|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1046 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 1029
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the directions contained in the order passed by the C.I.T. under Section 263 in so far as it related to Section 80J was after expiry of a period of two years and therefore, revision jurisdiction could not be exercised on this issue?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have appreciated that once fresh assessment is made by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions given by the C.I.T. under Section 263, it would be a fresh assessment for all purposes?
Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Limitation on Revision Jurisdiction under Section 263
1. Factual Background: The assessment years in question are 1979-80 and 1980-81. For 1979-80, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) passed the assessment order on 26.03.1981, allowing deductions under Sections 35B and 80J. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) passed an order under Section 263 on 24.12.1983, remanding the proceedings for reconsideration of the deduction under Section 35B. The ITO passed a fresh order on 24.08.1984, maintaining the original benefit under Section 80J. The CIT again sought to revise the order on 06.01.1987, which was beyond the limitation period.
2. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that the CIT's exercise of power under Section 263 was beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the error, if any, in granting the benefit under Section 80J arose in the original assessment order dated 26.03.1981, and not in the fresh order dated 24.08.1984. Therefore, the CIT could not revise the order beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263.
3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal relied on various decisions, including:
- Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. ITO: Held that an order not subject to review by the Appellate Authority can be rectified by the ITO.
- Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co. Ltd.: Held that the period of limitation for rectifying orders should be from the date of the original assessment order.
- C.I.T. Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commences from the original assessment and not from the reassessment unless the reassessment pertains to the same issue.
4. Court's Conclusion: The Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the CIT did not find any error in the original assessment orders regarding Section 80J during the first round of revision. The mistake, if any, was in the original order, and thus, the CIT could not revise it beyond the two-year limitation period. The decision in C.I.T. Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. was applied, affirming that the period of limitation commenced from the original assessments.
Issue 2: Fresh Assessment and Doctrine of Merger
1. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that once the assessments were reopened, only fresh assessment orders survived. Thus, the CIT's exercise of power under Section 263 was within the period of limitation from the date of the fresh assessment orders. They relied on Hind Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, where the Supreme Court held that the word "Order" under Section 154(7) could mean any order, including amended or rectified orders.
2. Assessee's Argument: The Assessee contended that the CIT's power was time-barred as the original assessment orders were not revised within the limitation period. The remand orders were specific to Section 35B and did not reopen the entire assessment, including Section 80J. They relied on C.I.T. Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the original assessments when the reassessment did not pertain to the same issue.
3. Court's Analysis: The Court noted that the CIT, in the first round of revision, did not find any error in the original assessment orders regarding Section 80J. The remand orders were specific to Section 35B. The fresh orders by the ITO were limited to the directions given by the CIT and did not reassess the entire income. The principle of merger did not apply as the reassessment was limited to Section 35B and did not affect Section 80J.
4. Conclusion: The Court held that the CIT could not revise the orders beyond the limitation period as the original assessment orders were not wholly set aside. The CIT's directions were specific to Section 35B, and the ITO's fresh orders were confined to those directions. The decision in Hind Wire Industries Ltd. was distinguished as it pertained to rectification under different circumstances.
Final Judgment:
The Court answered both questions in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, confirming that the CIT's exercise of power under Section 263 was beyond the period of limitation and that the fresh assessment did not reopen the entire assessment for all purposes.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1028
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the IT Act.
2. Computation of deductions u/s 80HHC and 80-IA.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Interest u/s 14A of the IT Act:
The primary issue in the appeals was the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee u/s 14A of the IT Act. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing cycles and two-wheeler parts, earned dividend income of Rs. 57,19,27,325, which was claimed as exempt under ss. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. The AO disallowed a portion of the interest expenditure, asserting that borrowed funds were used to earn the exempt dividend income. The AO's disallowance was based on the premise that the assessee had invested borrowed funds in shares and mutual funds, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 3,48,04,375, later reduced to Rs. 1,20,54,664 by the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in principle but restricted it to the interest paid by the main unit in Ludhiana, as no funds from other units were used for the investments. The assessee argued that the investments were made from non-interest-bearing funds, such as dividend proceeds and sale proceeds of shares, and that no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had proceeded on mere presumption without establishing a nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the investments. The Tribunal held that the disallowance u/s 14A could not be made on mere presumption and deleted the entire addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
2. Computation of Deductions u/s 80HHC and 80-IA:
The Revenue's appeal also contested the CIT(A)'s direction to compute deductions u/s 80HHC and 80-IA based on the income assessed as a result of the appeal order. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s directions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1027
Disallowance of expenses - Addition on unexplained cash credit - Disallowance on account of credit in respect of loan from Sit. Chanchal Lamba - Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure - Disallowance of l/10th of car expenses - Disallowance of depreciation.
Addition on unexplained cash credit - identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and the sources for making the credits not established - HELD THAT:- The department has not brought any material on record to doubt the identity of the creditors who have filed their confirmatory letters which have been reproduced hereinabove. In view of these details found on record, there remains no stock of doubting the genuineness of transactions of credits. On going through the assessment order it appears that the AO has raised suspicion only on those grounds which are not based on any material - Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has successfully discharged its burden in proving the identity of the creditors; genuineness of the transactions of credit and the source of the credits. We are therefore, unable to concur with the findings of the learned CIT(a) and set aside the same. Consequently ground No.1 taken by the assessee stands allowed and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
Disallowance on account of credit in respect of loan from Sit. Chanchal Lamba - HELD THAT:- The departmental authorities have doubted the genuineness of the transactions by making surmises and conjectures, which cannot be justified. The departmental authorities have also gone the test of human probabilities. However, no doubt can be raised about the genuineness of the transaction on the basis of probabilities and improbabilities - Merely because GPF advance was taken for purposes of marriage but was diverted for making advance of loan, it cannot be said that the transaction of advancing loan was not genuine. The creditor is an employee and she might have indulged in misconduct in utilizing the sanctioned amount for the purpose for which it was not sanctioned but for that action could have been taken against her by the department, if it was so considered - In any case merely on that basis the genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. Thus, we are unable to concur with the findings of the learned CIT(A) in relation to this credit also. Hence setting aside the order of the learned CIT(A) we allow ground No.2 in favour of the assessee. Consequently the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure - AO proceeded to make disallowance without assigning cogent reasons - HELD THAT:- After having examined the books of account and vouchers, AO has not pointed out any specific instance to show as to why the expenditure was not allowable. The learned CIT(A) has also not appreciated this aspect properly - Therefore, the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure without pointing out and justifying the reasons for doing so, cannot be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition. This ground stands allowed in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of l/10th of car expenses - HELD THAT:- This disallowance is also justified on the ground of personal use of the vehicle. This disallowance is, therefore, upheld.
Disallowance of depreciation - AO allowed l/6th of it - HELD THAT:- In appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 1/10th Car depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground of persona! user of the car. The departmental authorities were therefore, not justified in disallowing any portion out of car depreciation. Our this view is supported by the decision in the case of Mukesh K. Shali vs. ITO [2004 (5) TMI 530 - ITAT MUMBAI]. This ground is therefore, partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1026
Issues involved: Applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act in block assessment u/s 158BC(c) based on seized documents.
Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta, comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra, reviewed an order by the Tribunal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act in a block assessment u/s 158BC(c) based on seized documents. The Tribunal extensively analyzed the matter, focusing on the deletion of disallowance made under Section 40A(3) by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal considered various decisions, including one from the Kolkata Bench, which emphasized that the nature of unrecorded expenditure may not allow payments via account payee cheques or bank drafts. It was concluded that disallowance u/s 40A(3) does not fall within the scope of undisclosed income under Sec.158B(b). The Tribunal also cited precedents from other benches to support its findings.
Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted a well-settled principle that when income is computed using the gross profit rate without deductions for purchases, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not applicable. In such cases, where the gross profit rate covers all aspects, the Department cannot scrutinize the amount spent on purchases. The Tribunal referenced several decisions to support the assessee's position.
In its final decision, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was noted that all raised issues were thoroughly addressed, and the Tribunal's decision was in line with legal precedents, including the jurisdictional aspect based on Supreme Court rulings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law identified for consideration. All parties were instructed to adhere to a xerox copy of the order.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1025
Applicability of sections 41(1) and 28(iv) - Liability written off - deduction on loss, expenditure or trading liability - loan for meeting the day-to-day requirements of the company - section 41(1) were wrongly invoked - Whether the action of AO, linking the loss of the assessee to the loans given by lender (SDD&CPL) and thereby considering that the amount given by the lender is in respect of the said loss, is correct? - Assessee submitted that he never claimed any deduction or allowance of losses or expenditure involving M/s. SDD & CPL in respect of the amounts written-off -
HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee was in huge losses and was in search of incoming group. Such group wanted a Balance Sheet of the company cleared off the liabilities. The SDD & CPL has come to the rescue of the assessee to provide loans and write off the same. In this case, the amount given by SDD & CPL is not a trade deposit and the said amount has not become a definite trade surplus. Further, giving loans and the write off of the same by SDD&CPL happened in the time span of only 5 months.
Applying the provisions of section 41(1) to the facts of the instant case, we find that the amount of loan received has no connection to any such allowance or deduction. It is a mere loan unconnected to any allowance or deduction made in the assessee’s assessment. Although it is an undisputed fact that the assessee received benefit by way of remission or cessation of liability, the same is certainly not in respect of any trading liability.
We find that the assessee did not receive the said amount in respect of any sales or purchases or other related direct or indirect expenses to qualify for trading activity. The said amount was given by the M/s. SDD&CPL for the purpose of making the assessee-company fit for takeover and for shaping up a presentable Balance Sheet for the incoming group. In this regard, we have also examined if the AO has made out any case against assessee for the proposition that if the amounts given by M/s. SDD&CPL are given to assessee on behalf of other trade debtors in order to be covered by the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, that is also not the case here.
Therefore, The AO action of linking the loss of the assessee to the loans given by lender (SDD&CPL) and thereby considering that the amount given by the lender is in respect of the said loss, is an incorrect finding and the same is not in accordance with section 41(1) of the Act. It is almost a settled law that ‘A debt waived by the creditor cannot be the income of the debtor’ as held in the case of British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson and affirmed in the case of CIT v. P. Ganesa Chettiar [1979 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Hence, the transaction between assessee and SDD & CPL are aimed at making the company eligible for take over by the income group and are consequential to the contractual agreement. The transactions in the books of account are not found bogus or collusive by the AO. The loans has nothing to do with the assessee’s claims of deduction or allowances in that assessment as assessee within the meaning of section 41(1) as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jahangir Gullabbhai [2007 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Further, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act does not come to the rescue of the revenue in the view of the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Hellios Food Improvers (P.) Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Therefore, assessee’s ground is allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1024
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of travelling expenses.
2. Disallowance of 10% of the dividend income u/s 14A.
3. Disallowance of rent attributable to garden space and excess rent u/s 40A(2)(b).
4. Disallowance of advertisement expenditure.
5. Addition on account of personal expenses.
6. Disallowance of allocated regional overheads and R&D survey expenses.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Travelling Expenses:
For the assessment year 2001-2002, the assessee's appeal against the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 5,78,385 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to examine whether the travelling was undertaken for the assessee's business, notwithstanding the bills being in the name of a group entity. For the assessment year 2002-2003, a similar disallowance of Rs. 16,64,275 was also remitted back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
2. Disallowance of 10% of the Dividend Income u/s 14A:
For both assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, the disallowance of 10% of the dividend income u/s 14A was contested. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following the precedent set in the Third Member case of Wimco Seedlings Limited vs. DCIT, which held that such disallowance was not permissible.
3. Disallowance of Rent Attributable to Garden Space and Excess Rent u/s 40A(2)(b):
For the assessment year 2001-2002, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 7,19,954 towards garden space rent, holding that the expenditure was for business purposes. The disallowance of excess rent u/s 40A(2)(b) amounting to Rs. 1,91,200 was also deleted as the actual rent paid was below the benchmark rate considered reasonable by the AO. For the assessment year 2002-2003, similar disallowances were contested, and the Tribunal followed the same reasoning, allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
4. Disallowance of Advertisement Expenditure:
For the assessment year 2001-2002, the AO disallowed Rs. 1,02,27,106 out of the total advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, holding that the entire expenditure was deductible as revenue expenditure, irrespective of its treatment in the books of account.
5. Addition on Account of Personal Expenses:
For the assessment year 2001-2002, the AO disallowed Rs. 7,36,744 as personal expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, noting that in the case of a private limited company, there cannot be any question of personal use of the facilities by the Directors. For the assessment year 2002-2003, a similar disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh out of telephone expenses was also deleted.
6. Disallowance of Allocated Regional Overheads and R&D Survey Expenses:
For the assessment year 2002-2003, the AO disallowed Rs. 15,66,000 towards allocated regional overheads and R&D survey expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition, noting that the assessee had failed to prove any nexus between the business carried on by it and the expenditure claimed. The assessee was advised to take remedial action in the subsequent year if the same amount was offered for taxation there.
Conclusion:
The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and those of the Revenue were dismissed for both assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The Tribunal provided detailed directions for fresh adjudication on certain issues and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on others.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1023
The Supreme Court noted a recent amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, which clarified the scope of "service in relation to promotion or marketing of service provided by the client" to include services related to games of chance. Written submissions on the interpretation of this Explanation were to be filed within four weeks, with the matter scheduled for final disposal after that period. (Case citation: 2008 (7) TMI 1023 - SC)
-
2008 (7) TMI 1022
Issues Involved:
1. Re-assessment of second hand machines imported by the assessee based on Ministry's Instructions.
2. Dispute regarding the transaction value of the goods and the application of Board's Circular.
3. Challenge before the Commissioner based on Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court decisions.
Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved:
1. The appeal arose from an Order confirming re-assessment of second hand machines imported by the assessee based on Ministry's Instructions. The assessee contested the re-assessment, citing various judgments, but the authorities proceeded to value the goods as per Board's Circular. The matter was challenged before the Commissioner, citing Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the acceptance of transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act.
2. The dispute centered around the rejection of the declared value/transaction value of the imported goods by the authorities. The authority-in-original rejected the transaction value and determined the assessable value using Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellate authority accepted the appeal based on previous court judgments emphasizing the primacy of transaction value and the limitations on rejecting it under Rule 4 of the Rules. The Tribunal initially had a difference of opinion but ultimately allowed the appeal, rejecting the transaction value determined by the first appellate authority.
3. The Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case clarified the acceptance of transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The Court emphasized the need for special or extraordinary reasons to reject the transaction value and highlighted the importance of following established principles laid down in previous judgments. The Tribunal's decision was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the decision of the first appellate authority. The Court directed the Department to frame the final assessment in line with the Supreme Court's order.
This judgment highlights the significance of transaction value under the Customs Act, the limitations on rejecting it, and the need for special reasons to do so. The decision provides clarity on the valuation of imported goods and emphasizes adherence to established legal principles in such matters.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1021
Issues involved: Confirmation of duty against the appellant by denying input credit for tower used in output services as telephone services.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD confirmed a duty of &8377; 2,26,20,002/- against the appellant for denying input credit related to a tower used in telephone services. The appellant claimed the credit on the tower itself, while the Commissioner stated that the credit was availed on materials like steel bars, tubes, angles, etc., used in the construction of the tower. The Tribunal found a basic dispute on the factual position and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-adjudication to clarify the nature of the duty claimed - whether on the tower or on materials used in its construction. The decision was based on the need to resolve this fundamental discrepancy at the lower level. The Tribunal referred to a previous stay order in a similar case to highlight the importance of clarifying the specific nature of the duty claimed. The impugned order was set aside for further clarification and resolution of the dispute at the lower level. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1020
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and voluntariness of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
2. Legality of recording successive statements under Section 67 NDPS Act.
3. Truthfulness and reliability of statements made by the accused.
4. Procedural compliance in the arrest and transit remand of the accused.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The primary contention by the appellants was that their conviction was based on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which they argued were made under duress and coercion. The court examined whether these statements were voluntary and truthful. It was noted that there was no substantial evidence to support the claim of physical torture by the officers. The medical examination of the accused did not reveal any injuries. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in *Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India*, which emphasized that a statement under Section 67 NDPS Act could be relied upon as a confessional statement if it was made voluntarily and without any threat or compulsion. The court concluded that the statements in the present case were voluntary and admissible.
2. Legality of Recording Successive Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act:
The appellants argued that successive statements could not be recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act. The court examined Section 67, which allows officers to call for information, require the production of documents, and examine persons during the course of any enquiry. The court found that the wording of Section 67 does not prohibit the recording of successive statements. The court referenced *Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India*, where it was held that statements made to officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence were not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court concluded that successive statements are permissible under Section 67 NDPS Act.
3. Truthfulness and Reliability of Statements Made by the Accused:
The appellants contended that the statements contained contradictions and were not reliable. The court noted that while there were minor discrepancies, they did not affect the overall truthfulness of the statements. The court referenced *A.K. Mehaboob v. Intelligence Officer NCB*, where the Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the truthful statement under Section 67 NDPS Act. The court also referenced *Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer, NCB*, emphasizing that statements under Section 67 NDPS Act must be scrutinized closely. The court found that the statements were truthful and reliable, and the contradictions were not material.
4. Procedural Compliance in the Arrest and Transit Remand of the Accused:
The appellants argued that the NCB officers violated the judicial transit remand order by not producing Yakub before the court in Delhi as required. The court examined the evidence and found no substantial cross-examination on this point. The court noted that the officers had followed the procedure by obtaining a transit remand order and that the statements recorded were not shown to be under duress. The court concluded that there was no procedural illegality in the arrest and transit remand of the accused.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the voluntariness and truthfulness of the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, the legality of recording successive statements, and procedural compliance in the arrest and transit remand. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under Section 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The appeals were dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1019
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the General Court-Martial (GCM) convening authority.
2. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for judicial review of GCM proceedings.
Summary:
1. Validity of the General Court-Martial (GCM) convening authority:
The appellant contended that the GCM was convened in violation of Section 109 of the Army Act, 1950, arguing that it was not convened by a competent authority. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that under Section 109, a GCM may be convened by the Central Government, the Chief of the Army Staff, or any officer empowered by warrant of the Chief of the Army Staff. The Court noted that a general warrant had been issued by the Chief of the Army Staff empowering officers commanding the 16 Corps to convene GCMs. The order convening the GCM in this case was found to be in compliance with Section 109.
2. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction:
The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence proving his guilt u/s 63 of the Army Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the GCM proceedings, citing a lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the confessional statements. However, the Supreme Court found that the GCM proceedings were conducted fairly, with the appellant given full opportunity to defend himself. The Court noted that the appellant had made a voluntary written confessional statement before the GCM, admitting the allegations. The GCM had considered the oral evidence of material witnesses and the appellant's confessional statements, finding him guilty of the charge.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for judicial review of GCM proceedings:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by the GCM. Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision itself. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the learned Single Judge's order, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. IC 14827 Major A. Hussain, which emphasized that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence recorded by the authorities and substitute its own findings.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the Division Bench's decision, which had set aside the learned Single Judge's order. The appeal was dismissed, and the GCM's conviction and sentence were affirmed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1018
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment of learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing criminal revision filed by the appellant regarding conviction u/s 279 and 304A of IPC.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The appellant was convicted for offences u/s 279 and 304A of IPC by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and sentenced accordingly. The appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed.
2. A revision petition was filed before the High Court questioning conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed.
3. The prosecution's version stated that the appellant's rash and negligent driving caused a fatal accident involving victims from a bus. Evidence included statements, spot map, and photographs.
4. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings, rejecting the argument that the accident was due to negligence of the bus driver. Limited scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction was considered.
5. Appellant's counsel argued that the requirements for Sections 279 and 304A were not met, and the sentence was harsh. Requested reduction in sentence due to time served.
6. Counsel for the State supported the decisions of the lower courts.
7. Citing Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of factual determination in cases of vehicular accidents.
8. Referring to State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and State of Kerala v. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, the Court highlighted the limitations of revisional jurisdiction in correcting miscarriage of justice.
9. The Trial Court and Revisional Court's detailed analysis of evidence was found to be without error, justifying the High Court's decision not to interfere.
10. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' conclusions and the High Court's decision not to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1017
The Bombay High Court upheld the suspension of a license due to pending inquiry and proposed penalty, stating that interfering with the tribunal's order would not serve the interest of justice. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1016
Education Cess on paper cess - Held that: - paper cess is nothing but a duty of excise and levied as well as collected only in the name of cess for the purpose of development of industries under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on paper and paper boards - Once it is established that paper cess being paid by the paper industries is an excise duty in the eyes of law, it must be included with the other excise duty (B.E.D., S.E.D., Cess etc.) while calculating the correct amount of education cess @ 2% as prescribed, under Central Excise Law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1015
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding excisability of items fabricated by the appellant and imposition of duty and penalties.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 35/2003-04 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam. The appellant, engaged in interior decoration work, was alleged to be manufacturing excisable furniture. The Tribunal remanded the matter to examine in light of relevant circulars and Supreme Court decisions. The impugned order was challenged by the appellants, who argued that the items manufactured by them, permanently fixed to walls, cannot be moved without damage, citing a Supreme Court ruling. They also contended that the longer period for issuing Show Cause Notice was unjustified due to doubts regarding excisability settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the items fixed by the appellant cannot be considered furniture as per the cannibalization test, as established by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the demand was held to be time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
The Tribunal carefully considered the issue and found that the items fabricated by the appellant, permanently fixed to the room, cannot be moved without damage, aligning with the Supreme Court's observations in Craft Interiors case. The test of cannibalization was applied, leading to the conclusion that the items cannot be considered furniture. The department's case was deemed weak on merits, and the demand was considered time-barred, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1014
Issues Involved: Penalty imposed on deceased individual u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appeal was directed against the order-in-original imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the late individual under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel representing the deceased individual's son argued that the individual had passed away before the adjudication order was issued, and this fact was communicated to the adjudicating authority. The records revealed that the son, who was also a crew member of the vessel, had informed the authority about the demise. Despite this, the authority imposed the penalty, stating that no family member had officially notified them of the death. However, a succession certificate from the Additional Civil Judge confirmed the individual's death on a date prior to the order-in-original. The Tribunal held that penal provisions cannot be enforced against a deceased individual, and as such, the penalty imposed on the deceased individual was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1013
Issues involved: Challenge to notices issued under section 148 of the IT Act for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96.
Issue 1: Challenge to notice for assessment year 1993-94
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act for assessment year 1993-94. The petitioner argued that the reasons for the notice were dated after the notice was issued, which goes against the provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. The respondent contended that the reasons were recorded before the notice was served, based on the dates mentioned on the notice. However, the court held that section 148(2) mandates that reasons must be recorded before issuing any notice. The court found that in this case, the reasons were not recorded before the notice was issued, and therefore, the notice for assessment year 1993-94 was quashed and set aside.
Outcome: The notice dated 16th Jan., 1997 for assessment year 1993-94 was quashed and set aside as the mandatory requirement of recording reasons before issuance of notice was not complied with. The petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1012
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the revocation of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license for various violations of regulations under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Violation of Regulation 12 - Sale or Transfer of License:
The first charge against the CHA was for contravening Regulation 12 by allegedly subletting its license to another firm, M/s. Panorama Express Agencies, for export purposes. The CHA was accused of overvaluing exports to claim undue duty drawback, leading to the revocation of the license.
Violation of Regulation 13(b) - Business Transactions:
The second charge was for contravention of Regulation 13(b), which requires CHAs to transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through authorized employees. It was alleged that the CHA allowed M/s. Panorama Express Agencies to handle all work for clients, M/s. Frost International and M/s. Aum International, through their manager, without direct involvement.
Violation of Regulation 13(d) - Compliance with Act:
The third charge accused the CHA of not advising its clients to comply with the Act by correctly declaring the FOB value of garments, leading to misdeclaration for fraudulent duty drawback purposes. However, a previous Tribunal order found that the FOB value was correctly declared, resulting in the setting aside of this charge.
Violation of Regulation 13(a) - Authorization Letters:
The fourth charge was for failing to obtain authorization letters from clients and not submitting them to customs authorities, breaching Regulation 13(a) regarding client authorization requirements.
Violation of Regulation 13(k) - Record Maintenance:
The last charge against the CHA was for non-maintenance of records and accounts, violating Regulation 13(k) under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Decision:
The Enquiry Officer found most charges proved, leading to the revocation of the CHA license. While the charge under Regulation 13(d) was set aside due to a previous Tribunal order, the other violations were upheld. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deciding that the revocation order would be in operation until 31-8-2008, after which the CHA could resume business operations as a CHA from 1-9-2008 onwards.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1011
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148, earlier framed u/s 143(3), after expiry of four years from end of relevant AY - granted excess deduction u/s. 80-I - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that there is no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts truly and fully. The assessments for both the years have been completed under sub-s. (3) of s. 143 of the Act. All necessary details were made available with the AO at the time of finalizing the regular assessment pursuant to the notices issued under ss. 143(3) (sic.), 142(1) as well as s. 143(2) of the Act and on that basis, assessments were finalized.
Hence, it cannot be said that there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts truly and fully at the time of original assessment. Even a bare perusal of the reasons recorded makes it clear that the factual data was available with the AO at the time of assessment. On these very materials, if he takes a different view subsequently, that too, after expiry of four year's period from the end of relevant assessment years, that would not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondent to issue notices u/s. 148 of the Act.
Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned notices issued by the AO are without jurisdiction, more particularly when the notices are issued after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Therefore, both the impugned notices are quashed. This petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1010
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 when all relevant material was not furnished by the assessee.
2. Whether non-disclosure of material facts regarding norms of National Housing Bank constitutes full and true disclosure.
Issue 1: Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 581/Mad/2005 for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee, engaged in housing finance, had initially filed a return of income admitting total income of Rs. 1,96,31,710. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act, but was later reopened under section 147, resulting in a reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 4,80,64,413. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to admit the correct income, leading to the income escaping assessment. However, the CIT(A) and Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as all relevant information had been disclosed by the assessee at the time of filing the return.
Issue 2: Non-disclosure of material facts regarding National Housing Bank norms:
The Revenue argued that the assessee did not furnish all information to the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to the reopening of assessment under section 147. However, it was established that the appellant had provided an elaborate note on interest income on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and a copy of the board resolution regarding bad debts in the account of M/s Fiesta Properties. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment, as per the provisions of the law. The reopening of assessment under section 147 was deemed invalid, and the subsequent proceedings were held to be vitiated.
In conclusion, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal concurred that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose relevant facts fully and truly, and the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion. The decision was in line with the legal principles established in previous judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was upheld, and the tax case appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose from the proceedings.
............
|
9911796707
