Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)53ITD121(Delhi)
1. Indian Airlines (hereinafter in short "Airlines"), a Public Undertaking, owned by the Government of India has moved these applications seeking stay of realisation of demand of tax and interest under Rule 35A of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 until the disposal of these appeals.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the applicant as employer is liable to deduct tax at source under Section 192 of the Income-tax Act from the salary paid to its employees. It is the case of the Revenue that kit maintenance allowance, telephone expenses, free and concessional travelling allowance and certain other allowances given to the Pilots and other employees of the Government were liable to be treated as part of salary for purposes of deduction of tax at source. The Airlines, on the other hand, contends that such allowances are not taxable. Alternatively these are exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, not part of salary. Such was the position for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1995)54ITD176(Ahd.)
1. The revenue has preferred this appeal against order dated 30-3-1990 recorded by CIT (Appeals)-HI, Ahmedabad, by which the appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 1987-88 was disposed of. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on account of liabilities for wages for damaged bidies as well as on account of bonus of Rs. 8,08,023 and Rs. 86,30,975 respectively.For proper appreciation of the pleas put up before us, it will be in the fitness of things to give out the brief facts giving rise to this ground of the revenue.3. The assessee-company was a closely held company in the assessment year 1987-88, the year under consideration and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sales of bidies. It had more than 60 branches in different parts of India. The assessee-company filed its return of income for assessment year 1987-88 on 17-8-1987 declaring income at Rs. 3,89,58,925. During assessment proceedings the As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1995)54ITD24(Coch.)
1. The appellant is a company in which public are substantially interested. Its previous year ended on 31-3-1986 relevant to the assessment year 1986-87. It claimed as deduction shortage in stores and raw materials in a sum of Rs. 39,93,075. The Assessing Officer noticed that the claim cannot be allowed because such shortage arose out of wilful negligence on the part of the assessee. He observed as follows : The pertinent question that would now arise would be as to why the company which is staffed with a good accounting system has not bothered to make good the flaw it has detected, not on one but more than one occasion. Can such wilful negligence on the part of the assessee constitute a valid business loss Does the assessee mean to say that all along it is fully aware of the lacuna in the accounting system as far as consumption of stores is concerned and it has done nothing to make good the above shortfall. What the assessee claims now almost tantamount to saying that the assessee is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(76)ELT436TriDel
1. These are 25 appeals, 19 are filed by the party and remaining 6 are filed by the Department with reference to the respective impugned orders involving common issues. Hence, this common order.2. M/s. National Radio & Electronics Co. Ltd., are a registered Company and are engaged inter alia in the business of supplying and installing uninterrupted power supply systems (UPS). They are engaged in the supply and erection of uninterrupted power supply systems, that is, systems which are erected and installed in the customer's premises, which ensure that even if the supply of power from the main is cut off or interrupted, the same is substituted for by the power supply from the uninterrupted power supply system (UPS). On the plea that a contract for setting up of a UPS for a customer is a multifaceted and multi-activity contract involving various items, they claimed deduction on account of Engineering and design charges, documentation and technical charges, installation and commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1995)LC376Tri(Chennai)
1. This Reference Application arises out of the Tribunal's order bearing No. 646/1989, dated 28-9-1989. The Tribunal in the order has held that the benefit of Notification 175/86 has to be allowed upto the aggregate limit of Rs. 30 lakhs as specified in the Notification, Rs. 15 lakhs each in respect of the two items cleared by the respondent factory, irrespective of the fact whether the respondent in respect of one item had cleared the goods both free of duty upto Rs. 15 lakhs and on payment of duty thereafter in respect of one item and thereafter they started clearing the second item of the goods from the factory.2. The plea of the Revenue is that the benefit of Notification is to be limited to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs and if the particular assessee cleared the goods free of duty and on payment of duty within this limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and the moment limit of Rs. 30 lakhs is crossed irrespective of whether the respondent had made duty free clearance of Rs. 15 lakhs each in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (1995)53ITD306(Chd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee pertains to asst. year 1986-87. Though as many as four grounds have been taken, the real controversy is as to whether the composite relief of Rs. 1,02,000 in respect of each director was available Under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or the headwise limit as contemplated by Section 40A(5) of the Act would apply.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the controversy are as follows: The assessee-company is manufacturing petrol equipments.During the year relevant to assessment year 1986-87, the assessee-company paid salary of Rs. 48,000 to the Managing Director and of Rs. 36,000 to the Director. The perquisite in respect of free residential accommodation in the case of the Managing Director came to Rs. 39,260. The value of the perquisite in respect of the Director in respect of free residential accommodation, telephone expenses and electricity and water charges came to Rs. 28,911. Besides, there was composi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(77)ELT898TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dt. 8-4-1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the correct classification of the product 'Carbon Black', as to whether it is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3206.19 or 3801.01 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff, 1985.3. The Assistant Collector in his impugned order has held that Chapter Heading 32.06 deals with other colouring matter as specified in Chapter Note (2) etc. and held it to be not relevant for this case, as the sample was found to be in black viscous liquid, an acqueous disposition of carbon black, as per analytical report of Chemical Examiner. The Ld.Assistant Collector has further held that although there is Board's instruction to the contrary, yet the product being in the form of paste, it merits classification under Chapter 38, as per its Note (a), as 'miscellaneous products of Chemical or allied industries', under appropriate su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(85)ELT327TriDel
1. Shri Namirajan, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the Misc. application filed by them is for amending the amount, pre-deposit of which has been sought to be dispensed with for prosecuting their appeal. Initially, they had indicated that the amount in dispute was Rs. 14,35,578/-. By the Misc. application, they wanted to revise the amount of Rs. 29,99,830/- and to take into account certain subsequent demands raised on them by the Assistant Collector following his original decision which is the subject matter of appeal in the present proceedings.2. After hearing the learned Counsel and the learned DR, we are not satisfied that the Misc. application should be allowed since we find that the appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal which in turn, was related to an order in original passed by the Assistant Collector which specified only the said amount of Rs. 14,35,578/-.3. The subsequent demands apparently relate to other independent proceedings where the Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1995)54ITD216(Coch.)
2. The assessee is a private limited company having income from exports, construction and shipping commission. It claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the IT Act as per certificate in Form No. 10CCAC issued by the Chartered Accountants under Rule 18BBA(3) of the Income-tax Rules, in a sum of Rs. 2,46,41,400.69, as follows : goods of Direct Export : Profit of the Adjusted Export business X Turnover= 1,18,33,856:40 20,14,47,244.75 (as per statement X = Rs. 1,06,76,099.79. attached) 22,32,92,945.19 90% of Export Incentive X ------------------- Adj. Total Turnover= Rs. 1,54,79,750.91 X -------------- = 1,39,65,300.90 22,32,92,945.19I. SEA FOOD DIVISION: Rs. Rs.Direct Export Sales(F.O.B.) 20,14,47,244.75Local Sales 11,05,146.03D/C Scrap Sales 3,20,053.08Quality Bonus on Export 6,62,291.00Freezing charges 177.50 20,35,34,912.36 As per Schedule I to the accounts 1,25,45,839.00 As per Schedule J to the accounts 79,500.00 As per Schedule K to the accounts 71,32,693.83 Total turnover 22,32,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC502Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dt. 30-11-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. "I have carefully considered the case records, grounds contained in the application and the submissions/arguments of the respondents contained in their written submissions and paper book. The grounds of the application are : (i) The product becomes a polymer from monomer when it attains adhesive property, and hence the goods are to be treated as based on plastics only. (ii) The products are marked as Anaerobic adhesives and hence classifiable under Chapter 35. (iii) Note (1) of Section VII is cited as an authority to classify the goods under the respective headings. On the other hand, the respondents rely on the report of the Chemical Examiner dt. 15-5-1991 which categorically states that the impugned adhesives are only monomers and based on plastics. The certificate produced from CIPET also confirms this. At the time of personal hearing, the advocate drew attention to the cr...
Tag this Judgment!