUF s. We, therefore, direct the grant of registration to the assessee-firm for the asst. yr.1982-83, setting aside the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly ITA No. 2424/MDS/85, is allowed. 7. The status will be taken as that of a registered firm which is only consequential. I.T.A. No. 2423/MDS/85, therefore, stands allowed. 8. The appeals having been decided in favour of the assessee, the stay petition is dismissed as having become superfluous.
-
1986 (3) TMI 152 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... oncealment of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, and, hence, liable to penalties under section 271(1)(c) for these years. We are not concerned in the present appeals with the question whether the HUF of the assessee would be liable to any penalty under section 271(1)(c). On the facts discussed above, we are satisfied that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reached at the correct conclusion that the assessee, the individual, is not liable to any penalty under section 271(1)(c) and that he has discharged his burden of proof under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in the first two years and under the proviso to Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) in the remaining three years. We, therefore, confirm his orders in all the years. 21. In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary to examine and decide the alternative submissions made by Shri Ramagopal, the learned counsel for the assessee. 22. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 150 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ly involve a notice to the opposite party and a re-hearing. This was not considered to be necessary in view of the fact that on the main issue we have decided against the Department. However, for the sake of clarification, we may point out that on merits as we have stated above the assessee has no case and in any case the CIT (Appeals) has not written any speaking order on the merits of the dispute. In any case, in such circumstances the matter would have to be sent back to the Commissioner for re-consideration. At the time of hearing the assessee lsquo s representative pointed out that purchase of I.N.S. Ranjit another ship at Calcutta was not done by the assessee was done by a different sister concern and he had sought time to produce evidence in this behalf as had been mentioned by him in his objections to the draft assessment order. But later he did not produce any evidence so that on merits the assessee has no case. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 149 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ect quoted at the Bar have nearly taken a contrary view and the solitary decision of the Bombay High Court quoted by the DR to the contrary, namely, Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 22 CTR (Bom) 260 (1981) 32 ITR 893(Bom) is not directly in point. All the other decisions appear to have been taken under the general tendency of the Courts to give the benefit of doubtful interpretation in taxation laws to an assessee. Of course, this view has to be given a go by in view of the some recent decisions, for example, McDowell and Co. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Sheo Kumari Devi (1986) 50 CTR (Pat) 350 (1986) 157 ITR 13(Pat). However, sitting as a member of the Tribunal it is probably too much for me to take a rather abnormal view of the matter particularly when my learned brother has taken the contrary view and since the matter has to go to the Hon ble High Court in any case, I concur with the ultimate order proposed by my ld. brother.
-
1986 (3) TMI 148 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s. 4(1) of the WT Act. But this clause would apply only to individual, who had transferred their assets, otherwise than for an inadequate consideration. Even in their case, when the transfer of such assets resulted in levy of gift-tax, it could be excluded from their personal wealth. Now if the departmental authorities take it to be a gift and not a transfer in consideration of the obligation imposed upon the assessee by the Will, they can subject it to gift-tax, but the property would not remain the property of the trust for all times to come. So far as the trust is concerned, it has lost it and no body affected by this transfer has challenged it. It is not for the IT Department to question the authority of this transfer more so by way of additional ground before the Tribunal, when it was never the case of the WTO that it was a bad transfer in law. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the value of the gold is directed to be excluded from the total wealth of the assessee.
-
1986 (3) TMI 147 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... him in the year under appeal. The total expenses ultimately estimated were Rs. 9,000 which may be still much below the actual, penalty for addition made an estimate on account of low drawings was upheld in Vidya Sagar Oswal vs. CIT 1977 CTR (P and H) 8 (1977) 108 ITR 861 (P and H). Further in CIT vs. Habibullah (1982) 29 CTR (All) 281 (1982) 136 ITR 716 (All) although it was held that the assessee could show fresh circumstances to exonerate him from liability of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) it was held that if no fresh material was forthcoming, the levy of penalty was valid. Similarly in New Bijlee Foundry vs. CIT (1981) 23 CTR (P and H) 10 (1982) 135 ITR 593 (P and H) a finding in the assessment proceedings was held to be sufficient for the purpose of levy of penalty, because there was no further evidence during the penalty proceedings. Consequently, I am of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 146 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... tified on merits and were if not that the earlier direction of the Tribunal had limited the scope of the decision by the AAC, which was to be taken only in accordance with the interpretation of law as propound by Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society rsquo s case we would have certainly upheld the revised assessments because apart from the value of these shares, the revision was also based on the retrospective amendment of s. 5(1)(viii) by Finance Act No. 2 of 1971 (which had been given retrospective effect from 1st April, 1963, and related to the inclusion of the value of gold and silver ornaments which had not been considered by the WTO making the assessment at all, this was by itself a sufficient ground for the present reopening. Unfortunately for the Dept. nobody sought to justify the reopening on this ground earlier. As a result of the above discussion, we accept the appeals and reverse the orders of the AAC passed in this behalf. 7. In the result, the appeal are allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT JAIPUR
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... year. In the subsequent year, there was no return filed in the first instance. A return was filed only on the notice under section 148. A wrong status was claimed. In other words, a wrong exemption was claimed. There would be no concealment if the exemption claimed was correct. What I mean to say is that the second return as filed did not require disclosure of the minor s share of income. Therefore, the return as such did not involve any concealment. Claim of a wrong status can not be said to be concealment though it may not have been wise on the part of the assessee. Although the conduct of the assessee in the subsequent year is equally unworthy, I think technically he may not strictly come in the ambit of section 271(1)(c). So far as his malicious conduct is concerned, he has already been heavily penalised in relation to the first year. The penalty for the second year is, therefore, deleted. 6. In the result, the first appeal is disallowed and the second appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT JAIPUR
Income From Other Sources, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... in extracting lime stone were deductible in computing the trading profits of the assessee. 11.1 The facts in the present case being identical and in the light of the detailed finding given by their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court on identical facts and circumstances and there being no contrary decision to the one considered, we respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court hold that the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred on extraction of lime stone amounting to Rs. 2,84,157 is allowable as a business expenditure and also the amount of Rs. 36,342 is also allowable under section 35E of the Act as relatable to expenditure on prospecting for certain minerals. 12. The last issue is in connection with the levy of interest under section 217 of the Act which would be consequential to the various grounds considered above, which we direct the ITO to recalculate after giving effect to this order. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 143 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... said funds or else had claimed any right in the impugned investments. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact remains that the investment in UPEM was made by Smt. Manbir Sondhi, the enjoyment of income is by her and she retains the full control over the income and the assets as also the custody thereof and accordingly the apparent is the real state of affairs cannot be disputed. The onus of proof to dislodge the belief about the apparent being the real state of affairs having not been discharged by the Revenue, we do uphold the impugned order of the ld. first appellate authority for the asst. yr. 1971-72 as also for subsequent assessment years under appeals of course, fully concurring with his reasoning and conclusion. All the appeals fail and stand dismissed. 11. Before parting, we like to say that since we have applied the facts laid down by their Lordships of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are not considering the other case law, for obvious reasons.
-
1986 (3) TMI 142 - ITAT JABALPUR
Method Of Accounting, Cash Or Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, an enthymeme, because the practical aspect of the matter has been ignored. 23. On the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons that we have recorded supra, we hold that the assessee was entitled to account for these amounts on the basis of cash system of accounting and the authorities below erred in bringing to tax these amounts, as if these were receivable by the assessee and as such, accountable on the date of transaction of export. It is very clear that these were to be determined both on legally enforceable claim and on quantum by the concerned authorities taking into consideration the eligibility criteria. These amounts were, therefore, wrongly included into the total income of the assessee for the year under appeal. The orders of the authorities below on this issue are set aside and the ITO is directed to delete these amounts from the total income for the year under appeal. These grounds are allowed. 24. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 141 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in invoking the power under proviso to s. 145(1) of the IT Act, 1961, to the facts of the appellant case. the rejection of books of accounts is arbitrary, illegal and totally uncalled for. 2. The estimate of sale at Rs. 65 lacs as against declared sales of Rs. 63,24,600 is arbitrary, without material and lacks judicial basis. Likewise the application of net profit rate of 5 per cent on the estimated sales of Rs. 65 lacs is arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. The enhancement of profit from Rs. 3,01,270 (declared) to Rs. 3,25,000 (assessed by the CIT (A) is quite arbitrary, biased, prejudicial and vindictive in nature simply to harass the assessee for nothing , We have already dealt with the issues involved in above and have, therefore, recorded our judgment stated above. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose.
-
1986 (3) TMI 140 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... sently appealed against that the firm s status should be adopted as AOP was beyond his jurisdiction, because it was not that the AAC was hearing the assessee s appeal for the first time. His predecessor had earlier examined the question and restored the matter to the ITO with the specific directions to examine the question of registration of the firm. In these proceedings, therefore, it was not open to the AAC to have taken up the question of the status of the assessee being AOP. His mandate was merely to examine as to whether or not the ITO had correctly carried out the remand order of his predecessor. The finding of the ld. AAC in this regard is, therefore, in excess of his jurisdiction and we, accordingly, reverse it. In fact, the said finding becomes totally irrelevant in view of our directions to condone the delay and examine the question of registration of the firm on merits. With these observations, we restore the matter back to the ITO and allow the assessee s appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 139 - ITAT INDORE
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income, Bar Of Limitation, Reference To IAC ... ... ... ... ..... rajbhan. Secondly, in the certificate furnished to Prabhudayal Surajbhan under section 194C of the Act the rate of interest paid was not been mentioned at all. In the circumstances the sister-concern was not to pay and in fact did not pay any tax on the interest of Rs. 1,36,000 credited in its account. This also shows that a clear attempt was made by the assessee to reduce its tax liability. Assessment in this case was completed on 22-3-1975 and, therefore, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) which was amended with effect from 1-4-1976 was not applicable to the case. Therefore, the onus to show that failure to show the correct income was not due to any gross or wilful neglect, was on the part of the assessee which, according to us, has not been discharged. In our considered opinion it was a fit case where penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed and we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
