Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC725Tri(Delhi)
S. Duggal, Member (J) for herself and on behalf of F.S. Gill, J., S.Venkatesan Sr. V.P.1. This matter before us is as a result of reference having been made by the Regional Bench (North) comprised by Shri M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (Judicial) and Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical). The situation which occasioned the reference arose because the above-stated Bench felt disinclined to endorse the view, held by the same Bench earlier, constituted by two different Members, namely, Shri AJ F.D'Souza, Member (Technical) and Shri A.K. Srinivasmurthy, Member (Judicial) on the question as to whether Additional Collector, Central Excise could be deemed to be a 'Collector' for the purpose of determining the forum of appeal, against an order or decision, passed by the former. This is how the present larger Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Bench) came to be constituted, for resolving the issue.2. The Bench had its first sitting on 18-5-1983, when Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, who is Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC239
1. The question referred for consideration by the Larger Bench is whether Commissioner (Appeals) does have jurisdiction to remand the appeal before him after the amendment of Section 35A by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001. Reference was necessitated in view of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Tribunal on the issue. A learned Single Member of East Regional Bench took the view in CCE & Customs Bhubaneshwar v. Indian Aluminium Co., 2002 (50) RLT 92 that even after the amendment the Commissioner (Appeals) has inherent power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. The Referring Bench agreed with the above view.But it was noted that a Division Bench of Bombay Bench of this Tribunal has taken a different view in Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2002 (144) ELT 385. It was held therein that after the amendment w.e.f. 11-5.2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) will have no power of remand.2. In CCE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)LC396Tri(Delhi)
1. The question referred for consideration by the Larger Bench is whether Commissioner (Appeals) does have jurisdiction to remand the appeal before him after the amendment to Section 35A by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11-5-2001. Reference was necessitated in view of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Tribunal on the issue. A learned Single Member of East Regional Bench took the view in CCE & Customs, Bhubaneshwar v. Indian Aluminium Co. - 2002 (144) E.L.T.97 (T) = 2002 (50) RLT 92 that even after the amendment the Commissioner (Appeals) has inherent power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. The Referring Bench agreed with the above view. But it was noted that a Division Bench of Bombay Bench of this Tribunal has taken a different view in Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 385. It was held therein that after the amendment w.e.f. 11-5-2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) will ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)6ITD575(Delhi)
1. Of the above five appeals, there is one asssesee's appeal relating to the assessment year 1976-77 whereas there are two cross-appeals by the department and the assessee relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The main points involved in these appeals are common and they relate to the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial company as defined in Section 2(9)(c) of the Finance Act, 1976 (similar in other years Finance Acts) and the claim of the assessee for relief under Section 80J of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). While in the assessment year 1976-77 both the points were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee, in later assessment years, namely, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the assessee was not an industrial company for the purposes of concession in the rate of tax under the Finance Act.However, the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial undertaking under Sections 80J and 80HH of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1985)13ITD191(Ahd.)
1. This is an appeal against the action of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he has upheld the order of the ITO rejecting the assessee's stand of partial partition and enhancing the assessment.2. The assessee is an HUF. The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant previous year is Samvat year 2035 (ending on 21-10-1979). (a) The assessee-HUF consisted of five members, viz., Shri Pujalal Lallubhai Shah, Atulkumar Pujalal Shah, Sharadkumar Pujalal Shah, Pradeep Pujalal Shah (minor) and Smt. Indumatiben Pujalal Shah. (b) The assessee-HUF is a partner in three firms, viz., Pipe Dealers, Ahmedabad, Tube Dealers, Bombay and Pipe Distributors, Jaipur, having 32 per cent, 30 per cent and 39 per cent share, respectively. (c) The said three firms came into existence under the deeds of partnership, dated 29-3-1979, 5-4-1979 and 12-4-1979, respectively. (d) By a deed of partial partition, dated 29-9-1979, Shri Sharadkumar Pujalal Shah took 5 per cent share out of 32 per cent share of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1986)18ITD114(Mad.)
1. These appeals have been posted before this Bench for considering the following question : Whether depreciation as per Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983 is to be allowed in all cases which were pending on 2-4-1983 irrespective of the assessment year involved or is to be allowed only in 1984-85 and subsequent assessment years [in view of the divergent views of the Tribunal Benches in the case of Rayalaseema Passenger & Goods Transports (P.) Ltd. v. I AC [1984] 7 ITD 111 and ITO v. Bharat Roadways [1985] 12 ITD 647 (Cal.)].2. Originally the reference to the Special Bench was made in the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd., Rajapalayam in IT Appeal No. 547 (Mad.) of 1985 in which Shri S. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for Sri Rani Lakshmi Gng., Spg. & Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd., Madurai entered appearance as an intervener. In the course of the hearing the appeal in IT Appeal No. 566 (Mad.) of 1985 in the case of Sri Rani Lakshmi Gng., Spg. & Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd. was also tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]142TAXMAN194(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for opinion of this Court.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally, correctin holding that the amended section 20A of the Wealth Tax Act, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 would not be applicable to the assessment year 1979-80'?2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent assessee is a HUF. According to it, it had effect partial partition of the HUF property on 25-1-1979 effective from 11-1979. At the time of filing of the return for the assessment year 1979-80, the respondent assessee excluded the properties partitioned in the said partial partition dated 25-1-1979. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, ignored the claim of the assessee on the ground that according to the provisions of section 171(9) of the Income Tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)6ITD225(Kol.)
1. The assessee is the State Bank of India which is established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. These appeals are taken together and are disposed of by a common order. The assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was completed on 25-7-1974. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was issued upon the assessee on 7-3-1977 indicating that the ITO had reason to believe, in consequence of information in his possession, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The notice issued under Section 148 for initiating proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Act was served upon the assessee on 10-3-1977. The assessee filed its return showing an income of Rs. 14,18,69,048. Further, the assessee, in a covering letter, stated that according to the knowledge of the assessee no income has escaped assessment for the year 1972-73.The ITO found that the assessee was allowed incorrect relief under Section 80M of the Act which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1985)12ITD647(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a firm. Its accounting year for the assessment year presently under consideration ended on Diwali 1979.2. The ITO granted depreciation to the assessee on its buses at the rate of 30 per cent.3. The assessee challenged the above order of the ITO before the Commissioner (Appeals) and claimed before him that depreciation on buses at the rate of 40 per cent be granted to the assessee in terms of amendment to item No. 9 of Group D forming part of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') by the Notification S.O.562(E), dated 24-7-1980, which came into force 'at once'. The above plea of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). While granting the said relief to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) made, inter alia, the following observations : The manner in which the notification has been inducted is unfortunate. Normally, in income-tax cases, changes are made with effect from a particular date. Ordinarily, date is the 1st April o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)32ITD421(Mum.)
1. The assessment years involved in these appeals, which have been filed by the assessee, a resident company, are 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1982-83 with respective previous years having ended with 31st December 1978, 31st December 1979 and 31st December 1981. One of the common issues involved in all these appeals is the deduction claim of the assessee made under Section 80-O of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since learned first appellate authority has decided this issue by way of a common order made for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, we will first decide this issue for these two years and for the purpose we reproduce hereunder para 4 of the common impugned order, which reads as under:- The next ground of appeal is common for both the years and relates to disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 80-O of the I.T. Act at Rs. 50,04,887 and at Rs. 68,65,216 for the A. Yrs. 1979-80 & 1980-81 respectively for the reasons discussed in the assessment orders for the two years. In b...
Tag this Judgment!