|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in use in ring spinning units. They being made of paper is only incidental and subject to technological necessities, they can be made of any other substance. Going by their basic character they cannot fall under TI-17. The essential character of the article being that of machine parts and not of paper products, their classification must accordingly be made under TI-68 and not under any of the other items. This view would be strengthened to the relevant extent by the following judgments 1. Indian Textile Paper Tube Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal) 2. Fibre Foils (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) The learned Consultant rsquo s argument that Chapter 48 HSN (Paper) covers bobbins, spools mentioned is only to be dismissed because that entry is in a different tariff and cannot be brought in to interpret the tariff as it existed at the relevant time. 14. We dismiss the three appeals.
-
1990 (12) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitions were not maintainable under Article 226 being related to claims arising out of a purely commercial contract whether statutory or non-statutory, and also on merits holding that since 45 days were to be counted including the day of auction, the Board was entitled to the proportionate reduction in duty as held by High Court?
Held that:- The purpose of including the day of auction in the period of 45 days, contrary to the manner of computation of time in the General Clauses Act, is obvious and is brought home more prominently by the present instance itself. As has been stated earlier, the reserve price is fixed on the basis of the rates, taxes, duties, etc. which are in existence till the day prior to the date of auction. These imposts keep changing and none of the parties has a control either over their variation or over the time of their variation. The dates of auction have necessarily to be fixed in advance. It is to obviate the hardship or to grant the necessary benefit, as the case may be, that purposely the period of 45 days laid down in clause 10 is stipulated to include the day of the auction as well. It is for this reason that we are unable to accept the contention advanced by Shri Shanti Bhushan and are in complete agreement with the impugned decision of the High Court on merits. Appeals dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of prospective demands ... ... ... ... ..... m taking action to recover duty on the basis of value plus cess. Then Shri Krishnamurthy stated that he had enquired from the Department rsquo s appeal in the Supreme Court and there is no stay against the same order. The Ld. SDR submitted that the Department should be given liberty to issue show cause notice so that in the event of the Supreme Court giving a decision in favour of the Department, they should not lose what would then be legitimate revenue to them. 2. We have considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the Tribunal rsquo s Judgment in TELCO and our stay order in this very case, the Department will not be correct in collecting cess on the higher value. However, considering that the Department has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, we direct that show cause notices may be issued to the appellants but no final orders should be passed against them and demand enforced till such time as the Supreme Court decides the Department rsquo s appeal in TELCO.
-
1990 (12) TMI 193 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... his order dt. 27th Oct., 1983. Thus this ground is partly allowed. 15. Ground No. 7. This relates to granting of suitable rebate since the whole of the estate or a major portion thereof comprised of the shares held by the deceased in several companies. Despite this fact while working out the value of the estate, the market value of the share was only taken into consideration and the total value of the shares held by the deceased was taken to be consisting the estate. The contention of the accountable person is that if the large share holding of the deceased was to be offered for sale then the value of the share would go down and a suitable rebate should be given keeping this fact in mind. However, no argument was advanced and no departmental instruction, as such on the point, was brought to out notice. We are therefore, unable to appreciate the contention and we dismiss the ground as not substantiated. 16. In the result the appeal of the accountable person is partly allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 191 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... claim may be an after thought to reduce the tax impact and should not be entertained. But we are unable to accept this contention since a transaction which has been acted upon by third parties cannot be ignored by the Revenue only on the ground that there is some tax mitigation. The test is whether the other partners could maintain their right to share in the profits and in the present case in view of the admission made by Damodharasamy Naidu to the Executive Engineer such a claim could be established in a Court of law and cannot, therefore, be ignored by the Revenue. In the circumstances, we accept the contention of the assessee that the income derived by Damodharasamy and co. was taken over by the firm and was properly includible only in the total income of the firm. Consequently, we delete the said income from the total income of the individual. The ITO is directed to recompute the income of both the firm and the individual. 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 190 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... r figures would work out at such proportion only should be added in the net wealth of the assessee for each of the four assessment years under consideration. 4. On behalf of the assessee, a sheet purporting to be revealing the financial position as on 31st Dec., 1983 was filed according to which the value of net assets came to Rs. 207.92 lakhs whereas the total of the secured loans together with sales-tax loans came to Rs. 217.94 lakhs. So, according to the calculation given by the assessee, the net assets available with the assessee (sic) were not even enough to meet the secured loans as well as sales-tax liabilities. However, in view of our calculation, we hold that for the asst. yr. 1984-85, the assessee (sic) was found capable of repaying.0637 paise per rupee. To the extent the assessee s calculations went against our calculations, we reject the assessee s calculations. 5. In the result, the departmental appeals are dismissed and the assessee s appeals are partly allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 189 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... case of Smt. Subaida Beevi in which the Kerala High Court followed the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat and Madras High Courts. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that under the scheme of the Act there is no room import the date of 28 th Feb., 1970. We further hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the assessee s claim on this issue. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the ITO. 33. Levy of interest under s. 139 (8) we find that the issue involved came up for consideration before the Tribunal, Madras Bench-D in the case of G. Bell and Co. (ITA No.2392/Mds/86 Asst. yr. 1982-83) and that by its order dt. 4th Aug., 1989 the Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the said order we decline to interfere in the matter. 34. In the result, the assessee s appeals is dismissed and the departmental appeal is partly allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 185 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Dissolution Of Firm, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ty will go to charitable purposes. But what are the charitable objects to be performed by the trustees have not been clearly and specifically set out. But we are,, of the view that once a trust is created for charitable purposes, even if the details of the charitable purpose are not mentioned, the trust will have to be taken as valid. In the present case also the deed provides for every eventuality and there is no uncertainty about the vesting of the income. Since the beneficiary is identifiable as the would-be wife or the husband and is not required to be un-named as mentioned in the memorandum explaining the provision, we are satisfied that the shares cannot be treated as indeterminate or unknown within the Explanation 1(i). Consequently the tax at the maximum marginal rate cannot be imposed in respect of these two assessees. The ITO is therefore directed to levy the tax at the normal rates. 9. In the result, Appeal No. 2391/86 is allowed and appeal No. 2312/87 is dismissed
-
1990 (12) TMI 184 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... ue of that asset as if he has realised the amount when in fact no money has been received. See - CIT v. A. Raman and Co. 1968 67 ITR 11 (SC). The proviso to section 145(1) is also of no avail because this is not a case where the method of accounting is such that the true profits cannot be deduced therefrom. The method of accounting actually reflects the reality that nothing was actually realised and hence the entire amount which was written off was the deficiency envisaged in the section. In this view, we must hold that the authorities below were not entitled to estimate the value of the salvaged materials donated to the college and set it off against the value of the demolished building written off in the accounts of the assessee. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider whether the estimate made of such salvaged material was reasonable or not. In the circumstances, we delete the disallowance and direct the ITO to recompute the total income. 10. The appeal is allowed
-
1990 (12) TMI 183 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Appellate Authority, Assessment Order, Doctrine Of Merger, Higher Rate, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Original Assessment
-
1990 (12) TMI 182 - ITAT MADRAS-C
A Partner, Firm Consisting, In Part, Partnership Deed, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... and it would be competent for them to admit to the benefits of such partnership a minor under section 30 of the Partnership Act. This position under the Partnership Act emerges from the various authorities discussed above. In the present case, such a partnership has not been constituted between two majors in their own right, On the contrary, partner Kamalakannan alone is a partner in his own right, while his wife Smt. M.K. Rajalakshmi entered into the contract of partnership as the guardian of the minor, which is not permissible in law in the absence of another adult or major partner. The departmental authorities were therefore right in their conclusion that there is no valid and genuine partnership firm which had come into existence under the partnership deed dated 27-3-1981 and consequently refusing to register the same under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the authorities below. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (12) TMI 181 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Land, Debt Owed, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... t wealth under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act is the liability incurred in relation to any property in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable under the Act. Though agricultural lands are exempt from the purview of the assets as contemplated in section 2(m)(ii), agricultural income arising out of such lands is not exempt from the assets includible in the net wealth of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the agricultural income-tax liability incurred by the assessee is not on an exempted asset within the meaning of section 2(m)(ii) and consequently the liability incurred by the assessee in connection with the agricultural income-tax is to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee as defined in section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The same view was taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated 13-4-1989 and we see no reason to interfere with the same. 5. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed
-
1990 (12) TMI 175 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... ee will be limited to her share in the property of the firm. Her rights do not get enlarged by the finding that the firm is sham for the purpose of capital gains, as long as that finding did not mean that the partnership deed was not acted upon. In the present case, the revenue did not dispute the fact that the partnership deed was in fact acted upon and the investments were made only by the firm with the consequence that the right of the other partners to share in the assets of the firm cannot be defeated by the assessee. It follows that only her share in the firm rsquo s property can be taken as belonging to her as on the valuation date especially when she has not received the full consideration herself and hold it on the valuation date in her own name. We therefore deem it fit to set aside the order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Wealth-tax Officer to correctly assess her interest in the firm at Rs. 1,99,643 as shown by the assessee. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 172 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... share for an existing product. The target population will naturally vary according to the product whose sales is sought to be promoted. Even so, the focus of such promotional activities is the market as a whole, and not an individual buyer or an individual item of sale. 12. Sales discount/sales commission, on the contrary, are paid when sales actually take place. Here the focus is on a particular sale, a particular buyer. For a fact, the aggregate quantum of discount allowed or commission paid may indeed be a direct measure of the success of the sales promotion drive undertaken earlier. It should, therefore, follow that sales discount/sales commission cannot be brought under the blanket head of sales promotion. 13. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the CIT was not justified in passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore those of the Assessing Officers. 14. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 169 - ITAT MADRAS-B
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... e property as the same was allotted to his share specifically. In other words, the assessee was the owner of this property even on and prior to 1-4-1971 as a coparcener of the HUF and continues to be the owner of the same even after partition on 2-6-1976. Shortly, the property at No. 333A, Avinashi Road belongs to the assessee from and prior to 1-4-1971. When once he is the owner of this property as on 1-4-1971 and this property was wholly used by him for residential purposes for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation date, i.e., 31-3-1983, he is entitled to claim that this property should be valued under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hold that the assessee s claim that the house property at No. 333A Avinashi Road, should be valued under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act is tenable and he is entitled to the same. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed
-
1990 (12) TMI 168 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Investment Company, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... hould be worked out on the basis that the parent investment company and the wholly owned subsidiary or subsidiaries were in fact one single company on the lines laid down in the Circular dated 15-9-1973. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid two paragraphs to press on the claim that there was no need to add a premium of 10 . 45. It is ex-facie clear from the said paras that they relate only to a case of a parent investment company, which has one or more wholly owned subsidiaries. They do not apply to a case of a parent company holding a large number of subsidiaries, some of which are wholly owned and some of which are not. In the cases before us, it is a matter of record that Amalgamations Ltd., was at the relevant point of time having as many as 28 subsidiaries, of which only five were wholly owned. In the circumstances, therefore, the assessees cannot call to aid the aforesaid paragraphs. We, therefore, reject this claim. 46. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part
-
1990 (12) TMI 167 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... s such, which is the claim now being put forward before us by the assessee s learned counsel. On the contrary, the various construction works that are to be carried out by the appellant-company in pursuance of its objects clause have to be on land only, which already exists. Therefore, it is not correct to argue that the activity of collecting, transporting and dumping the slag and refuse of the TISCO s factory at Jamshedpur as the sub-contractor of Tarapore and Co., would amount to construction of land, which can be regarded as an article, or thing, in order to enable the assessee to qualify for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the assessee-company is not entitled to investment allowance claimed by it in these two years and that the departmental authorities were right in not allowing the same. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in both the years. 12. In the result, the appeals are dismissed
-
1990 (12) TMI 161 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... amount to Rs. 50,000 or more. From the facts and circumstances it cannot be ruled out that the likelihood of an addition of more than Rs. 50,000 was not obtaining at the time of sending the proposal to the CBDT for asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 and from the CIT for asst. yrs. 1974-75. Further, the above provision would also disclose that re opening can be done with the permission of the CBDT even upto 16 years after the close of the relevant years. I am unable to accept the argument that any of the reassessments were either invalid for the reason that they are time barred. I hold that the impugned reassessments are full justified and legal and they are made quite time available under law. 10. In the result, since I have held that the reopening was not valid under s. 147 (a) for asst. yr. 1972-73, the appeal for that assessment year is dismissed and for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1975-76 they are allowed. The impugned order of the AAC for 1973-74 and 1974-75 is hereby set aside.
-
1990 (12) TMI 160 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ere was no such option available in the case of an annuity. That the instalment falling due would be treated as deposit clearly showed that it was akin to an ordinary deposit and not to an annuity. Therefore, deposit under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme was not exempt as an annuity because what was paid every year as instalment of principal and interest was not an annuity in the eye of law. Further, when it was a deposit in a bank and it was earning a very high rate of interest which was payable only on long-term deposits there could be no question of discounting its value at all. Accordingly, the face value of the deposit was included in the net wealth of the assessee. Following the above Special Bench decision, we hold that there is no substance in this ground of Cross Objection. Hence it is dismissed. 20. In the result, WTA Nos. 1021 and 1022/Mds/87 are allowed, WTA Nos. 1023, 1024 and 1025/Mds/87 are allowed in part, and the Cross Objection 144 to 147/Mds/87 are dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 156 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Family Arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... amounted to a family arrangement and not a transfer. Similarly, there was no such claim in the case of Nanjiah Setty v. CGT 1964 54 ITR 425 (Mys.) either, which is relied on by the revenue. The contention of the revenue that the acceptance of this claim will induce other assessees to make similar claims is of no significance, for, each case has to be decided on the merits of the claim as to whether there was a genuine family arrangement and such claims cannot be condemned without scrutiny merely because there will be no incidence of tax if the claims accepted. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction of the assessee being a family arrangement did not amount to a transfer and, therefore, there was no chargeable capital gains arising from that transaction. The capital gains brought to tax by the authorities below are deleted from the total income of the assessee and the ITO is directed to re-compute the total income. 11. The appeal is allowed
............
|
