|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 270 of 270 Records
-
1990 (2) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... r loan advanced by the minor and the partnership was free to accept a deposit or a loan from any person even if not connected with it. In the case of S. Srinivasan v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 273, the Supreme ,Court referred to this judgment of the Allahabad High Court and observed as follows (at p. 278) The principle enunciated by the Allahabad High Court does not envisage all circumstances in which interest may be earned by a minor on his money with the firm. The cases when interest is earned on a deposit or a loan differ from a case of the type before us where interest was earned on amounts of which the minors permitted the use by the firm, because they were their accumulated profits arising from the firm itself and because of their interest in the firm as persons admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (2) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... accrual, gave up the claim of interest. On behalf of the Revenue reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Gappumal Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 78 (All). On the facts of that case, the Allahabad High Court held that the interest had in fact accrued at the end of the accounting year. This decision was given on the basis of the finding of fact made by the Tribunal that a letter dated February 2, 1988, was written as an afterthought, only after the interest had, in fact, accrued, on January 31, 1968. In fact, on that date, the debtor company had credited the accounts of the assessee with the amount of interest. There is no finding in the instant case that interest was given up as an afterthought. In fact, the interest was given up in the course of the relevant accounting year itself. In that view of the matter, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (2) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the basis of the gross profit rate being more than 20 . Similarly, in view of the aforesaid decision, the question with regard to onus of proof also stands concluded because this court has held that the onus is on the Department. In other words, the questions which are sought to be raised by the Revenue in the instant case stand fully covered by the decision of this court in Moti Chand Daga s case 1988 174 ITR 379. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, that the total tax effect will be around a sum of Rs.1,000 only, that the questions have already been considered and decided in Moti Chand Daga s case 1988 174 ITR 379 (Raj) and further that these questions have already been referred to the Tribunal for making a reference, no useful purpose will be served in multiplying the references on the same questions of law. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in this application. The application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act is dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, False Statement In Verification, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... on the basis of which the reassessment order has been passed. These documents would not only help the prosecution but also the defence and would be necessary for the just decision of the case since a reassessment order, without the material on which it had been passed, would only handicap the defence. It is not the case of filling up any lacuna in the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is of no substance. Even the learned Magistrate had made it clear in his order that the prosecution had not yet closed its side and even after the reception of the additional evidence, an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to further cross-examine such of those witnesses as he desires and that the additional documents are necessary for the just decision of the cases. The orders of the trial court not being in any way illegal or perverse or contrary to law have to be upheld. In the result, both these revisions are dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B ... ... ... ... ..... same by the Department was upheld by the High Court. Referring to the earlier decision in Dashmesh Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1974 93 ITR 275, their Lordships explained that the High Court had not expressed any opinion on the question as to the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee-company and had allowed the deduction following the provisions in section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The second decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dashmesh Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 125 ITR 681, was also relied upon by learned counsel for the Department. We are in respectful agreement with the reasons given by their Lordships. We agree with the finding and reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the assessee. It was rightly held that the liabilities arose to the assessee-company under the amalgamation scheme and not in the course of its business. In the result, the second question also is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1990 (2) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Jurisdiction, Settlement Commission, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... in sustaining the finding of the lower authority and holding that, on the dates of the relevant balance-sheets, the assessee had undisclosed income not brought into account and the same was a mass of unappropriated profits to which the directors had no occasion to apply their mind and as such the said amount could not be regarded as reserve for the purpose of the Surtax Act. In our view, the Tribunal was also justified in sustaining the finding of the lower authorities and in rejecting the modified balance-sheets. In our view, the order of the Tribunal in this regard was not perverse, inasmuch as the same was decided correctly on the basis of proper materials and on correct principles of law. Accordingly, the first, third and fourth questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The second question as well as the fifth question are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1990 (2) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... reof, there would be no surplus at all which could be brought to tax as capital gains under section 45 of the Act. It cannot be said that the Tribunal s decision is without any basis and, as such, is perverse. The Tribunal had the entire evidence available on record and came to a decision on those facts in accordance with law. The Tribunal has pointed out that, after 20 years, it would not be fair to remand the case to the Department and ask the departmental authorities to look into the entire matter once again. On the basis of the available facts, the Tribunal has decided the case correctly and, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not done anything wrong in the way it has exercised its discretion in the matter. In that view of the matter, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (2) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... re than Rs. 62 lakhs. The company had also advanced large amounts by way of loan. It could also not be explained why this full amount of Rs. 500 per share was not realised in spite of the alleged financial difficulties of the company. There is nothing to indicate that these accounts of the directors and their associates were current business accounts of the company with its business associates. In such a case there would have been the cross-entries of debit and credit between the company and the account-holder. The only debit entries in the accounts were in respect of statutory payments made to the Government or to the Life Insurance Corporation. There are no mutual transactions between the assessee-company and the depositors. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal have not been challenged as perverse. In view of the above, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.--- I agree.
-
1990 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Interest paid to partner was disallowed while computing disallowance u/s 40(b) - application against that decision was also rejected on the ground that it concurred with the HC decision - SC overruling that HC decision - held that special leave petition against refusal to call the reference can be converted to one against decision of the Tribunal on merits
-
1990 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Firm - interest paid by partner on funds withdrawn from the firm - held that such interest should be excluded from interest paid to partner before disallowance u/s40(b)
....
|
