|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 132 Records
-
1982 (11) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs Export Duty ... ... ... ... ..... im of tlie plaintiffs for payment of duty from the defendants is without any substance and the trial Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the preliminary issue. There is no dispute that in view of the exemption Notification, the defendants were not liable to pay duty in respect of the two consignments dated August 23, 1954. In view of this undisputed position on the facts available on record, the judgment under challenge requires no interference and the appeal must fail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. As two Advocates have appeared at the hearing of the Appeal on behalf of the respondents the second Advocate would be entitled to his maximum fees under sub-rule (3) of Rule 606 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Original Side. The respondents would be entitled to appropriate towards costs the sum of Rs. 500/- deposited by the Appellants Advocate as security at the time of presentation of the Appeal.
-
1982 (11) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Excise duty not payable till goods become marketable - Cotton fabrics - Revisionary order not appealed against
-
1982 (11) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise comes into operation as soon as the same is signed and is not made dependent upon the communication of the same to the concerned party. In my judgment, the stand taken by the successor of Mr. Kullarwar is totally erroneous and his action in issuing fresh show cause notice to the petitioners and calling upon them to re-agitate the matter before him is contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioners, accordingly, are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. As the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Appeal Court for appropriate orders in regard to the refund of the amount deposited in this Court in pursuance of the order dated March 17, 1978. The respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1982 (11) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Appeal - Whether can be entertained without depositing duty or penalty - Writ jurisdiction - Powers of Appellate Tribunal - Alternative remedy
-
1982 (11) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... before us to ascertain whether the buildings let out by the assessee formed a substantial part of the palace or not. But, in our opinion, this examination is irrelevant for the purposes of s. 5(1)(iii). As we have already mentioned, that section can be interpreted either as completely denying any exemption to the assessee or as conferring on him a benefit of exemption to the extent of occupation of the building by the Ruler. In our opinion, the Tribunal, in adopting the second of these interpretation has construed the provision in a liberal manner, consistent with the objects of the statute and its intendment, and also given effect to its language in such a way as to benefit the assessee. We are, therefore, of opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was correct. We, therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. However, we think that this is a case in which the parties should be directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... ibutes of the jurisdiction of a tax appellate authority. These attributes underline the truth that the appellate authority is no different, functionally and substantially, from the assessing authority itself. It seems to us, therefore, that both on principle and on precedent, there is no reason why the Appellate Tribunal must be precluded from handling a point which appertains to the assessee s assessment merely because nobody else had handled it before or because it had not occurred either to the assessee or to the Department to raise and urge that point at earlier stages of the proceedings. For all the above reasons, we hold that the Tribunal in this case was justified in entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee relating to a claim which was not raised either before the ITO or before the AAC. Our answer to the question referred to us, is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Department. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (11) TMI 46 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Penalty, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ch more than the interest they would be asked to pay to the State, thus depriving the State the benefits of the tax money which it would have derived had the assessee deposited the arrears in full. Moreover, in C. A. Abraham v. ITO 1961 41 ITR 425, the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that the penalty in such matters was only an additional tax and nothing more. It is conceded that Parliament has the power to levy taxes. When Parliament has the power to levy a tax it has the power to enact that if the tax was not paid a certain amount could be recovered as penalty as otherwise the power to levy tax would become redundant without the power to impose penalty in case of non-payment. The matter falls within entry No. 82, which applies to this State. On having considered the arguments and after having gone through the above-referred to judgments, I am of the view that there is no force in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed but no order as to costs is made.
-
1982 (11) TMI 45 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... cause for A also not knowing his own income and thus being genuinely not able to estimate it and disclose it to the taxing authorities in terms of the said provisions. On the material before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that the firm had, in fact, not estimated its own income by the relevant date. We entirely concur in the view which the Tribunal has taken that ignorance on the part of the said firm of its own income constituted I reasonable excuse on the part of its assessee-partner who derived her entire income from the said firm within the meaning of the expression occurring in s. 273(c) of the Act and, therefore, it rightly cancelled the penalty imposed upon the respondent-assessee. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that no case is made out for directing the Tribunal to draw up a case and refer the questions posed in the petition by the Revenue for the decision of this court. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this case we felt that this was not case in which the Department should have come up in reference. After all, the Tribunal had only upheld an order passed by the Commissioner and it seemed incongruous that the Commissioner should complain or be aggrieved that his order had been given effect to. When, therefore, this reference came up for hearing on earlier occasions, we adjourned the matter from time to time and directed the counsel for the Department to seek instructions as to whether in the circumstances the Department would like to press their reference further. Though we gave considerable time to enable the standing counsel for the Department to obtain necessary instructions in the matter, the counsel reported that he had received no instructions. In these circumstances, we have been compelled to proceed with the reference. Having regard to these circumstances, we would direct that the assessee should be paid its costs by the Commissioner, counsel s fee Rs. 350 (one set).
-
1982 (11) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... es. The process by which the assessee makes a mere chassis into a full-fledged motorbus or a truck is variously described. In the commercial parlance sometimes it is called manufacture of bus bodies. Sometimes it is referred to as construction of, or building body on the chassis, of a bus. The process is popularly described as bus body building . Whether it is the one or the other description which is linguistically very appropriate, we are satisfied that bus body can be regarded either as an automobile ancillary or the end result of the construction, on the very skeleton of a chassis, the body of a motor truck or a bus. In either event, it seems to us that the items of machinery engaged in this kind of process would be entitled to higher development rebate. Hence, although the Tribunal s order is not discursive, we are in a position to answer the question of law in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (11) TMI 42 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... appeal. Hence, at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. A similar question was referred to this court in CIT v. M. B. Tyres 1982 137 ITR 295. A Division Bench of this court held that a profit arising out of a business could be charged to income-tax only if the business was carried on during the previous year and that compensation paid on account of the cessation of a business was not chargeable as it was not the product of the business. The learned counsel for the parties conceded that in view of the finding of the Tribunal in this case, it was not possible to distinguish this case from the case reported in 1982 137 ITR 295 (MP). We see no reason to take a view different from that taken in 1982 137 ITR 295 (MP). Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (11) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ceived in that previous year, for which assessment had been concluded, to be read as income of that previous year, the question of rectifying does not arise and if there indeed was excess of income at Rs. 6 per point, the same would be liable to be treated as the income of 1977-78, while assessing the petitioner for the year 1978-79. Even on that ground, it is further urged, the scope for rectification was eliminated by the Rules for assessment themselves. I think there is much force in that argument and the same should be accepted as the correct position in regard to the assessment of income from the sale of coffee. In this view of the matter, annexs. E and F, viz., the rectification order and the consequent demand notice, are clearly without jurisdiction and illegal and, therefore, they are set aside. Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Parties shall bear their own costs. Learned Government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.
-
1982 (11) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of a person who is a resident in India (2) the status of a person who is not a resident in India and (3) the status of a person who is not ordinarily resident in India. Since the assessee in this case belongs to the category of a not ordinarily resident individual, it means he cannot come under either category (1) or category (2). It follows, therefore, he cannot claim a concessional rate of taxation under r. 3, as if he is a person not resident in India. The text of the question of law is as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the concession provided under rule 3 of Part II of Schedule I to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was not applicable to the assessee s case ? For the reasons mentioned earlier, the question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department. The Department will have its costs. Costs one set. The counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only).
-
1982 (11) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jewellery, Practice, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ere the Department is the applicant before the court and any of the respondents has died, it is for the Department, when made aware of this, to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. It is true that if this is not done the reference does not abate, but if, in spite of opportunities and directions given by the court, the Department fails to take any steps in this regard, the court will be constrained to return the reference unanswered. In the present case, however, as already pointed out, the court has been able to obtain the necessary information and notices have also been issued to the legal representatives of Smt. Rukmani Devi. We have heard the counsel for the applicant and counsel for one of the legal representatives who appeared before us. With these observations the reference is answered as already indicated in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 48,435 incurred on such plantation could not have been allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal has, however, directed that the development allowance in respect of the replacement of tea bushes should be allowed and further directed the AAC to take that point into consideration. If that is So, in our opinion, the Tribunal arrived at the correct decision and the question should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (11) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change From One System To Another, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... is for other transactions, but once having chosen and regularly employed that system, it is not open to him unilaterally at any time during an accounting year to say that he will not now follow that system in respect of a particular transaction. But, as observed, the restriction was imposed by the Bench to ensure the bona fides of the assessee. It was not meant as a condition precedent. It may not be out of place to mention that the latter decision is also by the same Bench, although reported earlier. In this case none of the authorities have examined if the switch over to cash system was bona fide or not. This, in our opinion, was fundamental before recording the finding that the assessee could not change the system of accounting. As we are of opinion that the Tribunal should record a finding on bona fide first, we do not decide question No. 1 and leave it open for decision afresh by the Tribunal. The reference is disposed of accordingly, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 36 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Necessity Of Specific Question In Reference, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... not entitled to claim the debt to have become a bad debt at any point of his choosing earlier to the High Court s judgment. We are of the opinion that the said principle can have no application in the present case, for the question which is at issue herein was not at all considered in that case. Similarly, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. CIT 1952 21 ITR 333 (Bom), which refers to a decision of the Lahore High Court, in B.C.G.A. (Punjab) Ltd. v. CIT 1937 5 ITR 279, holding that so long as there is a ray of hope left in the assessee to recover a debt, it cannot be considered to be a bad debt is also of no help to the Revenue. The subsequent decision in Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. v. ITO 1952 22 ITR 410 (Punj) too, affirms the same principle and is of little relevance to this case. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ioner of Income-tax v. Poonam Chand Trilok Chand 1976 105 ITR 618 (All), where it has been held that a statutory liability is an allowable deduction in the very year to which it relates even though the same is disputed. We, accordingly, hold that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of the liability for excise duty for which it had made a provision in its account books even though the liability was being disputed in a court of law. We might reiterate here that the Revenue will not suffer any loss because if ultimately the liability ceases as a result of the decision of the Delhi High Court or of the Supreme Court, the Department can bring it to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. Following the decision of the Division Bench of this court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O. S. Bajpai, ITO 1976 105 ITR 864, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (11) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... e first question, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the interpretation of Expln. 2 to s. 28. Even on the interpretation of this Explanation, there is a divergence of opinion between several High Courts. But in the view which we have taken on the first aspect, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the interpretation of Expln. 2 to s. 28. Once we hold that the transactions in question are not speculative transactions, no further question arises and the assessee is entitled to succeed. For the above reasons we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and hold that the transactions in question do not amount to speculative transactions and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to treat the amounts paid by it to the purchasers in respect of the three assessment years as business losses. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (11) TMI 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Connection, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... any in the account books of the Indian exporters, and later remitted to the Japanese company. This again is a case where the Japanese company did not carry on any activity whatsoever in India. All its activity was outside the Indian territories. Lastly, Mr. Parvatha Rao sought to rely upon the decision in CIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. 1977 109 ITR 158 (AP), the decision of a Bench of this court (to which one of us, Punnayya J., was a party). But, we find that that case deals entirely with the question whether any business connection existed between the Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and the Polish Co., with it had entered into an agreement. The said decision does not deal with the question with which we are concerned herein. For the above reasons, our answer to the question referred shall be in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The I referred case is, ordered accordingly. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
|
