|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 309 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 110
The High Court directed the CEGAT to reconsider the petitioner's application under Section 35F regarding exemption from pre-deposit, focusing on the issue of the show cause notice being beyond limitation. The matter is fixed before the CEGAT on 25-3-1993. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
-
1993 (9) TMI 109
Issues:
1. Duty drawback rates for export of Nylon Tyres
2. Rejection of duty drawback claim by Assistant Collector of Customs
3. Time-barred appeal and revision application
Analysis:
Issue 1: Duty drawback rates for export of Nylon Tyres
The petitioners, engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting tyres, sought duty drawback rates for their exports to Pakistan in 1978-79. They were entitled to drawback under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rates for 1978 were fixed by the Ministry of Finance in February 1979. Subsequently, the petitioners applied for rates for 1979, providing necessary details. The rates for the period 1-1-1979 to 31-3-1980 were communicated to the petitioners in January 1981. The petitioners claimed duty drawback for exports in February/March 1979, once the rates were fixed, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court held that the delay in fixing rates was not the petitioners' fault, and they were entitled to claim duty drawback only after rates were determined. The rejection by the Assistant Collector was deemed incorrect, and the petitioners' claim was upheld.
Issue 2: Rejection of duty drawback claim by Assistant Collector of Customs
The Assistant Collector rejected the petitioners' duty drawback claim for exports in February/March 1979, citing the pending status of the rates. The petitioners had requested to keep the claims pending until rates were fixed, which was ignored. The rejection led the petitioners to file an appeal and a revision application, both of which were dismissed as time-barred. The court found the rejection premature and unjustified, as the rates were only finalized in January 1981. The Assistant Collector's directive to file an appeal was untimely, resulting in the dismissal of subsequent appeals. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing their entitlement to duty drawback and the incorrect handling of the case by the Assistant Collector.
Issue 3: Time-barred appeal and revision application
The dismissal of the petitioners' appeal and revision application was based on the grounds of being time-barred. The rejection of their duty drawback claim by the Assistant Collector led to a series of procedural hurdles for the petitioners. Despite their timely communication and subsequent actions, the rejection and subsequent dismissals were deemed unjust due to the Assistant Collector's premature decision. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioners at a rate of 12% per annum from 1-4-1981 until payment, along with costs of the petition. The court highlighted the petitioners' promptness in claiming duty drawback post the finalization of rates, emphasizing their rightful entitlement to the same.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of duty drawback rates, rejection of claim by the Assistant Collector, and the time-barred appeals and revision applications, elucidating the court's findings and rulings in favor of the petitioners.
-
1993 (9) TMI 108
Whether the proviso in the notification No. 262-Cus., dated October 11, 1958 to mean that the duty will be payable as if the ships were imported for breaking-up on the date of its actual import?
Held that:- Since the date of breaking-up is an uncertain event and may require an enquiry in each case and also because no ship can be broken-up or scrapped except under the prior permission granted by the Director General of Shipping, the date of breaking-up contemplated by the said proviso should be deemed to be the date on which the permission for scrapping/breaking is accorded by the Director General of Shipping. This clarification is made in the interest of certainty and to obviate avoidable controversy. It is with reference to such date that the value and the rate have to be determined. If on such date, any other procedural formalities prescribed by law are to be complied with, they too have to be complied with.
Here the Central Government is exercising a power conferred upon it by the Parliament. The provision conferring such power does contemplate and empower the Central Government to create such a fiction, as explained hereinabove. Sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (3) place the matter beyond any doubt. To repeat, the nature of power under Section 25 is conditional legislation or a species of delegated legislation : an exemption notification under Section 25 is not an executive act. No decision has been brought to our notice in support of the said contention - which is raised only in the written submissions. For the above reasons, we see no reason to hold that the said notification No. 262-Cus., dated October 11, 1958 travels beyond the four corners of Section 25. It is perfectly within the ambit of Section 25. Equally unable to agree that by virtue of the fiction contained in the exemption notification, the ship-owners are being made to pay a higher duty than the statutory duty
-
1993 (9) TMI 107
Whether a member of CEGAT sitting singly could in law have heard the appeal before it?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed on the ground that the appellants were in error in contending that their appeal before CEGAT ought to have been heard by a Special Bench and could not have been heard and decided by a member of CEGAT, sitting singly. Appeal dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 106
Assessee's sales tax registrations under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with effect from July 1, 1987 cancelled - Held that:- As at the stage of proceedings where the personal presence of the party in the court is not normally expected-such as the stage of final arguments in a suit or the arguments in appeal-other than the stage, say of evidence where the party's presence is normally expected, it might, perhaps, be proper to ensure that learned counsel who seeks to retire from the case at the very last moment had earlier given notice to the client.
Ends of justice would be met if the appellant has one more opportunity of being heard. We did not understand Sri Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala, to oppose this prayer of the petitioner. The order dated June 1, 1990, of the High Court is set aside and Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989 is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
-
1993 (9) TMI 105
Issues:
1. Whether the criminal court can proceed with a case while an appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
2. Whether the criminal court is bound to adjourn a proceeding when an appeal is pending.
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of whether a criminal court can continue with a case while an appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The accused persons filed an application to defer the hearing of the case until the appeal was disposed of, but it was rejected by the court. The court held that the result of a proceeding under the Income-tax Act does not automatically bind the criminal court, and the criminal court must independently assess the case before it. The judgment emphasized that the pendency of an appeal does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Act. Referring to a previous Supreme Court decision, the court concluded that the launch of prosecution in this case was not illegal.
2. The judgment also addresses whether the criminal court is obligated to adjourn a proceeding when an appeal is pending. The court referred to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which grants discretionary power to adjourn a hearing if the disposal of a related proceeding under the Income-tax Act is imminent. The court clarified that there is no universal rule requiring indefinite adjournment solely due to a pending proceeding elsewhere. In this case, the court directed the accused to appear before the appellate authority and requested an early hearing of the appeal to be completed by a specified date. The criminal proceeding was stayed until the appeal was disposed of, demonstrating a balanced approach to the issue.
Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interplay between criminal proceedings and pending appeals under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for independent assessment by the criminal court and the discretionary power to adjourn proceedings based on the imminent disposal of related appeals.
-
1993 (9) TMI 104
Issues:
1. Wealth-tax assessment on a company's assets.
2. Contention regarding part of the property being stock-in-trade.
3. Appeal against orders of assessing and appellate authorities.
4. Petition for stay of demand in relation to wealth-tax assessment.
5. Analysis of the grant of stay orders in light of relevant legal principles.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the wealth-tax assessment on a company's assets, specifically focusing on the petitioner-company that owns property at Nandhanam and Delhi, among other assets. The company argued that part of the Nandhanam property should be considered stock-in-trade and excluded from wealth-tax computation. However, both the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax rejected this contention, considering the significant rental income from the Nandhanam property as an investment asset, not stock-in-trade.
2. The judgment discusses the company's appeal against the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities regarding the wealth-tax assessment. The company filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the valuation of its assets for wealth-tax purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the company's stay petition, stating that the demand's validity should be addressed during the appellate proceedings, and no evidence of financial constraints was provided by the company.
3. The judgment delves into the legal principles governing the grant of stay orders, referencing a Supreme Court case involving the Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. The Court emphasized the importance of considering factors beyond a prima facie case when granting stays, such as balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest. The judgment applies these principles to the present case, concluding that the company failed to establish a prima facie case, and public interest favored the non-grant of stay for tax collection.
4. The judgment dismisses the company's writ petition and writ miscellaneous petition, stating that even at the admission stage, they deserve dismissal. It highlights that the company's financial constraints, as mentioned in the Tribunal proceedings, are irrelevant in the context of the legal principles governing the grant of stay orders. The judgment underscores that the company can seek refund with interest through statutory provisions without the need for a civil action.
-
1993 (9) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the justification of initiating proceedings u/s 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on undervaluation of a land purchase.
Summary:
The High Court of Rajasthan was asked to provide an opinion on the justification of the Income-tax Officer initiating proceedings u/s 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the undervaluation of a land purchase in the year 1972-73. The assessee had purchased a plot of land, and the valuation was disputed by the tax authorities, leading to reassessment proceedings.
The Income-tax Officer reopened the case under section 147(b) as it was believed that the land was sold at a lower price than declared. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition of Rs. 54,400 in the hands of the assessee. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.
The Department argued that the undervaluation justified reassessment u/s 147(b) and that the valuer's report constituted "information" for initiating proceedings. The Tribunal found that the investment amount by the assessee was not proven, and the valuer's report was obtained after the relevant assessment year.
The High Court held that the valuer's report alone could not justify reassessment u/s 147(b) without substantial evidence. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that a valuation report does not constitute valid information for reassessment. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the reassessment proceedings based on the valuation report were not justified u/s 147(b) of the Act.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question against the Revenue, holding that the valuation report did not qualify as "information" u/s 147(b) of the Act. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 300.
-
1993 (9) TMI 102
Issues:
1. Whether customs duty paid by the assessee-firm outside India is an expenditure entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1973-74.
Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi was presented with three questions regarding the entitlement of the assessee-firm to claim weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for customs duty paid outside India. The Tribunal initially dismissed the claim, stating that the duty payment occurred before the distribution stage, rendering it ineligible for deduction. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the customs duty expenditure was directly related to the distribution, supply, and provision of goods outside India. Citing a previous case, the Court highlighted that such expenses are integral to the process of supplying goods abroad. Therefore, the Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under section 35B.
The Court's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India case, where a similar scenario involving customs duty payment in the U.S.A. was deemed eligible for deduction. Drawing parallels, the Court affirmed that the customs duty paid in Japan and Canada by the present assessee was essential for supplying goods abroad. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding their right to claim the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act.
In conclusion, the Court answered the questions of law affirmatively and in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the crucial connection between customs duty expenditure and the distribution of goods outside India, emphasizing the eligibility of such expenses for weighted deduction under section 35B. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1993 (9) TMI 101
Issues involved:
Interpretation of u/s 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding taxation of income for non-resident involved in purchasing goods in India for export.
Summary:
The case involved a non-resident engaged in the business of readymade garments in Japan, with operations in India through a commission agent for purchasing and exporting garments. The Income-tax Officer contended that income should be deemed to accrue in India from operations involving purchase and manufacture of goods in India. The assessee argued that the case fell under clause (b) of the Explanation to u/s 9(1)(i), exempting income from operations confined to purchasing goods in India for export.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the assessee, noting the removal of a proviso limiting the exemption for non-residents with no office or agency in India. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee's activities were covered by clause (b) of the Explanation to u/s 9(1)(i), especially after the removal of the proviso.
The Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court regarding the applicability of clause (b) over clause (a) of the Explanation to u/s 9(1)(i). The High Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the removal of the proviso, emphasizing the encouragement of exports. It concluded that the assessee's case clearly fell under clause (b), entitling the non-resident to exemption from taxation on income arising from purchasing goods in India for export.
Therefore, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and answering the question of law in the affirmative. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1993 (9) TMI 100
Issues:
1. Applicability of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act in a partial partition of a Hindu undivided family.
2. Interpretation of section 2(15) and Explanation 2 in relation to estate duty assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The first issue pertains to the applicability of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act in a partial partition of a Hindu undivided family. The deceased, along with his brothers, underwent a partial partition where the deceased received a share of lesser value compared to his total share in the family property. The Assistant Controller contended that there was a deemed gift due to the difference in value, invoking sections 2(15), 9, and 27(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that since it was a partial partition and the family had other assets, there was no unequal distribution, and the deceased still had rights over undivided properties. The Tribunal concluded that there was no gift involved. The Appellate Controller upheld the inclusion of the deemed gift, emphasizing that no distinction should be made between complete and partial partitions under Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Act.
Issue 2: The second issue involves the interpretation of section 2(15) and Explanation 2 concerning estate duty assessment. The court referred to a specific recital in the partition deed indicating a complete partition without any reservation of rights by the deceased. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal, the court emphasized that even in a partial partition where a coparcener receives less than their share, it constitutes a disposition under Explanation 2 to section 2(15). The court highlighted that the intention of the law is to consider any relinquished share as a disposition, regardless of the partition's completeness. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision that the deceased's lesser share could be adjusted in a future partition was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that section 9 applied, and there was a deemed gift involved in the partial partition.
In conclusion, the court's judgment clarifies the application of estate duty laws in cases of partial partitions within Hindu undivided families, emphasizing the deemed gift implications under relevant sections of the Act. The interpretation of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) underscores the broader scope of what constitutes a disposition, irrespective of the partition's completeness, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of estate duty liabilities in such scenarios.
-
1993 (9) TMI 99
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition to the total income due to loss of stock-in-trade from embezzlement.
2. Whether the provisions of section 40(c) or section 40A(5) apply in the case of an employee-director.
3. Whether the amount representing additional payment for penalty under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act is an allowable deduction in computing income.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a private limited company for the assessment year 1975-76 where embezzlement by two employees resulted in a loss of stock-in-trade worth Rs. 6,54,777. The embezzlement was discovered after the end of the previous year, but the loss was reflected in the books of account for that year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that it could only be claimed in the year of detection. The High Court disagreed, ruling that the loss was allowable as a deduction in the year it occurred, regardless of when it was detected. The first question was answered in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2:
Regarding the application of section 40(c) or section 40A(5) in the case of an employee-director, the High Court referenced a Supreme Court decision and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the issue was covered by existing legal precedents.
Issue 3:
The third question involved whether an additional payment for a penalty under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act could be considered an allowable deduction. The High Court cited a previous decision and ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the question was covered by existing legal interpretations.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee for Issue 1, in favor of the assessee for Issue 2 based on legal precedents, and in favor of the Revenue for Issue 3. No costs were awarded based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1993 (9) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure operation.
2. Applicability and interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the assessee made a full and true disclosure of income within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 273A.
4. Authority of the Commissioner to waive penalties exceeding five lakh rupees without Board approval.
5. Validity of the Board's refusal to approve the waiver of the penalty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Operation:
The search and seizure operation conducted at the residence and factory premises of the petitioner from January 23 to January 25, 1985, was in connection with income-tax purposes. A large number of books of account and documents were seized by the income-tax authorities during this operation. The legality of the search and seizure was not explicitly contested in the judgment, implying its procedural correctness.
2. Applicability and Interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 273A:
Explanation 2 to Section 273A was a short-lived provision effective from October 1, 1984, to May 24, 1985. It provided that if a person made a full and true disclosure of income within 15 days of seizure, it would be deemed as voluntary and in good faith. The court held that this provision has to be construed liberally to benefit the assessee in cases of search and seizure. The court emphasized that the Explanation was intended to cater to situations where the books of account and other documents were seized, making it difficult for the assessee to provide accurate figures without access to these documents.
3. Full and True Disclosure of Income:
The petitioner filed a petition on February 2, 1985, within the 15-day period, making a full and true disclosure of his assets. The court noted that the petitioner had stated in his petition that he was unable to inspect his books of account and documents, which were in the custody of the income-tax authorities, and thus made the disclosure based on memory and estimates. The court emphasized that the test for full and true disclosure should be the bona fides of the assessee and whether he placed all the books of account and documents before the authorities, not the accuracy of the figures disclosed. The court found that the petitioner had cooperated fully with the authorities, did not conceal any documents, and paid the entire tax promptly.
4. Authority of the Commissioner to Waive Penalties Exceeding Five Lakh Rupees:
Section 273A(2)(b) stipulates that if the penalty amount exceeds five lakh rupees, the Commissioner requires the previous approval of the Board to reduce or waive the penalty. In the present case, the penalty amount in Writ Petition No. 10468 of 1990 exceeded five lakh rupees, necessitating Board approval, which was ultimately not granted.
5. Validity of the Board's Refusal to Approve the Waiver of the Penalty:
The Board declined to approve the waiver, stating that the disclosure made by the assessee was neither true nor full, as the assessed income exceeded the disclosed income by a substantial margin. The court, however, disagreed with the Board's reasoning, stating that the petitioner had made a bona fide effort to disclose his income to the best of his ability without access to his books of account. The court held that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated full cooperation and bona fide disclosure, thus entitling him to the benefit of Explanation 2 to Section 273A.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the decision of the learned single judge, finding that the petitioner had made a full and true disclosure of his income in good faith within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 273A. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the petitioner was entitled to the waiver of the penalty.
-
1993 (9) TMI 97
Issues:
Interpretation of section 80G(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction for donation under section 80G(1) with reference to gross total income as defined in section 80B(5).
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the question of law referred to the court was whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction for donation under section 80G(1) with reference to the gross total income as defined in section 80B(5). The dispute arose in the computation of the "gross total income" for determining the maximum amount permissible as deduction under section 80G(4). The assessee contended that the total income should be based on the total gross income as defined under section 80B(5), while the Income-tax Officer computed it after deducting the annuity deposit amount as provided in section 280-0 of the Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute the deduction without reducing it by the annuity deposit amount, leading to the reference at the instance of the Revenue.
The Revenue argued that the computation of ten percent of gross total income should follow the provisions of section 80G(4) rather than the definition of "gross total income" under section 80B(5). They contended that amounts not deductible under section 80B(5) should still be considered for computing gross total income under section 80G(4). However, the court analyzed the provisions of section 80G(4) and section 80B(5) and concluded that for the purpose of section 80G(4), the "gross total income" defined in section 80B(5) should be reduced by specific conditions, excluding deductions under section 280-0. The court emphasized that "gross total income" for section 80G(4) should be computed without deductions under section 280-0, which is part of a different chapter. Since the annuity deposit was allowed as a deduction under section 280-0 and not Chapter VI-A, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction without reducing it by the annuity deposit amount was upheld.
In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming that the deduction for donations under section 80G(4) should be allowed with reference to ten percent of the gross total income without considering the amount of annuity deposit. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1993 (9) TMI 96
Issues:
1. Classification of income from hire charges under section 28 or section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the classification of hire charges received by the assessee from a company. The assessee, engaged in mining and barge hiring business, changed its mode of operation from voyage charter to bare-boat charter, leading to retrenchment of staff and transfer of workshop. The dispute arose when the Income-tax Officer treated the income from bare-boat charter as "income from other sources" instead of "income from business" as claimed by the assessee.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially accepted the assessee's contention, but the Income tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, holding the income as "income from other sources." The Tribunal found that the assessee had effectively parted with control and responsibility over the barges and workshop, indicating a shift from commercial asset ownership to rental income generation. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement terms and factual circumstances.
The High Court, after considering the arguments, upheld the Tribunal's decision. It distinguished the case from precedent where assets were temporarily leased while the business continued. In this case, the assessee permanently discontinued the barge deployment business and let out the assets for rental income. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where a similar situation led to income being classified as "income from other sources" instead of "income from business."
In conclusion, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the hire charges constituted "income from other sources" and not "income from business." The judgment favored the Revenue and rejected the assessee's claim. The decision was supported by legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.
No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1993 (9) TMI 95
Issues:
1. Whether relief under section 80J(1) should be allowed as a deduction against the total income consisting of capital gains.
2. Whether deduction by way of development rebate should be set off against income from capital gains in the first instance.
Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the allowance of relief under section 80J(1) and deduction by way of development rebate for an assessee, a company engaged in ship operations. The first issue revolved around whether the relief under section 80J(1) should be set off against the total income comprising capital gains. The court examined the provisions of sections 28, 29, 33, and 80J of the Act, emphasizing that total income encompasses all income from various sources. The court clarified that each head of income is distinct, and deductions are to be applied as per the specific provisions for each head before arriving at the total income. Therefore, the court rejected the argument that relief under section 80J(1) should be allowed against capital gains rather than business income.
Regarding the second issue of setting off development rebate against income from capital gains, the court referred to the provisions of sections 28, 29, and 33 of the Act. It highlighted that development rebate is to be deducted as provided in section 29 while computing income from business under section 28, indicating that it should not be set off against capital gains. The court dismissed the contention that development rebate should be deducted from capital gains instead of business income, ruling in favor of the Revenue on this issue.
The court also analyzed the language of section 80J, which clearly specifies that the deduction is allowed from profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. The court emphasized that the deduction under section 80J is to be applied from the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking, as mentioned in the section. Consequently, the court answered both questions in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, concluding that relief under section 80J(1) and development rebate should not be set off against capital gains but against the respective business income. The court made no order as to costs in this case.
-
1993 (9) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 35B(1)(iii) and u/s 35B(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the allowability of weighted deduction on certain expenditures incurred by the assessee in India in connection with the carriage of goods to their destination outside India.
Interpretation of u/s 35B(1)(iii):
The court analyzed the specific prohibition in u/s 35B(1)(iii) which disallows weighted deduction on expenditure incurred on the carriage of goods to their destination outside India and on insurance of such goods while in transit. The court referred to previous decisions and emphasized that this clause prevails over the general provision in u/s 35B(1)(viii). The court held that no weighted deduction is allowable on expenditure on freight, insurance, export inspection charges, brokerage, bank charges, and clearing charges as they were incurred in India.
Interpretation of u/s 35B(1)(viii):
The court considered whether weighted deduction could be claimed under u/s 35B(1)(viii) for the mentioned expenditures despite the specific prohibition in u/s 35B(1)(iii). The court concluded that u/s 35B(1)(iii) must be given precedence as it deals with specific conditions and restrictions on the allowability of weighted deduction. The court rejected the argument that each sub-clause should be read independently and held that the exclusion in u/s 35B(1)(iii) prevails over the general provisions in other sub-clauses of clause (b).
Final Decision:
The court answered the question referred in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The court did not allow weighted deduction on the mentioned expenditures under u/s 35B(1)(iii) and clarified that u/s 35B(1)(viii) did not apply as the expenditures did not relate to the performance of services outside India in connection with the execution of any contract for the supply of goods outside India. No costs were awarded under the circumstances of the case.
-
1993 (9) TMI 93
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the period within which an award must be made.
2. Applicability of the Explanation in section 11A in cases where a party other than the landholder obtains a stay order from the court.
3. Comparison and analysis of relevant judgments by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka delivered a judgment regarding the interpretation of section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant challenged the dismissal of their writ petition seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed and a mandamus to desist from further steps. The court noted that the declaration under section 6 was published on September 10, 1987, and subsequent legal actions caused delays. The court examined the applicability of the Explanation in section 11A, which excludes the period of court-ordered stays from the two-year timeframe for making an award. The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision is to expedite acquisition proceedings and that the stay need not be obtained solely by the landholder for the Explanation to apply. The court highlighted that any party securing a court order preventing actions in pursuit of the declaration would trigger the exclusion of that period from the two-year deadline.
The appellant's counsel argued that the Explanation in section 11A should only apply if the landholder obtains the stay order. However, the court disagreed, citing a Supreme Court judgment that the Explanation's scope is not limited to actions preceding the award-making stage. The court referenced a specific case where the Supreme Court clarified that the Explanation aims to benefit landholders by ensuring timely awards and that any court-ordered stay affecting actions under the declaration should be excluded from the two-year period. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the Explanation only covers cases where the landholder secures the stay, emphasizing the broad applicability of the provision to any party obtaining a court order delaying acquisition proceedings.
In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the court upheld the decision of the learned single judge, who correctly applied the law in the case at hand. The court concluded that the Explanation in section 11A was appropriately invoked due to the stay of proceedings ordered by the High Court in a separate writ petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for intervention in the lower court's ruling. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and judicial interpretations regarding the timely completion of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the importance of court-ordered stays in calculating the statutory timeframe for making an award.
-
1993 (9) TMI 92
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 40A(5)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the inclusion of depreciation on furniture, flat, air-conditioners, and refrigerators in the computation of perquisites for employees.
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay was tasked with deciding on the interpretation of section 40A(5)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case involving the computation of perquisites for an employee. The case revolved around whether depreciation on assets like furniture, flat, air-conditioners, and refrigerators should be considered when determining the value of perquisites provided to an employee. The Tribunal had initially excluded the depreciation amount from the calculation, leading to a lower value of perquisites. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that depreciation should be included in the computation.
Upon examining the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Court noted that section 40A(5)(a)(ii) pertains to expenditures resulting in the provision of perquisites to employees. The Court emphasized the term "allowance" used in the provision, indicating that depreciation should be considered as an allowance in respect of assets used by the employee. Drawing parallels with a previous decision, the Court highlighted that depreciation falls within the ambit of section 40A(5)(a)(ii) and should be subject to the specified limits.
The Court rejected the argument made by the assessee's counsel, who attempted to distinguish between different sections of the Act to exclude depreciation from the calculation of perquisites. By comparing the language of relevant provisions, the Court found no substantial difference that would warrant deviating from the established interpretation. Additionally, reference was made to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the similarity between provisions related to depreciation in the Act.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, directing the Tribunal to modify its order to include depreciation in the computation of perquisites. The Court emphasized that depreciation on assets like furniture, flat, air-conditioners, and refrigerators should be considered as an allowance under section 40A(5)(a)(ii) when determining the value of perquisites for employees. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with the decision rendered in favor of the Revenue.
-
1993 (9) TMI 91
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,30,233 was rightly assessed as income of the assessee in the assessment year 1974-75.
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest amounting to Rs. 1,30,233 can be waived only in the previous year relevant for the assessment year for the purpose of the business of the assessee, otherwise such interest is subject to tax.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment of Rs. 1,30,233 as Income
The assessee, a company maintaining accounts on a mercantile system, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,30,233 representing interest due from two companies, which was subsequently waived. The Income-tax Officer allowed this deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax found this allowance erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner initiated proceedings u/s 263 and held that the interest had accrued by December 31, 1973, and the subsequent waiver did not affect this accrual. The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order. The court, referencing the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102, concluded that the interest income had indeed accrued during the previous year and the subsequent waiver did not alter this fact. Thus, the sum of Rs. 1,30,233 was rightly assessed as income for the assessment year 1974-75.
Issue 2: Timing of Interest Waiver
The court held that the interest amounting to Rs. 1,30,233 could only be waived in the previous year relevant for the assessment year. The waiver in the subsequent year did not affect the income that had already accrued. The court emphasized that once the accrual of income takes place, subsequent conduct cannot render the accrued income as "non-income." Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its holding, and the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue.
Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs was made.
............
|
9911796707
