|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accumulated Loss, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... gamation takes place and conditions under sub-section (1) of section 72A are satisfied, then we see no reason as to why a declaration should not be accorded. As already, observed, the impugned order is, for all practical purposes, a non-speaking order. We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus quashing the decision of the Specified Authority contained in the impugned order dated April 7, 1986, and we direct the said authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment and give a fresh recommendation by a speaking order within four months from today and the Central Government shall pass an order in consequence thereof within one month of the recommendation of the Specified Authority. Pending the ultimate decision by the Central Government, the stay of further proceedings in relation to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 granted by our interim orders will continue. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed and matter remanded.
-
1992 (1) TMI 91 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cordance with law. Considering the aforesaid law and the facts, as we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the petitioner s application, till the petitioner s application is decided, the respondents are directed not to proceed further with the complaint filed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 276C or section 277 in relation to the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 for which penalty has been imposed. In the result, the special civil application is allowed. The order dated May 6, 1983 (annexure C ), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, is quashed and set aside. The Commissioner of Income-tax will decide the petitioner s application under section 273A(4) on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law. Till that application is decided, the respondents are directed not to proceed with the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 90 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Firm, HUF, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ined to a person who is being assessed in his individual capacity and none else and, therefore, where the assessee is a partner in a firm in his capacity as karta of a Hindu undivided family the share income of his wife or son as partners of the firm, cannot be included in the assessment of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Tribunal was right in concluding that the share income derived by the two minor sons of Ramanlal from the said partnership firm cannot be clubbed with the share income derived by Ramanlal from the said firm which was taxable in the hands of Ramanlal in his capacity as the karta of the smaller Hindu undivided family. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In view of the above discussion and answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 89 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Developement Rebate, Interest, Rule Against Retrospectivity ... ... ... ... ..... nation to make patent what was latent. Given that the Explanation is retrospective in effect from the assessment year 1974-75, can we turn away from the fact that what was unsaid for 1974-75 was not so even earlier? The fact is that if the law was not articulate to afford an answer precisely, requiring an Explanation, that position is equally true even earlier before the assessment year 1974-75. It is nobody s case that the dilemma for want of manifestation of the legislative intent started only in 1974-75 and not earlier or that the position before 1974-75 is any different, not needing the same Explanation. If the same Explanation can resolve the difficulty for the inadequacy of the written law, there is no impediment to taking aid from it even in settling the question arising before the assessment year 1974-75. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the first question in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 88 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Power To Rectify Order ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal in an appeal filed under section 253. In our view, an order rejecting an application for rectification under section 254(2) is not available to be rectified under section 254(2). The same may relate to an appeal, but it is not an order passed by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 254. As indicated above, the assessee s application for rectification under section 254(2) was rejected by the Tribunal. The second application was for rectification of some alleged mistakes in the said order of rejection. Section 254(2) had no application to such an order. The Tribunal was not justified in purporting to act under section 254(2) and passing the impugned order. In view of this, we do not think it necessary to deal with the submissions relating to the dispute whether there was any rectifiable mistake apparent from the record or not. The writ application, accordingly, succeeds, and the impugned order (annexure-1) is set aside. No costs. S. K. MOHANTY J. - I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 87 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... uted by two or more persons, one or more of such persons may sign the deed in dual capacity without making the partnership invalid. If the Incometax Officer grants registration to such a firm which in fact is constituted by five persons only though there are eight partners, as three persons entered into the agreement in dual capacities, he is not going beyond the terms of the document, as he will be granting registration to a firm of eight partners which in fact it is. In view of this categorical statement of law made by the Board, do not think that the view taken by the Income-tax Officer in this regard is correct as the Income-tax Officer is bound by the circulars issued by the Board. Consequently, the notice issued by the respondent at annexure E, dated April 14, 1988, shall stand quashed. Petitions allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sri H. R. Raghavendra Rao, the learned advocate who appears for the respondent is permitted to file vakalath within 8 weeks from today.
-
1992 (1) TMI 86 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Deduction U/S 36(1)(viii), Disallowance, Entertainment Expenditure, Financial Corporation, Special Reserve
-
1992 (1) TMI 85 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ccepted by the Department and the special leave petition was pending? Learned counsel for the Department contended that the Tribunal ought to have awaited the decision of the Supreme Court and ought not to have rejected the appeals due to the decision of the High Court in CIT v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar 1986 159 ITR 209 (MP). He also contended that the finding of the Tribunal in the other cases would not make any difference on the facts of the case and that the addition was wholly justified and so also the cancellation of the registration. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in refusing to refer the aforesaid questions to this court. It is, therefore, necessary to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as urged on behalf of the Department. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make reference to this court on the questions mentioned in paragraph 2 of this order.
-
1992 (1) TMI 84 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... wer Station. A loan was taken for this purpose. The question of allowability of interest cropped up before the various authorities from time to time. Ultimately, the Tribunal remanded the matter in the assessment year 1982-83 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner far finding out certain facts. The petitioner s grievance is that, in spite of the order of the Tribunal which has been upheld by this court, two show cause notices had been issued. The amount of the interest on capital borrowed is clearly allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is whether the new project was part of the business of the assessee or a separate business altogether. That is a mixed question of fact and law which has to be examined and found out. The mistake, if any, is not apparent from the records. The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. The impugned notices are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay of operation of the order is refused.
-
1992 (1) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bharatji Agarwal appearing for the respondents. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to call for it counter-affidavit, inasmuch as the petition can be disposed of with certain directions. As the petitioner has already approached the assessing authority by making the two representations stated earlier which are still pending disposal, we direct the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 2, Ghaziabad, the assessing authority, to dispose of the petitioner s said representations, copies of which have been filed as annexures P-16 and P-18 to the writ petition, by passing appropriate orders thereon within a period of fifteen days a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. Subject to the above, the writ petition shall stand finally disposed of. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties within three days on payment of the usual charges.
-
1992 (1) TMI 82 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disposition, Estate Duty, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... uri had only one-sixth share in the movable property which came to her on the death of Trikamlal. The property was, admittedly, coparcenary property and no partition had taken place. Therefore, only one-sixth share which came to Manigauri either under the disposition or by succession on the death of her husband was the portion that could pass on her death. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the Appellate Controller were, therefore, right in holding that Manigauri had one-sixth share in the said property that had passed on her death. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative. As held by the Tribunal, only one-sixth share in the movable property was included by the Assistant Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Controller for computing the principal value and the finding of the Tribunal has not worked to the disadvantage of the accountable person. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly. The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to the view that the amount of Rs. 35,000 was not expenditure on repairs simpliciter. No materials have been brought on record to show that the expenses had more effect than restoring the property to its habitable state. Rather, the words extensive repairs as used by the Tribunal indicates that there was no substantial improvement to the preexisting property so as to add to its value that pertains to the capital field as happened in the case of Humayun Properties Ltd. 1962 44 ITR 73 (Cal). On the facts and in the circumstances as were present before the Tribunal or which have been brought on record, it cannot be concluded that the expenditure incurred is capital in nature. In the premises, we are of the view that the expenditure in question is allowable in computing the assessee s income. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction For Export Turnover U/S 80HHC, Export Business ... ... ... ... ..... follows Agricultural primary commodities, not being produce of plantations . The petitioner has exported raw cotton. The Tribunal, in its order dated March 2, 1989, has held that raw cotton is a produce of plantation and hence is not covered by clause (b)(i). The Tribunal has relied upon the meaning of the word plantation in the Concise Oxford Dictionary to mean assemblage of planted growing plants, especially trees, estate on which cotton, tobacco, etc. is cultivated. Raw cotton being a produce of cotton plantation is not covered by clause (b)(i). The Tribunal has not gone into the question whether raw cotton should or should not be considered as an agricultural primary commodity because, even if it is so considered, it would still be excluded from clause (b)(i). In these circumstances, the question referred to us does not at all arise from the order of the Tribunal. In any case, the answer to the question is obvious. Hence, the application is rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... eference since the question which has been referred to us is directly covered by the decisions of this court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 1973 91 ITR 393, which is confirmed in CIT (Addl.) v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 1987 165 ITR 166 by the Supreme Court and CIT v. Jayantilal Laxmichand (Incometax Reference No. Ill of 1974, decided on September 4, 1975). Following the said decisions and for the reasons recorded therein, we answer the question which has been referred to us for our opinion in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Approval, Central Government Or Board, Exemptions, Foreigner, Remuneration, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... overnment and the Board to consider applications for condoning delay on sufficient cause being shown. Such an application is maintainable whenever the approval of the Central Government is required. Section 10(6)(vii)(a) clearly requires approval of the Central Government and it is only if there is delay on the part of the applicant in seeking approval that the question regarding the condonation of delay will arise. It is not possible for us to construe section 293B in such a way as to take away the power of the Central Government or the Board to condone delay in appropriate cases. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. A last opportunity to the respondents to comply with our order dated July 9, 1991. The application of the petitioner should be considered on merits within a period of eight weeks from today. Till the disposal of the application, no money should be recovered from the petitioner by coercive process. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
1992 (1) TMI 77 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd., clearing agent at Bombay. As pointed out above, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee s claim for weighted deduction in respect of the said expenditure to the extent of 75 per cent. This expenditure which the assessee had incurred is in connection with the export or supply of goods outside India but it is incurred in India. This expenditure does not qualify for weighted deduction under sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b). The said sub-clause provides that expenditure incurred in India in connection with the supply of goods outside India does not qualify for weighted deduction. Therefore, in our opinion, no part of this expenditure could have been considered for weighted deduction. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in allowing the assessee s claim for weighted deduction to the extent of 75 per cent. of the said expenditure. Question No. 1 also shall have to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 76 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... espect of the said expenditure. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in confirming the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We may incidentally mention that the Tribunal has not stated the details of the interest paid to the bank. All that is stated is that interest was paid on what is described as packing credit . What is meant by packing credit is also not explained by the Tribunal. We have, however, assumed that, as in similar other cases, the assessee must have taken loans and advances from the bank for purchasing raw materials to manufacture goods which were to be exported and it has paid interest on such loans or advances. Entries in regard to loans and advances taken by the assessee from the bank were made in the account known as packing credit account . In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question which has been referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Offences And Prosecution, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... nths after the original return was filed, and twelve months after the expiry of the period of amnesty. That apart, there is no disclosure involved. It was only the income assessed under exhibit R-2 that was returned as the revised income. What is in existence and is known is not disclosed or revealed by rewriting it or repeating it, in any sense of the term. The attempt of the petitioners is no more than an adventure, to sail into the harbour of amnesty, away from the troubled waters in which they found themselves. They disclosed nothing and nothing new or different was revealed. Answer to question No. 19 in exhibit R-2(b) states that if the Income-tax Officer had already found material to show that there has been concealment, the question of applying the amnesty scheme does not arise. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the scheme does not apply and the contentions in this behalf have only to be rejected. Original petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 74 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... If the petitioners earn foreign exchange by rendering technical service by technical personnel abroad, it is clearly within the ambit of section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act. The application for review made by the petitioners before the Board was turned down by two orders both dated January 14/21, 1986. Therefore, I am of the view the Board was not right in rejecting the petitioners application on this ground. The order of the Board dated May 17, 1983, is set aside. There will be an order in terms of prayer (A) of the writ petition. The Board is directed to pass a suitable order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order in the light of this judgment. The assessment order will abide by the decision of the Board. If the Board grants approval to the two agreements, the assessment order will be amended by the Income-tax Officer accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of finally as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 73 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... or more assessment years is made in respect of an assessee, no order granting such relief for any other assessment year can be made in favour of the same assessee. In view of the said decision, it must be held that the respondent Commissioner was not right in taking the view to the effect that the power to give relief under section 273A could be exercised only in respect of one year. This petition must, therefore, succeed. In the result, we allow this petition and direct the respondent Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioner for waiver of interest and/or penalty in respect of the remaining assessment years, namely, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1985-86, referred to above, afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations and the decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 3583 of 1989 and companion matters. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
