|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 115 Records
-
1975 (9) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Valuation - If assessable value not ascertainable - - Listed price - Alternative remedy - Scope of - Excise duty - Realisation of from customers
-
1975 (9) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Electric Wire and Cables ... ... ... ... ..... is not exceeded the higher duty is leviable. But if the area of the sectional core of the cable exceeds 2.5 square millimetre the lesser duty is attracted. When the area is 2.545 square millimetre it is simple logic that it exceeds 2.5 square millimetre. No rounding off is called for. It is certainly plain that in such a case it is duty at 5 per cent that applies. The view taken by the authorities is perverse. The error is quite apparent on the face of the record. 5. Though the petitioner has a case that the sectional area referred to in item 33B is not merely the area of the metallic core but the area inclusive of the insulation it is not necessary to consider this, for, even taking the area of the metallic core it exceeds 2.5 square millimetre and for that reason it is the lesser rate of duty that is attracted. 6. The Original Petition is therefore, allowed with costs. Exts. P1, P3, P5 are quashed and the authorities are directed to assess as the lower rate of 5 per cent.
-
1975 (9) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Whether politics of the socialist brand or otherwise is a profession or occupation?
Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the election of candidates set up by him as chairman of his party can be legitimately regarded as incurred " wholly and exclusively " for the purpose of his profession or occupation?
Held that:- It is thus clear, without reference to the wealth of case law relied on by the High Court, that politics has been a profession and, indeed, under modern conditions in India, perhaps the most popular and uninhibited occupation with--its perils, of course. Law cannot take leave of realities and, therefore, section 5(a) must bear the construction that politics is a profession or occupation.
There is no suggestion nor evidence that any material return was in contemplation when he spent these sums. Being a politically important man with plenty of money and vitally interested in boosting his party's standing in the State, he donated liberally for candidates set up by the party. In this view section 5(j) applies to these donations which earn exemption from the expenditure-tax. Wholly motiveless donation is rare, but material return alone negates a gift or donation. We need not investigate the propriety of political donations " unlimited " and often invisible. All that we need consider is whether such sums are gifts and donations or are non-gratuitous payments with a tag of return. We have no doubt that on the question as framed, and on the facts and circumstances present, these sums were paid purely as gifts and donations to his party by the repondent. It is not surprising either, because he was the chairman of the said party, had a long and liberal purse from which to draw and a large circle of support to build up in the long run.
The inevitable conclusion from our discussion is that both the heads of expenditure fall under section 5(j) of the Act and, therefore, flow out of the assessable zone. The High Court's conclusion is sound and the appeal deserves dismissed
-
1975 (9) TMI 52 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. There also there was an admission by the assessee that there were false claims of payment to contractors and that those items represented its income. These are clear cases of admission of concealment by the assessees and they do not help the revenue in this case because there is no such admission here. As we have pointed out, the only circumstance that is pressed against the assessee is that it had admitted for a higher assessment than its returned income. It is not, therefore, possible to say that the burden placed on the revenue in penalty proceedings to establish deliberate concealment has been completely discharged. That is what the Tribunal has decided and we see no reason in the circumstances of the case to reject the same. In the result, the income-tax case is dismissed but, having regard to the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 51 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Family Property ... ... ... ... ..... f an individual. In view of what has been stated above, the only way in which S.J.C. No. 223 of 1972 can be disposed of is by requiring the matter to be reconsidered by the Appellate Tribunal after the first aspect is finally determined. As the facts and circumstances of the case are not yet known and no finding of fact is reached, whether the claim under section 171 (1) of the Act would be tenable must be left to be determined. Here again counsel for both sides made the same prayer. The claim for registration of Autoways (India), the firm said to have been constituted upon partial partition of the minor Hindu undivided family, is inter-linked with the other questions, namely, whether the status of Sardar Santokh Singh was that of Hindu undivided family and whether there was a partial partition as claimed. The third question referred must also be left open to be decided by the Tribunal in the same manner as indicated above. We make no order as to costs. N. K. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... died in the meanwhile. Under these circumstances, considered from either point of view, namely, from the point of view of the provisions of the Act and the paragraphs of the Annuity Deposit Scheme, taken together, or considered from the point of view of general law, the result would be the same, namely, that these annuity payments which are a creature of statute and statutory powers, are income in the hands of the nominee, legal representatives of the original depositor. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the instalment of annuity deposit received by the karta of the assessee as nominee/legal representatives of the deceased depositor was liable to be assessed as income of the assessee. The question is, therefore, decided in favour of the revenue, and against the assessee. Since the question was not covered by any decided case, it is in the fitness of things that there should be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Court Fee, High Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... eath of the assessee. As regards the other contention of Mr. Rama Rao that this income is chargeable to tax as income from other sources, all that need be said is that neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Income-tax Commissioner chose to include that as income from other sources and make him liable for tax on that ground. The tax was assessed having regard to section 176(4) of the Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider that contention of the revenue in this writ petition. Having regard to the view I have taken that, irrespective of whether the cessation of the profession was for a short or long period and irrespective of whether the discontinuance of the profession was temporary or permanent, the assessee would be liable to pay tax for the income received by him on account of the profession which he has discontinued. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (9) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... do not consider it necessary to examine the correctness of the above view expressed by the Tribunal in the assessments of M/s. Meatles Ltd., Delhi, because the claim of the assessee-company is not one under section 10(2)(vii) of the Act. We may, however, note that the view of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Meatles Ltd. was held to be wrong by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Meatles Ltd., where following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. and Alapati Venkataramiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax this court held that in the absence of a registered sale deed there was no sale of the Crown Flour Mills by M/s. Meatles Ltd. in favour of the assessee-company herein within the meaning of section 10(2)(vii) of the Act. The question referred to us by the Tribunal is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee-company. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Income, Set Off, Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... other business income under section 10(1), would, as rightly contended on behalf of the revenue, put an assessee indulging in illegal activities in a better position. That could not have been the intention of the Supreme Court, and more particularly so, in the context in which the decision of the Supreme Court in S. C. Kothari s case was rendered. In that view of the matter, therefore, we do not agree with the learned advocate of the assessees in these references and we are of the opinion that the contentions of the revenue must prevail. We do not think that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. C. Kothari s case is as read by the Tribunal so as to permit the set off of the illegal speculative losses against the other business income. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in all the three references in the negative and against the respective assessees. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there should be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 46 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... y the assessee in regard to Rs. 8,000. Undoubtedly, from the very beginning the assessee s explanation in regard to this sum was that it came out of the sale proceeds of a truck bearing No. O.R.C. 1201 which belonged to her. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the fact that the assessee had a truck in the absence of documentary evidence. Before the Tribunal a certified copy of the certificate of registration was produced to show the ownership of the truck. Once the ownership was established, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee s statement that the truck had been sold in 1960 and the entire sale proceeds were left with the assessee s husband. This explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal. The matter must be taken to have been concluded by a finding of fact and the question which has been posed for reference is not one of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, reject the application, but make no order as to costs. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Capital Gains Tax, Market Value, One Partner ... ... ... ... ..... e in construing the provision of section 47(iii). Though each of the courts has given different reasonings except the majority in Income-tax Officer v. Varghese, the other learned judges are in agreement in holding that in a case where there is no underx-statement of the value merely on the ground that there is a difference between the fair market value and the full value of the consideration received or accruing, such difference cannot be. brought to capital gains on the basis of section 52. In the foregoing circumstances, we answer the first question referred in T.C. No. 168 of 1969 in the affirmative and against the assessee, and the second question in the negative and against the revenue. In view of our answers to the questions referred in T.C. No. 168 of 1969, we have to answer the question referred in T.C. No. 166 of 1969 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs in both these references. Counsel s fee in each Rs. 150.
-
1975 (9) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... in, respect of 75 per cent. of the accumulated income which it has invested in approved securities under section 11(2) but is not entitled to the exemption in respect of 25 per cent. of the accumulated income under section 11(1)(a). Article 265 of the Constitution prohibits the levy and collection of tax save by the authority of law. On a true interpretation of section 11, we hold that the exemption granted by the Income-tax Officer for the entire accumulated income is correct, and the action proposed by the Commissioner is not authorised by law. Since the entire matter is before us, it is open to us in this appeal to make the right order. For the reasons stated above, in substitution of the order made by Venkataramiah J., we issue a direction to the first appellant (the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax) to recall the impugned notice L. Rev. No. 136/72-CIT dated January 18, 1973. It is ordered accordingly. The respondent is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 43 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Compulsory Acquisition, Cost Of Acquisition, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... hat penalty should be imposed. Whether in a given set of facts such satisfaction can be reached is not only to be examined by the Income-tax Officer but is a matter which is open to examination both in first appeal as also in second appeal. Reviewing the entire facts, it is open to the appellate authority to vacate the finding of satisfaction and thereby rule out the foundation for imposition of penalty. Prima facie, the argument seems to be acceptable, but we do not express any final view on such a contention. It is sufficient for disposal of these reference applications to say that the finding of the Tribunal on the question of leviability of penalty is one of fact and gives rise to no question of law. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is The decision of the Appellate Tribunal that no penalty was to be levied is in accordance with law as indicated in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. We make no direction as to costs. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Remuneration Paid To Directors ... ... ... ... ..... ing out goes to the very root of the notion of income and before anything can be considered income , this principle which follows from the basic approach of income accrued being considered on the same footing as income received must be accepted. It is for the authorities concerned to consider whether in the year in which the assessee agreed to waive his right to receive the amount of Rs. 4,800 he would be entitled to the deduction of this amount on the ground that that which had accrued was in fact not received by him. We are conscious that we cannot issue any directions to the income-tax authorities in this connection but we thought it our duty to explain the legal position as we see it. Under these circumstances Income-tax Application No. 2 of 1975 rejected with no order as to costs. The question referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1974 is answered in the affimative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs in the special facts of this case.
-
1975 (9) TMI 41 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Cost Of Improvement ... ... ... ... ..... ee and on that footing this court while giving the direction for starting at case had mentioned the assessee s status to be that of a lessee. Even if the assessee be a lessee, the expenditure would be capital investment and as such would not be deductible. In respect of capital investment, depreciation is admissible, but as the learned standing counsel rightly pointed out, the question of depreciation had not been mooted and is not covered by the question which has been referred for our opinion. We cannot enlarge the scope of the question to accommodate the assessee s contention that even conceding the investment to be of capital nature, depreciation thereon should have been deducted. Our answer to the question referred to the court shall, therefore, be On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee in respect of Rs. 16,499 is of capital nature and, therefore, is not admissible as a deduction. We make no order as to costs. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... lable under the Act of 1961. It was pointed out that the authorities could not be approached for this purpose in the view that the assessees took, viz., that no penalty could be levied under the Act of 1961 in respect of earlier years preceding 1962-63. We can only say that the assessees seem to have been bona fide agitating the question of non-applicability of the Act of 1961 with reference to earlier years. There were decisions to support them at the time when this contention was taken up. But now in view of the Supreme Court s pronouncement, the contention can no longer find acceptance of any court. The assessees could not, therefore, in the view they took, approach the Commissioner of Income-tax for this purpose earlier. We are sure that the Commissioner would, if approached by the assessees, consider the matter with sympathy in the particular circumstances mentioned above. As the assessees have failed, the Commissioner will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 in both.
-
1975 (9) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Capital Gains Tax, Market Value, One Partner ... ... ... ... ..... with the qualifying words similar to the words used in the present case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context......... In view of this qualification, the court has not only to look at the words but also to look at the context, the collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. In view of what is stated above, particularly in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above, we answer the two questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. A carbon copy of this judgment, under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. We are grateful to counsel, Mr. C. S. Rajan, for the valuable assistance rendered to us as amicus curiae. We make no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 38 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... furnished. TheInspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of about one and a half times of the concealed income whereas under the law then in force the maximum penalty imposable was one and a half times of the amount of tax which would have been avoided. Mr. Mohanti for the assessee does not rightly dispute the proportion of penalty because it is within the permissible limit and the proportion was a matter of discretion for the statutory authority. In the facts of the case, therefore, the assessee was liable to penalty at one and a half times of the amount of tax that would have been avoided if the income returned by the assessee was accepted as the correct income. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in imposing penalty at the rate of 150 per cent. of the concealed income. The assessee shall have costs of the reference. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 37 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Delay In Filing Return, Income Tax Act, Liability To Penalty, Sales Tax Authorities
-
1975 (9) TMI 36 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax, it cannot be said that it constitutes a reserve unless some person possessed of the requisite authority had designated it as such or indicated the manner of the disposal or the destination of the balance concerned. We are also of the opinion that there is no conflict between the decision of this court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax as explained by us above. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us in R.C. No. 34 of 1973 against the assessee and in favour of the department. For the same reasons and particularly in view of the Explanation to rule 1 in the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964, we also answer the question referred to us in R.C. No. 35 of 1973 against the assessee and in favour of the department. The respondent is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each.
|
