|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 431 Records
-
1998 (6) TMI 572 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e matter was remanded. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the Income-tax Officer having not given 15 days time under section 139(9) of the Act to cure the defect from the date of issue of notice to that effect, the petitioner-assessee was denied his valuable right and any order passed within 15 days from the date of issue of notice is deemed to have caused prejudice to the petitioner under the law. Since the assessment was finalised before the expiry of the statutory period to file objections, the impugned order (exhibits P-6 and P-8) cannot be sustained. The said orders are, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent to hear the same afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders after accepting the audit report which was filed along with the petition dated March 29, 1988. The first respondent shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the final assessment order. No costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 571 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n valued by the Valuation Cell under section 55A as on 1st April, 1981, at ₹ 905 per sq. ft. This is also a residential property and this valuation has also to be increased by 25 per cent and it gives a valuation of ₹ 1,130 per sq. ft. Compared to this valuation, the value worked out by the Assessing Officer is very low. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be referred to the Valuation Cell for working out the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981. Reference may be made under section 55A(b)( ii) of the Income-tax Act. We direct accordingly. The Assessing Officer is free to bring all the sale instances on which he has relied in the assessment order to the notice of the Valuation Officer. 12. Subject to the above remarks, we set aside the order of the Revenue authorities on the issue of addition of ₹ 1,25,17,061 under the head ‘long-term capital gains’. 13. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 570 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... draw-back, cash assistance and profit on sale of replenishment licences received on exports made as per orders received from the export house. 6. The assessee has also challenged the computation of the claim under s. 80HHC, otherwise allowable and in support reliance is placed on the Tribunal's decision in the case of A-One Cycle Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (supra). 6.1. On hearing the rival parties on the issue we would hold that the computation of claim under s. 80HHC would now materially undergo change in view of the finding given by us above. The question of computation is therefore, left to the AO. We, therefore, direct the AO to compute the claim of the assessee under s. 80HHC in view of the finding given by us, aforecited Tribunal's decision and the relevant provisions of s. 80HHC of the IT Act, of course, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee-company. 7. In the result, assessee's appeal is treated to have been allowed as indicated above.
-
1998 (6) TMI 569 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... red certificates in Form No. 10CC, AC. The dispute is only with regard to fact that whether the said certificate is to be furnished by taking the figures of the company as a whole or it is to be submitted with regard to each unit for which the assessee has made a claim. The assessee's request is that as per its understanding the said prescribed form is required only unitwise but if as per the Department's view if the certificate was to be obtained by the company as a whole it should have been given an opportunity to obtain the certificate. The disallowance of the claim without giving any such opportunity in our opinion is not in accordance with law. We accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as that of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to allow an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the certificate in the prescribed form as required under law. We direct accordingly. 64. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 568 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Taxman 243and (2) CIT v. Muthaiah Naidu ( 192 ITR 166) (Mad.) (sic). With regard to the other expenses reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemicals Works Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561. Per contra the argument of the learned departmental representative was that once business is stopped and there was no business activity thereafter no expenses were allowable and in support of this contention he relied on the following judgments (1) Vijaya Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 191 ITR 641 (SC); (2) CIT v. Lahore Electric Supply Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 1 (SC); (3) Jai Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1997) 63 ITD 260 (Cal.). 19. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to the set off since we have found that during the year it did not carry on any business. The ground is therefore dismissed. 20. In the result, the assessee';s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 567 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . No. 315 of 1983 CIT vs. Kirloskar (1998) 148 CTR (Bom) 121 (1998) 98 Taxman 112(Bom) the controversy in the first question now stands concluded in favour of the assessee and thus following the same decision, question No. 1 should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 3. Counsel for the parties are further agreed that question No. 2 is covered by this Court's decision in the case of Lubrizol India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (Bom) 237 (1991) 187 ITR 25(Bom) TC 18R.632, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline & French (I) Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 500 (1996) 219 ITR 581(SC), and following the same it should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. 4. This reference is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 566 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... The basic facts regarding this appeal have been discussed by us in our order in ITA Nos. 1908, 1909/Bom./1990, dated 17-6-1998. Therefore, grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are decided in accordance with our direction in ITA Nos. 1909/Bom./1990. As far as ground of appeal No. 4 is concerned, the same is also decided in favour of the assessee in view of ITAT order in ITA Nos. 6277 to 6287/Bom./1987, dated 16-11-1995. 32. This appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. ITA No. 1908/Bom./1990 33. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are common with the facts in our order in ITA Nos. 1909 & 1910/Bom./1990, dated 17-6-1998. Therefore, the above grounds are decided in favour of the assessee in accordance without direction in the appeals No. quoted above. 34. Ground of appeal No. 4 is also decided in favour of the assessee in accordance with our direction in ITA No. 1909/Bom./1990, dated 17-6-1998. 35. In the result, this appeal is also decided in favour of the assessee.
-
1998 (6) TMI 565 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ciety. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that he is prepared to face the music on the basis of the first audit report and it is alo submitted y the learned counsel for the society that proceeding are also initiated under Section 64 and 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. In that view of the matter, the second audit report dated 16.05.19914 is liable to be quashed. 7. In this result , the first audit report dated 07.11.1991 at Annexure-A stands revised. Consequently the second audit report dated 16.05.1991 at Annexure-D stands quashed. The matter may be proceeded in accordance with law as per the first audit report dated 07.11.19910 without any reference to the second audit report at Annexure-D. This order will not in any way affect the action taken by the 3rd respondent-society and Authorities under Sections 64 and 68 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. With these observations the writ petitions is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 564 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... elevant wherein it has been held that the Notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed therein and not on any other basis. The Supreme Court observed that the principle that, in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of the assessee does not apply to the construction of an exception or exempting provision. They have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of a tax liability must establish clearly that he covered by the said provision. In case of doubt on ambiguity benefit of doubt must go to the State. Therefore, in the present case the goods imported namely UPS, measuring instruments and grinding mills do not come within the ambit of the description of the goods at Serial No. 144A to the ‘Notification No. 11/97 as amended and, as such, the lower authorities were right in holding that they are not eligible for the exemption. The appeals are therefore, rejected.
-
1998 (6) TMI 563 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ered by any reference to ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’ in that chapter. 57. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I agree with the views of Hon’ble Vice President, that being a ‘part’ of an aircraft falling under Heading 88.03 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, this GPU is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 65/93-C.E., but with utmost respect beg to differ from the views of Hon’ble Member (Judicial). Sd/- (V.K. Ashtana) Member (T) MAJORITY ORDER 58. In view of the aforesaid orders, the following final orders are passed The Ground Power Unit (GPU) in question is classifiable under sub-heading 8803 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a part’ of an aircraft and is therefore eligible to the duty exemption contained in Notification No. 65/93-C.E. The impugned order-in-original is set aside and the appeal succeeds accordingly. Sd/- (V.K. Ashtana) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J)
-
1998 (6) TMI 562 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... single supply in the present case does not seem to me to qualify as such a supply because it was to an extent made by one who was not a member of the group. Section 29, dealing as it does with the definition of the taxable person, cannot have been intended to cover within the scope of a supply the kind of deemed part-supply which has been achieved in the present case, whereby in tax terms the first part of the supply was made to Home and the second to Thorn as the representative of the group. The section covers supplies completely carried out between the members of the group. The single supply in the present case was the supply by Home to Thorn when the former was no longer a member of the group and the provisions of section 29 do not in my view enable what could be deemed under section 5(1) to be part of the supply to escape the charge to tax. In my view the appeal should be refused. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors Rowe and Maw Solicitor for the Customs and Excise.
-
1998 (6) TMI 561 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... stock registers as required under rule 151(2)(d) were not maintained, and there is nothing wrong in it. So, we do not understand why there is an allegation that the observation of respondent No. 2 in this respect is not true or not correct. It was the obligation on the part of the applicant-company to satisfy respondent No. 2 in this respect. He clearly failed to discharge the obligation. 10.. Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the finding of respondent No. 2 on this point, confirmed without discussion by respondent No. 1, that applicant-company violated rule 151(2)(d). Mr. Mookerji submitted that stock registers separately maintained under rule 151(2)(d) were, however, produced before respondent No. 1, but from his revisional order dated April 16, 1998 we do not find any such indication. 11.. In the result, the application is dismissed without any order for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 560 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly or by any specific provisions with regard to the dealers in liquor and/ or beer. Therefore, it is the option of the dealer to furnish security in any mode mentioned under rule 12-A(2) of the Rules. If the assessing authority is not satisfied with the options exercised by the dealer for furnishing security under sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A, in that case he has to give an opportunity to the assessee and then pass reasoned order. The security, therefore, which has been demanded by way of cash or National Savings Certificate or bank guarantee is not in accordance with the provisions of rule 12-A(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the notices which have been issued to the petitioners herein are quashed only to the extent of the nature of security demanded and it is left to the option of the dealers to famish security of any of the modes prescribed under rule 12-A(2) of the Rules. 18.. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observation. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 559 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aside. The revision petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. W.P. No. 8020 of 1986 dated July 1, 1998 It is now brought to our notice that the facts averred in the writ petition have not been disputed by the State in the counter-affidavit filed by it. It is therefore unnecessary to allow the matter to proceed any further before the authority who issued the show cause notice as the very issue which is required to be decided on the basis of the notice has already been decided by this Court in the connected case, viz., T.C. No. 822 of 1986. 2.. We have heard the learned Government Pleader (Taxes) again today and we are satisfied that the matters in issue in this petition and those in connected T.C.(R) are the same and the applicable law is one and the same. 3. We therefore allow the writ petition after recalling our earlier order which was dictated in court on June 29, 1998. Parties to bear their own costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 558 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e three mentioned thereunder, this contention could have been considered. But if there is none then the interpretation which is to be taken is that the words and the like have been used to cover other process of galvanising which may not be even by electricity. The legislative history as mentioned above also makes it clear that earlier only electroplating and anodizing were subjected to tax but thereafter electrogalvanising and the like were added in the said entry. The words and the like do not qualify to anodizing alone, it would cover electrogalvanising also and the like process of electrogalvanising is hot-dip galvanizing. The meaning of the entry is not restricted to the process which are by electricity. The words and the like has increased the scope of entry and as such all the process where coating of metal is done will fall in the entry. I do not consider that any case for interference is made out at this stage. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 557 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the assessing authority to grant exemption to the assessee on the basis of the exemption granted by the Commissioner in Balaji Boiled Rice Mill s case. It is seen that the benefits which were earlier available to the dealers were clarified by the Government through Memo dated April 8, 1983. In the light of the said memo, the direction given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner while remanding the matter to the assessing authority would necessarily amounts to affecting the revenue of the department. We are, therefore, inclined to say that the revisional powers exercised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is justified as, in our opinion, there is a tendency to cause loss of revenue to the department. 13.. As discussed above, the assessee has not been able to make out a case before us requiring our interference. Hence, we see no merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 556 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... States. The similarity contemplated under article 304(a) is in the nature of the quality and kind of goods and not with respect to whether they were subjected to tax already or not. In public interest reasonable restrictions could be imposed. The various judgments including the judgment in the case of Kalyani Stores AIR 1966 SC 1686 has no application to the facts of the present case because the discrimination there was between the goods manufactured in the State and those imported from other States. Those were not the cases where the goods were imported from foreign countries. No protection under the Constitution of India is given of similar treatment to the goods which are imported from foreign countries, that they have to be kept at par with those goods manufactured in the country and thus there is no violation of article 304 of the Constitution of India. This contention has also no force. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 555 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unt of tax withheld and the extent of delay in paying it. It may not be wrong to say that such interest is compensatory in character and not penal . (We are not concerned herein with the other aspects decided in the said case). From the above reproduced material from the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 1981 48 STC 466 (SC), it is amply clear that the Full Bench did not rely on that authority for the proposition whether liability to pay penal interest is automatic or whether a dealer need be served with any demand notice. Viewed from this angle, the Full Bench decision (P.C. Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer 1992 86 STC 259) still holds field, notwithstanding the majority decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 1981 48 STC 466 (SC), on a different proposition having been overruled by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 1994 94 STC 422 (SC). In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated May 24, 1994 reported in 1995 96 STC 157 (Ker) is set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 554 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... a personal hearing was given, but it was not made use of by the petitioner. Thus, I find that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of this case. Further, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the first appellate authority against the order of the assessing authority. 3.. Thus, reserving the right of appeal to the petitioner, the original petition stands dismissed. The original order shall be returned to the petitioner. The time spent in the Special Tribunal will be deducted in calculating the time to prefer an appeal before the first appellate authority. The original petition is dismissed in the above terms. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on June 2, 1998. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 553 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r due consideration of all relevant facts, the assessee shall abide by the terms of the order of assessment subject to its right of appeal. 9.. We must, before parting with this case, observe that the tax levied under the Sales Tax Act is a levy meant for gathering revenue to be used for public purposes. Whatever may be said about private traders seeking to contest such levies, we cannot command this wholly owned Government undertaking withholding from the Government taxes of such magnitude is Rs. 119 lakhs for a period of over ten years, even when it had been stated by it before the appellate authority that it had a selling organisation for the sale of rubber. 10.. Having regard to the fact that the matters relate to a period which is more than ten years old, the assessing officer is directed to hear the parties and finalise the assessment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed. Reported in 1999 112 STC 654 (SC).
........
|
