|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 128 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... f CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance 1983 141 ITR 706. In these circumstances, no interference is called for on this point. The view taken by the first appellate authority in this regard is sustained. 9. The revenue has also challenged the admission of fresh for assessee s claim of investment allowance, regarding the placement of the orders. According to the learned Departmental Representative, these dates were not given to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the DCIT(A) was not justified in admitting the same for the first time. The assessee has filed xerox copies of the orders placed and the documents evidencing the date of placement of such orders. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer may look into these documents and allow the claim of the assessee after due verification. The order of the Tribunal allowing the claim of the assessee contained in paragraph 6 above is subject to this verification by the Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part
-
1993 (2) TMI 127 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rty obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that this is not a fit case to levy penalty under section 271B of the Act. We, therefore, cancel the impugned penalties. 12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed
-
1993 (2) TMI 126 - ITAT BANGALORE
Charitable Institution, Earning Income, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... iry, poultry, hosts, etc., the income earned by the assessee from the aforesaid activities enures to the benefit of the members only. Probably for the maintenance of the nuns this activity is being carried on. It is not the case of the department that the income is earned with a profit motive. Since there is no profit motive in earning the income by the assessee society it can safely be concluded that the assessee society is a charitable institution and also a public religious institution. It can also be concluded that the assessee society is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. This view of mine is supported by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn s case which has been subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn s case. I, therefore, fully agree with the order passed by the DCIT(A) and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed
-
1993 (2) TMI 125 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... er s. 148 it was not clear to whom it was intended. The High Court held that notice was invalid. 11. I am not dealing with the 5th and 6th cases (sic) because these are earlier cases of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court than the one dealt with above. 12. In the 6th case, which is that of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi vs. CIT, though return was filed in compliance to notice but it came to be held that if notice was invalid jurisdiction could not be waived and there could be no question of such waiver by the assessee, which, in the present case was stated to be coming from the assessee s representative. 13. In view of the above, holding that notices were totally vague and did not specify status in which the returns were to be filed and such notices could not give rise to valid jurisdiction for framing valid assessments, I cancel the assessments framed in pursuance to notices under s. 148 dt. 18th March, 1985. 14. In the result both the appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 124 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Annual Letting Value, Carrying On Business, Income From House Property, Original Assessment, Total Income
-
1993 (2) TMI 123 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... tive submitted that the vehicles were always used for business purpose and, therefore, no disallowance could be made on this count. Regarding the depreciation it was further submitted that the depreciation on vehicles are allowed under block of assets, even if it is used for part of the year. 9. On the other hand the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 10. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned authorised representative. We are also unable to accept the decision of the Tribunal of Bombay Bench in the case of ITO vs. Asian Steel Yard SMC in ITA No. 1888(Bom) 1991 as reported in 24 BCAJ 11, as it is not possible to appreciate the issue involved in that case and what transpired between contending parties. On the basis of mere gist, we cannot appreciate the reasoning of the Tribunal to come to that conclusion. 11. In the result the appeal on this ground is rejected. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1993 (2) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court. Such a view will also be consistent with the view earlier taken by the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shri Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. in which one of us (the A.M.) was a party. Even if it is assumed that the aforesaid provisions are capable of two reasonable constructions, the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177 (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) has clearly held that where the language of a provision is capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) can be levied in a case where the total income is assessed at a figure of loss. 10. In the result the penalty levied by the ITO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled and the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 121 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Dissolved Firm, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e attached even when the liability which is required to be discharged is in the capital field. It does not follow that discharge of capital liability would be allowable as revenue deduction. The facts in the case of Madhya Pradesh High Court were entirely different and the ratio of that decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. The decision in the case of T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao and Co. on which also reliance had been placed, relates to case where debt to the predecessor from third party had been taken over by the assessee along with the assets of the firm and interest on that debt had been taxed in the assessee s hands and that debt became due in subsequent year and it was held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The fact of the present case cannot be compared with those facts and hence the said decision was not applicable. 12 to 20. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1993 (2) TMI 120 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Computation Of Capital, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... lanation 4. Viewed in this light it would be very difficult to accept the Department s contention that in clause (a) of Explanation 4 below section 271(1) the total income assessed should take into its ambit a case where assessment has resulted in a loss. Here, we are not concerned with a case in which part of the concealed income gets adjusted against other items of loss or deficiency and the assessment results in computation of a positive figure of total income albeit much smaller than the concealed income as was the case before the Hon ble Kerala High Court in India Sea Foods case. 10. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that when assessment has resulted in a loss penalty under section 271(1)(c) would not be leviable even on the basis of Explanation 4 below section 271(1) as inserted with effect from 1-4-1976. 11. In this view of the matter, penalty order cannot be sustained. It deserves to be quashed. We do so. 12. The assessee s appeal is allowed
-
1993 (2) TMI 119 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Assessment Order, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT 1992 198 ITR 611 (Ker.) in support of the plea that the order under section 263 could be passed because the point whether transaction amounted to purchase was debatable. This submission of the department was wholly untenable. This is a case where the learned CIT has recorded a definite finding that relief under section 54F was not available to the assessee. The assessee was entitled to challenge this finding by filing the appeal. This is not a case where the learned CIT has not expressed any opinion on the merits of controversy and has merely directed the ITO to make further investigation. For this reason other decisions cited by the learned DR viz. Sushil Ansal v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 308 (Delhi) and Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT 1986 162 ITR 888 (SC) and also two decisions of Tribunal were wholly irrelevant. 14. For reasons stated above, the order of the CIT under section 263 of the Act is hereby cancelled. 15. The appeal is allowed
-
1993 (2) TMI 118 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessee's Appeal, Assessing Officer, Late Filing, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... lable for the intervening period from 1-10-1985 to 10-11-1985, and in terms of section 80 even when the benefit of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in Gordhanbhai Jethabhai s case is available, the benefit of carry forward would not be available. 10. Thus, it is of paramount importance that ITO takes a decision on assessee s application filed on 11-11-1985 seeking extension up to 30-11-1985. Thereafter, the ITO would decide the fate of assessee s right of carry forward of business loss. In effect, therefore, there is no escape from our restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that first order should be passed on the assessee s application in Form No.6 filed on 11-11-1985 for seeking extension of time up to 30-11-1985. If necessary, he may obtain the xerox copy of the application and the acknowledgement from the assessee the same are filed before us also. 11. For statistical purposes, the Department s appeal is treated as partly allowed
-
1993 (2) TMI 117 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
A Firm, Assessing Officer, Attributable To, Earlier Decision, High Court, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... ll Bench decision of the Madras High Court in M. Balasubramanian s case. On this aspect also we agree with the learned C.A. that apart from making this argument no decision actually has been pointed out. The point is that the Hon ble Madras High Court s original decision approached the point right from basics and therefore, had to consider many decisions. It was not a case wherein some contrary decision was being distinguished. Be that as it may, no contrary decision has been brought to our notice and none is otherwise also known to us. 14. For all these reasons, it has to be held now that the incomes attributable to the gifts given by the assessee s father to the assessee s HUF comprising of himself, his wife and his daughters should be assessed in the hands of HUF and not in the hands of individual. On this point, we would accept the assessee s plea and delete the corresponding additions from the assessment of the individual. 15. The assessee s both the appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Skimmed milk powder - Exemption
... ... ... ... ..... Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions, but had remanded the matter without expressing any view of the merits of the case on the applicability of the ratio of these decisions to the facts of the case. On the other hand, the other decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh had followed the Gujarat High Court judgment which as already noted, was squarely on this issue with which, therefore, we are in agreement. It is also noted that on the Notification No. 38/78-C.E., there is no decision of any High Court contra to the Gujarat High Court. In the result, it is held that the respondents herein were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 38/78-C.E. for the skimmed milk powder which is ultimately used in their products such as Horlicks and the exemption thereunder is applicable only where the skimmed milk is regenerated into liquid milk as such. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 115 - SC ORDER
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s counted from backward it goes to 22-7-1986. Therefore, the show cause notice may be treated as valid under Section 11A for the period 22-7-1986 to 10-9-1986 and the judgment of the Tribunal may be set aside, and fresh order may be passed by the appropriate Officer of Central Excise, Baroda in accordance. 3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above memo. No costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Limitation - Fabric ... ... ... ... ..... s in an integrated manner or separately on the fabric by sewing machines. In this case the goods were cleared without assessment Rule 10 Central Excise Rules is not applicable in this case Rule 9(2) is applicable. 2.We have heard Mr. Dholakia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant. We do not agree with him that the tufted fabric , the sample of which has been shown to us in Court, is not furnishing fabric and is only embroidered fabric. We see no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Assistant Collector/Collector as upheld by Central Government. We also do not find any material on the record to show that the appellant bona fide believed that the goods manufactured by it were embroidered fabric and as such entitled to exemption under law. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the courts below that Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applicable and as such the recovery was not barred by limitation. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal should have condoned the delay notwithstanding the fact that there was no sufficient cause shown by the appellant. The reason as extracted above for not filing the appeal in time cannot be construed as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The reason, as extracted above given by the appellant before the Tribunal for not filing the appeal in time appears to be his own negligence in not taking necessary steps which he could have or should have taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. It cannot also be pointed out that the Tribunal has not disposed of the case on merits the petitioner has not made out a case for entertaining the belated appeal and the Tribunal cannot ignore the provisions of the Act in particular Sections 35B(3) and 35B(5). 6.In the result, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Adjudication - Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... se notice. The respondents had the DEEC Book with them and had the opportunity of examining all the details for nearly 14 months. It appears that the second show cause notice was issued without referring to the records of the Department and with complete non-application of mind. On the face of it second notice is irregular. Therefore, the impugned second show cause notice is struck down. The order passed pursuant to the said notice is also quashed. 9. Under these circumstances, there will be an order as prayed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the writ petition. 10. In view of the aforesaid order the Department is directed not to withhold any amount payable to the petitioner on account of drawbacks on the basis of the impugned order dated January 29, 1990 and pay off the claims of the petitioner now outstanding. 11. The writ petition is finally disposed of as above. 12. All parties are to act on the signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
1993 (2) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Readjudication on remand of the matter to lower authority ... ... ... ... ..... ss orders of adjudication. The Court can only fix time for adjudication, and the jurisdiction of fixing the time should not be exercised in such a way, so as to disable the authorities from passing the orders. Therefore, we are of the view, looked from any angle that this is not a case in which it can be said that the learned single Judge has acted in excess of jurisdiction in extending the time. On the contrary, if the learned single Judge were to refuse to extend time, it would have resulted in failure of justice amounting to deprivation of the revenue of several lakhs of rupees to the State exchequer. 11. Added to this, as already pointed out, the adjudication order has been passed on 5-2-1993, a copy of which has been served on the appellants. It is open to them to challenge the same by way of an appeal. 12. Therefore, we see no ground to admit the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ion supra) and made the petitioner to part with the amount within the stipulated time. The failure on the part of the office of the 2nd respondent should not cause prejudice to the petitioner, who, accepting the offer of the Collector, has acted upon the same as well. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the 2nd respondent is estopped from going back on his statement as given in writing on 31-8-1984. It is not as if the 2nd respondent has no power to take a decision to review and modify the stand. The power to take a decision to file an appeal is provided under Sec. 35A(2) and that authority has subsequently taken a decision to modify the earlier stand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision was taken by an authority not competent to take such a decision. On that view, the impugned demand is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Petition by customer maintainable - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... on the basis of the order of the Collector (Appeals) and the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consitution of India is to be discouraged. 3. After hearing learned counsel of both sides, I find that both the objections raised by the learned counsel for the revenue are not sustainable. On the first objection, it is not in dispute that though at the first instance the fourth respondent is liable to pay excise duty, if necessary, ultimately it is to be borne by the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has the right to challenge the directive impugned in this writ petition. On the second objection, I am of the view that once the position is clear and accepted, it is unnecessary to drive the petitioner to go before the authorities for getting the relief and therefore, that objection is also overruled. 4. In view of the admitted position as mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. However, there will be no orders as to costs.
............
|
