|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 75 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Income Tax Act, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... agreed that A should represent them enough material having been placed before the Income-tax Officer to necessitate an enquiry, and the Income-tax Officer not having under taken such an enquiry, the Income-tax Officer could not be said to have acted in good faith (iii) that A could impeach the validity of the assessment completed without notice to the other legal representatives and (iv) that the assessment under section 34 was vitiated by the failure of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices to the other legal representatives. We do not think that this decision would help the Revenue because in the instant case, the record does not show that the Income-tax Officer made enquiries as to the existence of the other legal heirs. We find that this courts decision in jai Prakash Singh s case 1978 111 ITR 507 applies. In the result, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee, The Income-tax Officer will now start the assessment according to law. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 74 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court, S. 10, Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 31, has no relevance to the present case because that deals with the question whether a female, who inherits a share in a joint family property by reason of the death of the male member of the family, ceases to be a member of the family without her volition to separate herself from the family. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum 1981 129 ITR 440 and the other decisions referred to by the first respondent in his common order dated March 30, 1987, also are not relevant because they do not touch the question involved in the present case. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the orders of the respondents in respect of the partial partitions set up on behalf of the petitioner-Hindu undivided family are not vitiated by any error warranting interference by this court in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... er of Income-tax directing the respondent to reframe having regard to the fresh evidence sought to be let in in respect of the sale of the machinery. In such a situation, whether the basis for the prosecution survives or not is a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate, as a preliminary issue independently. With this observation, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Original Petition No. 8173 of 1992 is also dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... dered in the present order ? As the Tribunal has remitted the matter for deciding the question as to the genuineness of the transaction in question evidenced by the instrument before deciding as to whether the instrument is a hundi or a pro note, unless that question is decided, the question as to whether the amount covered by the document is an income for the purpose of assessment under section 69D of the Act does not arise and it arises only after it is held that the transaction is genuine. That being so, we are of the view that the question referred to us does not arise for consideration at this stage. We, accordingly, return the reference with a direction that such a question does not arise for consideration at present and keep open all the contentions. However, the case should be decided in the light of the Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. 1995 211 ITR 141, in the event it is held that the transactions are genuine. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities, Real Income ... ... ... ... ..... s of the Government orders passed by the Government, that would be considered by the jail authorities. Now, learned counsel, Mr. S. A. Rajan, fairly concedes that the orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu remitting the sentence is not applicable in this case, as the matter falls under the Income-tax Act, under the jurisdiction of the Central Government, Therefore, the last two lines in the judgment will not have any effect and they can be deleted. In the result, after the line, the appeal is allowed in paragraph 17, the subsequent lines are deleted. The matter having come up for being mentioned today (10-3-1995), the court made the following order In this matter, the order was passed on February 28, 1995, imposing the penalty. But by oversight the default sentence is not mentioned in the order. Therefore, the default sentence is that the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the first offence and one week for each of the other offences, respectively.
-
1995 (3) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Natural Justice, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ned order. Inasmuch as the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of making a representation and explaining the circumstance used against him, the order must be deemed to have been vitiated even granting that it was not necessary for the Commissioner to have personally heard the petitioner-assessee in support of his application. In the result, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated January 12, 1993, of the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to approach the Commissioner for the grant of a personal hearing in support of the application which request shall also be considered by the Commissioner and appropriate orders passed in regard thereto. In the circumstances of the case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Original Assessment, Set Off Of Loss
-
1995 (3) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources, Income Tax Act, Plant Or Machinery, Property By Government, Transfer Of Property
-
1995 (3) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... nt of Rs. 7 lakhs do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal has never held that the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was unexplained, which was a mere submission of counsel for the Revenue. On going through the order of the Tribunal passed in appeal, we are satisfied that the said word unexplained does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has not given any definite finding holding that the said amount was unexplained and accordingly, we reframe the question as proposed by the Revenue in the following manner in exercise of the powers vested in us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting from the assessable income for the assessment year 1984-85 an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs ? Accordingly, this application is allowed and we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the aforesaid reframed question to this court for its opinion. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 66 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... cerned with the ultimate decision but has only to see whether a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. There is no quarrel with the proposition. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that no statable question of law arises on which it may be necessary for this court to exercise its advisory jurisdiction. On the contrary, we are satisfied that this case is covered by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987 165 ITR 14, wherein it was held that if the Tribunal is satisfied on relevant and cogent material on record and draws an inference therefrom that the assessee was not guilty of wilful neglect or fraud and that the assessee cannot come within the mischief of section 271, the conclusion of the Tribunal is one of fact and no question of law would arise. Accordingly, we find no error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The petition is, consequently, dismissed in limine.
-
1995 (3) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Mistake Apparent From Record, New Industrial Undertaking, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings
-
1995 (3) TMI 64 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Cinema Theatre, Income Tax Act, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the stock-in-trade. But, in the present case, it could not be considered to be stock-in-trade and was a capital asset. The observation of the apex court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 65 referred to above are very relevant. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation paid by the assessee to Messrs. S. Zoraster and Company cannot be considered to be a business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act and was a capital expenditure. Simply because the payment in the hands of the recipient has been considered as revenue income, it is not necessary that in all cases it will have the same character in the hands of the person who has made the payment. Section 37 of the Act has specifically excluded an expenditure which is capital in nature and since the expenditure is considered to be of capital nature, therefore, we are of the view that the reference is to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (3) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Income Tax Act, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Revenue, the entire assessment order passed under section 144 dated January 24, 1976, stands wiped out. Thereafter, the fresh assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act alone would be the only assessment order which would be a regular assessment order. Therefore, interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act is exigible up to the date of assessment made on September 27, 1979. Accordingly, the view taken by the Tribunal that the first assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 144 alone is a regular assessment order and the subsequent order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act is not a regular assessment, is not correct. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Representative Assessee, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... treated in the same manner and to the same extent as the beneficiary both for the computation of income and determination of tax on the computed income. The assessment of the trustee would have to be made in the same status as that of the beneficiary (ii) Though the declaration of dividend and receipt of the said dividend were by the same company, while declaration was by the company, the receipt was in the capacity as beneficiary of the trust and there is no bar under the Companies Act for a company receiving its own dividend income. Therefore, the benefit under section 80M would be available in respect of dividends received by the assessee. In view of the abovesaid decision of this court, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the deduction under section 80M of the Act in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... fact, which, at least, in this respect, justified the reopening of the assessment. We are not inclined, however, for the said reason alone, to hold in the instant case, that the Tribunal has committed any such error of law, which would induce us to answer the question referred to us against the assessee. On account of the reopening of the instant matter, the extra tax amount payable by the assessee will be merely a sum of Rs. 3,000 only. We cannot, on the basis of the materials before us, declare that the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Housing Board had disclosed a higher rate at which the land in the vicinity of the land of the assessee had been sold at the relevant time and it was a relevant consideration in reaching a proper valuation of the immovable property falling to the share of the assessee. We are, for the said reason, answering the question referred to us in the affirmative and, accordingly, in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Statement, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... t no offence is made out under section 177, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, there cannot be any charge under section 177, Indian Penal Code. This court in Radhakrishnan v. Dinesh 1987 LW (Crl.) 189, has held that when there is prima facie case for the commission of the offence, the court has to frame charges without going into the minor details. From the discussion above, it cannot be stated that there is no prima facie evidence in this case for framing charges against these petitioners for the offences alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly correct in setting aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and I find no material to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision is dismissed. The observations above will not in any way prejudice the defence of the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
-
1995 (3) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... under an agreement dated March 13, 1968, and held The case relates to the assessment year 1969-70 and is, therefore, governed by the statute as it existed before the insertion of sub-section (7) in section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The legal position has been analysed by this court in its recent decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585 and it is clear that the answer returned by the High Court to the question referred to it is in accord with that position. In the said case, the Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the instant case, has answered the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The facts disclose that the assessee has created a trust and has made contributions to the trust for the benefit of the employees under an agreement. The Tribunal has correctly applied the law and made no mistake. The reference is accordingly answered. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact, Tax At Source, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ncy of the proceedings before the trial court is no bar for compounding. He may do so, but the manner how he contravened is a matter for evidence. Whether the partners are liable to be prosecuted is a question of fact. This court need not venture to decide that question under inherent powers. It is also submitted that the petitioner has moved the Commissioner for this compounding. If it is so, he can work out his remedy and produce such an order before the trial court at the appropriate stage. I see no ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, this petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, this petition is dismissed. (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11446 of 1990).
-
1995 (3) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... 214 of the Income-tax Act read with sections 217 and 139(8). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the charging of interest was not justified. We have considered over the matter. The point in controversy is already concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar 1992 198 ITR 556, Charles D Souza v. CIT 1984 147 ITR 694 (Kar), S. Mageshwari v. Asst. CIT 1993 201 ITR 472 (Kar), CIT v. Triple Crown Agencies 1993 204 ITR 377 (Gauhati) and CIT v. Smt. Padam Kumari Surana 1994 207 ITR 155 (Raj). Looking to the opinion already given by this court, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer under section 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the assessments for the first time, were framed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... s, chartered accountants, tax practitioners, etc., for the services rendered by them. So far as transport contracts are concerned, my conclusion is that the impugned circular is illegal and without jurisdiction in so far as it casts an obligation for deduction of tax at source under section 194C in respect of contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other services like loading and unloading and are not in any way connected with any work to be performed by the carrier. So far as advertising contracts are concerned, payments made to advertising agencies or agents for rendering professional services alone cannot be held to be within the scope of section 194C(1) and the impugned circular is illegal and without jurisdiction in so far as it requires deduction at source in respect of such payments. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated and in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
