|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 115 of 115 Records
-
1975 (9) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Retrospective Effect, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... ion 66(1). When a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out of its order notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by it. This last observation is quite apposite. The question of law based on the amendment was neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it nor was it raised in an application under section 256(1), nor in the case filed before the High Court under section 256(2). This is developed only at the time of the arguments of the case. For this reason also, we cannot require the Tribunal to refer the questions. From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the Tribunal cannot be directed to state a case and frame a question in respect of the subsequent amendment of the law. It is not disputed before us that the decision of the Tribunal is fully correct in the light of the law as it then existed. So, this income-tax case must fail and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Reference To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... propriate provisions of the statute applicable thereto. It will be open to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal under section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the light of the observations made by this court after determining the questions which ought to have been decided. This court has followed these decisions in I.T.R. No. 113 of 1971 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Seshasayee Bros. (Travancore) Pvt. Ltd. 1976 102 ITR 372 (Ker)) and I.T.R. Nos. 43 and 44 of 1972. In the light of the above, we decline to answer the question in view of the defective findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeal before it after rehearing it as envisaged by section 60(6) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, in the light of the observations in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum.
-
1975 (9) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... he assessed and the returned income was not due to gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal has also noticed that some minor items, like life insurance premium, income-tax and personal expenses had not been included by the assessee in its income. But these items were clearly set out in the profit and loss account and, therefore, his failure to add back these items were merely on account of oversight and not due to any wilful and gross neglect. In the opinion of the Tribunal it was a case of negligence which caused no pre-judice to the revenue. We are satisfied that there was ample material on the record to justify the Tribunal s finding that the assessee was not guilty of gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (9) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 140 have not been fulfilled by the assessee-company. Moreover, the contention raised by Mr. B. L. Pal as to agency does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and he is not entitled to make out a new case for the revenue before us. The Tribunal, after considering all the relevant facts and the circumstances of the case and by applying the legal principles involved in the concept of trade, has come to the conclusion in favour of the assessee. Nothing has been shown by Mr. B. L. Pal to compel us to differ from the Tribunal. That apart, the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. 1974 93 ITR 122 supports the contention made on behalf of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we overrule the contentions of Mr. B.L. Pal and return our answer in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not propose to make any order as to costs. HAZRA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Criminal Prosecution, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... en contended before us that, apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, there was cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount was a revenue receipt. In Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), the question was whether the amount of Rs. 87,000 was income of the assessee if it was not, then it was not liable to be assessed. Even if the amount was not the amount alleged to have been deposited by relatives of the assessee, it could possibly be not an income, and, as such, naturally, the burden was upon the department. This case, therefore, does not support the contention of the assessee. Both the questions, therefore, are to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. The assessee shall pay costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 100. B. N. SARMA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 10 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... and in view of the clear provision that the Explanation 1 has no retrospective effect, in our opinion, the Tribunal took the right view when it came to the conclusion that jewellery incorporated in clause (viii) shall have the meaning as given by the Supreme Court to the term and the legislative meaning given to the term by the Explanation I shall operate from April 1, 1972. In that view of the matter, the deletion directed by the Tribunal of the value of the gold ornaments from the taxable net wealth was justified. Our answer to the question referred for opinion, therefore, is-- The word jewellery in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act of 1957, prior to amendment of the provision and the introduction of the Explanation 1 by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, would not take in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them. The assessee shall have costs of the reference. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at rupees two hundred. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Act Of 1961, High Court, Tax Recovery Officer ... ... ... ... ..... or truly all material facts ? The principles upon which this question has to be determined have been discussed by the Supreme Court in several decisions. I might refer to the decision in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO 1975 100 ITR 1 (SC). Having regard to that decision it cannot be said that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the purpose of assessment and, as such, the condition precedent for the issue of notice has not been fulfilled. The impugned notice is, therefore, without jurisdiction and must be quashed. The impugned notice dated 26th of March, 1973, is hereby quashed and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the said notice. If, however, in the meantime, any assessment has already been made in pursuance of the said impugned notice dated 26th March, 1973, the same is also quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute accordingly but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Deduction, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... s (2) by keeping the whole or part of the value by way of loan or debt and (3) by discharging the loan or debt within period of two years. If the loan had been outstanding, then s. 46(1) would have applied to justify the disallowance of the debt as such outstanding as on the date of the debt. The attempt at avoiding s. 46(1) by repayment within the statutory period is sought to be foiled by s. 46(2). So long as the repayment was within the statutory period, it would, to the extent of the repayment, have to be treated as property deemed to be included in the property passing on that death. In view of the fact that we have held that the income from the property comes, on the facts, within the scope of s. 46(1)(a), it would follow that s. 46(2) is attracted with reference to the two amounts mentioned in the question. We have, therefore, to answer the third question also in the affirmative and against the accountable person. The Revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... on the provisions contained in cl. (a) to Explanation I of Paragraph F. It should be recalled that the ITO has, while computing the dividend tax for the assessment year 1967-68, considered the excess dividend which was not subjected to tax for the assessment year 1966-67. It is only in respect of the excess dividend declared for the year 1965-66 that he did not bring it to dividend tax. On a plain reading of cl. (a) to Explanation 1, it cannot be said that the interpretation of the ITO is so absurd that there was an error apparent on the record in the matter of interpretation and the succeeding ITO was, therefore, justified in exercising his rectification powers under s. 154 of the Act. In that view of the matter, therefore, we do think that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the ITO passed by him under s. 154 of the Act. The result is that we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The Commissioner shall bear the costs of this reference.
-
1975 (9) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... orms part of the amount for which a notice of demand has to be issued under section 156. If the tax assessed is reduced by the Appellate Assistant. Commissioner, then it naturally follows that as a consequence, the interest levied by the assessing authority has also to be reduced. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the assessable income by Rs. 12,000. If any interest had to be levied, then the same could be only on the amount of tax as determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order of assessment that has become final is the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That being the case, the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in the view it has taken. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. The Department will pay the costs of the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Determine the ownership of the deposit in the bank account as between the respondent before us and his nephew - Income-Tax Officer can not take any time to determine the issue - law must move quickly before the tribunals and officers charged with the duty of expeditious administration of justice so that unnecessary litigation may be avoided - we allow the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal
-
1975 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Meaning of " charitable purpose ", as defined in section 2(15) - Are the triune activities, which have yielded income and have been assessed to tax, eligible for exemption as falling within the scope of section 2(15) as it now stands - Whether the profits derived by a Chamber of Commerce from arbitration fees, weighment fees, etc. are exempt from Income-Tax
-
1975 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Income-Tax Officer can extend time for payment in instalments and whether he can arrive at an agreement accepting rate of interest different from that provided - question which really arose in this case with respect to the payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent. in accordance with the Finance Act, 1965 - assessee shall pay interest on the entire amount of arrears at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum only during the period January to March, 1965
-
1975 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
No objection to the application of the procedure laid down in the Travancore Act for recovery of dues against the appellants as are realisable from the assets of the deceased - in view of this concession, it is unnecessary for us to deal with the question whether there was any additional burden or disadvantage imposed upon the appellants by the procedure in the 1961 Act - Tax Recovery Officer will only use the procedure in the Travancore Act so far as it is possible to apply it
-
1975 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
In all cases where compensation is paid to the managing agents whose agency is terminated it would amount to capital expenditure - assessee's appeal is dismissed
....
|
