|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assets, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... whose case no order under section 273A has been passed is entitled to the same treatment which is given to the firm and the other two partners. He also appears to have filed returns voluntarily and in good faith for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80. In his case also, penalty and interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act deserves to be waived. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The Commissioner is directed to waive penalty and interest for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 in the case of the firm and the partners. He is further directed to waive interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act for the assessment year 1978-79 in the case of the partners, Chandulal Cheldas Patel and Mahendrakumar Chandulal Patel. He is further directed to waive penalty and interest in the case of the partner, Cheldas Khushaldas Patel, for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80. Rule made absolute in each of these petitions with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 71 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... r service to clients in the restaurant is a necessary adjunct of the hotel business, it is the ultimate nature of the business of hotel-keeping that is determinative of the issue. As we hold that hotel-keeping is a trading activity, incidental processing of food will not entitle a hotel as a trading undertaking to the relief under section 32A. In our view, therefore, the preparation of food in the hotel though involving only incidentally manufacture or production of articles or things cannot turn the business of running a hotel as such into a business of manufacturing or processing articles or things. If it were the intention of the Legislature to include a hotel as well within section. 32A, it would have separately carved out a place for it as it did in section 80J (now repealed) or section 80-I or section 80HH. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... 31, 1984, deserve a sympathetic view and justify the plea that there was sufficient cause for the default. In such circumstances, as the final fact-finding authority, the Appellate Tribunal held that the circumstances disclosed and adverted to by it, in paragraph 10 of the order, did not justify the cancellation of registration On the facts adverted to and found by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by it is in any way perverse or irrational or is not based on material. In the light of the facts found by the Tribunal, we have to hold that the Tribunal was justified in annulling the cancellation of registration. We, therefore, hold that the question referred to this court should be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (1) TMI 69 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... re reading of the provisions quoted above clearly shows that the income of the minor child of an individual which is derived from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership firm will be deemed to be the income of such an individual. It forms part of the total income of the individual concerned for the purposes of the Act, as is apparent from section 2(45) read with section 5 thereof. In view of the legal fiction created by the Legislature, it is wholly immaterial whether such an individual has any income of his own or not. Similar views have been taken in the cases of CIT v. Shri Manakram 1990 183 ITR 382 (MP) and CIT v. Sanyasi Mohapatra 1991 188 ITR 602 (Orissa). In view of the above discussions, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal, Patna Bench. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J. -I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... TR 52, it is laid down by the Supreme Court that, in a reference, the High Court must accept the findings of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal and it is for the person who has applied for a reference to challenge these findings first by an application under section 66(1). If he has failed to file an application under section 66(1) expressly raising the question about the validity of the findings of fact, he is not entitled to urge before the High Court that the findings are vitiated for one reason or another. In view of the above discussion, we answer both the questions referred at the instance of the assessee in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The question referred at the instance of the Department is also answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1992 (1) TMI 67 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, High Court, Partners, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessee-firm to ask for refund or return of the amount or any portion of it. This plea has no substance. As could be seen from paragraph 13 of the judgment, the assessee as well as the Revenue agreed at the time of arguments that the liabilities of the firm as on the date of death of Channaiah will have to be paid and the balance alone could be divided and appropriated by the Department. In our opinion, the learned single judge was justified in holding that the Revenue is entitled to appropriate out of the amounts in deposit only the net amount due to Channaiah after deducting the expenses and liabilities discussed in the judgment. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned single judge was justified in quashing exhibits P-25 and P-29 and in directing the Revenue to settle the accounts in the light of the observations and directions contained in the judgment. The judgment appealed against does not merit interference in the writ appeal. We dismiss the writ appeal.
-
1992 (1) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... , 1961. It is also to be mentioned that the concept of post-decisional hearing is a principle accepted by English Courts as also the Supreme Court. That being the position, I direct that, till the realisation as recorded above of the interest shall not be effected, but other payments shall be realised (sic). Xerox copy of the judgment delivered by Susanta Chatterji J., which is produced by Miss Manisha Seal be kept with the record. The interim orders stand vacated in respect of other portion of the order excepting interest part. The petitioner shall take up the matter with the income-tax authorities within two weeks for the date for such post-decisional hearing and hearing shall be accorded within four weeks thereafter and the matter thereafter shall be decided. Miss Seal is hereby directed to give the present postal address of the petitioner within two weeks, in default this order cannot be given effect to. This matter is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... nditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by him or the value of benefit accruing to him, shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not . In view of this provision the income-tax authorities rightly added the amount which had earlier been deducted towards sales tax liability. In view of the above, we answer the questions in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1992 (1) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Benami, Burden Of Proof, Notice For Reassessment, Question Of Law, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... d the authority in arriving at the said conclusion. We are unable to see how the ratio of those decisions will have any application in the instant case. The Tribunal s conclusion is not based on any irrelevant material or on surmises or conjecture. In the case of Shyama Charan Saxena v. CIT 1984 145 ITR 689 (All), the question was whether the house standing in the name of minor grandson of the assessee was benami or not. The explanation given that the money for purchase was given by the wife of the assessee who had agricultural property was rejected for no reason. The facts relied upon by the Income-tax Department did not disprove the explanation offered about the nature of the transaction. It was held that the burden to prove the benami nature of the transaction was not discharged. The ratio of this decision also would not apply to this case. The factual background is not similar. For all these reasons, we reject this application and discharge the rule. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Interest, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... of the trial court. Above referred judgment of the Supreme Court is of no help to the accused and has been wrongly relied upon in his favour by the trial court. Very fairly, counsel for the accused has also conceded that the interpretation of the trial court is incorrect and untenable in law. In view of the discussion made above, there is no option left with this court but to accept this appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment. As the trial court has not decided the case on the merits and has discharged the accused while deciding the non-maintainability of the complaint as per the allegations contained therein in view of section 194A, the trial court is directed to decide all the three cases afresh on the merits in accordance with law. As the matter is old, the disposal by the trial court is expected to be expedited. The parties, through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on February 19, 1992. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
1992 (1) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ouse property income under section 22 and it held that until ownership of property was transferred by execution and registration of a sale deed, the owner was, for the purposes of section 22, liable to income that accrued from the property. There can be no doubt as to the correctness of that decision in view of the fact that the phraseology used in section 22 is ...... property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner . . . . . We are here concerned with business income under section 28 and there is no provision similar to that which we have quoted therein. In the circumstances of the case, the right to collect the lease rent having been made over to the vendee and the lease rent having been, in fact, collected by the vendee, the amount of the lease rent cannot be said to be the assessee s business income for the purposes of section 28. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1992 (1) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest On Refund, Refund, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... er passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) upholding the petitioner s claim for payment of interest under the aforesaid provisions. It is unfortunate that even after the expiry of two months from the order of the Tribunal dated October 25, 1991, the petitioner continues to be deprived of his legitimate and indisputable claim for interest recognised by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, himself as far back as January 28, 1991. In the premises, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Circle-25), New Delhi, is directed to give effect forthwith to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-IX), New Delhi, dated January 28, 1991. This shall be done by the respondents latest within one month of the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before the respondent. A copy of this judgment and order may be given to learned counsel on payment of the requisite charges within three days.
-
1992 (1) TMI 60 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... rly adopted by the assessee is question of fact. (Chhabildas Tribhuvandas Shah v. CIT 1966 59 ITR 733 (SC)). Therefore, in our opinion, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. We further find that the Tribunal s conclusion for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 has not been traversed. Though the principles of res Judicata are not strictly applicable to assessment proceedings, it cannot be said that the assessee shall be subjected to assessment on two different methods though the contract is one and parts of the contractual receipts were received in different years. In that background also, we find that the Tribunal was justified in following its view expressed for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. Our conclusion being that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, we decline to answer the question that has been referred to us. The assessee having not appeared in spite of notice, we award no costs. S. K. MOHANTY J. -I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... posed has been set aside in appeal, though subsequent to the filing of the prosecution. On these contentions, I have heard Mr. Ramasamy K., learned counsel representing the respondent. It is not disputed by either counsel that both these contentions relate to appreciation of evidence by the trial magistrate and more so when certain documentary evidence will have to be brought on record to scrutinise the validity of these submissions. It is fairly clear that both these contentions relate to mixed questions of fact and law and it will, therefore, be more appropriate to urge these contentions during trial for, in the exercise of inherent powers, it may not be possible to arrive at a conclusion while sufficient evidence is yet to be brought on record. No ground has been made to quash the pending prosecution at this stage. The petitioner will be entitled to urge the contentions raised herein before the trial magistrate at the appropriate time. This petition shall stand dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 58 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... er to the question. Our attention was also drawn by Mr. Raghavendra Rao to a short note stating that the Supreme Court had dismissed a special leave petition against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where the High Court had held, on a reference, that extra shift allowance should be restricted only to the particular items of machinery worked and to the number of days worked. We have no means of knowing what the assessment order was in regard to which the reference had been made to the Allahabad High Court, whether the said circular dated March 20, 1973, had been brought to the attention of the court and what the questions were that were posed to the court. Having regard to the manner in which the question has been framed for resolution by us, we are, as we have said, in no doubt about the answer. We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 57 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ,000 (Rs. 12,000) would be available but the actual relief cannot exceed the total income of Rs. 10,000. Accordingly, the deduction will be subject to the limit of the total income. This question, however, does not arise on the facts of this case inasmuch as the total income comes to Rs. 5,88,416 after setting off of loss, unabsorbed depreciation, etc. The assessee is entitled to get relief of Rs. 4,93,198 being 60 per cent. of Rs. 8,21,976 which is the dividend income included in the gross total income of the assessee. Therefore, the relief under section 80M does not exceed the total income which was computed at Rs. 5,88,416. In our view, therefore, relief was correctly allowed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ative remedy available to it by way of revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. Indeed, having regard to the nature of the issues involved in the case and the factual controversy arising for consideration, we think that the remedy by way of revision would be more appropriate. The Commissioner can consider all the points sought to be raised here. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that as the petitioner is also challenging the validity of the notice under section 226(3), against which no revision lies, this court should entertain the petition. We are unable to agree. The main order under challenge is that passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the objections against the notice issued under section 226(3). If the revision succeeds, it is apparent that the notice cannot survive. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel on payment of requisite charges by tomorrow.
-
1992 (1) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... sis of which the notice was issued under section 148(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is obliged to disclose the reasons once the proceedings assume quasi-judicial character. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has already submitted its return in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. That being so, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax is clearly obliged to disclose and communicate to the petitioner the reasons recorded by him under section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent will, therefore, disclose the reasons recorded to the petitioner within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The assessment may, thereafter, be completed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter. With these directions, the petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.
-
1992 (1) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... , this contention cannot be countenanced, Mr. V. Ramachandran would further submit that the date of birth of the petitioner is December 19, 1919, and hence he is aged about 72 years now and that the Government of India has issued a circular, as per the existing guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, pursuant to which no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against an assessee if he is aged 70 years and above Mr. K. Ramasami rightly repelled this contention by pointing out that these criminal proceedings were launched in 1988 and on that date, the petitioner was not 70 years old. Hence, this contention is not open to the petitioner. Hence, I do not propose to further consider whether such circular is binding on the court or not. None of the grounds urged by Mr. V. Ramachandran find acceptance with me. I do not find any legal infirmity in the complaint so as to render it liable to be quashed. Hence, these petitions which do not have any merit shall stand dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is a question of fact. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the entire expenditure of Rs. 31,519 was incurred for business. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed in this reference. It may further be pointed out that, so far as the house property is concerned, the assessee had Separately shown the expenditure incurred by it. We, therefore, fail to see how the expenditure of Rs. 31,519 could have been treated as expenditure incurred both for business and for house property. There was no reason to disbelieve the assessee s statement that the said expenditure of Rs. 31,519 was incurred for business. That being the position, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the entire expenditure of Rs. 31,519 in the computation of its business income. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and 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.
....
|
