Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (3.02 seconds)

Swan Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 19 March, 1987

55. The departmental representative relied on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. ITO 7 ITD 745, to buttress his point that there can be no liability either notional or legal unless and until a demand had been made by the appropriate authority and he argued that the show cause notices were not regular demand notices. We find that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of the case cited. In that case, under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, the assessee was entitled to pay import duty at concessional rates on spare parts and tools if their value did not exceed 10 % of the total value of imported machinery. But if the value exceeded this percentage, it was required to pay duty at higher rates. Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962, also permitted the assessee to execute a bond. One of the terms of the bond is to pay the difference of duty as assessed provisionally and upon final assessment in respect of each consignment. When the assessee claimed in its income tax proceedings the amount of differential duty under the Customs Act even before the final assessment for the difference in duty was made, the same was negatived by the Tribunal. This case, therefore, is not on fours with the case in hand.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. on 7 November, 1994

2. The assessee-company introduced a scheme by virtue of which employees of the assessee-company were entitled to encash leave at their credit. The assessee, in its books of account, maintained an entry as accrued leave reserve to which it credited every year liability in respect of leave based on leave entitlement of every employee and having made such provision of meet the liability in regard to payment of leave with wages claimed deduction in respect of that provision. The original assessing authority disallowed the claim. On appeal, the first appellate authority, placing reliance on an order passed in Income-tax Appeal No. 3222340/(Bang.) of 1980, pertaining to Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O., upheld the contention of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the Revenue brought the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which also confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. Later on, the Revenue under section 256(1) of the act sought reference to this court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1