Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1549 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show-cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not to have interfered with the show-cause notice. Having regard to the aforementioned pronouncements we are of the opinion that the petitioner may raise the contention raised in this writ petition before the concerned respondent. We are, therefore of the view that this writ petition could not and should not be entertained at the show cause stage. The petition is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
-
2001 (12) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... utable to the assessee, then the assessee has no defence. Since the finding of the Tribunal on facts is necessary for decision on the reference, we feel that in the interest of justice the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the parties referred to above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue. While considering the appeal, the Tribunal should take into account matters such as the assessee s role in the affairs of the firms where he is a partner, delay, if any, attributable to the assessee in the auditing of accounts of the firms, dates of finalising the accounts of the firms, whether there is further delay in filing the return by the assessee after the firm s accounts are audited, etc. In view of the remand, we decline to answer the reference.
-
2001 (12) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... butable to the assessee, then the assessee has no defence. Since the finding of the Tribunal on facts is necessary for decision on the reference, we feel that in the interest of justice the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the parties referred to above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue. While considering the appeal, the Tribunal should take into account matters such as the assessee s role in the affairs of the firms where he is a partner, delay, if any, attributable to the assessee in the auditing of accounts of the firms, dates of finalising the accounts of the firms, whether there is further delay in filing the return by the assessee after the firm s accounts are audited, etc. In view of the remand, we decline to answer the reference.
-
2001 (12) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... would be Rs.4,05,35,000. Having regard to the statutory provisions, the petitioner may be held to be entitled to 20 per cent. towards road and 15 per cent. for other purposes. Even then, the value of the land would be much more than Rs.68,00,000. For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. So far as the submission of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is concerned that the amount in question had not been paid by the respondent in view of the interim order of status quo dated April 18, 1995, passed by this court which was made absolute on November 22, 1995, this court also cannot grant any relief by way of interest and enhancement in the value of the land in the meantime in favour of the said respondents as the questions raised by them are not the subject-matter of the writ petition. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, may take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... f Criminal Procedure for the simple reason that the recovery of the amount due and payable by the respondent-firm to the Income-tax Department has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution because it is a distinct provision inviting penal action for the default committed by the firm. They are liable both for recovery of the amount with interest and penalty so also for prosecution for having committed offence punishable under section 276B of the Income-tax Act for their failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period and as the respondent-firm is a partnership concern all the partners of the firm as contemplated under section 278B would be liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to take up the case for trial and dispose of it in accordance with law. The respondent-firm would be entitled to raise all pleas available to them under the law by way of defence. The revision application is thus disposed of.
-
2001 (12) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of the assessee. The entire amount of consideration was to be paid within a period of seven months. It is, therefore, not difficult to infer that by reason of the said agreement, the services of the consultant had also been hired for a period of five years. The agreement has to be read as a whole. So read, it is clear that there had been no absolute parting by the assessee with his technical know-how to the company. The assessee was also required to render various services to the company. Such services rendered shall also form part of the consideration. In this case, consideration had been received for imparting know-how not in association with the disposal of a capital asset and thus the receipt in our opinion should be treated as a revenue receipt. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the question sent to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal must be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... before the Income-tax Officer. No other points have been argued before us in the course of hearing of the appeal. There is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal being A.P.O. No. 701 of 1992 is dismissed. The judgment and order under appeal are affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. No separate argument has been advanced by the learned advocate for the parties in connection of A.P.O. No. 699 of 1992 and A.P.O No. 700 of 1992, which involve the identical facts and question of law. That being so, the judgment passed in A.P.O. No. 701 of 1992 will also govern both A.P.O. No. 699 of 1992 and A.P.O. No. 700 of 1992 as a result of which these two appeals are also dismissed. In view of disposal of the above noted appeals the reference case being I.T.R. No. 101 of 1995 is disposed of in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As prayed for, stay of operation of the order is granted for two months. TARUN CHATTERJEE J. -I agree.
-
2001 (12) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t case, the petitioner-assessee has his own explanation, that by mistake he went to the Income-tax Office on Saturday and immediately on Monday he has made the payment in the bank. It is true that the petitioner was assessed to income-tax for a number of years earlier. Yet it is possible that with such a special scheme an assessee could be in doubt as to where the payment is to be made. In our view, the explanation given by the petitioner, cannot be rejected, particularly when immediately on the next working day he has made the payment in a nationalised bank. The provision of section 90 will have to be read flexibly in the interest of the assessees to permit genuine explanations. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent on January 28, 2000, is quashed and set aside, and the respondent is directed to issue the clearance certificate to the petitioner under the said scheme. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms, though without any order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ents after about two years for Rs.5,05,000. Its value could not have shot up from Rs.4,11,000 to Rs.9,25,400 in this short span of time. There is no evidence on the file which may even remotely suggest that there was more than 100 per cent. increase in the value of property from August, 1981 to December, 1983. Still further, the proceedings under section 269C were initiated against the respondent s vendor as well. However, these were dropped after it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs.4,08,695. If the property was correctly valued at Rs.4,08,695 in August, 1981, then in the absence of concrete evidence it cannot be said that the Revenue was right in claiming that the actual value in December, 1983, was Rs.9,25,400. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. It calls for no interference by this court under section 269H of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revision - By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has dismissed the revision application filed by the assessee both on the ground of maintainability as well as on the merits. - we are of the opinion that the revision application filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was not maintainable. Once it is held that the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to go into the merits of the case. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner chooses to pursue the remedy of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), then the findings given by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order under section 264 on the merits will not come in the way of the petitioner.
-
2001 (12) TMI 21 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reason To Believe - we find that the Assessing Officer has in fact recorded reasons on August 31, 1999, for issuing notice under section 148(1). We may say that the reasons mentioned by him do not suffer from any infirmity. The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer is clearly based on reasons which have bearing on the matter. – Further, Sub-section (2) of section 148 clearly provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice thereunder record his reasons for doing so. We have already held above that the Assessing Officer has recorded necessary reasons in support of the belief. The question is whether an assessee can demand a copy of the Assessing Officer's reasons along with the notice. The proceedings in the back assessment begin only with the issue of notice under section 148. It is only after the service of notice, the assessee becomes a party to the proceedings. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to get copy of the same at the stage of issuance of notice. In the result, the writ application deserves dismissal. We order accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Firm, Retirement Of Partner - "1. Whether on a proper construction of the deed of dissolution it could be held that it was a case of retirement of the partner and not of the dissolution of the firm? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the excess of Rs.3,62,631 received by the partner on the dissolution of the firm could be subject to assessment as income under the head 'Capital gain'?" - there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that whether it is held to be a case of dissolution of the partnership or as a retirement, having regard to the provisions contained in section 47(ii) of the Act as it stood prior to 1988, the assessee was entitled only to the assets, he derived from the partnership firm and not the excess amount. Thus, the aforementioned questions are answered in favour of the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Transfer To Defraud Revenue, Property Transfered To Trust By Assessee - It is claimed in the writ petition that the said Narayan Kishore Choudhury executed a deed of trust on May 18, 1972, concerning his shares in the premises, No. 2/2B, Harington Street, Calcutta, and appointed the present writ petitioners as the trustees thereof. It is contended that the Revenue acted erroneously in treating the said deed of trust as a revocable trust. It is, further, alleged that the Revenue was not entitled to initiate proceedings against the trustees to recover the dues from Narayan Prasad Choudhury. - The appeal is, dismissed
-
2001 (12) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice - taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts which have come on record, it is apparent that the respondent himself is not sure as to the year of taxability and whether the said item requires to be taxed in the assessment year 1991-92 or the assessment year 1992-93. In such a situation, it is not possible to agree with the stand of the Revenue that any income could be stated to have escaped the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 as a consequence of any failure or omission on the part of the assessee. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned notice dated October 3, 1997 (annexure R) is quashed and set aside
-
2001 (12) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction, Writ, Alternate Remedy - This is an application, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel, recall and rescind the impugned order of assessment passed by respondent No. 1 for the assessment year 1993-94 in refusing to allow the full deduction to the petitioners under section 80HHC and further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to grant approval under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the said Act beyond six months to forbear from giving effect to the amendment in respect of section 80HHC(2)(a) with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and also to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value beyond six months. - in my opinion, it would not be proper for me to pass any order on this application and on these facts this application must fail and is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Salary, Perquisites, Rent-free Accommodation - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of perquisite on account of residential house known as 'Modi Bhawan' was not assessable under section 28 read with section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of assessing its value was correct in law and whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing it from the value assessed by the Appellate Commissioner?" These references are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee holding that the value of perquisite on account of residential house was not asses sable under section 28 read with section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act but under section 17(2) of the said Act and the Tribunal adopted the correct method of assessing its value.
-
2001 (12) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Hindu Undivided Family - The question referred to us, viz., "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income received by the assessee's wife for maintenance is includible in the assessee's total income under section 64(2)(c) read with section 64(1)(iv) of the Act?" is, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Appropriate Authority - In this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writ of certiorari for quashing the letter whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,50,000 plus interest at 18 pet cent. from the date of receipt of the money till its deposit in the Government of India account. - After the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners made representations for returning the possession of the property in question and asking them to accept the amount of sale consideration paid by the respondents without any interest. However, vide communication dated July 24, 2001, the respondents demanded interest on the amount of sale consideration paid by them to the petitioner under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner challenged the demand of interest and it is for this reason the present petition is filed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner has rightly stated that a broad view should be taken while deciding the question as to whether the gift is a deemed gift. It is only in cases where the difference in price is abnormal, the conclusion that the vendor has consciously given away to the buyer a valuable thing at a much lesser value only to favour the buyer can be reached, and the question of deemed gift would arise.
-
2001 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation - Actual Cost - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) applied to the facts of the case and that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on the book value of assets of the earlier firm but only on the value as fixed by the Income-tax Officer under Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961?" - Here the firm was dissolved within about 13 months of its formation. The two partners besides the assessee-company were also the only two shareholders and directors of the company. The reality before and after the dissolution was the same. The same person who enjoyed the benefits of the ownership of the assets and its uses continue to have such benefits, the two partners indirectly and the assessee itself directly. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this background cannot be faulted. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
........
|