|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 93 - ITAT BANGALORE
Higher Rate, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... ny support for the assessee s contention from the passage. Even if we were to construe the expression letting very liberally it cannot include the services by way of transportation from collection-point to storage point, insuring of the goods and filling bags with rice, stitching, weighing and stencilling, etc. These are services totally unconnected with letting of the warehouses and the remuneration received for these activities cannot be exempt. 10. Since the assessee is receiving a consolidated amount of Rs. 3 per quintal, the question of apportionment between the services would arise. No arguments had been advanced on this point before us. But on a proper appreciation of facts and after perusing the material on record, we are of opinion that 50 per cent of the receipts may be attributed to the letting of godowns and warehouses. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to exemption of half the amount claimed. 11. In the result, the appeals of the department are partly allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 92 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... is issue in view of the fact that the assessee had neither filed an appeal or cross objection raising this issue. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated that since the assessee had won on the main issue, it could not have preferred appeal/cross objection for the determination of the capital gains whether it is long term or short term. 11. We are constrained to observe that neither in the order of the ITO nor in the order of the Commissioner(A) this aspect of the matter has been raised by the assessee. On the contrary, the penultimate paragraph of the order of the Commissioner(A) reads as under 16. Since the main contention of the assessee has been accepted I do not consider it necessary to deal with the alternative plea that instead of capital gains the assessee is entitled to capital loss. In view of the above, it is not necessary to remit the matter back to the file of the Commissioner(A) as urged on behalf of the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 91 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... the rival submissions of the parties as well as the material contained in the paper book to which our attention was drawn, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner(A) accepting the assessee s claim as in our view the point at issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Subhhalaxmi Mills Ltd. Since the High Court has approved the amalgamation of Farmsaon Pharmaceutical Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. and Ugachem Pvt. Ltd, it is too late for the ITO to hold that the amalgamation was effected with a view to avoid/reduce tax liability. In this view of the matter, the decision in the case of Wood polymer Ltd. In re (1977) 109 ITR 177 (Guj) supports the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the order of the Commissioner(A) on this issue. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 90 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Extinguishment Of Right, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... he fact that the assessee had neither filed an appeal or cross objection raising this issue. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated that since the assessee had won on the main issue, it could not have preferred appeal/cross objection for the determination of the capital gains whether it is long-term or short-term. 11. We are constrained to observe that neither in the order of the ITO nor in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this aspect of the matter has been raised by the assessee. On the contrary, the penultimate paragraph of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under 16. Since the main contention of the assessee has been accepted I do not consider it necessary to deal with the alternative plea that instead of capital gains the assessee is entitled to capital loss. In view of the above, it is not necessary to remit the matter back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) as urged on behalf of the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... nefit of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Shrinivasa Shetty. This decision would be available to the appellant if it be held that the taxable event had taken place in asst. yr. 1966-67, a position which we have negatived. This ground is, therefore, answered accordingly. We accept ground No. 7 to the extent that as no taxable capital gain had arisen in the asst. yr. 1966-67, the ITO had no jurisdiction to take action under s. 147 and to issue a notice under s. 148. With respect to ground No. 8, we agree with Mrs. Shah that the appellant had a right to challenge the levy of interest under s. 139(8). IN any way since we have quashed the very initiation of proceedings under s. 147(a), the question of expressing any further opinion with regard to the charge of interest under s. 139(8) does not survive. 26. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the order under appeal is set aside and the initiation of proceedings under s. 147(a) r/w s. 148 is hereby quashed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 88 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Exemption, Jewellery, Net Wealth, Debt Due ... ... ... ... ..... the appeals where high revenue stakes are involved, especially when the revenue itself is an appellant. When this matter was brought to the notice of the Departmental Representative it was explained that he was assigned this matter only on the previous day at 4.30 P.M. and, therefore, it was neither possible him to request the assessing officer to remain present nor he could go through the records properly. This only clarifies the importance attached to the matters agitated even by the revenue and the seriousness attached to the representation before the Tribunal. Throughout the hearings of the appeals even the Sr. Departmental Representative was absent probably because he had assigned the matter to the Jr. Departmental Representative. We direct the Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax for his information and doing needful in the matter. 19. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed in part.
-
1988 (3) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Adjudication - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... e, petitioner has also executed guarantee bond in respect of the remaining penalty amount. These weighty subsequent circumstances cannot be ignored while hearing the above Special Civil Applications. Even on this consideration, therefore, the order rejecting the restoration application and the order dismissing the above appeal are required to be set aside in the ends of justice. 8.We, therefore, allow both the aforesaid Special Civil Applications, set aside the order rejecting the restoration application as also the order under which the said appeal has been dismissed. We also direct that the said appeal be restored to file and be heard expeditiously on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties of being heard. The said appeal after restoration, be disposed of on merits preferably by 31-5-1988. The Special Civil Applications are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rules are made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Sugar excess production incentive rebate - Interpretation of statute - Proviso - Effect of ... ... ... ... ..... ed in any one of the months during the base year, the benefit of nil production should be given under Items 1 to 4 for the production during the relevant period in the sugar year. So, the explanation to the notification does not in anyway come to the aid of the sugar factories. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are allowed, the orders of the learned Judges are reversed and the writ petitions are dismissed. 17. After the pronouncement of this order, the learned Counsel for the respondents made an oral submission for staying the operation of our judgment by 8 weeks. We, accordingly, stay the operation of our judgment for a period of 8 weeks. 18. He also made an oral application praying for issue of certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our view, no substantial question of law of general importance arises for consideration all because there are conflicting judgments of other High Courts on the point. Accordingly, the prayer sought for is rejected.
-
1988 (3) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Central Excise - Rate of duty - Exemption Notification - Validity of ... ... ... ... ..... hort of the basic duty. The impugned notification is, therefore, infra vires Rule 8(1) of the rules. Similarly, it is open to the Government to change the basis of exemption so long as the duty does not exceed the basis duty. This is clearly permissible under Rule 8(3) read with the explanation thereto. Since there is no increase in the basic additional duty levied under Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act by the impugned notification, we sec no merit in the contention based on Section 3 of the Tariff Act. 21. For the above reasons we see no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and dismiss these petitions and discharge the rule with costs. As the petitions fail, we vacate the interim order but grant eight weeks time to the petitioners to arrange to pay the difference in duty in respect whereof they have furnished bank guarantee failing which it will be open to the revenue to recover the duty enforcing the bank guarantee in the case of the defaulting assessee.
-
1988 (3) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Revision by Collector - Writ jurisdiction - Alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... r any statute, this Court invariably does not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But where, as in this case, the authority has absolutely no jurisdiction to take suo motu revision in the circumstances and facts of this case, this Court is well within its bounds to interfere and correct the mistake at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, this writ petition has been admitted in 1982 and has been pending in this Court for six years and now a direction to resort to the remedies available under the statute will do no justice to either of the parties. In the circumstances, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the peculiar circumstances in this case. We are, therefore, of the view that Ext. P11 was issued without jurisdiction. Ext. P11 dated 6th August, 1982 issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, respondent No. 2, is therefore quashed and this writ petition is allowed to that extent. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Appeal sent by post - Certificate of posting sufficient evidence of despatch ... ... ... ... ..... ime limit of six months, i.e., before 25-10-1981. 2. There is dispute about the receipt of appeal papers sent by the assessee in this case. After looking into the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the assessee s contention that the appeals were despatched on 16-10-1981 under a certificate of posting and in the normal course they should have been received In the office of the appellate authority well in time. If the Tribunal believed the evidence produced by the assessee, that is an end of the matter and no question of law arises. Assuming that the two questions referred to us are questions of law, they must be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Penalty enhanced without any basis or foundation - Adjudication - Short landing - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... penalty is without any basis foundation, and in any event there are no reasons given in the impugned order for this increase, nor was the petitioner given any notice that there was any error in calculation of the duty amount in the previous order. 7. In that view of the matter, the order in so far as it increases the amount of penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of the original amount of Rs, 2,00,000/- the same is bad and without any foundation and the same is quashed only to the extent of the increase in amount, and the penalty amount should be read to be Rupees Two lakhs only instead of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In view of the fact that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid, the same may be appropriated towards the satisfaction of the penalty amount and no further demand is to be raised against the petitioner on account of penalty, and the further demand sought to be raised for the additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- is also quashed. 8. Each party will pay and bear its own cost.
-
1988 (3) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Valuation - Packing of Portland cement in gunny bags ... ... ... ... ..... h is the subject matter of the show-cause notice in the application for amendment, which we have allowed, the petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the writ - petition the petitioner was compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 8,11,024.21 and therefore there should also be a direction for the refund of the said amount. 13. In the result, we make the following order (i) Rule made absolute. (ii) Writ of mandamus shall issue to Respondent-1 to refund an amount of Rs. 8,11,024.21 (Rs. Eight lakhs eleven thousand twenty four and paise twenty-one only) collected from the petitioner as excise duty on packing material of portland cement for the period from 1.10.1975 to 27.11.1975 and to refund the amount of Rs. 7,74,432.84 (Rs. Seven lakhs seventy four thousand four hundred thirty two and paise eighty-four only) being the amount of excise duty on packing charges paid by the petitioner in protest for the period commencing from 28.1.1975 to 8.1.1976. (iii) No order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Refund under writ-jurisdiction - Limitation for refund - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... 54) AIR 1975 S.C. 813, where refund was ordered, the Supreme Court had not considered or pronounce upon the theory of unjust enrichment. We do not think it necessary to repeat the said discussion over again here. Also because, in view of our finding on the question of limitation, it is really unnecessary. 11. We must also say that we cannot dismiss the argument urged by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government that for upholding the petitioner s claim it is necessary to undertake an investigation into facts. Whether the articles/goods upon which duty was levied at the gate of the petitioner s factory were really unfinished goods, i.e., component parts, and whether they were marketable or not, is a question upon which we cannot express an opinion straightaway without a further investigation into facts. 12. For all the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Duty collected without the authority of law ... ... ... ... ..... of the petition, to show that the petitioners were asked to pay the excise duty. In my opinion, this is sufficient to show that the amount has been collected by the respondents without the authority of law. Merely because a manufacturer pays certain-amount to the Excise authorities, they cannot accept the same without examining the question as to whether they are entitled to accept the same. Further, if it is demonstrated, as it has been demonstrated in the instant case, that the petitioners were not required to pay excise duty in view of the exemption notification dated 26th July, 1971, it must be held that the acceptance thereof by the respondents is without the authority of law. 5. The petition must, therefore, succeed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The respondents shall also pay interest on the amount at 12 per annum from 1st November, 1978 till the date of payment. The respondents shall also pay costs of this petition to the petitioners.
-
1988 (3) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Customs - Additional duty of customs - Forgings ... ... ... ... ..... under the provisions of Tariff Item 68, but it is not so. Anyhow, this Court is of the.opinion that the matter has to be gone into afresh on all the materials placed by either side for coming to a conclusion regarding the nature of the article, namely, the connecting rod used for the manufacture of motor-cycles. In this view, the order under Writ Petitions, namely, the order of the revisional authority is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal forfresh consideration, after giving opportunity to born sides to produce evidence, both oral and documentary. Accordingly, the Writ Petition are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, after giving opportunity to both sides to let in evidence, both oral and documentary and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of the records hereof, together with a copy of this order, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs
-
1988 (3) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Acquittal ... ... ... ... ..... justifiable view that would have been harmoniously reached. Therefore, apart from upholding the validity of the view expressed by the learned Magistrate even on re-assessment we reach the same conclusion as being the most rational view under the circumstances. If that be so, for obvious reasons the order of acquittal cannot be up-set. As stated at the threshold the incident occurred in the year 1978 for which the complaint was lodged in February, 1980 which ultimately concluded before the trial Court in April, 1981 against which this appeal was preferred by the complainant on this forum in the year 1981 and it is being disposed of in the year 1988 and as indicated in between the accused who had put in nearly 40 years service has retired long back in the year 1980 itself. 24. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the appeal. 25. Appeal dismissed. 26. The order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate in favour of the respondent-accused is confirmed
-
1988 (3) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Machinery for garment Industry - Transfer Printing Machine - Import - Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... f finality of judgments, though in law the principles of res judicata or the law of precedents does not apply to the departmental proceedings. I have, with his assistance, gone through the authorities cited before me. There is no dispute about the proposition that the taxation authorities should take a consistent view and a view once taken should not be changed except for strong and cogent reasons. But on the facts of this case, it is impossible for me to hold that merely because subsequently a different view has been taken, the view taken in the Instant case is erroneous. Indeed, I am of the opinion thaf no view other than the one taken by the authorities in the instant case is plausible, this apart from the fact that specific details of the incidents on which the petitioners relied have not been furnished to the authorities below nor in this petition. 9. In the result, the petition must fall. Rule is accordingly discharged with costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in one set.
-
1988 (3) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... refund of amount would not apply where the amount has been paid under a mistake of law or where the amount is collected without the authority of law. In the instant case it should be held that the amount for which applications for refund was made by the petitioners was collected without the authority of law. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ requiring the authorities to refund the amount is, naturally, the correct remedy. 4. There is no return to this petition. It is seen that the Assistant Collector in review have refused to refund the amount only on the ground that the applications were not made within the time prescribed by law. 5. The petition must, therefore, succeed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) (ii) subject, however, to the modification that interest at 12 per annum would be payable on the amount from 25th April 1988 if by that time the same is not refunded. 6. No order as to costs in this petition.
-
1988 (3) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Machinery and mechanical appliances and parts thereof ... ... ... ... ..... o say, as from 7th April 1979 and upto 1 st March 1986 as duty paid under a mistake of law. The respondents are bound to refund the excess duty collected during this period without the authority of law. 16. For the period after 1st March 1986, the petitioners shall pay duty in accordance with law in force and in the light of this judgment. 17. Under an interim order dated 27th July 1982 in this petition the respondents have assessed the parts imported as described in Exhibits BZ and CA provisionally under items 84.10(1) and 84.11 (1) respectively on the petitioners furnishing bonds as per the interim order. These assessments should now be finalised, and the bonds should be discharged. 18. The rule is made absolute accordingly. Respondents to refund the excess amount of duty paid within a period of 8 weeks of the petitioners furnishing to the respondents a statement giving particulars of the refunds claimed. 19. The respondents to pay to the petitioners costs of the petition.
....
|
