|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 76 of 76 Records
-
1974 (2) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Rate Purpose, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... r opinion, be included in the total income for rate purposes. The Tribunal held that even though the minor s income was included in the total income of his father under section 64(2), it none the less continued to be the income of the minor for all purposes. If that be so, then the share income in dispute may have been included in the total income of the minor-assessee for the purposes of tax. But that has not been done. The income can be included in the total income of an assessee for rate purposes only under section 66. This provision applies to specified categories of income. An income which is outside the purview of section 66 cannot be aggregated for rate purposes. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. The fee of the learned counsel for the department is also assessed at the same figure. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (2) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 was valid having regard to the fact that the status of the assessee had been finally determined as that of a Hindu undivided family ? Now, penalty can be imposed upon an assessee against whom an assessment order has been passed. The assessment order having been passed against a Hindu undivided family of which Lalit Mohan might have been a member, penalty cannot be imposed upon a member of the family in his individual capacity. The person assessed and the person upon whom a penalty is levied must be the same. As in the instant case the income had been assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, the penalty also could be levied on that entity alone and not on a member of the family in his individual capacity. The view taken by the Tribunal is right and we accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (2) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Legal Representative, Tax Demand, Tax Recovery Officer ... ... ... ... ..... notice under section 156 has been issued until the time prescribed in section 220(1) has expired. A construction which will lead to such an absurd result should be avoided by courts. I am of the opinion that under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the procedure for recovery of tax due from a legal representative of an assessee has been simplified and to a large extent is made to conform to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as the liability of a legal representative is concerned. A reading of the judgment of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Sathyapal Verma s case 1977 106 ITR 540 (All) shows that the several provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above had not been brought to their notice in the course of the argument. Since in these cases, all the steps that are required to be taken under the Act and the Rules have been taken, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. These petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
-
1974 (2) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Higher Rate, Income Returned, Income Tax Authorities, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... elevant considerations. The same cannot be questioned in a reference. The fact that the assessee was not maintaining its books of account in a satisfactory manner does not show that he was guilty of gross neglect. The Income-tax Act does not prescribe the manner in which the account books should be maintained. When the assessee filed a return on the basis of accounts which are maintained in the regular course of business it cannot be said that he was guilty of gross negligence. It could not be expected from the assessee to file a return showing a higher income than what was worked out merely because the department applied a higher rate of profit in the earlier years. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in cancelling the penalty order. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (2) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... us to be one of despair, and could be accepted only in case it was possible to recast the entire section, which, however, is not permissible. These considerations impel us to hold that the relevant return for the purposes of section 271 is the original return filed by the assessee, and not the return filed subsequent thereto. The decision in ITR No. 467 of 1971 (decided on 19-4-73), wherein it has been held that the Explanation applies to cases where the return is filed after 1st April, 1964, need not detain us, for in the present case, we have held that the relevant return for the purposes of penalty is the original return and not the revised return, and in this case, the original return as has been seen was filed before the 1st April, 1964. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (2) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, High Court, Levy Of Penalty, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ances we are unable to hold that the question sought to be answered arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The case of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gates Foam and Rubbey Co. 1973 91 ITR 467 (Ker) has no application to the facts of the present case. There it was found as a fact that the assessee had set up a bogus firm the income of which was included in the assessee s total income. The High Court found that this is was a fraud committed by the assessee and, therefore, the case was covered by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It is clear that the question of applicability of the Explanation was raised and considered by the Tribunal and, as such, the question did arise out of the order of the Tribunal and the High Court considered its applicability. Such is not the case here. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (2) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accident Insurance, Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... family as known to Hindu law along with his widowed mother and unmarried daughter was erroneous. We are, however, unable to permit the department to challenge this finding. It was a finding on an independent question. It was open to the department to have challenged this finding by asking for a question to be referred upon it. That was not done. In the second place, the Tribunal has held that the position that the assessee constituted a valid family along with his mother and daughter was admitted before it. The Tribunal has observed that the first condition is admittedly satisfied. If the department wished to challenge this finding it should have asked for a question challenging the view that this position was admitted by the department before the Tribunal. But this also has not been done. We are hence unable to go into the merits of this point. In the result, the various questions referred are answered as mentioned above. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1974 (2) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bar. The assessee s counsel contended that even proceeding on home leave was unnecessary for the section to be attracted. He urged that as long as the passage money was due in connection with an employee proceeding on home leave, and if it had become due during the accounting period irrespective of the fact whether he did the journey or not, he would be entitled to claim that the passage money is not his income in view of section 10(6)(i) of the Act. This contention raises a question which we are not called upon to consider in this case and so we express no opinion on this matter. We answer in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will have his costs from the Department including counsel s fee which we fix at Rs. 250. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (1) of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1974 (2) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Petitioner, a registered firm within the meaning of section 2(23) and Chapter XVI of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed return for the assessment year 1964-65, on the 31st December, 1965. By an order dated February 26, 1967, the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner under section 143(3)/182(1) as a registered firm for a total income of Rs. 31,692 and charged interest for delay in filing return - When return is filed after the due date but before the assessment and is accepted whether penalty can be levied
-
1974 (2) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Whether drawings and patterns received by an assessee from a foreign company under a collaboration agreement can be said to be “plant " on which depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - There is no reason to exclude know-how from the wide meaning of the term plant. Further having regard to the legislative intend to give a wide meaning to the word "plant" material record of know-how is clearly included within the meaning of "plant" in section 32 - it would appear that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that it did, namely, that drawings and patterns were plant within the meaning of section 32 and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of those assets on the pro rata cost of their acquisition. Our answer to the question referred to us, is, therefore, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1974 (2) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty against, the petitioners for default in payment of advance tax payable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. A notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was served on the petitioner - Whether advance tax is tax and non-payment of it would attract penalty under section 221 - Whether mens rea to be established before levy of the penalty
-
1974 (2) TMI 5 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Forest contractor advanced money to sub-contractors for cutting and moving the trees. But the forest contract was not renewed. Accordingly portion of the advances became irrecoverable - After a scrutiny of the details of these bad debts the Income-tax Officer disallowed the bad debts amounting to Rs. 27,959 - The Income-tax Officer did not allow any extension in respect of a sum of Rs. 27,959 advanced to various sub-contractors on account of the fact that the assessee had not taken any step for the realisation of those debts " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs. 27,959 claimed by the assessee was rightly refused by the Appellate Tribunal ? "
-
1974 (2) TMI 4 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of High Court - inherent powers to delete an erroneous sentence in judgment on an income-tax reference - It is paramount that court must do justice and if any errors arising from accidental slips or omissions creep into judgments, which can result in injustice, such errors must be removed -
We allow this petition and delete the sentence " Imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, justified, " from our judgment
-
1974 (2) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of five partners. They carry on business in chanti and dal milling at Patwah in the district of Patna. It filed an application under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer refused registration - Whether difference between the recited date of execution and actual execution disentitles the firm from seeking registration
-
1974 (2) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Speculative Transactions - Hedging Transaction - Raw Material - "(1) Whether the loss of Rs. 66,417 was allowable under section 10(1), or could be set off against the company's profits of the business under proviso (a) to Explanation 2 of section 24(1) (2) Whether Rs. 52,633 claimed as business expenditure for the assessment year 1957-58 and Rs. 11,578 claimed as such for the assessment year 1958-59, under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, have rightly been disallowed?"
-
1974 (2) TMI 1 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessee is a firm carrying on the business of re-rolling steel. It took on lease the factory premises from one Ravinder Nath under a lease deed dated April 2, 1956. The lease was for a period of five years commencing from 1st April, 1956. The rent payable for the premises was Rs. 500 per month. The lease deed did not contain any term giving the option to the assessee to renew the lease for a further period. On the other hand, the lease was terminable before the expiry of the lease period at the instance of the assessee by giving one month's notice. The lease was also terminable at the instance of the lessor on the breach of any of the conditions of the lease. The lease deed did not contain any specific term with regard to the liability of the lessor or the lessee in respect of the repairs to the factory premises - Whether expenditure incurred on repair would under these circumstances be allowable as business expenditure
|
