|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 114 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Additions To Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Backward Area, Collaboration Agreement, Investment Company, Setting Up, Undisclosed Income
-
1992 (10) TMI 113 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Raw Material, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... conduct is contumacious, or there is a wilful disregard of legal obligations that the WTO could on a given set of facts, condone the delay by not penalising the assessee and that such discretion with the ITO can be exercised by the appellate authorities also. Their Lordships of the Orissa High Court have followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1972 83 ITR 26. In my view the ratio of this decision would be applicable in this case also. Respectfully following this decision, I hold that there is no default committed by the appellant within the meaning of section 271B of the Act, as there was reasonable cause for the assessee for not complying with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act within the meaning of section 271B of the Act. Accordingly I cancel the penalty of Rs. 20,373 retained by the DC(Appeals), which shall be refunded to the appellant if already collected from them. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (10) TMI 112 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Carrying On Business, Deemed Gift, Family Arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... ntilal group. The entire settlement was apparently entered into with a view to benefiting certain shareholders. The benefit to the shareholders cannot be equated with the benefit to the company. 13. In order to be a gift, within the meaning of Gift-tax Act, following essentials are to be fulfilled (1) There must be a transfer by one person to another, (2) The transfer should be of any existing movable or immovable property, (3) The transfer must be made voluntarily, and (4) The transfer must be made without consideration of money or money s worth. We find from the perusal of the details filed before us that there was a transfer by the assessee-company to one group of shareholders of the company s properties. It was voluntary in nature and the absence of consideration is evident. In view of this, in our opinion, the transaction is exgible to gift-tax. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned CGT(A) on this count. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed
-
1992 (10) TMI 111 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... loyee to claim the payment. There had also been instances, though very few, where such claim has been rejected by the company. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case reported in 161 ITR 544 should set at rest all the controversies generated in this regard by the Revenue. That decision supports the view canvassed by the assessee before us. Even if the payment by way of scholarship is regarded as payment to the employees the same would still be exempt under s. 10(16) of the Act in view of the said decision. We in the circumstances uphold the contentions of the assessee. 8. In view of the foregoing, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate on the alternate plea raised by the assessee in the course of the hearing as the assessee succeeds on its main thrust which is that conveyance allowance is not part of the salary of the employees and further payment by way of scholarship is also not salary or profit in lieu of salary. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 110 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... assessee apprehended that it would be saddled with heavy burden of liability, reducing its profit and this led it to file a lower estimate of advance tax. The matter was finally referred to arbitration and resulted in an amicable settlement on 14th Nov., 1983, whereby the union agreed not to press retrospective effect to their demand and the additional wage liability was only to be prospective. These circumstances led the assessee to under-estimate its income for the purposes of payment of advance tax. This, in our opinion, was a reasonable cause, and the CIT(A), therefore, was justified in deleting the levy. We sustain his order. 3. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 109 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... ed in writing on 28th Aug., 1987 claiming these machinery repairs, etc., which have been disallowed by ITO in asst. yr. 1982-83 as pertaining to this year. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that this ground can be decided here because in the Commissioner s order for asst. yr. 1982-83 it has been stated as follows In the second ground of appeal, the appellant had claimed a total expense of Rs. 16,050 which pertained to asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1981-82. Since the expenses pertained to the earlier years the same cannot be allowed this year. He also invited our attention to the copies of the bills which have been filed trying to prove the actual expenditure. These copies are not fully legible and it is, therefore, desirable that proper scrutiny be made. Therefore, on this point, the matter is restored to the Commissioner for deciding this ground. This ground is also allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1992 (10) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... riting on 288-1987 claiming these machinery repairs etc., which have been disallowed by ITO in assessment year 1982-83 as pertaining to this year. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that this ground can be decided here because in the Commissioner s order for assessment year 1982-83 it has been stated as follows In the second ground of appeal, the appellant had claimed a total expense of Rs. 16,050 which pertained to assessment years 1977-78 and 1981-82. Since the expenses pertained to the earlier years the same cannot be allowed this year. He also invited our attention to the copies of the bills which have been filed trying to prove the actual expenditure. These copies are not fully legible and it is therefore, desirable that proper scrutiny be made. Therefore, on this point, the matter is restored to the Commissioner for deciding this ground. This ground is also allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes
-
1992 (10) TMI 107 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Body Of Individuals ... ... ... ... ..... t is sufficient to qualify them as AOPs. The real factual picture is that a number of real human persons have come together in one place and merely put their stamps and signatures on a number of documents with the sole purpose of tax evasion. Finally, these facts when looked at realistically without being burdened by legal forms of constitution of the said separate groups by separate donations show that persons have come together for a common purpose and have made a mockery of the law treating it as a mere toy with utter cynicism and contempt for it. 14. This case has been very keenly contested -- the assessee s counsel putting forward subtle arguments. The learned Departmental Representative has spared no effort and has presented the Revenue s case very well. We find that the weight of evidence and balance of reasoning is in favour of the Revenue. 15. We hold that all the assessees were rightly regarded as AOPs by the ITO. His orders are restored. All the appeals are allowed
-
1992 (10) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation of conveyance - Seizure of truck ... ... ... ... ..... yers, i.e. compensation for the loss of earning and as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the petitioner has left it to the court. 7.We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties with regard to rate of interest. In our opinion award of interest at the rate of 11 would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.In the result the petition is partly allowed, having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 28,700/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand seven hundred) with interest at the rate of 11 per annum from May 1, 1976 till the date of payment. It is further directed that the amount shall be paid as indicated hereinabove latest by December 7, 1992. If the amount is not paid by December 7, 1992, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per annum till the date of payment from the date of this order. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT
Writ petition ... ... ... ... ..... he subject-matter of the writ petition and of likelihood of any serious or irreversible hardship that its dismissal may entail. The writ petition challenged a show cause notice. An order of stay was made on 21st May, 1981. The petition was pending for nearly ten years. It is stated at the Bar that the point raised in the writ petition has since been covered by a pronouncement of the High Court in another case which is said to support petitioners contention. Even if the order of dismissal of the writ petition assumes finality it is yet open to the petitioner to respond to the notice in the statutory proceedings and show cause. If any further steps are taken by the authorities pursuant to the show cause notice, petitioners may have recourse to and pursue other remedies available at law. Taking an overall view, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Revision/Review - Jurisdiction - Adjudication and demand ... ... ... ... ..... he para extracted above it is clear that it provides that if the credit of duty paid on inputs has been taken wrongly, the credit so taken may be disallowed by the proper officer and the amount so disallowed shall be adjusted in the credit account or the account-current or if such adjustment is not possible for any reason, by a cash recovery from the manufacturer of the said goods. A plain reading of the said para makes it abundantly clear that it does not confer any revisional power on the 2nd respondent. As no other provision is pointed out under which the 2nd respondent could have passed the impugned order to sustain the order, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. In the result, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 29-5-1985 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent dated 3-6-1985 are declared as illegal and void. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500/-.
-
1992 (10) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Exemption and remission of duty - Abrupt withdrawal of permissions ... ... ... ... ..... withdrawn the facility of Chapter X abruptly, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel. The impugned order does not show that any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed. The facility provided under Chapter X, Vide Notification No. 64/86 dated 10-2-1986, having been extended to the petitioners several months before, it was the duty of respondent No. 2 to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing impugned order dated 19-8-1992. Impugned order dated 19-8-1992 (Annexure A-5) is therefore, quashed and the petition is disposed of with the observation that respondent No. 2 may pass a fresh order to this effect, if he thinks proper, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 4. A copy of this order will be supplied to the parties on payment of usual charges within twenty four hours.
-
1992 (10) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Excise is a tax on manufacture and liability - Drug or drug intermediate ... ... ... ... ..... rmediate. It is therefore obvious that the Supreme Court has not laid down any such principle, but the head-note merely carves out what was quoted in the order passed by the Government in the revisional jurisdiction and which was noted by the single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. In our judgment, the reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in these circumstances is not accurate. In our judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the relief. 9. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the direction given by the Tribunal in paragraph 26 of the order dated March 4, 1985 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to exemption in respect of manufacture of citric acid and it is not permissible for the Department to make enquiry and satisfy about the end-use of the same. There will be no order as to costs. Shri Pochkhanwala assures that the bond furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court will be kept alive for eight weeks.
-
1992 (10) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... d on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as rejecting the claim of refund for the period commencing from May 1975 to July 19,1982 and remit the matter to the Assistant Collector for disposal of the claim on merits. 4. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim of refund for the period May 1975 to July 19,1982 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Assistant Collector for determination of refund claim on merits. It is made clear that the Assistant Collector shall not reject the claim on me ground of limitation. In case, the Assistant Collector comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to the refund, then the Assistant Collector should pass appropriate order after taking into consideration the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Precedents - Appeal - Order - Implemental action ... ... ... ... ..... ever to approach the Supreme Court to see direction that the Bank guarantee shall not be encash. In our judgment, it is not open for this Court now to accede to the submission of the petitioners and restrain the Union of India from enforcing the Bank guarantee. 7. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to forthwith encash the Bank guarantee as demanded by the Union of India. The Registry shall not withheld encashment for any reason whatsoever save and except the order from the Supreme Court. Shri Hidayatullah requests that to enable the petitioners to move the Supreme Court to get a clarification, the encashment should be withheld for a period of three weeks. We will accede to the request of Shri Hidayatullah and will direct the Registry to encash the Bank guarantee on November 9, 1992 positively unless the Supreme Court issue direction otherwise. 8. For the reasons recorded in the judgment. Civil Application No. 4090 of 1992 does not survive and no separate order is necessary.
-
1992 (10) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/ Dispensation of pre-deposit - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ly the judgment is to be pronounced. The court also feels that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2 to pass final order on the appeal of the petitioner at an early date. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the court directs the respondent No. 2 to pass and pronounce the final order on the appeal of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this judgment and order and in the meantime the demand from the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 26th November, 1991 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment and order before the respondent No. 2 within a period of ten days to be computed from today. Subject to the observations and directions made above, the petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this judgment and order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of three days on payment of usual charges.
-
1992 (10) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and this has been specifically raised in the appeal and also in the waiver application and that not having been considered the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the decision of this court reported in 1992 (38th Volume) Excise and Customs Page 497 (Allahabad), Taj Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Agra v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Others. Having perused the said decisions, we find that it squarely applies to the fact of this case. In view of this we quash the impugned order dated 17th September, 1992, passed by the aforesaid Tribunal with the direction to consider the waiver application afresh regarding the question of the demand being time-barred in prima facie manner and then dispose of the said application as well as the stay application in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 4. A certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a period of three days.
-
1992 (10) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Modvat - Interpretation of statute - Ambiguous provision ... ... ... ... ..... he matter by issuing notices calling upon the petitioners to show cause and decide after giving opportunity to the petitioners of being heard in accordance with law. Writ Petitions Nos. 7505 and 8210 of 1987 are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 17. We need not specifically advert to the validity of the Notification F. No. B. 22/5/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986, which has been challenged in W.P. No. 8211 of 1987, for no specific arguments had been advanced in this behalf. We are, however, of the opinion that there cannot be any valid challenge to the notification for the obvious reason that the power to issue such notifications for granting credit on inputs etc., has been specifically recognised in the Rules and no one can have any objection if only certain kind of inputs are exempted. For this reason, W. P. No. 8211 of 1987 is dismissed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs in all the three Writ Petitions.
-
1992 (10) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ed two appeals and challenged both the orders of the authorities of the first instance. Now that the orders have been set aside by the Appellate Authority it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the earlier order will stand and the later order is a nullity. Admittedly, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Tribunal challenging the correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority. It is open to the petitioners to raise all available contentions before the Tribunal and it is for the Tribunal to consider such contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. The facts of these cases warrant an early disposal of the appeals preferred by the petitioners before the Tribunal. It is expected that the Tribunal will dispose of the appeals within two (2) months from this date, so that the parties will know of their position clearly and not accordingly. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Custom House Agents - Cancellation of licence ... ... ... ... ..... od but Shri S.T. Parekh who had passed the examination under Rule 9 is presently working with the petitioner-firm since almost last 3 months. These averments do not inspire much confidence. 6. In the premises, we do not see any reason why we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present case. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs. The petitioners apply for continuation of interim orders for some time. We find that the interim order in this writ petition was obtained in the same terms as in Writ Petition No. 1484 of 1988 which was a part of a group of matters. When the group matters were taken up for hearing the petitioners submitted that this petition was on an entirely different basis and did not form a part of the group matters. Hence, we have heard this petition and found that the interim orders were clearly obtained on a wrong basis. We do not see any reason for continuing the interim orders. Hence application is rejected.
............
|
