|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 454 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... /directions issued to the quasi-judicial authorities interfering with the powers specifically conferred on them by the Here italicised. statute have been directed to be kept confidential and the same have been directed to be not made known to anybody. Such action of the Commissioner of Taxes is highly illegal, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 22.. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the impugned circulars/orders issued by the Commissioner of Taxes are set aside and quashed and the respondents, authorities concerned are hereby restrained and prohibited from demanding and/or collecting, on the strength of the impugned circulars/orders and/or in the manner as have been done in the present case, security at checkposts set up under the Acts of 1956 and/or 1993. 23.. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 453 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... uly 4, 2000 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are accordingly set aside. Makka poha is declared to be a cereal and exempt from tax under item No. 14 of Schedule I in the Act, 1994. The order of the seizure therefore, is invalid and accordingly set aside. The application is allowed without costs. Let a plain copy of this order be given to both parties. 14.. After delivery of the order, the learned State Representative prays for time to move before the higher forum against the order passed and accordingly prays for stay of the operation of this order. The learned lawyer for the petitioner raises objection and submits that in case the stay is granted the interim order for demand shall remain stayed. 15.. Considered the submissions of both the sides. The operation of this order is stayed for three weeks. The interim order in the matter of demand of tax is accordingly stayed. The matter will come up again on the list for further order on July 11, 2003. Application allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 452 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount refunded to him on February 22, 2003 at 9 per cent per annum from December 3, 1998 till February 22, 2003. Since the amount refundable had already been refunded pending the writ petition, no direction in that behalf is necessary. 8.. In the result, we allow this writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to pay interest at 9 per cent per annum on the amount refunded to the petitioner from December 3, 1998 till February 22, 2003 when the amount was actually refunded. We also direct the respondents to ensure that rule 26A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules are strictly implemented and issue appropriate directions to the concerned treasuries in that regard. We also direct the department to take action against those who are not complying with rule 26A(3)(i) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules while making deposits of the amounts deducted at source. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he above, the assessee is entitled to challenge the levy of penal interest when an appeal is filed against the assessment order on other matters also. However, we are not in a position to decide this issue on merits in this case for the reason that we do not have all the required materials before us to find out as to whether the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above applies to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, we direct the assessing authority to consider this question and pass an independent order determining the liability to penal interest for the period prior to the demand made pursuant to the assessment orders for the aforesaid two years. The assessee is free to produce all the required materials and the assessing authority will consider the question in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Wire Industries case 2001 122 STC 410 mentioned above. These two revisions are disposed of as above. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 450 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions of section 5(3)(ii) is substantive in nature the said provisions can only apply prospectively from the assessment year 1993-94. Since the assessment years concerned are 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 the said provision will not apply. At the most it can only be a case of misuse of form 18 declaration for which separate proceedings are contemplated under the Act. Since a finding on the entitlement of the claim under section 5(3) of the Act is not required for the purpose of assessment we leave open the said question. 4.. In these circumstances, without going into the propriety of the direction issued by the Tribunal we vacated the finding entered by the Tribunal in regard to the liability under section 5(3)(ii) of the Act. Since there is no revision against the finding of the Tribunal regarding works contract it is unnecessary for us to go into the correctness of the order of the Tribunal on that aspect. These 3 revisions are allowed to the above extent. Revisions allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 449 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or by the assessing officer and sustained by the two appellate authorities has to be deleted. We do so. 7.. So far as addition made to the turnover of cooked foods is concerned, as already noted, the reason stated for the addition is only general and vague, as held by this Court in Kaniampuram Brothers v. State of Kerala 1998 111 STC 363 (1998) 6 KTR 464, even after the rejection of the books of accounts, in order to make an estimate, there must be some material. In the instant case, no such material in the form of discrepancies in the purchases and sales of cooked foods were found. Consequently, even the addition of 5 per cent sustained by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, direct the assessing officer to delete the additions made on the turnover of both foreign liquor and cooked foods. These tax revision cases are allowed as above. Petition allowed. Reported in 2003 131 STC 8 (State of Kerala v. Lovely Thomas).
-
2003 (6) TMI 448 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tsoever was served on the petitioner-firm and no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner-firm before taking recourse to the provisions of section 19-A, it is difficult to hold, particularly when no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents concerned controverting the averments made, in this regard, by the petitioner-firm, in their writ petition, that notice was given to the petitioner-firm before making the order of reassessment. This Court has, therefore, no option but to hold that the very initiation of the proceedings under section 19-A, without issuance of notice, as contemplated in section 19-A, was wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 10.. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order of reassessment and also the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 in revision are hereby set aside and quashed. 11.. The party shall bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 447 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... iddle of October, 2002 got those papers from the previous advocate. Moreover, there had been no bar in filing of an application in the office of the Tribunal during the period of cease work . Still thereafter the petitioner delayed for about a week in filing the application and there is no explanation adduced for the said delay. 12.. In the case No. RN-57 of 2003, the petitioner came to know order of dismissal of the earlier application in the first week of February, 2003 and after contacting new lawyer filed new application (RN-57 of 2003) on February 11, 2003. The facts are as such not identical with the instant case before us. 13.. Regard being had to all the above we hold that the petitioners have not been alert and diligent and the explanation sought to be given for the delay is not acceptable or believable to us. Therefore, the application praying for condonation of delay should be rejected and is rejected. 14.. This order also binds 418 of 2002. Application dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 446 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he basis of the objections raised by the A.G. audit party and though the said proceedings were dropped after due examination of documents and records, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, again, initiated the suo motu revisional proceedings on the same basis and passed the impugned orders, but while passing the orders, the revisional authority, it is clear, failed to correctly apply its independent judicial mind as to whether the orders passed in the rectification proceedings were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from serious infirmities of law and cannot be allowed to stand good on record. 23.. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petitions succeed. The impugned orders, dated March 22, 1999 aforementioned, are hereby set aside and quashed. 24.. Considering, however, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 445 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Penalty, prosecution and interest - Immunity from ... ... ... ... ..... al Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made there under to M/s. HBL Nife Power Systems Ltd, Hyderabad, as also to S/Shri Ashok Nagarkatti and N. Balasubramaniam respectively Executive Director and General Manager (Commercial) of the above said Company. 4. Immunity is also granted from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to M/s. HBL Nife Power Systems Ltd., Hyderabad and to S/Shri Ashok Nagerkatti, Executive Director and N. Balasubramaniam, GM (Commercial) both of M/s. HBL Nife Power Systems Ltd. 15. emsp All the above immunities are granted in terms of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The above immunities shall stand withdrawn if it is brought to the notice of the Commission at any stage that in obtaining the above immunity, any particulars, material for settlement have been withheld or any fraudulent means employed. Attention of the main applicant and the co-applicants is also drawn to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2003 (6) TMI 444 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - EPCG scheme - Import of capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... weeks of receipt of this order, and the applicant shall pay the interest within 3 weeks of receipt of the communication from Revenue. Compliance shall be reported to this Bench also. Immunity in excess of 10 is granted. (iii) Immunity from penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 is also granted. (iv) The Bench does not consider it necessary to pass any order on the fact of availment of the Cenvat credit of duty paid consequent to admission order and leave it to the Revenue, whom the applicant may approach. 9. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of sub-section (1) of Sec. 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. The immunities granted above are liable to be withdrawn, if at any time it comes to the notice of the Bench that in obtaining this order of settlement, any material particulars have been withheld or any false evidence has been given. The attention of the applicant is drawn to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2003 (6) TMI 443 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Import of second-hand goods ... ... ... ... ..... rom penalty and prosecution, and also from fine in respect of the goods covered by B/E 20182 dated 24-10-2002 under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 is granted. (iii) A fine of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed in lieu of confiscation on the goods covered by the two Bs/E 438 dated 29-1-2002 and 2459 dated 13-6-2002 which have already been got cleared and sold. Immunity from fine in excess thereof is granted. (iv) Immunity from penalty and prosecution is granted in respect of goods cleared under cover of the aforesaid two bills of entry. 11. emsp The above immunities are granted in terms of sub-section (1) of Sec. 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. The immunities granted above are liable to be withdrawn if at any time, it comes to the notice of the Bench that, in obtaining this order of settlement, any material particulars have been withheld or any false evidence has been given. The attention of the applicant is drawn to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2003 (6) TMI 442 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Right to approach before Commission ... ... ... ... ..... s that the application merits admission. Out of the total demand of Rs. 2,04,61,531/-, the amount in dispute and requiring to be settled at present is Rs. 23,67,240/- on five issues, four of which were specifically remanded for de novo consideration by CEGAT and one can be taken as remanded for de novo consideration by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. 15. emsp Accordingly, the application is allowed to be proceeded with in terms of sub section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant shall pay within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order the amount of Rs. 10,74,979/- admitted by them and report compliance and furnish proof thereof to this Bench. 16. emsp In terms of Section 32-I(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the issue of this order, this Bench of the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any Central Excise Officer under this Act so far as this case is concerned.
-
2003 (6) TMI 441 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... rd stock. But if average rate of purchases of this year is applied even to above stock, then some addition automatically follows in the income of the assessee. It is not permissible and is contrary to the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT 1953 24 ITR 481. The average cost of opening and purchases is also an accepted method of valuation at cost approved by the accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. In the present case, it is further not contended by the revenue that similar method of accounting was following by the assessee in earlier years. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was correct and addition made on account of enhancement of value of closing stock is not justified. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rightly deleted the addition. His action is hereby confirmed. 7. In the result, revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 440 - ITAT GAUHATI
Return of income ... ... ... ... ..... use the return was filed at Jaipur of the Income-tax Department and not at the correct jurisdiction at Guwahati, in our considered opinion, a valid return filed by the assessee cannot be treated as invalid. In our considered opinion, the proper course should have been that the officials who received the income-tax return at Jaipur when found that the jurisdiction of the case does not lies with them, they should have sent it to the officer having proper jurisdiction over the case and the Officer having proper jurisdiction over the case when was informed that already a valid return has been filed by the assessee with the Department, he should have called for the return from where it has been filed. In our considered opinion, for the above lapse, a valid return filed by the assessee with the Department cannot be treated as invalid. Hence, we do not find any error in the direction of the learned CIT(A) and uphold the same. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 439 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... rejection of books of account does not empower the Assessing Officer to estimate higher income thereby to make addition without cogent facts and records. We respectfully following the judgments in St. Teresa rsquo s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala 1970 76 ITR 365 (Ker.) CIT v. Padam Chand Ram Gopal 1970 76 ITR 719 (SC), CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 90 ITR 271 (SC) conclude that the addition made by Assessing Officer is fully on estimate basis without cogent reasons. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere that the order of ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer. 8. In the result the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed in favour of assessee. 9. The assessee has filed cross objection against the order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the trading addition of Rs. 1,45,158. 10. Since the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in favour of assessee, the CO terms to be infructuous. The CO is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 438 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... f the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that CIT(A), after having held that the assessee rsquo s case was not covered by Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c), of the Act, was not justified in proceeding to upheld the levy of penalty on the basis of disclosed income of Rs. 61,260 because of the following reasons mdash (i)The Assessing Officer had not imposed penalty by considering the disclosure by the assessee as having been made after detection of any concealment by the Assessing Officer. (ii)Even otherwise, the disclosure made by the assessee was voluntarily and there was no detection of any concealment or undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer because simply asking the assessee to produce the creditor cannot be termed as detection of undisclosed or concealed income. 8. In view of the above, the order of the CIT(A) whereby he had upheld the levy of penalty of income of Rs. 61,260 is therefore set aside. 9. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT GAUHATI
Time-limit for completion of - Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... of 1998 the assessee contends that the CIT(A) should have allowed the relief even on other law points/contentions/arguments. 26. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record we find that the CIT(A) has passed a speaking order vide para Nos. 5 and 6 of his order in respect of ground Nos. 1 and 2 taken before him and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the assessee against the finding of the CIT(A) we find no error in the order of the CIT(A) on the account and accordingly the ground taken by the assessee is rejected. 27. Ground No. 5 in this cross objection is general in nature and, therefore, the same is also rejected. 28. In the result, the revenue rsquo s appeal in ITA No. 173 (Gau.) of 1998 for the assessment year 1993-94 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA No. 174 (Gau.) of 1998 for the assessment year 1994-95 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are rejected.
-
2003 (6) TMI 436 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e has been accepted by the department in the past. The estimation of stock of pipes and tubes of Rs. 30,00,000 as on 30th June, 1989 is not based on any material evidence and moreover it does not pertain to the assessment year 1989-90, hence the same does not require any consideration. Under the circumstances discussed above, we do not find any merit in the futile exercise made by the Assessing Officer for determining the suppressed stock for the assessment year 1989-90 at Rs. 86,22,567. The various submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative at the time of hearing have been fully replied by the learned counsel (supra). We do not find any substance in the various contentions raised by the learned Departmental Representative, as the same are not supported by any material evidence. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the learned CIT(A), the same are therefore, upheld. 31. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 435 - ITAT INDORE
Penalty - For failure to get accounts audited ... ... ... ... ..... n the contention of learned AR. Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court in Woodward Governor India (Pvt.) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra ) has observed that reasonable cause means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds of the existence of the sudden circumstances which assuming them to be true, would reasonable lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious man placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to conclusion that same was the right thing to do. In the case before us, the provisions of section 44AB was amended only with effect form 1-7-1995 and earlier requirement was only to obtain the report. Secondly, managing partner was living in Bombay and there could be various reasons for getting the documents delayed after his signatures. In these circumstances, we think that assessee has shown reasonable cause for filing the report under section 44AB late by about one month. Thus, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed.
........
|
