|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 105 Records
-
1977 (7) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Net Wealth, Unquoted Shares ... ... ... ... ..... uded in the net wealth computation of the two assessees. In our view, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in taking the view that the amounts of the uncashed dividends were liable to be excluded from the net wealth computation of the assessees. It may be pointed out that the question framed implies that the amounts represented by the dividend warrants declared by Renwick and Co. Pvt. Ltd. had become a debt but the implication or assumption is erroneous. Having regard to the above discussion it is clear that the amounts represented by the uncashed dividends could not be regarded as having become debts payable to or receivable by the assessees. The questions dealing with exclusion from net wealth computation the amounts represented by uncashed dividend warrants in the case of both the assessees, viz., Pranlal and Bhogilal Patel, are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1977 (7) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... d. 1977 106 ITR 286 (Bom). In that case the Division Bench of this court has taken the view that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 15C(1) for the relevant assessment years in respect of the textile department unit since the value of the machinery transferred from the old factory at Sewri formed but a small fraction of the assets employed in the new textile department at Ghatkopar. Thus, looked at from any point of view, the contention of the revenue that the benefit of section 15C(2) is not available to the assessee cannot be accepted. Actually the Tribunal in its order dated January 17, 1966, has given clear findings on questions of fact and if those findings of fact are accepted, there is no scope for arguing that the exemption available under section 15C cannot be availed of by the assessee-company. In the result, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Act Of 1961, Registered Firm, Share Income, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... income either in the hands of the association or in the hands of the members individually was arbitrary or not, so as to be hit by article 14, certain observations came to be made. We do not find anything in the said decision which runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory 1966 60 ITR 95, which, as already pointed out, still covers the cases arising under the Act of 1961. We consider that the question requires to be reframed as the question as placed before us appears to be somewhat confusing. We reframe the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm, after the assessment made earlier in the case of one of the partners thereof was legal ? We answer the question as reframed in the negative and, against the revenue. The respondent will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 50.
-
1977 (7) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ct had remanded the matter, which would enable the original authority to get out of the bar of limitation. Such a question should have been urged before the Tribunal and without proper material and findings of the Tribunal on this material question, it would not be open to us to go into this question and, therefore, we have not permitted Mr. Patel to raise any such contention. In that view of the matter this reference must be answered in the affirmative, that is to say, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Reference is accordingly disposed of and the assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner. Mr. Patel asks for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261. In view of the conflict of decisions on this material question as aforesaid, we would issue a certificate under section 261 as the question of true interpretation of section 275 is a fit one for being certified for appeal to the Supreme Court. The certificate shall accordingly issue.
-
1977 (7) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Individual Income ... ... ... ... ..... of the shareholding of the said Hindu undivided family in the mill-company. However, as earlier pointed out, there is no direct nexus between his holding the post of a permanent director and the remuneration received by him. The remuneration in fact and reality is not paid to him because he was a permanent director but because he rendered services to the company. This is found from what is expressly stated in the resolution passed by the board of directors and the revenue has been unable to show that the said resolution was a camouflage or device to divert what really was the income of the Hindu undivided family from the Hindu undivided family to Dineshchandra. The foregoing discussion would show that the Tribunal was right in law in taking the view that it did. The question referred to us will accordingly stand answered in the affirmative, that is to say, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Reassessment Notice, Service Of Notice, Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... at section after the expiry of one year from the date of service of the notice under section 148. It appears that this has clearly been the case in the instant matter. For the reasons aforesaid the appellants could not proceed with the reassessment as they purported to do by virtue of the notice dated 1st February, 1971. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us in this matter it is not necessary for us to deal with the cases cited by Mr. Sen from the Bar, viz., Young v. Duthie 1965 45 TC 624 (Ch D), Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt 1965 55 ITR 415 (SC) and Lalji Haridas v. Income-tax Officer 1961 43 ITR 387 (SC). There shall be a stay of operation of the order for eight weeks. The interim order passed by the court of first instance shall continue for another eight weeks. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... vancy of documents in determining any issue required to be determined by him. The wide ambit of the language requiring the production of the documents itself goes to show that the officer concerned did not apply his mind at all to the nature of the documents or the purpose for which be required the production of the said documents. (See in this connection Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver, AIR 1968 SC 59, 61 1967 20 STC 453, 458, 466, 467 66 ITR 664, 669, 676, 677, last four lines and paragraphs 16 and 17 appearing at pages 65 and 66 of the said report). As already stated, the action in issuing the impugned summons under section 131 is tainted with the vice of non-application of mind to the documents required to be produced. The summons for that reason must be held to be bad and is to be struck down. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, this appeal must fail and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... ot provided for in the balance-sheet as on December 31, 1956. In this view of the matter it is difficult to accept the contention urged by Mr. Joshi that no explanation or no material was placed before the wealthtax authorities to satisfy them that the valuation as shown in the balancesheet was not correct or was on the high side. In our view, the instant case would fall within the ratio of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. 1976 104 ITR 544 (Bom) and the question will have to be answered accordingly. In the result, the question is answered thus on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for computing the net wealth of the assessee under section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, the values of the block assets of the assessee-company should be taken at their depreciated or written down values as determined by the income-tax authorities for income-tax purposes. The revenue will pay the costs of this reference to the assesses.
-
1977 (7) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Penalty Notice, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... y implies that he should be supplied with the particulars sufficiently before he is heard. That stage his not yet reached and the learned judge, in our opinion, has rightly directed the Income-tax Officer to furnish the necessary particulars to the appellant. In these circumstances, we do not think that there is any substance in the contention of the appellant that as no particulars have been given in the impugned notices, they should be struck down as illegal and invalid. No other point has been argued in this appeal. As all the contentions of the appellant fail, this appeal also fails and it is dismissed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. All interim orders are vacated. F.M.A. No. 1079 of 1965.--In this appeal, the facts and the points involved are the same as in the above appeal. For the reasons given above, this appeal is also dismissed without any order for costs. All interim orders are vacated. SHARMA J --I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... us to take the view that even when the initial production had started the new and separate unit of rayon factory could not be regarded as having been set up. Having regard to the facts of the present case as found by the Wealth-tax Officer the new and separate unit of rayon factory was not only set up in September, 1956, itself but it had commenced production and business from and after that date. It is not possible for us to take the view that under section 5(1)(xxi) of the Act until all the 18 spinning machines are installed and start production the new and separate unit cannot be regarded as set up. Before us no contention is urged by Mr. Mehta claiming proportionate exemption in respect of machines which were set up from and after April 1, 1951, in view of the fact that on the principal question we have not accepted his contention. In the result, our answer to question No. 3 is in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay the cost of the revenue.
-
1977 (7) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Evidence, Jurisdiction Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ause the parties did not ask for an opportunity of adducing further evidence, it cannot be said the Tribunal was debarred from directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to take additional evidence on the lines indicated in its order and on the basis of such additional evidence to decide those appeals. Since three alternative courses were open to the Tribunal, it cannot be said that it went wrong in law in adopting the course which it has adopted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We may add here that we are also in agreement with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sayaji Mills Ltd. 1974 94 ITR 26, regarding the power of the Tribunal in order to do substantial justice between the parties. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Pronab Kumar Pal and answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, General Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... share capital must be taken to have been increased, the assessee would be entitled to the proportional increase in terms of rule 2. In the view which we are taking of the interpretation of rule 2 contained in the Second Schedule to the 1963 Act, we are supported by a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. 1974 95 ITR 586, where that court has observed in no uncertain terms that the issue of bonus shares necessarily leads to addition in the paid-up share capital and following the strict rule of interpretation, especially when the language is plain and is amenable to only one meaning, the reserve could not be reduced to the extent of its capitalised value and the paid-up capital was to be boosted up so as to increase the capital base. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The department will pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... al gain under section 12B(1) of the 1992 Act or section 45 of the 1961 Act. On the facts of that case, which were similar to the present case, this court held that there was no transfer or sale of goodwill to the present limited company so as to attract the provisions of section 12B(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Having regard to the clear statement made in the order of the Income-tax Officer which is forming part of the statement of the case that as the business was commenced and started by the assessee himself the goodwill was a self-generated asset and the question as to tax and capital gain being leviable when the business was transferred to the limited company is fully governed by the above decision and in view of that decision no tax on capital gain by way of transfer or sale of goodwill in such a case is payable. In the result, our answer to the question referred is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Auction Sale ... ... ... ... ..... e rejected the assessee s contention with regard to the balance of purchase price, for, in both the circumstances, the conditions governing the payment in cash were identical. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in not giving to the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the benefit of rule 6DD(j) and in holding that the disallowance of payments to the two co-operative societies in question in addition to the 10 amount paid as and by way of deposit was proper. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we answer the questions referred to us for our opinion as follows Question No. 1.--No answer is required to be given since the question is academic in the facts and circumstances of the case. Question No. 2.--In the negative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3.--In the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 31 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Actual Cost, Cash System, Foreign Currency, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... e enacting part of sub-section (1) of section 43A, the question of subsection (1) of section 43A operating to set aside is no longer valid anything contained in sections 32 and 33 on the same subject-matter does not arise. In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that the increased liability of the assessee with regard to repayment of the loan and payment of interest, commitment charges, etc., on account of devaluation, in so far as it was relatable to the machinery acquired in the year of account, should have been taken into consideration in working out the actual cost of the machinery to the assessee for the purpose of the grant of development rebate. The contrary view of the Tribunal was not correct. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as under Question No. 1.--In the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 2.--Not pressed. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, General Public Utility ... ... ... ... ..... s and other similar institutions, which are all along referred to as serving public charitable objects. It is obvious that looking to the object, the whole setting and context of this trust, this question of fact was rightly never attempted to be raised in view of the aforesaid settled legal position. Therefore, there is no substance even in the last contention raised by the learned standing counsel that clause 4(g) must be tested in the light of the newly added limitation in section 2(15). In view of the aforesaid discussion, the answer in the present reference must be in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference is accordingly disposed of and the revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee. Our answer in the other references Nos. 11/75 and 249/75 is also identical. Thus, these two references are also disposed of accordingly giving the same answer. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee in those two references.
-
1977 (7) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... order. The Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that no such contention was raised before the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention now sought to be raised on behalf of the revenue cannot be said to form a mere facet of the question. Even though the language of the question framed by the Tribunal may appear to be sufficiently comprehensive, it is well settled that in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act only the question which was either raised or argued before the Tribunal may be answered. If Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. were deemed agents within the meaning of section 43 of the Act, the Tribunal was clearly right in coming to the conclusion that the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Act applies and the notice is barred by limitation. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... and then to proceed to consider the income in the hands of the individuals composing the association in the manner contemplated by law. If the department does not adopt the primary or normal procedure and taxes the individual member, then the consequence thereof has to follow. It is this aspect which has been adverted to by the Allahabad High Court in Girdhari Lal Laxman Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1968 70 ITR 853 at 859. If the Income-tax Officer does not want to foreclose the choice available to the department, he should wait till the firm s or association s assessment is completed, and then proceed against the partners or members of the association individually. In this view, it is not possible to hold that when the Income-tax Officer assessed the member, the department did not exercise the option. The second question has, therefore, to be and is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set .
-
1977 (7) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Tax Holiday ... ... ... ... ..... ore, the Tribunal was right in the view that it took so far as the question in Income-tax Reference No. 107 of 1976 is concerned. The answer to the said question will, therefore, have to be in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. That takes us to Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1975. It is conceded on behalf of the revenue that the controversy which is sought to be raised by the question in the said reference is covered by the decision of this court in Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. s case 1976 104 ITR 510 (Guj). Following our decision in the said case, therefore, we must answer the question in the said reference also in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The question in each of the two references stands accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of both the references to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... e writ appeal in the light of our answer to the point referred to us. JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BENCH AFTER REMAND FROM FULL BENCH (Sambasiva Rao and Muktadar JJ. July 22, 1977.) By our order dated 20th October, 1976, we had formulated the following point for consideration of the Full Bench Is interest not leviable under section 139(1)(iii) where the assessee has committed delay in filing the return of his income without seeking extension of time to file the return from the concerned Income-tax Officer ? The Full Bench, by its judgment dated 20th July, 1977, has held that interest is leviable under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 where the assessee has committed delay in filing the return of his income without seeking extension of time to file the return from the concerned Income-tax Officer. In the light of this judgment of the Full Bench, we partly allow the appeal. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
|
