|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 214 Records
-
1991 (6) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Proceedings, Cash Credits, Reassessment Proceedings, Reopening Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... resolved in favour of the assessee. More so, the year involved is 1976-77 and the statements of Shri D.D. Mehta were recorded in June and July 1977. No useful purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the file of the ITO as it would not be possible for the ITO to enforce the physical presence of Shri S.D. Mehta, when he had failed to do so during the reassessment proceedings and completed the assessment on 27-2-1985. Therefore, sending the matter back to the ITO to examine Shri D.D. Mehta would be not only a futile exercise by also consuming lot of public time and money. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that on the material already gathered during the original assessment proceedings, it would be reasonable and prudent to accept the assessee s explanation regarding the nature and source of Rs. 1 lakh being the loan taken from M.S.T.U. and its claim for deduction of Rs. 5,000 being the interest paid on such loans. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Accounting Year, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... d be entitled to exemption u/s. 53 of the Act, if on the date of transfer, he does not own any other residential house. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that out of the residential house owned by the assessee the assessee had sold only one room, to his brother, while retaining the balance for his residential purposes. If one were to accept the assessee s submissions, then the provisions of capital gains in respect of a residential house can easily be overcome or frustrated, if an assessee starts selling a portion of his residential house from year to year. Surely this type of interpretation cannot be given to a provision where the Legislature wants to give certain concession/exemption to an assessee who intends to change his residential house for one reason or other. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the I.T authorities, rejecting the assessee s claim for exemption u/s. 53 of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (6) TMI 92 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Fees For Technical Services, Foreign Company, Foreign Exchange, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... .1 Royalty Taxed inst. US 30 30 5,00,000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, out of a total 5 instalments comprising the said sums of US 18,60,000, department has accepted at the assessment stage itself the assessee s stand for three instalments, namely, second, third and fifth. Then for yet another instalment, (namely, The fourth instalment), assessment was made at higher rate but the CIT(A) allowed the relief and the department is not in appeal on this issue. Thus, out of a total of five instalments comprising the said sum of US 18,60,000 the department is contesting only in respect of the first instalment of US 3,72,000. For the subsequent for instalments department has either assessed or accepted the CIT(Appeals) s decision in favour of the assessee. This is yet another reason warranting dismissal of department s appeal. 10. Department s appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (6) TMI 91 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Chargeable Profits, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ision, the question was of proportionate management expenses, while in the case before us, the question is of relief or deduction allowed under the Income-tax Act under s. 80M in computation of total income. For all these reasons, we would reject on this point, assessee s grounds of appeal for all the three years involved. 8. For assessment year 1980-81, there is one more ground taken by the assessee, which is as follows----- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Appellant-company is not entitled in law in increasing its capital employed on a pro-rata basis in respect of bonus shares issued during the year. It is common ground that it is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Department by the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1978 111 ITR 6. This ground of appeal is also rejected. 9. In effect, assessee s all the three appeals are dismissed
-
1991 (6) TMI 90 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... n assessee who is running an industrial undertaking. Naturally the Industrial law should apply to the workers and such a case could exist if only the workers are servants in the undertaking. 12. The point considered by the Tribunal in the case of K.R. Jewellers, Belgaum, was whether the assessee who had run a small scale industry where workers were being paid on piece work and that was in connection with relief claimed under section 80HHA. The context in which the Tribunal considered the matter was altogether different in the case of K.R. Jewellers. 13. We are clearly of the view that workers who undertake to do job work, or where the assessee gets the articles prepared on piece work basis, the workers are not employees of the assessee and as such the condition in clause (iv) of section 80HH(2) is not fulfilled. For these reasons, we affirm the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard and dismiss the second ground. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1991 (6) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Agricultural Produce, Co-operative Society, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... s 80(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. 6. The decision of the M.P. High Court in Keshkal Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. s case on which the learned D.R. has relied upon, is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the assessee-society was purchasing paddy from the members and after milling the same was selling as its own account. On these facts it was held that the activity does not amount to marketing of agricultural produce of the members. In the present case we have confined our decision to the sale of oil etc. extracted from the groundnuts brought by the members of the assessee society and sold for and on behalf of those members. Our decision does not apply to any independent activity of purchasing groundnuts and selling the oil extracted from purchased groundnuts. 7. For the reasons given above, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the ITO to verify the facts and then allow deduction to the extent mentioned above. 8. The appeal is allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 88 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... with the provisions of s. 194A of the Act with the result that levy of interest by the ITO is unassailable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the levy of interest is set aside and the order of the ITO levying interest is restored. ITA No. 3093/Ahd/1987 Asst. yr. 1984-85 7. The assessee in this case is Jain Family Trust. Admittedly, one of the beneficiaries is a discretionary trust. The ITO had levied interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act on failure of the assessee trust to deduct tax at source on payment of income by way of interest. Thus, the facts are identical with the facts in the case of K.C. Trust and the decision in said case would be applicable. In the present case, the AAC has confirmed the order of levy of interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act. For reasons given above, we reject the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the levy of interest. 8. ITA No. 2409 is allowed and ITA No. 3093 is dismissed. ITA No. 2410 shall be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1991 (6) TMI 87 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... val in which case the assessee who was carrying on business of importing dates from abroad and selling them in India had imported dates by steamer which were confiscated by customs authorities and released subsequently on payment of certain amount about which deduction was claimed but the said claim was rejected on the ground that the amount had been paid by way of penalty for a breach of law and infraction of law was not a normal incident of business carried on by the assessee and that the loss was required to be incurred in some character other than that on a trader. 12. Considering the entire circumstances of the present case and taking into account the ratio of the decisions referred to above, we find that decision in the case of Piara Singh was not applicable in our case and as such no deduction was allowable on the basis of said decision in respect of confiscation of diamonds by customs officers by order dt. 30th March, 1983. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... erent from that taken in ITA No. 1424/Ahd/1987 cannot be accepted because after considering all the decisions we have come to the conclusion that the view mentioned by us above was acceptable. We, accordingly, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the action of the ITO in changing the status from BOI to AOP could not be said to be invalid on the sole ground that the return had been filed in the status of BOI. As already stated, if the facts on record justified change of status from BOI to AOP, the ITO was entitled to do so particularly when all the parties were before him and show cause notice had already been issued by him. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the AAC and restore the matter to him with direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as to the ITO in respect of all the points mentioned in the assessment order. 10. The appeals are allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Classification of goods - Polyester chips ... ... ... ... ..... 5A of the Central Excise Schedule, still the conclusion is equally applicable to the application of Tariff Item 82(3)(a) of Indian Customs Tariff. It is also interesting to note that though the petitioners are claiming that it was incumbent upon the authorities below to examine how polyester chips are known in trade parlance, still the petitioners did not produce any material before the authorities below in support of their claim. We inquired from Shri Sanklecha as to whether the petitioner had any material even at this juncture, and the learned Counsel very fairly stated that it is not so available. It is therefore futile to urge that the authorities below were not right in considering how polyester chips are known in the trade circles. In our judgment, the decisions recorded by the authorities below do not suffer from any infirmity and the applications for refund made by the petitioners were clearly untenable. 5.Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs.
-
1991 (6) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Exemption - Conditional exemption ... ... ... ... ..... itions are fulfilled by the party to whom such benefit or concession or exemption is given, such person cannot be denied such benefit or concession or exemption, as the case may be. If such person does not fulfil any of the conditions, he cannot claim grant of concession as a matter of right on fulfilment of some out of several conditions prescribed therein. 14In view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of. the opinion that the demands of excise duty from the petitioner for the relevant periods made by the excise authorities have to be branded as illegal and invalid. The demand order at Annexure C to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the order at Annexure D to each petition to the extent affirmed in the revisional order at Annexure E to each petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 15.In the result, all these petitions succeed. Rule issued in each of them is accordingly made absolute, however, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
1991 (6) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... annexures B and C were justified in law or not and there was no occasion for us to examine any other wider question including the question whether the procedural provisions of Rule 56A as per the proviso to the exemption notification were in fact complied with by the petitioner at the relevant time or not. That question will be relevant if and when the petitioner puts forward refund claim for adjudication. So far as prayer (D) regarding refund of excise duty is concerned, it is always open to the petitioner to make proper application for refund in the light of the present decision and as and when such application is made, it will have to be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible in view of the fact that this is an old claim. We make it clear that we express no opinion one way or the other about eligibility of the petitioner for such refund. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to cost.
-
1991 (6) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Fertilisers ... ... ... ... ..... ire period. Only on this short ground, the order of the revisional authority at Annexure E is directed to stand modified by observing that the said revision order will be treated to have covered also clearances of fertilisers effected by the petitioner for September 1976 and the proof of payment for the said clearances by the petitioner to the fertilisers pool equalisation fund will be treated to have been validly submitted by the petitioner during the extended period. The order at Annexure E will read modified to the aforesaid extent. Moment this direction is issued, it becomes obvious that consequential order at Annexure F as passed by the Assistant Collector would not survive and would fall through. It is therefore, quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, earlier show cause notice dated 22-12-1976 would not survive. Accordingly, the petition will stand allowed in terms of para 20(A) as well as in terms of para 20(B). There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.
-
1991 (6) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution (Customs) - Sanction ... ... ... ... ..... all the records. Even the prosecution has not, as seen above, placed all the materials before the sanctioning authority. 20. Therefore, I hold that there is no valid sanction and the finding of the lower Court that the sanction is invalid, is upheld. I also find that the prosecution has put up the value of the gold seized at Rs. 1,02,630/- possibly to prosecute the accused. In any event there is evidence that the accused has brought gold bars from the foreign country and since a valid adjudication has been made and the gold biscuits have been confiscated and a penalty of Rs. l5,000/- has been imposed against the accused I do not find a warrant to interfere with that finding of the lower Court even though my observation is that the value of the gold seized has been exaggerated possibly to bring home the guilt to the accused. In this view, the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court is confirmed and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Classification of goods for customs - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... o obviate disputes, notice of hearing should be sent to the Advocate for the petitioners. (9) The payment of the duty on the basis that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading 8414.30 as well as the furnishing of the Bank Guarantee is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and must not be seen as even a prima facie finding as to the correctness or incorrectness of the classification of the petitioner s goods. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into any question on merit. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all points taken in this writ petition before the Assessing Authority. (10) The Customs Authorities will grant a wharf rent exemption certificate to the petitioner for the period subsequent to 6 (six) weeks after the expiry of the free laydays granted by the Port Authorities. 23. There will be no order as to costs. 24. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment and order on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (6) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Jurisdiction - Order - Appellate Tribunal's order - Duty Entitlement Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... der Section 130(1) of the Act. As long as the order of the Tribunal stands the said respondents are bound to honour the same. 30. In the circumstances I allow this writ petition by directing the said respondents (i) to return the DEEC Book parts I and II duly endorsed and the relevant licences in respect of all the exports made by the petitioner after debiting/endorsing the same. (ii) to release the imported goods covered by the Advance Licence to the petitioner within 10 days from the communication of the operative portion of this judgment. It is made clear however that if the advance licence has not been amended as regards enhancement in the value of the imports, the petitioner will be allowed duty free import only up to the amount covered by the licence and will be required to pay Customs Duty as leviable on the balance amount. 31. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment and order on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (6) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Departmental circulars and trade notices - Yarn - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... (Mad.) at 702. (v) Acme Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. George Baria, ACCE, Bombay reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 270 (Bom.). (vi) State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 997 at 999. (vii) Indoswe Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.) at 223. (viii) Satya Vijay Exports (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 344 (Cal.). 28. Accordingly the writ application is allowed. The impugned notice dated 20-2-1990, orders dated 28-2-1990 and 30-8-1990 and demands raised on the basis thereof are set aside. The respondents are directed to act in accordance with the Circular No. 25/90 CX. 1 dated 26-11-1990 as far as the yarn manufactured by the petitioner company is concerned and to continue to classify the same under sub-heading 5504.32 of the Schedule to the Act. There will be no order as to costs. 29. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (6) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revision by Central Government - Order - Oral Order of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ers from claiming refund merely because the appeal preferred by the Department is pending in the Supreme Court. In our judgment, the exercise of powers under Section 36(2) of the Excise Act is not bona fide. It was open for the Department to seek stay of operation of the order passed by this Court by filing appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court, but either such application was not made or was turned down by the Supreme Court. Shri Shah was unable to enlighten us as to whether the Department applied for stay or whether the stay was refused by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, in our judgment, issuance of show cause notice was entirely illegal and the notice is therefore required to be struck down. 6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioners. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court to stand discharged.
-
1991 (6) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Petroleum products - "Factory" - Scope of expression ... ... ... ... ..... ny question of financial hardship that may be raised. The Collector should dispose of such application expeditiously, preferrably within a period of eight weeks from date. Until the Collector hears and disposes of the said application of the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount, the respondents will not realise this demand raised on the basis of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 25th October, 1990 subject to the petitioner s undertaking to this Court not to deal with or dispose of its assets without the leave of this Court and except in the usual course of business. 8. This writ application is disposed of accordingly. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been used, it is recorded that the allegations contained in the petition are not admitted. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Let a Xerox copy of this order duly countersigned by the Deputy Registrar (Court) be given to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties as prayed for on usual terms.
-
1991 (6) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... the public notice dated December 14,1990 and urged that where the item falls within the expression drugs/drug intermediates not elsewhere specified , then the import is permitted as an OGL item under the REP licence. The submission has no merit, because once it is found that cloves do not attract the expression drugs and drug intermediates as set out in Item 169 of List 8 of Appendix 6 of the Policy, then the question as to whether such goods are specified elsewhere does not arise. Even assuming that the cloves attract Item 169 and are drugs or drug intermediates, still as the cloves are specifically referred to in paragraph 167 of chapter XIII of the Policy, the import without the specific licence is not permissible. In our judgment, the action of the Customs authorities in not permitting clearance cannot be faulted with and the petition must fail. The licence relied upon by the petitioner is not valid for the import of cloves. 5. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
....
|
