Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Decided on : Dec-31-1984
Reported in : (1993)46ITD104(Asr.)
1. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 1975-76, and the cross-objection relating thereto are conveniently considered together and disposed of by a common order.2. The major objection of the Revenue through its first ground is about the cost of construction of a cinema building by the assessee-firm and the addition made on account of unexplained investment. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,56,186, which represented the difference between the cost of construction as per the Departmental Valuation Officer of Rs. 23,76,505 and the cost of construction as per the assessee's books of Rs. 17,20,320. It was pointed out from para 8 of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Departmental Valuation Officer made valuation five times and each time the cost of construction worked out was different. The first assessment which was made by the Income-tax Officer by order dated March 28, 1979, was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-05-1984
Reported in : [1985]58STC367(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J. 1. For the assessment year 1963-64 (Ugadi year), the petitioner was a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as the CTO), who by his order dated 31st October, 1967 (exhibit-A) assessed him under that Act to a tax of Rs. 10,667.98 on inter-State sale transactions of coffee effected during the said year. Against the said order of the CTO, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. CST. AP 14/67-68 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the DC), who by his order dated 20th March, 1968 (exhibit-B) allowed the said appeal and held that the petitioner was not liable to pay any Central sales tax for the said period and cancelled the assessment of the CTO. In allowing the said appeal, the DC was guided by the law declared by this Court in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty v. State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-05-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC516; [1984(49)FLR364]; (1984)ILLJ388SC; 1984(1)SCALE15; (1984)1SCC728; [1984]2SCR307; 1984(16)LC281(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. If solemn agreements proposed by the employer and readily acceeded to by the workmen and holding the forte for over a quarter of a century are crudely disowned compelling the workmen to knock at the door of the apex court for removing the road-block in the access to justice set up by preliminary objection of technical nature, industrial peace and harmony chanted by the employer would be not merely an empty mantra but a futile exercise of chasing a mirage and unfortunately that is the situation here.2. Hindustan Lever Ltd., a multi-national company, respondent herein addressed a communication dated January 24, 1957 recording the out-come of mutual deliberations between the Hindustan Lever Ltd. ('employer' for short) and the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha ('union' for short) recognised representative union of the workmen employed by the employer. The relevant portion may be extracted : 'Ex. W-2 24th January, 1957 The President, Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay. Dear ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-05-1984
Reported in : AIR1985SC817; 1984(1)SCALE31; (1984)3SCC352; [1984]2SCR333; 1984(16)LC778(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 20th July, 1983 disposing of a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act arising out of suit for eviction of the appellant from the premises in suit.2. The respondent filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future on the allegation that the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the premises in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 250 on 7th February, 1972, that the building in suit was constructed in 1971 under the co-operative housing scheme of the State Bank of India for which the Bank advanced loan. The building in suit was assessed to house and water tax on 1st October, 1971 and as such the building was not covered by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Rent Act for short), and that the defendant defaulted in the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-06-1984
Reported in : (1984)(16)ELT156TriDel
1. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam is a Government Company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.During the period 1978-79 they had manufactured among other things a Floating Cassain Gate and a Flap Typj Gate in their factory situated at Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam and supplied the same to Naval Dry Dock Authorities under a contract valued at Rs. 1,12,55,050.00 (including the cost of towing and transport) without payment of any Central Excise duty.2. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam did not inform the Department about the fact of the manufacture of these Gates and supply of the same to the Naval Dry Dock Authorities, Visakhapatnam. The Excise Authorities came to know about this fact from the Audit Reports and after perusing the balance sheet of the company for the year ending 31-3-1979.3. Show cause notice C. No, V/4/1/649/81 dated 2-11-1981 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam to M/s.Hindustan Shipyard Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-09-1984
Reported in : AIR1987SC1837; 1984(1)SCALE48; 1984Supp(1)SCC28; [1984]2SCR348
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The Constitution which promises a socialistic pattern of Society in the preamble and traces the contours of the socialistic philosophy which permeates the spirit of the Constitution, can neither command nor commend the exercise of the Constitutional Jurisdiction to issue HIGH PREROGATIVE WRITS under Article 32, 226 or 227, in order not to remove injustice, but to do injustice, in order not to prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich, but to permit such exploitation. And yet the CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION of the Court (as polarized from its 'ERROR JURISDICTION' has been invoked in order to use the hand of the Court for transferring money from the pockets of poor cultivators (who feed the Nation) to the pockets of the dealers in fertilizers (who feed themselves) by challenging a notification on technical grounds. Such jurisdiction is invoked to enable the 'dealers' to reap a 'rich' harvest of 'unjust enrichment' through the instrumentality of the Court at the cost...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-09-1984
Reported in : [1986]63STC63(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. All these cases are dealt with together as a common point arises for decision and relate to the same assessee, namely, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The circumstances under which these proceedings arise may be briefly noticed. The company manufactures and sells cement and is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The factory of the company is situate at Madukkarai, a panchayat township, about 14 kilometres away from Coimbatore. The company sells the cement manufactured by it at its factory in Madukkarai to consumers as well as stockists in accordance with certain standard terms and conditions of sale prescribed by the company according to which supply of cement has to be made in jute bags of 50 kilograms nett weight each. In case of transport by rail, the cement should be delivered to the carrier at the works' railway siding, while, in the case of transport by road, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided on : Jan-11-1984
Reported in : (1984)7ITD845(Mad.)
1. The question to be decided in this appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Delhi Bench 'E' of the Tribunal had occasion to consider this aspect in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 53 and 538 (Delhi) of 1980 : Assessment year 1975-76] reported in [1981] 7 Taxman 194 (Delhi). By its order dated 22-5-1981 in Bharat Commerce & Industries' case (supra) the Tribunal held that the period spent by an employee in staying on duty at a place outside the headquarters was not period spent in travelling and, hence, the daily allowance paid for such period was outside the disallowance prescribed by Section 37(3)/rule 6D. After laying down this principle, the Delhi Bench sent the case back to the ITO for determining the admissibility of the expenditure claimed after taking into account the actual period spent by the employee outside his headquarters in conducti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-11-1984
Secretary of Interior v. California - 464 U.S. 312 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Secretary of Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984) Secretary of the Interior v. California Argued November 1, 1983 Decided January 11, 1984 * No. 82-1326 464 U.S. 312 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) provides that "[e]ach Federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs." CZMA defines the "coastal zone" to include state but not federal land near the shorelines of the several coastal States, as well as coastal waters extending "seaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea." The territorial sea for the States bordering on the Pacific Ocean or Atlantic Ocean extends three geographical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Bom357; 1984MhLJ356
1. The facts leading to this petition have been set cut in great details and with sufficient accuracy in the judgments of the two Courts below and hence it is not necessary for me to narrate the same. However, for the disposal of this petition a brief restatement of the facts is warranted.2. The suit premises in so far as the petition is concerned, consist of the first floor of a building bearing No. 10-A and situate on Shankarsheth Road, Bombay 400 007. Original respondents 1 and 2 were, according to the petitioners, the legal representatives of the original licensee.3. The petitioners filed a suit being L.E. Suit No. 145/407 of 1976 in the Small Cause Court at Bombay against respondents 1 and 2 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 19 of 1976. Prior to this amendment, Section 41 of the Act provided for proceedings which could be initiated by a licenser against a licensee through an application. After the amendment, in effec...
Tag this Judgment!