Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 14 December, 1978

Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 September, 1983

28. We also find that the authority of the Bombay High Court reported in 1982 ELT 237 (Bom.) in the case of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, dealing with the case of "wind screen for motor vehicles" was based entirely on different proposition because in that case, the entry under consideration was 23A(4) which deals generally with 'glass and glassware'. It was in this context that it was held that there was distinction between the raw material which was the glass in this case and the end-product which was apparently wind screen, meant for motor vehicles. We are not faced with such type of wide sweeping general entry in the present case but a very specific entry dealing with specified goods of the description covering the present goods and in face of this situation, the ratio of that decision can be of no avail to the appellants.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Microland Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 March, 1998

Again, it is not the case of the assessee here that it had asked specifically for an opportunity of being heard before the CIT at the stage of according the approval to the proposed assessment order. It is also a fact that the AO himself framed the assessment order on the basis of all the materials which had already been brought by him to the notice of the assessee and the issues already dealt with by him with the assessee were only put forth in the proposed assessment order. There is nothing on record to show that the CIT ordered to make any further enhancement of the undisclosed income over and above what had been proposed by the AO. The assessee had already enough chances before the AO himself and all further appellate avenues remained open to the assessee even after the act of according approval by the CIT to the proposed assessment order. The approval accorded by the CIT itself therefore did not create any civil liability of grave consequences against the assessee and hence the discussions of the Supreme Court above pre-decisional or post-decisional opportunities of hearing in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) would not seem to apply to the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 94 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

L. Saroja vs Assistant Commissioner on 21 October, 1999

58. We have extracted the relevant portion of the judgment rendered under a different Act. In that case the Government took over the management of the industrial undertaking under section 18AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 without giving the owner of the undertaking an opportunity of being heard at the pre-decisional stage and felt that such an opportunity was not envisaged under section 18AA(1)(a) of that Act. This course of action was not upheld by the Apex Court. It is worthwhile to point out that even in that case when the Government came forward with an undertaking in the Court that it would give full and fair hearing to the company, the Court refrained from quashing the impugned order of takeover. The failure to adhere the principle of natural justice has occurred at the threshold of assuming jurisdiction (to takeover the undertaking) under section 18AA(1)(a) of that Act in that case. It was in that context that the Apex Court was all set to strike down the order as void ab initio, but refrained from so doing in view of the commitment given by the Government. In the case before us the non-compliance with the rule of natural justice did not occur at the stage of assumption of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make block assessment on Shri K. V. Laxmanan was validly assumed under section 158BA(1) of the Income-tax Act as a result of the search conducted on him in his business and residential premises and upon service of notice under section 158BC. It is only in the procedure of conducting the enquiries under section 142 and in making the assessment for the block period under section 143, the Assessing Officer has, as is said, put the cart before the horse and thus failed to give an effective opportunity to the assessee to state its objections to his proposal. This could be construed only as a supervening illegality creeping at the stage of procedure for assessment. This illegality did not occur at the jurisdictional stage. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Supreme Court decision rendered in the context of jurisdiction under section 18AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 is not on all fours with the case on hand. In the case before us the question of jurisdiction does not arise. In that case right of appeal was not provided in the statute and the right of revision was found to be illusory by the Apex Court. But in the case before us the assessee has been granted the right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and such a right cannot be dubbed as illusory or a mere public relation exercise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next