|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 161 Records
-
1995 (6) TMI 41 - ITAT BANGALORE
Additions To Income, Bona Fide, So Included ... ... ... ... ..... ted by the Kerala High Court in the case of Forest Industries Travancore Ltd. The case of Carborandum Universal Ltd is another authority. The revenue has allowed the opening balance of the next year to remain. So, it would be improper to disturb the book profits only in a solitary year solely on the reason that it has some tax benefit to the assessee. Such benefit is only incidental to the change as the change itself is not one intended to get the benefit. For the above reasons we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the additions. This disposes of grounds 1 to 5. 37. to 49. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. 50. In the result, the appeal by the revenue fails. It is dismissed. 51. to 80. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. Per Bandyopadhyay, AM -- I am in full agreement with the discussions made and the reasonings given by my learned brother relating to all the issues covered in the present appellate order
-
1995 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... nses are not supported by proper vouchers and are not verifiable. 5.2 The learned Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the CIT(A) as well as Asstt. CIT. 5.3 After going through the orders of the learned Departmental authorities and after considering the submissions made by the learned representatives, we are of the view that no such ad hoc disallowance can be validly sustained. The AO has not pointed out a single instance of any such expense which is not supported by a voucher or is of a disallowable nature. The accounts maintained by the assessee have been audited in accordance with the provisions contained in IT Act. The books of accounts has been accepted as true and correct for the purposes of computation of income from business. We, therefore, do not find any justification in sustaining such an ad hoc or lump sum disallowance without any basis. The AO is, therefore, directed to delete the same. 6. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1995 (6) TMI 39 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... upheld the finding of the CIT(A) on the main issue, i.e., the income of the associate firm cannot be clubbed with that of the assessee-firm. Under the circumstances it is wrong on the part of the CIT(A) to hold that the advances were made by the partners to the assessee- firm out of their respective capital accounts to circumvent the provisions of s. 40(b). We accordingly vacate his finding. 17. The next ground raised by the assessee reads as under The learned CIT has equally erred in treating charging of interest under ss. 215 and 216 as mere consequential to the deletions made by him instead of holding that on facts, circumstances and evidence on record, no interest was chargeable under the aforesaid provisions of law irrespective of the fate of the additions made by the learned ITO. 18. At the time of hearing this ground was not pressed. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 19. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed in part and the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 38 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... c assets with certain qualifications. Therefore, in the absence of such qualification, these assets would fall for consideration under cl. (d) of the said Rule. 11. Now turning to the facts of the present appeals, it is pertinent to note that in the partnership deed dt. 18th Aug., 1975, the partners have made a specific cl. regarding goodwill which reads as under Cl. 8. We all the partners have agreed that the name and other goodwill of the partnership firm is decided at Rs. 3,00,000 and therefore, if any partner of this partnership firm retires or is injured or affected, he will be entitled to claim the amount of goodwill coming to his share. If a partner is entitled to claim a share in the goodwill on certain happening, I fail to appreciate why in valuing his interest in the firm, the goodwill should not be considered. 12. In view of what is stated above, I have no hesitation in upholding the order of the CWT under appeal. 13. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 37 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Deductions In Respect, Orders Passed, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Original Assessment
-
1995 (6) TMI 36 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Penalty on Steamer Agent ... ... ... ... ..... cants as discussed above. If it is found that the goods did reach Dubai and in deteriorated form immediately after the ship left India he will relate the quantum of penalty keeping in mind all the facts and provisions of Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the hardships faced by the applicants/person-in-charge leading to the desperate situation in which ship was taken back and even an application for converting the consignment to same bottom cargo (for return) made. He will also take up through Collector this case with the Port Trust Authorities as to how the ship could manage to disappear and likewise request the Collector to consider and examine, if, Customs especially SIIB themselves could not have protected revenue by invoking Section 110. Section 145 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 ensure safe custody and possible disposal of the goods once the same became subject matter of an enquiry before these deteriorated attracting Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1995 (6) TMI 35 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... rks Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590 and in any other cases. 9. We are afraid we cannot accede the plea of the learned Counsel for the reasons set out above in this order. We hold that even under Rule 57E where no limitation is prescribed six months will be a reasonable period of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case which should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the goods on the factory for taking Modvat. In our view, this is in consonance with the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals. 10. We further note that the other appeals also involve issues with reference to eligibility to Modvat on the inputs concerned on merits and since the Larger Bench has dealt with the only issue relating to period of limitation, the other appeals will be separately listed before the Regular Bench for consideration of the issues on merits with reference to the eligibility or otherwise of the inputs concerned for Modvat under law.
-
1995 (6) TMI 34 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Railway track material
... ... ... ... ..... d be more appropriately classifiable under Item 26AA(ia)/25(8) CET as pieces roughly shaped by forging which is the classification determined for similarly manufactured forgings by the Tribunal in the Aravali Forgings decision (supra) and which is also the classification for such goods accepted by the Deptt. in the instructions issued followed the Supreme Court decision in the TISCO case (supra). In this view of the matter on classification, the other two points referred on limitation and on penalty are also answered by holding that the circumstances of the case do not justify invoking the exceptional power under Section 11A CES Act to demand duty beyond six months prescribed thereunder as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited by the ld. Counsels for the appellants, and that there is no case, having regard to view already taken on classification and limitation as above, for imposing a penalty. The appeals are disposed of accordingly in the above terms.
-
1995 (6) TMI 33 - CEGAT, MADRAS-LB
Modvat Scheme
... ... ... ... ..... ry clear as to the quantum of duty to be charged and once the language of the statute is clear, the same is to be given full effect to notwithstanding any anomalies that may ensue therefrom which in the present case is not the case. If the framers of the statute intended to recover only the duty equivalent to the Modvat credit taken on the inputs on their clearance from the factory then the wording of the rule would have been that the goods could be cleared subject to the payment of duty equivalent to the Modvat credit taken. The framers of the statute have deliberately used the words the goods to be removed from the factory for home consumption or for export under bond on payment of appropriate duty of excise as if such inputs had been manufactured in the said factory. In my humble opinion, there is no warrant to substitute these words by another set of words with a view to bring in certain level of equity. I, therefore, hold that the appeal of the revenue has to be allowed.
-
1995 (6) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... etitioners and the learned counsel for the revenue. The only question debated at the bar was whether the petitioner is liable to pay excise duty on the said product for the period 4th August, 1985 to 3rd February, 1986, inasmuch as the impugned notice of demand pertains to the said period. Since the show cause notice in respect of the review proceedings was issued on 29th April, 1986 and the demand notice in respect of proceedings under Section 11A of the Act was also issued as late as 4th February, 1986 we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the impugned demand is illegal and without authority of law in view of what is discussed above. 12In view of. the above, we quash and set aside the impugned order of demand dated 31st March, 1987 for recovery of Rs. 1,27,103.28 for the period 4th August, 1985 to 3rd February, 1986. We make the rule absolute in terms aforesaid. 13.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Prosecution - Offence by company - Evasion of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ther further proceedings in the case are hereby quashed and set aside. 16.Before parting with I would like to express my distress and anxiety that this Court was left with no option, but, to discharge the petitioner is a serious case of evasion of Central Excise duty and that such a serious case would go un-punished. This was mainly due to lapses and negligence on part of prosecuting agency/complainant as no efforts were made by it to connect the petitioner with the crime by producing legal evidence and further the prosecution has not been launched against other persons, who were incharge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company or against those who were consenting party to the commission of the offence or at whose connivance or negligence the offence was committed. Be that as it may, the prosecuting agency/complainant should remain satisfied with the result for their own lapses and it is expected that they shall be careful in future.
-
1995 (6) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... e is no merit in this petition. The petitioner has bonafidely paid the duty more than the duty prescribed for manufacture of products but the claim petition filed by him is beyond the period of six months under the Act therefore, the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, was well justified in rejecting their time barred claim petition. Even apart from that, the entire excess duty realised by the petitioner has been passed on to the consumer. The petitioner has collected the excess duty paid by him from the consumer, therefore, the petitioner can not, in any way, claim this amount of excess duty paid by him and which has gone into public exchequer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam, dated 18-7-1985. Hence this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1995 (6) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... el appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tried to give some excuses for non-deposit. The excuses do not impress us and we made it clear to the learned counsel that unless the petitioner brings Rs. 25,00,000/- by bank drafts drawn in favour of the Collector of Customs, we will not entertain the petition. Today, Shri Vasudeo has handed over four drafts of total value of Rs. 25,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Collector of Customs. In view of tendering of the entire amount by way of bank drafts and which the Collector is at liberty to encash, we propose to set aside the impugned order and give an opportunity to the petitioner to agitate his appeal on merits. In case the appeal succeeds, then the Collector shall refund the amount. 4. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to Tribunal for disposal on merits. As indulgence is shown to the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay the costs of the respondents.
-
1995 (6) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Duty Exemption Scheme/Advance Licence - Misuse of - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... mit the petitioner to fulfil the export obligation is with a view to avoid payment of duty and penalty levied in the incidental proceedings, and such attempt cannot be permitted. Mr. Deodhar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is right in his submission that the direction issued by the Appellate Authority is misconstrued by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority merely observed that the import already affected should be regularised subject to the fulfilment of the export obligation. This does not entitle the petitioner to claim that permission should be granted now, that is after passage of several years to fulfil the export obligation. Mr. Deodhar also points out that the petitioner made a false attempt to export cotton yarn by claiming the same to be synthetic fibre. In our judgment, the conduct of the petitioner is thoroughly dishonest and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4.Accordingly, Writ Petition fails and Rule is discharged with costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty for short landing - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e exercise of powers under Section 116 of the Customs Act, if necessary, must be undertaken within a reasonable time. Shri Venkateswaran submitted that the Customs Excise and Gold Control Tribunal has held that show cause notice issued beyond the period of five years from the date of vessel leaving the Port is arbitrary and unreasonable. In our judgment, the period of five years is more than reasonable. Indeed, the bond executed by the Agents should also be for a duration of five years and in case the respondents desire to proceed against the Agents, action must be taken before the expiry of the period. The bond should not be kept alive for all time to come and must be limited for a duration of five years from the date of execution. For these reasons, the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and petition must succeed. 3. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demurrage charges - Customs - Detention certificate ... ... ... ... ..... is not clear as to from which documents the Petitioner has prepared Detention Certificate dated 31-10-1984. It is pointed out on behalf of the Respondents that in the present case there is no averment in the Petition to show the date on which Petitioner applied for Detention Certificate. It is also pointed out on behalf of the Respondents that it is the general practice that the Certificates are kept ready by the Customs Authorities and it is for the agent of the Petitioner to collect the same from the Office of the Collector of Customs and on several occasions these Certificates are signed when the agent comes to collect the Certificate. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was entitled to get benefit of Detention Certificate from 8th August, 1984 upto 31st October, 1984. 6.For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in the writ Petition. Writ Petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption modifiable/withdrawable in public interest ... ... ... ... ..... on in public interest, it can also be modified or withdrawn in public interest. In our view, whether exemption is project based or specific goods related does not make any difference. Moreover, by impugned Notification No. 517/86, exemption to goods supplied to O.N.G.C. stood revoked by amendment of Notification No. 210/82. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasinka Trading (supra) would squarely apply. In the present case, Notification No. 210/82 was issued in public interest. By impugned Notifications, it is modified in public interest. Therefore, the judgment in Kasinka (supra) is applicable to the present case. 4. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition fails and rule is discharged. Petitioners are directed to make payment of duty within four weeks from today. In default of payment of duty, the respondents would be entitled to enforce the bank guarantee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - OGL - Actual user (Industrial) ... ... ... ... ..... iven a contract to the petitioners after inviting tenders to manufacture tugs. That B.P.T. has issued a Certificate stating that petitioners are required to import components from West Germany with regard to manufacture of tugs. Petitioners have imported propellers and accessories for the manufacture of tugs. The purpose of obtaining the letter from Sponsoring Authority as a fulfilment of Actual User condition is that the importation should be genuine and that it is required for manufacturing purposes which, in the present case, is manufacture of tugs. Ultimately B.P.T. has issued a Certificate to the effect that components are required to be imported and that the contract includes import of components from West Germany. This fact has been lost sight of by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, Writ Petition succeeds. 6.For the foregoing reasons, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b). However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Re-Export - Demand (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... ferential duty with the Customs at the rate of 2 under the interim order passed by this Court at the time of admission. In fact they have deposited Rs. 66,000/- whereas according to the petitioners 2 of Rs. 22,99,044/- comes to Rs. 45,980.88. In the circumstances, we find merit in the petition. However, before concluding, we would like to mention that our view is based only on the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. For the above reasons, Writ Petition succeeds and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Pursuant to interim order dated March 9, 1987, Rs. 66,000/- were deposited by the petitioners with the Customs. As the petitioners have succeeded in the petition, the respondent No. 3 herein is directed to verify the amount payable by the petitioners and if the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated March 9, 1987 exceeds the amount payable, then the balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioners. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (6) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Export - Review - Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... enuine mistake/inadvertence in the labelling of the three cartons and there was no mala fide or deliberate mislabelling of three cartons/packets. By the impugned notice, however, respondent No. 2 decided to review the earlier Order dated 17th October, 1986. 2. Being aggrieved by the said Order/notice the present Writ Petition, has been filed. 3. In the present case, the Writ Petition has been filed in December 1986. The above incident took place in 1986. Thereafter, no complaints with regard to further exports have been made at any time. In view of the long passage of time, it would not serve any purpose to review the earlier Order passed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 dated 17th October, 1986. For this reason alone, this Writ Petition is made absolute without going into the merits of the case and without going into the power of respondent No. 2 to review its own Order dated 17th October, 1986. 4. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
....
|
