Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 150 of 150 Records
-
1992 (6) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cial year in which it is payable will have to be taken into account for arriving at the aggregate and it is sufficient if the instalment of advance tax is paid during the financial year even though not on the specified date. It is not in dispute that, in the present case, the assessee paid the further sum of Rs. 6,71,000 as advance tax during the previous year in question, i.e., by March 31, 1972. There is no provision in the Act to treat the said payment of tax as in the nature of deposit and refuse interest thereon under section 214 Of the Act. The Income-tax Officer seems to have anticipated a possible contention that may be advanced on behalf of the assessee that, once the payment is accepted as payment of advance tax instalment, it would not be open to the Department to treat it as anything else for the purpose of section 214 of the Act. In the circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1992 (6) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... awn by the managing director were in the nature of appropriation of profits and were not items of expenditure at all. We have already held that this view is erroneous and that the payments do not partake of the character of any appropriation of profits. It was remuneration pure and simple paid for services rendered by the managing director to the company. The very fact that the assessing authority allowed the deduction in part is proof positive that the managing director was being paid for the services rendered by him to the company for deriving the agricultural income. Therefore, and in the view that we have taken regarding the nature of the payments, it has to be held that the remuneration paid to the managing director was a deductible item of expenditure under section 5(j) of the Act. In the circumstances the question referred to us has to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We do so. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... e filing of the objection to the notice under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act could be sustained. It was held that, in the circumstances, the exercise of the powers by the statutory authority is unreasonable and irrational. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority, by passing the order, annexure-D, has entrenched upon the jurisdiction and power of the assessing authority and, on that account also, the order cannot be supported. We have already found that the compensation being a capital receipt is not amenable for taxation under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. On that point itself, the revision has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside. In that view, it is not necessary to consider the two other points referred to earlier. In the result, the tax revision case is allowed and the order of the respondent dated July 12, 1991 (annexure D ), is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... ncurred on trustees remuneration. In our view, the question whether, if the claim of the assessee that the expenses incurred for maintaining horses, carriages and motor cars and allowances paid to the trustees and others to the extent disallowed by the authorities below were also part and parcel of the amount applied for religious and charitable purposes and were in any event bona fide and legitimate expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning the income is a question of fact which requires consideration. It does not appear from the record that the Income-tax Officer has gone into the question whether the said expenses were incurred for religious and charitable purposes. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the same and to refer the same to the concerned Assessing Officer for proper determination taking fresh evidence in detail, if necessary. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1992 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... nsideration before us. It may also be noticed for the sake of completeness that, in the unreported decision relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Division Bench of this court held that tax paid under section 111 of the Madras City Municipal (Corporation) Act, being rates on profession, art or calling or business or appointment within the city of Madras, there is absolutely no relevance to the tax paid at Madras to the Corporation for the land and this claim for deduction need not be sustained under section 5(e) of the Act. For all the reasons stated above, in our view, the action of the authorities below and the conclusion of the Tribunal, disallowing the items of expenditure claimed for deduction in respect of items challenged before us, could not be said to suffer from any error of law warranting our interference. The above revision, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Reference, Work In Progress ... ... ... ... ..... r and required a statement of the case to be drawn up for the question raised and referred to us for determination Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in taking work-in-progress as part of capital in computing relief under section 80J ? As the Tribunal rejected the reference application, the Department has come before us under section, 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is directly answered in favour of the assessee by decision of this court in CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. 1979 119 ITR 164. It is true that a special leave petition is pending in the Supreme Court. But, until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary, we are bound to answer the question in the light of the above decision. Hence, as the answer to the question is self-explanatory, no purpose would be served by directing the Tribunal to raise the above question and refer it to us for determination. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Authorities, Jurisdiction, Search And Seizure, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... goods of Naranarayan Saraf in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned trial judge and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Mr. Bajoria, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, Naranarayan Saraf has submitted that since Bijay Kumar Saraf is the brother of Naranarayan Saraf and moved this writ application on which the court exercised equitable jurisdiction, the writ petitioner is prepared to produce no objection certificate from Bijay Kumar Saraf before the income-tax authorities before the goods are released and accordingly, we direct the appellant concerned to release the goods in terms of the order passed by the learned trial judge forthwith on production of a no objection certificate as offered by Mr. Bajoria to protect the interest of the income-tax authorities, if any. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ABANI MOHAN SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1992 (6) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Trusts Act ... ... ... ... ..... eed of trust itself, in the above case, ultimately, on the death of Bai Kasturbai, the income was to be applied for charitable purposes. This, however, can make no difference to the ratio in this case because during the life time of Kasturbai the income was to be received by her and could not have been applied for charitable purposes. It was by virtue of the relinquishment of this right by Kasturbai that the Supreme Court held that her right to receive the income became extinguished and the income could not be taxed in her hand. A similar principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT 1991 190 ITR 1. The Supreme Court there has made a distinction between the application of income after accrual and diversion of income by overriding title. In the premises, in our view, no referable question of law arises which requires to be framed and referred to us for determination. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs.
-
1992 (6) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Cash System, Medical Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... object of manufacture, in contemplation of which the expenditure was incurred, did not materialise. May be, the expenditure is abortive but its character as a revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of the expansion of the existing business is not disputable and has not been disputed either. In the premises, the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. So far as the third question is concerned, it appears that the export subsidy is being accounted for and offered for taxation by the assessee-company year after year on cash basis. Admittedly, all along the assessee-company has been taxed on cash basis in respect of export subsidy and duty drawback. In that view of the matter and since the assessee has been consistently following the cash method of accounting for export subsidy and duty drawback, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHY KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1992 (6) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Concessional Rate, Construction Beneficial To Assessee, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... id case were in the context of the facts of the said case. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that interest-free loans or loans obtained at a low rate of interest were never intended to be treated as a perquisite and this is very clear from the legislative history of section 17(2). If actually it was a benefit, it was entirely unnecessary for Parliament to insert clause (vi) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and again to delete it through the Finance Act, 1985. This legislative exercise read with the relevant statement of objects and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot be ignored altogether while construing the scope of section 17(2)(iii). For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that it was never intended to treat the interest-free loan advanced for house building purposes to the employees as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii). Consequently, we answer the question referred, in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
....
|