|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 192 Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 119 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Reversal of ... ... ... ... ..... he reason that some of the inputs on which the Modvat credit was taken are contained in the waste product. The Rules have separately provided as to how the waste has to be treated. Rule 57F(4) stipulates the removal of the waste either on payment of duty or for destruction of the same. In the present case, admittedly the waste was cleared out of the factory. All that the authorities, therefore, can demand from the appellant is the duty which is liable to be paid on this waste, treating it as a waste based on its price and the tariff heading under which the waste falls. For this purpose, classification of the waste, its excisability and also determination of the tariff heading under which this will fall will have to be taken into consideration and this not having been done, I hold that the ld. lower authority rsquo s order is not a proper one and therefore, the same has to be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration of the issue afresh and order accordingly.
-
1993 (12) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s , reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 the Supreme Court has held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. Having regard to the fact that the relevant contract showing the details of Rigs and other equipments contracted for sale was appended by the appellants with each price list and the price lists filed during the relevant period were duly approved, on the ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment quoted above we hold that the Collector rsquo s finding in regard to suppression of fact is not sustainable. For these reasons we hold that demand issued and confirmed by invoking the extended period beyond six months was time-barred. 20. In view of the above discussion the impugned order confirming the demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... der Heading 98.01 would not have the effect of debarring the importers from the benefit of exemption from auxiliary duty of Customs under Notification No. 311/86 dated 13-5-1986 which covered lsquo Colour Scanners rsquo falling under Chapter 90. Paras 20 and 21 of the said decision being relevant are reproduced below - 9. emsp On the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, we hold that even though the imported ldquo Ceramic Fibre Blocks (Pyro Blocks) rdquo were assessable under Heading 98.06, the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 26/84-Cus., dated 22-2-1984 which continued to be in force even after the introduction of the new sub-heading 98.01 and under which ldquo Ceramic Fibre Blocks (Pyro-Blocks) rdquo while being specifically mentioned were shown as falling under Heading 68.06. 10. In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1993 (12) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... refore, follow that there is no warrant for reducing the capital base by the aggregate differential either. In any event, the points urged by the learned counsel for the assessees on this issue have considerable force. We, therefore, hold that there is no case for reducing the capital base by the aggregate differential. 51. Before taking leave of this matter, we may highlight the fact that, in the case of G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT (1992) 106 CTR (SC) 288 (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that it is necessary to avoid an interpretation of the section which leads to anomalies and which will make it invalid. We have to adopt such a construction which will make the section valid and certain. In our considered opinion, the interpretation that we have placed on the provisions of r. 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 mdash an interpretation based on first principles mdash avoids anomalies and makes the section eminently workable.
-
1993 (12) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Capital, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... the subject matters of appeals filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority. Relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. 1977 110 ITR 131 (Mad.), the first appellate authority allowed the assessee s appeal on this issue. The Department is now before us objecting to the said decision of the CIT(A). 15. We find that the matter stands decided, against the Department, by the Supreme Court case of Second ITO v. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P.) Ltd. 1991 187 ITR 108. It may here be highlighted that, in the said case, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. was approved by the Supreme Court. 16. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we decline to interfere in the matter and dismiss the related grounds. 17. In the result, the departmental appeal for the assessment year 1981-82 is partly allowed, and the appeals relating to the other four assessment years are allowed in toto.
-
1993 (12) TMI 111 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Computation Of Capital, Development Rebate Reserve, Fixed Assets, General Reserve, Income Tax Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 109 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... jewellery at the time of search which were claimed to have been acquired by utilising her income which had not been disclosed to the IT Department prior to the date of search, we hold that assessee is covered by the provisions of cl. (2) to Expln. 5 of s. 271(1)(c) because she had made a statement under s. 132(4) during the course of search in which she had specified the manner in which such income had been derived and had paid tax together with interest on such income which had not been disclosed to the Department till that time in her return of income which was to be filed by her under s. 139(1) of the IT Act. 19. As mentioned above since on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is not liable for penalty under any of the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) on the assessee by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is directed to be cancelled. 20. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... espective affidavits and statements. It is true that since they were too young to have earned that much of money through their own resources but at the same time the version given by them could be probable for the reason that the partners happened to be the relatives of the depositors and the firm had commenced its business in that very year. There is no evidence that the assessee-firm was in a position to have earned unaccounted money and invested the same in the names of the two depositors. There may be such a possibility but such possibility should not, we think, be considered sufficient for imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The circumstances under which the cash credits in question came to appear in assessee s books probabilise the theory of the assessee and in view of the preponderance of such probability benefit of doubt should go to the assessee. We, therefore, feel inclined to cancel the penalty. 7. In the result, the penalty levied is cancelled and appeal allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 105 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... f the CIT(A), we consider it reasonable to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the same directions issued by the CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 reproduced above for this year also and decide the issue afresh accordingly. 16. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 17. In the cross-objection of the assessee, the first and second grounds of appeal are similar as in the appeal of the assessee. We have decided these two grounds as above. 18. The only other ground is relating to the interest under s. 215. It is claimed that interest charged is unjustified and uncalled for. We are not addressed on this ground of cross-objection. We have perused the orders and do not find any apparent infirmity in the levy of interest under s. 215. We, therefore, decline to interfere. 19. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and cross-objection is partly allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 104 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Body Of Individuals, Assessable As, Return Of Income, Interest For Late Filing Of Return ... ... ... ... ..... . This Explanation operates only from assessment years 1985-86 onwards. Here, we are concerned with assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, and therefore, the ratio of the decision of the A.P. High Court in Padma Timber Depot s case which holds that for reassessments, interest under section 139(8) or section 217 cannot be levied, applies. Admittedly, these three assessments are reassessments completed under section 144 read with section 148. No doubt, IT returns were never filed by the assessee for any of these three assessment years, and the impugned assessments are the only first assessments made. However, since we are considering the legal position prior to assessment year 1985-86, the ratio of the A. P. High Court decision in Padma Timber Depot s case applies. Hence, for both the reasons, the levy of interest should be cancelled. 16. Since both the main grounds taken up in each of these three appeals are decided in favour of the assessee, these appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
A Partner, Additions To Income, Application For Registration, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Business Income, Firm Consisting, Income From Business, Income From House Property, Let Out, Partnership Firm, Rental Income, Two Partners
-
1993 (12) TMI 102 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Appellate Tribunal, Fees For Filing Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... e forms part of the total income as such. The provisions of section 2(2) of the Finance Act, 1993, make it clear and provide that where the assessee has in the previous year any net agricultural income exceeding Rs. 600 in addition to the total income and the total income exceeds a particular amount, then the net agricultural income shall be taken into account as if the net agricultural income was comprised in the total income after the prescribed limit of the total income but without being liable to tax and this is only for purposes of charging income-tax in respect of the total income. Here, the deeming of agricultural income as part of the total income is only for a limited purpose and that deeming cannot be extended to mean that the agricultural income also formed part of the total income of the assessee for other purposes as well. The total income of the assessee other than agricultural income being less than Rs. 1 lakh, the fee in this case, therefore, would be Rs. 250.
-
1993 (12) TMI 101 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Amnesty Scheme, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Revised Return, Sales Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... ourt in Lakshmi Jewellery v. CIT 1988 171 ITR 649. In that decision, the A.P. High Court held as per the headnote that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax is not conclusive. It may be good evidence and it is open to the assessee to establish his case during the course of penalty proceedings. Even though the assessment as such as has been accepted, the burden is far more greater on the Revenue where penalty is sought to be justified not with reference to the substantive provisions contained in the section itself. I am entirely in agreement with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect and I hold that the penalty is entirely based upon the observation made in the assessment order for determination of income. The burden which lay upon the Department was not discharged in order to prove the penalty under the main provisions of section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the appeal is found to be without merit and hence it is dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 100 - ITAT DELHI-E
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... n31-3-1985voluntarily offered some amount as his income would not per se lead to the charge of concealment being proved automatically by the revenue. There may be hundred and one reasons with the assessee to offer the amount as his income but that by itself would not mean that the assessee automatically comes into the net of section 271(1)(c) (See Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1987 168 ITR 705 (SC). There is no presumption of concealment unless positively established. The question of concealment in the case of the appellant does not arise as he himself offered the amount of Rs. 61,000 in the return of his income. Therefore, on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there was no occasion even for initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c) much less imposition of the penalty thereunder. We, therefore, cancel the penalty levied and allow the assessee s appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The debatable questions like relationship of master and servant could not be raised in those proceedings. The only question to be considered was whether section 16(1) was applicable having regard to the fact that disputed amount was taken under the head Salaries . The said limited question had an obvious answer as there was failure to follow the mandatory provision of the statute. The authorities had no choice but to rectify legal mistake existing in the assessment order. If the question of assessment under the head Salaries was to be reopened, the same could be done under other provisions of the statute and not under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The claim in my view was wrongly rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow standard deduction to the assessee under section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 98 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee or its nominees has been provided for in the agreement. Thus, the payment of interest is a contractual obligation. It is not the case of the assessee nor the case of the Revenue that this is not an adventure in the nature of the trade. But for the payment of interest on the belated payment of purchase consideration, the assessee who had meddled with the property by demolishing the structures thereon in the meanwhile, would not only forfeit the advances already made by it towards the purchase of the property under the agreement but also would stand exposed to civil and criminal action. Thus the payment of interest in the facts and circumstances of the case is to be viewed as an expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act, especially when the sale proceeds of the scrap materials from the demolished structures have been treated as business income. For all these reasons, we uphold the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 97 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee closed its accounts for the asst. yr. 1985-86. Now that the matter is pending for the succeeding assessment year, namely, 1986-87, the assessee pleads that the sum of Rs. 43,400 should be considered for being allowed as a deduction as it pertained to the asst. yr. 1986-87. Sri Abraham has no objection to admitting the additional ground on the above facts. However, he would submit that as the Assessing Officer did not have an opportunity to look into the character of the deduction claimed and the components thereof, the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer with suitable directions. 6. Having regard to the submission of the learned senior Departmental Representative, we admit the additional ground of appeal and restore this particular issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to look into the admissibility of the claim and pass such orders as he may deem fit in accordance with law on this aspect of the matter. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 96 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ITO for further enquiries. Even then we cannot sustain this addition for the following two reasons (1) If ultimately it is found that it is the assessee who has financed the investment of Rs. 39,200 in Moriad Property the relevant amount will have to be considered as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee as has in fact, been considered by the ITO by including the said sum in a total of Rs. 97,950. Therefore, to make another addition would amount to double addition. (2) If upon enquiries it is found that the assessee had nothing to do with such investment and it is the minor who had made investment himself out of his own funds, the very fact that he had offered a sum of Rs. 39,200 for assessment under other sources under the amnesty scheme would constitute the source of investment in a corresponding amount in Moriad property. Thus, from any angle the addition of Rs. 27,410 cannot be sustained. The same is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ave the right direction that should have been given to include in the assessment of the assessees the perquisite value of the residential building. His direction must be understood in this context and not in the context of income from house property. 12. The last ground in the Revenue s appeal in the case of Shri Ramesan is against the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds diverted for non-business purposes. The interest was paid to certain individuals from whom the assessee has taken loans. Apart from house property income, the assessee was a partner in three firms and was also doing contract business. He had also received interest from the firms and banks. From the statements filed the CIT(A) did not agree that there was diversion of funds. The Revenue is aggrieved. 13. Apart from raising the ground against the disallowance, no material is placed before us to take a different view. Hence, this ground is rejected. 14. In the result, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, he submitted that the deduction under s. 80HHC cannot be denied to the assessee. In the light of the materials on record and the explanation offered by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under s. 80HHC as the real exporter and recipient of the foreign exchange on such exports. Thus, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. The second issue in the appeals of the Revenue is whether the investment subsidy received by the assessee will go to reduce the cost of the assets for purpose of computation of depreciation etc. In the light of the following decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we decide the issue against the Revenue CIT vs. Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(1990) 184 ITR 424 (Ker) CIT vs. Relish Foods (1989) 78 CTR (Ker) 197 (1989) 180 ITR 454 (Ker) and CIT vs. Veneers and Laminations (India) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 145 (Ker). 8. In the result, the assessee s appeals and the Departmental appeals are dismissed.
........
|
