|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 159 Records
-
1980 (12) TMI 59
The Government of India examined a case involving the confiscation of garments made by tailors without a Central Excise license. The petitioners argued they were tailors fulfilling customer orders and used a coal-based iron, not electric. The Government found no evidence to disprove this and ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing the revision application and providing relief. [Central Government GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 1980 (12) TMI 59]
-
1980 (12) TMI 58
Issues:
1. Whether the base price of aluminum slugs adopted for computing the cost of extruded shapes is correct.
2. Whether the price of slugs should be reduced by the duty paid on them for computing the cost of extruded shapes and sections.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The applicants, a unit of a company, filed a price list for torch bodies manufactured from aluminum slugs, initially anticipating a price rise which did not materialize. They subsequently filed a revised price list reducing the cost of torch bodies based on the reduced price of slugs. The authorities approved a lesser reduction in slug prices than claimed by the applicants. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, emphasizing the need to determine product prices based on actual values inclusive of excise duty. The applicants argued that duty paid on slugs should not be included in manufacturing costs. The Government upheld the authorities' decision, stating that actual raw material prices should be considered for cost computation, rejecting the notion of using control period prices.
2. The applicants contended that duty paid on slugs, for which proforma credit was taken, should not be part of the cost calculation for extruded shapes. The Government agreed, noting that when determining the assessable value of finished products, credit for duty paid materials should be deducted. Therefore, the revision application was allowed on this point, and the decision was disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 57
Issues:
1. Review of Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
2. Classification of polyurethane foam manufactured by the assessee under Tariff Item 15A(3) or as 'articles made of polyurethane foam' under Tariff Item 15A(4).
3. Eligibility for refund and consideration of time-barred refund claims.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Government initiated review proceedings to reconsider the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Government issued a show cause notice to the assessee, M/s. Kay Foam Ltd., questioning the correctness of the Appellate Collector's order under section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The main issue was whether the polyurethane foam manufactured by the assessee, cleared in the form of small blocks of different sizes, should be classified as polyurethane foam under Tariff Item 15A(3) or as 'articles made of polyurethane foam' under Tariff Item 15A(4).
2. The assessee argued that the foam blocks, though initially in the form of a loaf of bread, were cut into standard lengths and sliced into various thicknesses before being marketed. They contended that the sliced blocks were merely foam and not recognized as articles made of polyurethane foam in commercial parlance. The Government agreed with the assessee, stating that cutting and slicing the foam did not transform it into articles. The affidavits and submissions provided by the assessee supported their claim, and the method of selling the sliced foam based on weight further reinforced their argument. Consequently, the Government upheld the classification of the foam under Tariff Item 15A(3.
3. Another issue raised in the review proceedings was the eligibility for a refund, with the assessee claiming that their payments were made under protest, making any refund claim not time-barred. The Government noted that this factual aspect needed verification from relevant records before accepting the assessee's contention. While upholding the classification of the foam, the Government directed the Assistant Collector to examine the refund claim's validity concerning the limitation aspect before granting any refund. The review proceedings were concluded accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 56
The Government of India considered a revision application regarding the classification of aluminium flattened wire. The petitioners argued that the goods should not be classified as strips based on British and Indian Standard Specifications. The Government accepted the petitioners' submissions and allowed the revision application.
-
1980 (12) TMI 55
The Government of India rejected the revision application regarding a demand for payment of Central Excise duty on pig iron diverted for home consumption after being cleared for export under bond. The petitioners' argument of undue delay in the demand was dismissed, and the second demand for differential duty was deemed correct in law. The Government upheld the order-in-appeal and rejected the revision application. (Citation: 1980 (12) TMI 55 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
-
1980 (12) TMI 54
The Government of India considered a case regarding excisable goods under Item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners availed of an exemption notification but faced demands for duty due to separate charges on invoices. The Appellate Collector rejected their appeal for not complying with a rule. The Government of India reviewed and set aside the rejection, allowing the revision application with relief.
-
1980 (12) TMI 53
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice regarding excise duty on additional charges for glass and glasswares clearance.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a glass company, challenged a show cause notice by the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding the declaration of assessable values and additional charges on goods cleared during a specific period. The notice alleged short-levy of duties and required the petitioner to justify the additional amounts charged. The petitioner contested the notice on the grounds that the charges were not part of manufacturing cost or profit under the unamended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The Court noted that the petitioners had not received a final order from the department and could only challenge the show cause notice if there were violations of natural justice, statutory provisions, or jurisdiction by the authorities without a final order being passed.
3. The petitioner argued that the additional charges for transportation, packing, loading, and unloading could not form the basis for levying excise duty. The Court analyzed Section 4 of the Act, which determines the value for duty calculation. It emphasized that the real value after duty payment should be considered for exemptions, not the deemed value under Section 4. The explanation to the section clarified that only trade discounts and excise duty were deductible in determining the article's price.
4. The Court examined precedents, including the Bata Shoe Company case, to establish that post-manufacturing charges like transportation and packing costs should not be considered part of manufacturing cost or profit for excise duty purposes. It cited decisions from other High Courts that supported excluding packing and transportation costs from the assessable value. Ultimately, the Court set aside the show cause notice, finding it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the show cause notice and restraining the respondents from taking further action. The judgment highlighted the distinction between manufacturing costs and post-manufacturing charges for excise duty purposes, emphasizing the exclusion of certain charges from the assessable value.
-
1980 (12) TMI 52
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Transhippers are vessels.
2. Whether the Transhippers are ocean-going vessels.
3. Whether spare parts for the Transhippers are exempt from customs duty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Transhippers are vessels:
The petitioners argued that the Transhippers "Sanjeevani," "Gosalia Prospect," and "Priyadarshini" are vessels and thus exempt from customs duty under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 262-Customs dated 11th October, 1958. The respondents contended that the Transhippers are floating docks and therefore goods subject to customs duty.
Court's Analysis:
- The court referred to section 3(63) of the General Clauses Act, which defines vessels to include any ship or boat used in navigation.
- The court rejected the respondents' argument that the Transhippers are not used for navigation because they are stationary and used only for transhipping ore. It was noted that the Transhippers move from one place to another on the sea.
- The court cited previous judgments, such as the Bombay High Court's decision in Misc. Petition No. 496/1970, which held that similar self-propelled Transhippers were vessels.
- The court also considered various English decisions where non-self-propelled barges and floating cranes were held to be ships within the meaning of the Merchants Shipping Act.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that all the Transhippers, including Priyadarshini, are ships and therefore vessels.
2. Whether the Transhippers are ocean-going vessels:
The petitioners claimed that the Transhippers are sea-going vessels and thus exempt from customs duty. The respondents argued that the Transhippers are not ocean-going and are liable to pay customs duty.
Court's Analysis:
- The court referred to section 3(41) of the General Clauses Act, which defines "sea-going" vessels as those proceeding to sea beyond inland waters.
- The court dismissed the distinction between "sea-going" and "ocean-going" vessels, noting that the terms are used interchangeably in legal contexts.
- The court observed that the Transhippers complied with formalities required for ocean-going vessels, such as filing Ships Cargo Manifesto, obtaining official numbers, and being manned by officers with certificates of competency.
- The court noted that the Priyadarshini was towed from Japan to Marmagoa and was intended for use in international ports, indicating its characteristics as an ocean-going vessel.
Conclusion:
The court determined that the Transhippers are sea-going vessels and are exempt from paying customs duty and filing bills of entry.
3. Whether spare parts for the Transhippers are exempt from customs duty:
The petitioners argued that the spare parts imported for the Transhippers should be exempt from customs duty. They contended that they had obtained specific permissions from the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India, which should suffice for compliance with import regulations.
Court's Analysis:
- The court agreed with the respondents that the two Transhippers were not foreign-going vessels at the relevant time, as they were not engaged in carrying goods or passengers between Indian and foreign ports.
- The court rejected the petitioners' argument that obtaining permissions from the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India constituted substantial compliance with the requirement to obtain an import license.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions related to the import of spare parts, holding that the petitioners were required to obtain an import license.
Final Judgment:
- Writ Petitions Nos. 2 of 1972, 9 of 1972, and 71 of 1972 are allowed, granting the prayers therein.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 102 of 1973, 16 and 17 of 1975, and 72 of 1976 are dismissed.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 51
Issues involved:
The interpretation of Tariff Item 15A in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the liability of excise duty on plastic bangles manufactured from regenerated monomer purchased from the market or manufactured by the bangle manufacturers themselves.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability of excise duty on plastic bangles made from regenerated monomer
The petitioners, manufacturers of plastic bangles, challenged a circular issued by the Central Government regarding the exemption of excise duty under Tariff Item 15A for bangles made from regenerated monomer. The Central Excise authorities argued that plastic bangles fall under "articles made of plastics" in Tariff Item 15A. The court analyzed the definition of plastics and the manufacturing process of plastic bangles. It was concluded that since the monomer is not a plastic material but transforms into plastic during the manufacturing process, plastic bangles made from such monomer are not liable to pay excise duty under Tariff Item 15A.
Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption under notification dated May 29, 1971
The court did not address this issue as it ruled in favor of the petitioners on the first issue, stating that plastic bangles made from monomer undergoing polymerization are not subject to excise duty under Tariff Item 15A.
The court allowed both petitions, quashed the impugned orders and notices, and granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution for the respondents to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court due to the national importance of the interpretation of Tariff Item 15A.
-
1980 (12) TMI 50
Issues Involved:
1. Whether M/s. Bapalal and Co. (Manufacturing) and M/s. Bapalal and Co. (Diamonds) are distinct entities.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119 of 1975.
3. Whether the gold jewellery and silverwares purchased from outside dealers and stamped with the petitioner's marking attract excise duty.
Summary:
1. Distinct Entities:
The court examined whether M/s. Bapalal and Co. (Manufacturing) and M/s. Bapalal and Co. (Diamonds) are distinct entities. It was established that both firms were registered separately under the Indian Partnership Act with different registration numbers and had different partners, though some were common. They were treated as separate entities for sales tax and income tax purposes. Despite holding a common licence under the Gold Control Act and the Central Excise Act, the court concluded that the two firms are independent of each other.
2. Benefit of Notification No. 119 of 1975:
The court considered whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119 of 1975, which provides excise duty relief for job work. The essentials for this notification include the article being supplied for manufacturing, returned after processing, and the job worker charging only for the job work. The court found that M/s. Bapalal and Co. (Diamonds) supplied crude diamonds and gold to the petitioner, who then manufactured diamond jewellery. The court rejected the respondents' contention that no manufacturing process was involved and held that the petitioner was indeed performing job work as per the notification, thus entitled to the benefit.
3. Excise Duty on Purchased Jewellery and Silverwares:
The court addressed whether the gold jewellery and silverwares purchased from outside dealers and stamped with the petitioner's marking attract excise duty. It was established that these items were already in a manufactured state when received by the petitioner. The court referred to the definition of 'manufacture' u/s 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and previous judgments, concluding that affixing the petitioner's seal was not incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product but was merely for identification and goodwill enhancement. Therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay excise duty on these items.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the orders of the respondents were quashed without costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 49
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 19 of the Customs Act and Item No. 19 of the Indian Tariff Act in relation to animal compound feed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Contractual Obligations:
The petitioners manufactured animal compound feed under a contract with a firm from Poland. They submitted samples certified by a company to contain specific ingredients.
2. Duty Dispute and Legal Proceedings:
Customs authorities levied duty on the animal compound feed based on the classification as de-oiled cakes. The petitioners filed petitions and appeals seeking relief from the duty imposition.
3. Nature of Goods and Marketable Product:
The petitioners argued that the animal compound feed, despite being made of various ingredients, constituted a single marketable product. Affidavits from industry experts supported this distinction from de-oiled cakes.
4. Legal Interpretation of Customs Act and Tariff Act:
The court examined Section 19 of the Customs Act and Item No. 19 of the Indian Tariff Act. It concluded that the provisions did not apply as the animal compound feed did not consist of a set of articles but was a single product.
5. Precedent and Judicial Interpretation:
Reference was made to a similar case before the Delhi High Court, where it was held that the identity of the mixed materials in animal compound feed was lost, and hence, the relevant provisions did not apply.
6. Judgment and Relief Granted:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that the duty imposition was incorrect. It directed the respondents to refund the duty amount within three months and did not award any costs to either party.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretation, precedent, and the final relief granted to the petitioners in the dispute over the classification and duty imposition on animal compound feed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of levying excise duty on post-manufacturing costs and profits.
2. Interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Validity of the assessments made by the Central Excise Authorities from 1951 to 1971.
4. Refund of excess excise duty claimed by the respondent.
5. Jurisdiction of the Central Excise Authorities in assessing excise duty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Levying Excise Duty on Post-Manufacturing Costs and Profits:
The respondent contended that excise duty should only be levied on manufacturing costs and manufacturing profits, not on post-manufacturing costs and post-manufacturing profits. The appellants argued that excise duty should be levied on the wholesale cash price of excisable goods as per Section 4(a) of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Voltas' case, which stated that excise is levied only on the amount representing manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profit and excludes post-manufacturing cost and the profit arising from post-manufacturing operations. However, the court clarified that the wholesale cash price should be understood in the context of the facts and not include post-manufacturing costs and profits.
2. Interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
Section 3(1) is the charging section, and Section 4 is the machinery provision for levying excise duty. The court emphasized that the term "wholesale cash price" used in Section 4 means the price paid by retail traders on wholesale purchase, excluding post-manufacturing costs and profits. The court held that the wholesale cash price should be the first wholesale cash price and not include post-manufacturing costs and profits. The explanation to Section 4 provides that no abatement or deduction shall be allowed except for trade discount and the amount of duty payable at the time of removal of the article.
3. Validity of the Assessments Made by the Central Excise Authorities from 1951 to 1971:
The court noted that the respondent did not provide the assessing authority with the break-up of the basic price, which allegedly included selling costs and selling profits. The court concluded that the wholesale cash price referred to in Section 4 is the first wholesale cash price, and there is no question of any element of post-manufacturing cost and profit in such wholesale cash price. The court held that the assessments made by the Central Excise Authorities were valid as they were based on the basic price submitted by the respondent.
4. Refund of Excess Excise Duty Claimed by the Respondent:
The respondent claimed a refund of Rs. 7,95,90,000/- for the period from 1951 to 1971, alleging that the Central Excise Authorities had illegally charged excise duty on post-manufacturing costs and profits. The court rejected this claim, stating that the wholesale cash price does not include post-manufacturing costs and profits, and the assessments made by the Central Excise Authorities were valid.
5. Jurisdiction of the Central Excise Authorities in Assessing Excise Duty:
The court held that the Central Excise Authorities had jurisdiction to assess excise duty based on the wholesale cash price as per Section 4(a) of the Act. The court found no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the assessments made by the Central Excise Authorities.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the wholesale cash price referred to in Section 4 of the Act is the first wholesale cash price and does not include post-manufacturing costs and profits. The assessments made by the Central Excise Authorities from 1951 to 1971 were valid, and the respondent's claim for a refund of excess excise duty was rejected. The court referred the matter to a Full Bench for further consideration due to a conflicting judgment by another Division Bench of the same court.
-
1980 (12) TMI 47
Issues involved:
1. Classification of goods for excise duty.
2. Provisional approval and subsequent withdrawal of the price-list.
3. Determination of 'related persons' for valuation purposes.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Legal effect of orders passed in violation of natural justice.
6. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 despite alternative remedies.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of goods for excise duty:
The petitioner, Nuwood Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the manufacture and sale of duplicating machines, classified these machines as office equipment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner submitted a price-list for excise duty computation, which was provisionally approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 25-9-1975.
2. Provisional approval and subsequent withdrawal of the price-list:
The Assistant Collector provisionally approved the price-list on 25-9-1975. However, on 18-12-1975, the Assistant Collector issued proceedings withdrawing the provisional approval and fixed the value of the goods under Section 4 of the Act, effective from 1-10-1974. The petitioner was required to submit a revised price-list under protest and without prejudice to their rights.
3. Determination of 'related persons' for valuation purposes:
The Assistant Collector determined that 90% of the petitioner's goods were sold to Messrs Macneil and Magor Ltd., whom he considered 'related persons' under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the value for excise duty was based on the price at which Macneil and Magor Ltd. sold the goods to dealers. The petitioner disputed this classification, arguing that Macneil and Magor Ltd. were not related persons.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner contended that no notice was given prior to the order dated 18-12-1975, which violated the principles of natural justice. The respondents did not dispute this fact but argued that the petitioner had the right to appeal, which was not exercised within the limitation period.
5. Legal effect of orders passed in violation of natural justice:
The court held that any order passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice is a nullity. Citing various precedents, the court emphasized that decisions given without regard to natural justice are void. The court referenced cases such as Kidge v. Baldwise and Collector of Customs v. A.H.A. Rahiman to support this view.
6. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 despite alternative remedies:
The court noted that the failure to comply with natural justice at the original decision stage could not be cured at the appellate stage. Even if the petitioner had appealed, the appellate authority could not rectify the initial defect. The court held that a void order could be ignored and its validity attacked in collateral proceedings. Therefore, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked without exhausting alternative remedies.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the order dated 18-12-1975 was a nullity due to the violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the demand for differential duty based on this order was invalid. The court quashed the impugned demand dated 25-3-1978 and allowed the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The respondents were permitted to fix the price afresh after giving notice to the petitioner.
-
1980 (12) TMI 46
The Revision Application was rejected by the Government of India as torches are not covered under Central Excise Item 15A(2) but under Central Excise Tariff Item 68.
-
1980 (12) TMI 45
Issues involved: Assessment of agricultural income-tax for the years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 based on estimated yield from cardamom plantation; Validity of revisional order u/s 34 of the Kerala Agricultural I.T. Act, 1950; Limitation period for exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Assessment of Agricultural Income-tax: The assessing authority estimated the income from ten acres of cardamom plantation for the relevant years at 10 Kgs. per acre for 1967-68 and at 12 Kgs. per acre for 1968-69 and 1969-70 based on a spot inspection report from August 1, 1965. The Dy. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. found this estimation improper as it related to accounting years 1964-65 and 1965-66. He noted a yield of 30 Kgs. per acre from a drought-affected area in 1963-64. In a suo motu revision u/s 34 of the Act, he directed a fresh assessment according to law due to irregularity in the yield estimation.
Validity of Revisional Order: The Dy. Commr. exercised revisional jurisdiction u/s 34 of the Act on August 31, 1978, after completion of assessments in 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. The question of whether the revision was time-barred was raised. The assessee contended that the delay of about 11 years in one case and 10 years in another was unreasonable, citing a court decision emphasizing reasonableness in exercising such jurisdiction. The Government pleader argued that no specific limitation period was prescribed for revisional jurisdiction.
Limitation Period for Revisional Jurisdiction: The court considered the absence of a prescribed time-limit in s. 34 of the Act for exercising revisional power. While acknowledging the lack of a specific limitation, the court emphasized the need for reasonableness in avoiding prejudice to the assessee. It noted an unjustifiable delay of 11 years in one case and 10 years in another between assessment completion and revision, deeming it unacceptable. The court held the revisional order invalid for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 due to the prolonged delay but upheld it for the year 1969-70, directing parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 44
Issues involved: Interpretation of powers of an Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 144B regarding the number of proposed draft orders of assessment that can be confronted to an assessee, and the compliance with procedural requirements under the said section.
Interpretation of Section 144B:
The petitioner argues that section 144B restricts the power of the ITO to only one draft order of assessment and not more, emphasizing the language used in the section such as "in the first instance" and "a draft order." The petitioner contends that allowing multiple draft orders would lead to unjustified harassment and bypassing the period of limitation prescribed by section 153 of the Income Tax Act.
Revenue's Contention:
The revenue, on the other hand, argues that there are no limiting words in section 144B regarding the number of draft orders that can be served on the assessee. They assert that serving a draft order each time an assessment is revised is permissible and does not prejudice the assessee, as they are entitled to an opportunity to be heard each time.
Comparison with Section 144A:
A distinction is drawn between sections 144A and 144B, highlighting that under section 144A, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) can call for records suo motu, while under section 144B, the IAC's directions are mandatory only upon a reference made by the ITO when proposing a variation exceeding the limit fixed by the Board.
Procedural Violation and Quashing of Proceedings:
The judgment finds that the revenue's procedure in issuing a second draft assessment order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee was illegal and in violation of the express provisions of section 144B. The second draft order, resulting from illegal directions by the IAC, is deemed bad in law, leading to the quashing of the entire proceedings post the IAC's directions.
Compliance with Section 153:
The judgment delves into the interaction between section 144B and section 153, particularly regarding the period of limitation for completing an assessment. It emphasizes that section 144B(1) does not authorize an ITO to issue more than one draft assessment order, and the statutory period not exceeding 180 days mentioned in Explanation 1(iv) of section 153 is mandatory and cannot be extended.
Conclusion:
The impugned order is set aside, allowing the department to restart the proceedings at the stage of the IAC under the proviso to subsection (4) of section 144B. The petition is allowed with costs, and the rule is made absolute.
-
1980 (12) TMI 43
Issues:
1. Allowability of expenditure on foreign tour of director as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The case involved a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of sugar, which claimed an expenditure of Rs. 8,152 incurred by one of its directors for attending a conference in Honolulu. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal later allowed it, stating that the purpose of the tour was to acquire the latest techniques related to the business of sugar production. The department contended that the tour was not connected with the business and that the expenditure was not allowable for the assessment year in question. The department argued that since the tour was undertaken in May 1959 and the board's sanction was given in March 1960 for a different assessment year, it should not be allowed. However, the assessee argued that the expenditure was closely connected with the business and relied on previous decisions supporting this claim.
The High Court considered whether the expenditure was allowable for the assessment year in question, emphasizing that the finding of the Tribunal on this matter was final. Citing previous decisions, the court noted that if a question of law was not raised before the Tribunal, it cannot be agitated later. The court also highlighted the importance of when the liability was incurred, not when it was credited, in determining the allowability of expenditure. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding the deductibility of liabilities based on the date of approval. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the department's arguments. The court answered the question of law in the affirmative for the assessee and against the department, with no order as to costs.
The Chief Justice concurred with the judgment, and the court concluded the case with this decision.
-
1980 (12) TMI 42
The court ruled that the value of the combine harvester machine was not exempt under section 5(1)(ix) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74. The machine was hired out by the assessee, not used directly by the assessee for agricultural purposes, thus not qualifying for the exemption. The court interpreted that the exemption aims to encourage agriculture by granting it to agriculturists who use tools for agricultural purposes. The question was answered in the negative, in favor of the department and against the assessee.
-
1980 (12) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions regarding waiver of penal interest under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer.
Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the waiver of penal interest under section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for an assessment year. The Commissioner issued a notice under section 33B as the Income-tax Officer had not levied the penal interest. The assessee claimed that the ITO had waived the interest under Rule 48 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922. The Commissioner disagreed and set aside the assessment, directing the ITO to charge the interest. The Appellate Tribunal held that the ITO must be deemed to have waived the interest under Rule 48, and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 33B to revise the order.
The provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act required an assessee to file an estimate of tax payable if not previously assessed. Failure to do so could lead to penal interest under section 18A(8). Rule 48 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, allows the ITO to waive interest under certain circumstances, including delays not attributable to the assessee. In this case, the assessment was delayed, and the ITO did not levy penal interest. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a Supreme Court ruling that even in cases of non-payment of advance tax, Rule 48 could be applied.
The argument was made that the Commissioner could revise the order only if it was prejudicial to the revenue. The ITO's failure to mention penal interest was considered technical, as an order could be prejudicial even without explicit mention. The Tribunal's decision was deemed correct as the delay in assessment was not attributable to the assessee, justifying the waiver under Rule 48 or the Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction under section 33B.
The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that if the ITO had waived the interest, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 33B. The Commissioner's order setting aside the assessment was deemed invalid as the delay was not attributable to the assessee. The ITO was directed to make a fresh assessment without charging the interest, and the assessee was awarded costs for the reference.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Rule 48 for waiving penal interest, the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33B, and the importance of assessing whether delays in proceedings are attributable to the assessee in determining the levy of penal interest.
-
1980 (12) TMI 40
Issues Involved:
1. Registration of the assessee-firm.
2. Applicability of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for late filing of return.
3. Interpretation of sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
1. Registration of the Assessee-Firm:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64, confirming that the assessee was a genuine firm and entitled to registration.
2. Applicability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(a) for Late Filing of Return:
The assessee filed a belated return on May 28, 1966, for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated penal action u/s 271(1)(a) and levied a penalty of Rs. 9,777. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) cancelled the penalty order, holding that no tax was payable by the assessee-firm for the assessment year at the relevant time. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's order, stating that the taxpayer was not in arrears and had paid more than the tax payable by way of advance tax.
3. Interpretation of Sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal referred the question of whether the provisions of sections 271(1)(i) and 271(2) justified the cancellation of the penalty. The court held that the provisions of sections 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(i) must be read together to determine liability to penalty. A person is liable to penalty if they fail to submit a return without reasonable cause and do not pay their tax in the manner provided. The court concluded that the assessee, having paid the assessed tax in advance, was not liable to penalty. The court also clarified that section 271(2) applies to registered firms only when they are liable to penalty under section 271(1)(a) read with section 271(1)(i). The court rejected the revenue's contention that section 271(2) overrides section 271(1)(i) and concluded that the non obstante clause in section 271(2) is limited to treating a registered firm as an unregistered firm for penalty purposes.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions in the affirmative and against the revenue, holding that section 271(2) was not applicable in this case, and the taxpayer had no tax liability for the assessment year 1963-64. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, and no costs were ordered.
....
|
9911796707
