|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 644 Records
-
2005 (1) TMI 713
... ...
... ... ..... (b) CIT v. Metal Corpn. of India Ltd. 1982 133 ITR 1301 (Cal.); (c) Addl. CIT v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. 1979 117 ITR 294 (AP). 3. On the other hand, the assessee relied on the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 3891 and CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. 1993 202 ITR 942 . 4. In view of the divergent opinions of the High Courts, the Tribunal applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192 adopted the view in favour of the assessee. 5. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue, has pointed out that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Akkamba Textiles Ltd.’s case (supra) stands affirmed by the Supreme Court, as the appeal against the same has been dismissed in Addl. CIT v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. 1997 227 ITR 464. 6. In view of the above, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2005 (1) TMI 712
... ...
... ... ..... tioner, we do not find that a case has been made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Another 2002 (4) SCC 388. Hence, this curative petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 711
... ...
... ... ..... ct between the two legislations, the Central legislation shall prevail. However, every attempt would be made to reconcile the conflict." 93. In view of the discussion made and reasons recorded above, we uphold the constitutional validity of 1987 Act, 1986 Act and the Adhiniyam. The Notification dated 20.8.1991 issued by the State of Mahrashtra shall not be implemented without further orders from this Court in the light of what is stated in para 85. 94. In the result, Civil Appeal No. 2452 of 1992 is dismissed subject to above observations as to the implementation of the impugned notification. Civil Appeal Nos. 2529 of 1992 and 2530 of 1992 are dismissed in terms of this judgment. Transfer Case (C) Nos. 8-11/89 (i.e. Writ Petition Nos 1953/87 and 1960, 1974 & 2054/87) are dismissed. Civil Appeal Nos. 1222-1224 of 1985 are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 710
... ...
... ... ..... bsequently the respondent assessee came to the conclusion that the principal amount itself was difficult to recover and, therefore, stopped charging interest. This position was accepted by the Income-tax Officer till 1980-81 when no interest was charged. However, the Department took a different stand from 1981-82 onwards. As the recovery of principal amounts itself was in doubt, as a prudent businessman the respondent assessee was wholly within its right to decide not to charge any interest from the debtor M/s. Shiv Refiners. In this view of the matter, there was no question of adding the estimated amount of interest on the loan advanced to M/s. Shiv Refiners. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition of interest on the loan advanced to M/s. Shiv Refiners. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 709
... ...
... ... ..... h falls in the wordings of Section 158B(b) i.e. "would not have been disclosed for the purpose of this Act." 16. In this view of the matter, the income in question had to be taxed in the hands of assessee as per provisions applicable to block assessment r/w Section 113 of the Act treating the income to be an income from undisclosed one as defined under Section 158B(b) ibid. 17. Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, we are of the view that no fault can be found in the conclusion arrived at by the AO and that of Tribunal. Though we uphold their eventual conclusion, but we do so on our own reasoning which we have arrived at on interpretation of relevant "sections referred supra. In fact, Tribunal should have examined the case legally on these lines rather than on simple facts and that too without taking recourse to any of the legal provisions which are applicable to the facts of this case. 18. Appeal, thus fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 708
... ...
... ... ..... l was found on physical verification. The code number as explained by the applicant was only internal number and merely because mobile phone hand set of different code number other than mentioned in the invoice were found, it cannot be inferred that 1500 mobile phone hand sets were not covered by the invoice and the movement was not from Noida but was from Delhi. This reference is based on no material and merely on surmises and conjecture. Moreover, consignment consists of other items also covered by same invoice in respect of which no adverse inference has been drawn and movement of goods from Noida has not been disputed. In these circumstances, seizure of the goods is wholly illegal and unwarranted and liable to be set aside. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 6th January, 2005 and the seizure of the goods are quashed. Authority concerned is directed to release the goods forthwith without any security. The costs is assessed to Rs. One thousand.
-
2005 (1) TMI 707
... ...
... ... ..... ha, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 706
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 705
... ...
... ... ..... GAT-Mum.) 2002 (145) ELT 611 d. CCE, Meerut-ll vs. Beltek Canadian Water Ltd. - 2000 (41) KLT 778 (CEGAT) 2001 (130) ELT 657 e. Comteck Laboratories vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (256) ELT 966 We also find that in all the documents, the appellant has indicated that the impugned goods are Twine. In view of this, it is very difficult to sustain the charge of suppression of facts. In the light of the above observations, invocation of longer period under proviso to Section HA (1) is not correct. Further it is seen that for the period from March 1995 to February 1997, the department initiated proceedings by issue of 4 Show Cause Notices wherein the Department did not question the classification of the product. Even if the goods are classified as 'Multiple (folded) Yarn', as contended by the party, they would be exempted under Notification 8/96 and 5/98. Hence, the OIO deserves to be set aside. We allow the appeals with consequential relief. Pronounced in open Court on 19.1.2005.
-
2005 (1) TMI 704
... ...
... ... ..... rom the telephone registered in the name of the respondent which according to the learned counsel would go a long way in establishing the prosecution case. It is not necessary for us to weigh the evidence at this stage since we have already come to the conclusion that the prosecution on the basis of the material available on record has established a prima facie case against the accused and we are also of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent-accused as brought on record clearly indicates that enlarging the said accused on bail would impede the progress of the trial. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was totally in error in allowing the bail application of the respondent by the impugned order. We allow this appeal, quash the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the bail application made by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous File No. 9220 of 2004 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
-
2005 (1) TMI 703
... ...
... ... ..... pport of its claim, the appellant has failed to furnish any data whatsoever. It has failed to set out as to how the supplies made to them were not "deemed exports" or that the supplies were not made at the international prices to them. o p /o p The precise data required for their entitlement has not been given in their affidavits. Even the particulars of the exports, the amount of claim, the price difference and the price at which materials were supplied to them have not been furnished. The appellant has failed to show that any representation had ever been made to it by the Union of India contrary to what is contained in the IPRS. Since the appellant failed to show that it has acted on a representation made by the Union of India to its detriment, the appellant is not entitled to invoke the equitable rule of promissory estoppel. o p /o p For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to the costs. o p /o p
-
2005 (1) TMI 702
... ...
... ... ..... al cross-appeal arising from the same order of the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in (a) directing the inclusion of the profits/gains in respect of duty drawback amounting to ₹ 13,33,256, export freight recovered amounting to ₹ 6,24,134 while calculating the admissible deduction under s. 80-I of the Act. (b) ignoring the fact that duty drawback and export freight are the incentives granted as a consequence to export sales, i.e., the trading activity of the assessee and hence cannot be termed as income received out of industrial activities." 20. Similar issue has been dealt with and decided by us while dealing with the Departmental appeal in ITA No. 4650 above. For the same reasons, the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. 21. In the result, while the assessees' appeals are party allowed, both the Departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 701
... ...
... ... ..... ther. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a compassionate ground. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sohan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 218 , it has been held that it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence unless it is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Such is not the case herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the past conduct of the Respondent as also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceeding, we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the Respondent was wholly disproportionate to his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 700
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee's contention that out of 27 items declared by the appellants, which were used as inputs, the department raised demands only pertaining to 13 items where the assessable value declared by the assessee is lower. If an overall picture is taken, even according to the Cost Audit Report, the department cannot proceed to initiate proceedings only with regard to part items where the value is lower and ignoring other items. We also find that the assessments were not provisional and had been finalized and that there was no provisional order of assessment. In view of the large number of judgments on time bar cited like Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs CCE Madras-1994 (74) ELT 9 and that of ITW Signode India Ltd. vs CCE, 2003 (158) ELT 403 (SC), there is no ground for invoking larger period and the demands are required to be set aside as time barred. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing.
-
2005 (1) TMI 699
... ...
... ... ..... sessee, accepted the fact that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in case of CIT vs. Professional Information Systems & Management (IT Ref. No. 304 of 1992) decided today, i.e., 19th Jan., 2005 by this Court reported at (2005) 195 CTR (Guj) 14'Ed. , and that the said issue stands concluded by the aforesaid decision of this Court. 7. Accordingly, question No. 1 relating to motor car expenses is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following the decision in earlier year in assessee's own case as well as the decision in case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. vs. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (Guj) 339 (2002) 253 ITR 749(Guj). 7.1 Similarly, question No. 2 is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue following the decision in case of CIT vs. Professional Information Systems & Management (supra) rendered in IT Ref. No. 304 of 1992. 8. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 698
... ...
... ... ..... ent and secondly, where regular books of accounts are maintained and where books are not rejected, the best judgment assessment resulting in enhancement in the turnover is not justified. 7. Keeping these principles in view, the Tribunal in its order has concluded that it is not in dispute that the assessee has maintained the regular books of accounts and it is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of accounts. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee by setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority and directing the Assessing Authority to compute the tax liability by accepting the returns filed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erroneously decided the question of law raised before it. Accordingly interference with the said order is not called for. 8. In the result, revision filed by the revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly
-
2005 (1) TMI 697
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings could not have been exercised. Satisfaction has to be before the issue of notice or initiation of any step for imposing penalty. In the case at hand, we find the AO having nowhere recorded till the conclusion of the assessment proceedings his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This is a jurisdictional defect which cannot be cured. The initiation of the penalty proceedings was itself bad and consequently, all the subsequent proceedings leading upto the passing of the penalty order must fail. C.W.P. No. 3869 of 1997 is, therefore, liable to be allowed." It is thus apparently clear that the question proposed by the Department as a substantial question of law has been squarely answered by different Division Benches of this Court and we see no reason to take a different view. For the reasons aforestated, we dismiss the appeal in limine.
-
2005 (1) TMI 696
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 695
Whether the pre-mature retirement of appellant as directed by the respondents was in order affirmed by Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur?
-
2005 (1) TMI 694
... ...
... ... ..... ue of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods and as such, they were not entitled to claim the Modvat credit. But we find that no such plea has been taken in the show-cause notice wherein, it has been only alleged that respondents did not add the value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings that the value of the broken glass bottles was added by the respondents in the assessable value of the goods during the period in dispute. That being so, they had been rightly allowed the Modvat credit. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also followed the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in this regard, in the respondents own case. He has also followed the ratio of law laid down in Union of India v. Sancheti Foods Products Ltd. 1993 (68) ELT 341 (Cal.) In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal and uphold the impugned order. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
........
|
