|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Profit In Lieu ... ... ... ... ..... y you as a special case four months extra salary as ex gratia payment in addition to your normal dues. The above excerpt of the letter shows that from the point of the employee the amount was received by him in token of his long service, ex gratia four months extra salary in addition to normal dues. This suggests that the amount was paid to the assessee not as a personal gift or testimony but for his past services qua the employee and supports the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In view of the above finding, it is difficult to conclude that the amount was paid as a personal gift in appreciation of the personal qualities of the assessee. Therefore, the amount would be taxable and has been rightly held to be so by the Tribunal. For the above reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly answered. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Business, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the factum of receipt of Rs. 15 lakhs towards sale price of the film Dhavani Kanavugal has not been conclusively proved by the Department, to resort to the addition of Rs. 7.5 lakhs ? In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, it relates to the consideration received for the sale of feature film and in so far as question No. 2 is concerned, it relates to a letter written by one Panchu Arunachalam of Gayathri Combines to one Shanmugham. In so far as question No. 3 is concerned, it relates to the factum of receipt of Rs. 15 lakhs towards sale price. All these questions are based upon the findings given on an appraisal of facts arising in this case. Therefore, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested by the Department. Accordingly, the tax case petition is dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Previous Year, Retrospective Effect, Sales Tax Act, Taxing Statutes
-
1995 (3) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Assessment Proceedings, Criminal Proceedings, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax
-
1995 (3) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... interest of the firm. To that extent, the share of a partner in the total share capital is inevitably reduced. The advantage which a firm as a whole derives by the introduction of share capital will be shared by the partner whose share is reduced. The consideration for reduction in the share capital, it appears to us, is sufficient consideration for the transfer which, therefore, cannot be regarded as a gift. We are inclined to agree with respect with the view taken by the High Courts referred to above. This court in Premchand Jain s case 1983 144 ITR 41 and the Supreme Court in Chhotalal Mohanlal s case 1987 166 ITR 124 do not deal with a situation whereby share capital was introduced or there was capital introduced. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court will be remitted to the Appellate Tribunal.
-
1995 (3) TMI 50 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... this regard on any ground whatsoever Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing that (i) The petitioner shall treat the orders passed under section 201 of the Income-tax Act as show-cause notices against the assessee and file its reply within a period of three weeks from today, namely, on or before the 28th day of March, 1995. The petitioner shall be entitled to no extension of time in this regard on any ground whatsoever (ii) All demands or recovery proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid orders under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, shall stand cancelled (iii) However, after fresh orders under section 201 of the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Department will be at liberty to take out appropriate steps in accordance with law for realisation of the amount, if any, directed to be paid by it under fresh orders under section 201 of the Income-tax Act. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Firm, Business Expenditure, Interest Paid By Firm To Partner, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ncome-tax, we reaffirm that individuals who do business in their individual capacity and make income as partners in a firm by such receipts as are indicated in section 40(b) of the Act, i.e., interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, have recourse to means so that they may escape tax. It will be necessary in every case to scrutinise the facts to hold whether the income goes to the Hindu undivided family or it goes to the individual, who is the partner in a firm. In such cases, however, as the one in hand, it is enough if it is found that the investment and capital belonged to the individual, who was a partner at the relevant time and who had converted such individual property into the property belonging to the family or thrown it into the common stock of the family. Income from such property would be deemed to arise to him and not to the family. The Tribunal has made no mistake and has reached the correct conclusion. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gratuity Liability, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... to the approved gratuity fund as contemplated under section 40A(7) of the Act. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee-company has not complied with the condition given under section 40A, sub-section (7) of the Act and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in rejecting the contention of the assessee-company that it has complied with the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 40A of the Act with regard to the claim of deduction of the assessee for a sum of Rs. 4,30,245. The Tribunal has also rightly rejected the claim of the assessee for the other sum of Rs. 2,56,098 on the ground that after introduction of section 40A(7) of the Act, the question of allowability of a liability to pay gratuity cannot be considered under section 37 of the Act. In view of the above, we answer the questions Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Rule Against Retrospectivity, Taxing Statutes, Weighted Deduction, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1995 (3) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Receipt, Commencement Of Business, Income From Other Sources, Short-term Deposits ... ... ... ... ..... for the purpose of earning income from other sources . In view of the above proposition of law, the income earned by the assessee falls under the category income from other sources and there is no evidence to show that it could be adjusted or could be set off against the interest paid on the money borrowed for the construction of the capital asset. It is the admitted position that the assessee was not carrying on money-lending business. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the interest received of Rs. 2,58,089 on short-term deposits with the bank was not taxable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act. We are further of the view that the interest so received on short-term deposits could not be reduced from the interest payments while capitalising the various expenditure on capital account. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... . The petitioner has got a stage to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. I see no ground to quash the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner is absent though it is 12.10 p.m. Petitions, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 1994 are also dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Computation Of Capital, High Court, Income Tax, New Industrial Undertaking, Supreme Court
-
1995 (3) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stant case, the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal are that, the excess sales tax collection is made in the years 1968 and 1969, the assessees liability to refund continues even though the amount of refund of sales tax has not been passed on to the customers, and, therefore, the same could not be taxed. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that section 41(1) of the Act is not attracted upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the State Government has also not filed any appeal against the order of refund of sales tax in favour of the assessee-company and the same has become final. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 2,39,470 could not be brought to tax in the assessment year 1972-73. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the affirmative against the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... learned counsel is unable to point out any averments in the complaint that he is responsible. In this fact situation, since the complaint against the other co-accused has been already quashed, I see no justification to take a different view. The proceedings against the petitioner in each case are quashed. If law permits, they can proceed against the company or whomsoever are responsible for the affairs of the company. Accordingly, these petitions are all allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 41 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Partner In Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ovided hereunder. The net wealth of the firm or association on the valuation date shall be first determined. That portion of the net wealth of the firm as is equal to the amount of its capital shall be allotted among the partners or members in the proportion in which capital has been contributed by them. The determination of the market value of an asset of firm cannot be at a figure lesser than shown in the balance-sheet. The exercise of the power by the Commissioner under section 25(2) is in accordance with law and the order passed by the assessing authority was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as well. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has power and jurisdiction to revise the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. The reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... CIT 1975 98 ITR 167 that all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition will form part of the cost of the asset and, therefore, the guarantee commission is a capital expenditure and not deductible ? In view of the fact that as against the decision of this court rendered in the Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 211, special leave has been granted by the Supreme Court, we direct the Tribunal to refer the abovesaid question of law, for the opinion of this court, along with the statement of the facts of the case. Accordingly, the tax case petition is ordered.
-
1995 (3) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
In Part, Retrospective Operation, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Supreme Court that, in the case of a property inherited together by more than one person belonging to the same class of heirs/legal representatives, so long as the unity of possession exists, whether the property inherited was ancestral property of the deceased or was a separate property of the deceased including self-acquired property, any one or more than one of them can have the representative capacity until partition, by metes and bounds, they cannot be separately subjected to tax to the extent of their definite share. This will apply to Hindus governed by Mitakshara school of law or Dayabhaga school of law as well to those as belonging to other religious communities whose inheritance gives to them their separately identified interests but gives no separate, possession, i.e., they do not have unity of title but they do have unity of possession. We hold for the said reason that the Tribunal has committed no mistake. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... athna and Co. v. State 1987 LW (Crl.) 326, wherein the auditor prepared the return and sent it to the client for signature and there it was not a case of abetting or inducing to tell false statement. Therefore, that has no application to the facts of the present case. The averments made are matters of evidence. Whether there was inducement, if so what was the part played by him are all matters of fact to be decided in trial. I see no ground to quash and accordingly the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal M. P. Nos. 2677 and 2678 of 1993 are also dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... of Income-tax (Appeals) on January 29, 1992. A show-cause notice under section 276CC, dated March 16, 1992, was issued calling upon the accused to show cause why prosecution proceedings under section 276CC should not be taken. In reply, he has stated that he had filed a petition under section 273A for waiver of penalty and had also filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty and sought for the dropping of proceedings. Whether non-filing of the return as contemplated, is wilful or deliberate is a question of fact. It shall be for the defence to prove that there was such a mental state. Therefore, it is not proper to embark upon an appreciation of the fact situation, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open to urge before the appropriate court. The petition is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 4869 and 4870 of 1992 are dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 36 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Debatable Issue, Financial Year, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ne which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasonings. In view of the law propounded by the apex court, since there could have been two opinions, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that in the proceedings under section 154, the claim of interest in respect of instalments is an arguable point and cannot be allowed. In these circumstances, we do not feel that question No. 1 should be decided on the merits. The assessing authority cannot be said to have committed an error of law in not allowing refund in the proceedings under section 154. The decision in CIT v. Sunil Kumar 1995 212 ITR 238 (Raj) holding that interest is payable under section 214 even in section 154 proceedings is not applicable since it was not a dispute in that case, that the advance tax was paid late but within the financial year. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|
