|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 115 Records
-
1975 (9) TMI 35 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Concealment Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... er in the presence of the assessee. After the assessee is given an opportunity of bringing the evidence of the bank manager on record, determination of the first and the third questions would be possible. It would be difficult at present to express any definite opinion on these questions. We would, accordingly, decline to answer questions 1 and 3 now but make it clear that in case the assessee succeeds in correlating the entry in its account with the debit of the amount in its bank account by its withdrawal, the addition has to go and with it the imposition of penalty must fall, otherwise the addition of the amount has to be sustained and the imposition of penalty would be consequential. Therefore, while dealing further with the matter, the forums below (depending upon who records the evidence of the bank manager) would take care to see that these two questions are adequately considered on the basis of the new evidence on record. We make no order as to costs. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Capital Expenditure, Commercial Profit, Tax On Undistributed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ty, it was not possible to assume that the declaration of the particular amount of dividend was for the reason that the board of directors or general body required finance for the developmental activity. It does not follow from the mere declaration of a particular amount as dividend that the directors wanted to create a reserve for the future expansion of the company. In the absence of anything to show by way of directors report or any other material that the company did not declare larger dividends because of this consideration, we are of the view that the assessee s claim was not properly accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Having considered all the facts, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal came to the right conclusion when it held that the provisions of section 23A were not attracted on the facts herein. We answer the question referred in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under section 30 or an order under sections 31, 32 or 33 shall be paid in such number of instalments, within such time, at such place and to such person, as may be specified in the notice or order, or if a time is not so specified, then on or before the first day of the second month following the date of the service of the notice or order and any assessee failing so to pay shall be deemed to be in default Provided that when an assessee has presented an appeal under section 31, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may in his discretion treat the assessee as not being in default so long as such appeal is undisposed of. 41. Rode and time of recovery.-(1) When an assessee is in default in making a payment of agricultural income-tax, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may in his discretion direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, a sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the assessee by way of penalty.
-
1975 (9) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
High Court To Interfere, Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction To Reassess, Notice Of Reassessment, Reason To Believe
-
1975 (9) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Family Property, Life Interest In Property ... ... ... ... ..... whether by surrender, assurance, divesting, forfeiture or in any other manner, then under clause (b) of section 11(1) of the Act the property in which the interest subsisted is to be deemed to pass. In other words, if section 7 would have applied to the compensation if it had remained intact, then section 11(1)(b) requires us not to give effect to any dealing with such property during the statutory period. The statutory period is two years. If the compensation had been received more than two years prior to the death of Govinda Reddiar and if it had been partitioned amongst the parties, then section 11(1)(b) would not have come into operation. But, as the compensation was divided within the statutory period, section 11(1)(b) is attracted. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 10,663 was also dutiable. In the result, we answer both the questions in the negative and against the accountable person. The Controller will have his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250. Questions answered in the negative.
-
1975 (9) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Penalty For Default ... ... ... ... ..... he Act of 1922. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India 1970 77 ITR 107 (SC), there is no scope for acceptance of the submission that the penalty had to be levied under the Act of 1922. The first question has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. When once the penalty is to be levied under the Act of 1961 the consequences of the application of the provisions of that Act have to follow. The penalty has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 271(1) of the Act. There is no warrant for calculating the penalty taking the default as if it arose on 1st day of April, 1962. The 1st day of April, 1962, is only the date on which the Act of 1961 came into force. But as far as the penalty leviable is concerned, it has to be calculated from the date of the default. Therefore, the second question has to be answered against the assessee and in the negative. The Commissioner s fee is Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, General Public Utility, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit
-
1975 (9) TMI 28 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Application For Registration, Registration Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... lication is rejected as being out of time, the order is one under section 184(4) and not under section 185 of the Act. The consequence of this position is that the appeal of the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable. The legal position is beyond dispute that an appeal is a creature of the statute and, unless statutorily conferred, no appeal lies. Section 246 of the Act indicates what are appealable orders. Clause (j) provides An order refusing to register a firm under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (5) of section 185. Thus, no appeal lay against the order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 184(4) of the Act. As the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent under section 253 of the Act, the second appeal did not lie to the Tribunal. The reference is thus incompetent. We accordingly discharge it. There shall be no order as to costs. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Capital Gains Tax, Market Value, One Partner ... ... ... ... ..... ascertain by a similar process of setting off proportionate expenditure, the profits and gains of business from taxable activities and then ascertain the amount of income-tax assessable in the case of the assessee. If this procedure is not followed, anomalous results are likely to ensue. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. (1) as reframed by us in Income-tax Reference No. 100 of 1974, in the affirmative and against the assessee. We answer question No. (2) in the negative and against the assessee. In Income-tax Reference No. 24 of 1974, we answer the question No. (1) as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the assessee question No. (2) in the negative and against the assessee. In Income-tax Reference No. 139 of 1974, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference in each of these three cases to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
1975 (9) TMI 26 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings. Where the revised return is the outcome of voluntary action on the part of the assessee before any part of the suppression is detected, it may be possible to contend that there has been a bona fide mistake and the materials on record and the conduct of the assessee together may justify a conclusion of fact that the burden which lay on the assessee in view of the Explanation attached to section 271(1)(c) of the Act stood discharged. The clear finding here being, as extracted above, there is no scope for the conclusion which the Tribunal has reached. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, penalty of 20 has to be worked out on the total assessed figure minus the amount originally returned. Our answer to the question, therefore, is as follows The Tribunal was not justified in directing the working out of the quantum of penalty on the basis of the revised return in the facts and circumstances of the case. We make no order as to costs. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 25 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... a different view from what has been adopted in second appeal. But, as the reasons have not been given and the reference to the record reflects a different position, we are inclined to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining disallowance of expenditure of a sum of Rs. 30,000 on the head of coal expenses. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to adopt the past record and fix the average ratio somewhere between, 60 and 65 on the finding of the Appellate Assistant, Commissioner on the basis of the certificate furnished by the Indian Ceramic Society that expenses should range between 50 and 60 of the production. After the records are produced before the Tribunal it is open to the Tribunal to quantify the amount on such basis. Our answer to the question, therefore, is that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in sustaining disallowance to the extent of Rs. 30,000 in the facts and circumstances of the case. We make no order as to costs. N.K. DAS --- I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Compulsory Acquisition, Cost Of Acquisition, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... cing into the provision some limitation which is not there. The terms of section 31(3)(b) read with the proviso to section 34(3) clearly, in our opinion, contemplate that the Income-tax Officer can be directed to make further enquiries in order to ascertain the actual amount of compensation ultimately received so as to make a proper assessment in accordance with the provision of section 12B. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in the manner in which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had exercised his jurisdiction. If there is any anomaly which arises as a result of a person not having filed an appeal escaping assessment of the further amount of compensation, that would not, in our opinion, come to the rescue of the assessee here who has filed an appeal which has to be disposed of in the manner contemplated by the provisions of the Act. The third question is also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (9) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Component Parts, Industrial Undertaking, Reconstruction Of Business ... ... ... ... ..... broad commercial point of view as observed in the decisions cited therein. It is also elementary that no motor car could be manufactured by the assessee if the body panels were not purchased previously because the assessee was not a manufacturer of the body panels and the assessee could not carry on any business as a manufacturer of motor cars as such. Therefore, instead of purchasing those materials, as the assessee had started a new manufacturing unit for the purpose of manufacturing the body panels and for using them as component parts of the motor cars it must be held that the new industrial undertaking is not hit by the expression reconstruction of business already in existence used in these two sections. Hence, we overrule the contentions of Mr. Sengupta and return our answer to both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to make any order as to costs. HAZRA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Employed, Industrial Undertaking, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... mount representing the value of the assets on the first day of the computation period should be taken as the basis, the same is beyond the scope of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is ultra vires to that extent. The Income-tax Officer in this case was, therefore, in error in refusing to grant the relief to the assessee. The assessment order, which is annexure B to the petition, in so far as it refuses deduction or relief to the assessee on the basis of the capital employed during the period of the previous year on the basis of the average, the same, in my opinion, is erroneous for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore and the same is hereby set aside. The Income-tax Officer will now proceed to make the assessment in the light of the aforesaid observations. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order for costs. Interim orders are vacated. Let there be stay of operation of this order till two weeks after the long vacation.
-
1975 (9) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Orders Passed, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... matic, realistic and permissible but just, proper and valid. We do not find any illegal or perverse exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Central Government. Nor can it be said that the Central Government has acted mala fide or in accordance with its whim and fancy or arbitrarily judged from any angle we are satisfied that there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality nor any principles of natural justice have been violated, justifying this court to interfere ill this writ proceeding and quash the impugned order. We do not see any merit in this writ petition. For all the reasons stated, the question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed but without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Before parting with the case, we must express our thanks to both the learned counsel for their able assistance to the court and record our appreciation of their lucid presentation of their respective view-points.
-
1975 (9) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
One Partner, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... l does not appear to be correct, ultimately, our conclusion is the same as that reached by the Tribunal. In its order the Tribunal has stated that it might have been possible to hold that there was no dissolution. Now the correct approach is not whether there was any dissolution or not but whether there was art agreement established by an inferential process of reasoning amongst the partners of the old firm that the firm should not stand dissolved in the event of death of one of the partners. That is the only question that can arise for consideration in a case like the present one. Under these circumstances we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1) In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (2) In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (3) In the affirmative since section 188 would apply. Question No. (3) is answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1975 (9) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Family Property, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... in the circumstances of the case and having due regard to annexure A , the income from the property bearing No. 21 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. 45, could be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family? The deed of partition is annexure A to the statement of the case and it conclusively shows that this property has been partitioned between the members of the family. Therefore, the above question is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balai Chandra Paul 1976 105 ITR 666 (Cal) in which all the earlier decisions of this court have been discussed and followed. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ajit Sen Gupta, the learned counsel for the revenue, that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous. We, accordingly, return our answer in. the negative and in favour of the assessee. As no one has appeared for the assessee, we make no order as to costs. HAZRA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 18 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... led that the ratio in Kulu Valley Transport Co. s case 1970 77 ITR 518 (SC) would not apply to interpret section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee to support its stand that penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not exigible must be negatived. The other dispute regarding imposition of penalty for non-payment of advance tax was not pressed before us with any seriousness. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty on the assessee in the status of association of persons after such status was changed to registered firm in appeal as a result of grant of registration to the firm there being no dispute regarding identity of the persons on whom the penalty is levied, namely, group of persons claiming partnership carrying on business in the name of Messrs. Capital Talkies. We make no order as to costs. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (9) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Income, Set Off, Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... t that in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Harshadlal Manilal 1974 97 ITR 86 (Guj), it was held that under the ordinary Hindu law when the property passes by intestate succession from father to son even though it was a self-acquired property of the father, in the hands of the son the property would be stamped with the character of joint family property. As we have observed above, no difference is made to that legal position by any of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In the result, therefore, we hold that the correct status of the assessee in respect of the properties inherited by him on the death of his father was as representing his Hindu undivided family and not as an individual. We answer the question referred to us as follows The correct status of the assessee in respect of the properties inherited by him on the death of his father was as representing his Hindu undivided family. In view of the special circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (9) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Levy Of Penalty, Mens Rea, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings
|
