Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1995]213ITR835(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court in Tax Cases Nos. 94 and 95 of 1980 (Deputy Commr., Sales Tax, Appellate (Addl.) Bench, Coimbatore v.Tvl. India Roller Flour Mills) (sic) under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital computed by the assessee for the purpose of allowing relief under section 80J in respect of heavy duty radiator division has to be accepted (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that borrowed capital should also be taken as capital for the purpose of allowing relief under section 80J for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 (iii) Whether, on the facts the Appellate Tribunal's view that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC153Tri(Chennai)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 31.7.1986 rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of a sum of Rs. 13,000/-as not sustainable in law "at present" (sic). The appellant is a manufacturer of matches and filed a refund claim for Rs. 13,000/-which was paid by them on 14.10.1983 in pursuance of a demand of the same as part of the differential duty by the Department by communication dated 29.9.1983.The demand arose consequent on review of Central Excise Notification No. 22/82 dated 23.2.1982 read with Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982. Originally in terms of Notification No. 22/82 a match unit would be entitled to concessional rate of duty at Rs. 1.60 per gross of matches if the total monthly production of the same did not exceed 15 million matches and the total clearances of matches for home consumption from the said unit during the preceding financial year did not exceed 150 million matches. This notification was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1986)16ITD374(Hyd.)
2. Shri R.V. Nagabhushana Rao, who was the karta of the HUF expired on 29-10-1978 leaving behind his widow, Smt. R. Venkataravamma, and four sons, viz., Shri R. Ramachandra Rao, Shri R. Poornachandra Rao, Shri R.Chandrasekara Rao and Shri S. Sreenivasa Rao. On 25-9-1982, Shri R.Ramachandra Rao as the karta of the HUF of late Shri R.V. Nagabhushana Rao filed a claim of complete partition under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It was claimed that the residential house was settled in favour of Smt. R. Venkataravamma by her four sons oh 4-12-1978 and later on on 31-3-1979 the business, silverware and household utensils were divided. It was urged that the total partition should be recorded. The 1TO did not accept the claim for partition. He held that the house property was not allotted to any single coparcener.In the absence of the registration it cannot be said that the HUF has legally partitioned the house property. The document dated 4-12-1978 filed in support of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1990]181ITR473(P& H)
Singh Sekhon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, had referred question. No. 1 for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee, while questions Nos. 2 and 3 have been referred at the instance of the Revenue. The questions run as follows :'(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of surtax payable by it in pursuance of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in arriving at the taxable income ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, for the purpose of computing capital employed for deduction under Section 80J, liabilities are not to be deducted ?(3) Whether? on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, for the purpose of relief under Section 80J, the computation of capital should be based on average amounts o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)277,[1987]165ITR546(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This consolidated reference arises out of the assessment of Union Carbide India Ltd., the assessee, to income-tax in the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act'), the following question has been referred as a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in the assessment year 1975-76 for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that capital work-in-progress in the industrial undertaking Electrolytic Manganese Company, should be included in the computation of 'capital employed' for the purpose of the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. On an application of the assessee under Section 256(1), the following questions have been referred as questions of law arising out of the orders of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:For the assessment year 1974-75 : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)146,[1987]165ITR678(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,57,251 was allowable as a revenue loss having regard to the provisions of Section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital employed should mean the cost of acquisition (not written down value) of the assets and also the liabilities and the borrowed moneys for the purpose of relief under Section 80J in respect of the assessee's Deep Sea Fishing Division ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation should be allowed in respect of assets used by the assessee for scientific research ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, fees of Rs. 2,25,000 paid to the Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)(19)ECC243
1. This appeal arises as under: The respondents herein imported 1053 drums palm oil valued at Rs. 14,22,925/-cif and sought clearance against 8 REP licences. They also placed reliance on para 131(1) of the Policy AM-81 and para 138(1) of the Policy AM-82.2. The Customs House objected to the clearance on the ground that one of the licences, which was subject to value and restriction, had been already utilised for the import of Mutton Tallow. In respect of the other licences the objection was that the goods were canalised items and therefore not permissible to be imported by any agency other than the canalising agency.3. The Collector of Customs, who held the adjudication after duly complied with the procedural aspects held that the goods valued at Rs. 39,401/- was covered by the licence and the goods to the extent of Rs. 13,83,523.90 have been imported without cover of a valid licence. He therefore ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)18ITD404(Delhi)
1. The appellant-assessee filed this second appeal on 15-2-1982 against the order dated 2-1-1982 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the memorandum as many as four effective grounds were taken, which we are reproducing below, the fifth is stated to be general ground which craves leave to add to, alter, vary or amend grounds of appeal: 1. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the appellant's production Unit-Ill at Rs. 19,11,831 instead of at Rs. 16,02,611 only. 1.1 It is further submitted that the assessee's claim under Section 80J was based on a correct application of the provisions of the Act, as evidenced by various High Courts, which have ruled that for the purpose of Section 80J 'capital employed' should not be confused with 'capital used'. To that extent, Rule 19A(2)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which talks of written down value of the fixed assets, does not bri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC116; 1987(10)LC645(MP); 1992(61)ELT558(MP)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, Acting C.J.1. The petitioner no. 1 has a factory which manufactures industrial gases, viz., oxygen, acetylene, nitrogen and ordinary compressed air. These gases are sold to the purchasers filled in steel cylinders which are returnable to the petitioner after they have been emptied. The petitioner charges some amount for retention of the cylinders by the purchasers beyond a specified period. The question is whether this amount recovered by the petitioner from the purchasers described as 'rent of the cylinders' is to be included in the assessable value of the goods as the packing material while computing the value in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner's contention is that this amount of rent recovered by it for the cylinders cannot be included in the value of the assessable goods computed in accordance with Section 4(4)(d) of the Act. Apparently this contention of the petitioner is yet to be decided on merits and the only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]192ITR144(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of both the assessee and the Commissioner, as many as seven questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exclusion of borrowed capital from the computation of capital employed in two new industrial undertakings for the purpose of Section 80J was not at all justified 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was correct in holding that, in computing the capital employed in the two new industrial undertakings for the purpose of Section 80J, current liabilities wer...
Tag this Judgment!