|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 105 Records
-
1977 (7) TMI 25 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Central Government, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... er hand, section 221 which includes one deemed to be in default being subject to a penalty, without limitation, for making default in payment of tax, seems to imply that penalty is leviable on the assessee in this case. The decision in T. R. Rajakumari v. Income-tax Officer 1972 83 ITR 189 (Mad), relied upon by the Tribunal, only involved the case of a penalty vis a vis non-payment of advance tax when the power to collect advance tax was not available . This is hardly of any assistance to the present assessee. We, therefore, differ from the view taken by the Tribunal and hold that penalty could be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of this case and that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the years in question. The reference is accordingly answered in the above-said manner, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we direct both parties will bear their own costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d upon the finding as to whether the Gift-tax Officer was satisfied that the deed of release, surrender, etc., has not been found to have been bona fide. In fact, this is a question of fact on which the Tribunal has given a clear and unequivocal finding that it is impossible to come to the conclusion that the deed of release is not executed bona fide. Such a finding cannot be challenged in a reference before the High Court, because it is only restricted to determining questions of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal. Such contention is not open to Mr. Joshi so far as the deed of release or surrender or relinquishment is concerned. These findings, in our opinion, are sufficient to dispose of this reference and it is unnecessary for us to consider whether there are any possible aspects which could be urged by counsel on behalf of too assessee. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... er of a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided that a partition has taken place among the members of such family, the ITO shall make such inquiry thereinto as he may think fit and, if he is satisfied that the joint family property has been partitioned among the various members or groups of members in definite portions he shall record an order to that effect... On the admitted facts of this case no such finding was given by the ITO at any time nor the family applied for it. So, under sub-s. (3) of s. 25A Where such an order has not been passed in respect of a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided, such family shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to continue to be a Hindu undivided family. In this view of the matter, the other points raised on behalf of the assessee as to partition decree are not relevant. In the premises, the second question must also be answered against the assessee. We answer the question accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act, Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... s not choose to limit the substantive right of making of an application by any condition such as production of a certificate from the Tribunal, it appears to us a little doubtful how far the purpose can be effectively achieved by a rule of the type of rule 191(2). We think it unnecessary to pronounce finally on this question in this case. As the counsel for the assessee pointed out, the objection that the certificate did not accompany the application, has been taken only now after the judgment was dictated yesterday, in the absence of the counsel for the revenue, at whose instance the matter was posted for being spoken to . Besides, no penalty for non-compliance is provided either, by the rule much the less is there any such provision in the section itself. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that there is any defect which would render the application liable to be dismissed by reason of the non-production of the certificate made mention of in rule 191(2) of the rules.
-
1977 (7) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Business Income, Earned Income Relief, Income Tax Act, Interest On Securities
-
1977 (7) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Or Profession, Capital Asset, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... embodied in the patterns and designs in question shown to the Tribunal, formed the tool of the trade and so, the assessee satisfied the test of the plant. There was also no dispute that this plant was owned and utilised for the business purpose by the assessee. Therefore, even though the findings were not clear, it is not necessary for us to pursue the aforesaid time-consuming course by either calling for the fresh statement of the case or by refusing to answer the question because the matter is clearly concluded as per the Elecon Engineering decision 1974 96 ITR 672 (Guj), in view of the aforesaid facts which are no longer in dispute between the parties. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position of Elecon Engineering Co.'s case 1974 96 ITR 672 (Guj), our answer for the second question must be in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the present reference is disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... inion for the purpose of charging tax the expressions contained in the Act must be strictly construed. Admittedly, the respondent-firm is not a registered shareholder in the instant case. Two of the partners of the said firm are the registered shareholders. Thus, no loan was advanced by the companies to the shareholder whose name appeared on the share register of the companies concerned. By reason of the premises, it cannot be contended that the said loans given to the respondent-firm could be deemed to be dividends in the hands of the respondent-firm within the meaning of s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. By reason of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be a stay of operation of the order for eight weeks. All interim orders made by the court of the first instance in favour of the petitioner shall continue for eight weeks. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... position beyond any doubt that in the case of a trust where life interest is created as well as reversionary interests are also provided for, both these interests are to be valued on actuarial basis and this view has been expressed after examination of the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, particularly the provisions contained in sections 3 and 21 of the Act. Mr. Joshi appearing for the revenue also fairly conceded that the actuarial value should have been adopted by the taxing authorities as well as the Tribunal for the purpose of valuing the reversionary interest in the instant case. In this view of the matter, the questions are answered thus Question No. 1 In the affirmative, in favour of the department. Question No. 2 In the negative, in favour of the assessee. The basis of valuation of the assets held by the trustee, adopted by the taxing authorities and the Tribunal, is invalid and improper. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Estate Duty Act, Tenancy Rights ... ... ... ... ..... ities with himself. It would be reasonable to assume that an additional share was granted to the son in view of the son accepting additional responsibilities of the business. In any case, in view of the finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal, which is applicable to both the occasions, it would be difficult for the revenue to urge that the transaction amounted to gift without adequate consideration. In view of the above discussion, it seems to us clear that the further question as to whether the transaction would be affected by section 10 of the Act would not arise and, in our view, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the only value that was includible in the principal value of the estate that passed on the death of Nemchand was the value of 1/4th of the goodwill and tenancy rights of the business. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 16 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Application For Registration, Firm Registration, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... morandum itself that the modifications were operative from the beginning of the firm s business , that is to say, with effect from February 1, 1964, on which date the deed of partnership (annexure C ) was executed. This memorandum obviously is not a deed of partnership but is rather a document showing a change in the constitution of the partnership firm and a change in the shares of the partners in the profit. Although the deed of partnership dated February 1, 1964, was an instrument of partnership, the firm constituted by that instrument has not been sought to be registered by the application made under rule 22 of the Rules read with section 185 of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the application for registration did not fulfil the requirements of section 184(1)(i) and (ii) of the Act and was liable to be rejected under section 185(1) of the Act. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.---I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... e understood as taking in only the points which had been raised before the Tribunal and considered by it. The contentions which had been put forward by the department before the Tribunal have been set out by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the Enclosure to the Reference Application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , which is printed at page 16 of the printed papers. It is significant that the aforesaid contention is not at all mentioned therein. In these circumstances, we do not feel called upon to go into the merits of this argument which is sought to be urged before this court for the first time. In the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no direction regarding costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-s. (1) of s. 260 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
-
1977 (7) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... fore us that the application for renewal of registration was liable to be rejected because it was not signed by a person who, though a minor during the entire accounting year, had attained majority when the application for renewal of registration for the relevant assessment year was made. This proposition, as we have already shown, runs counter to the relevant Rules prescribed therefor. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is that on the material on record the Tribunal was right in law in granting the application for renewal of the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1961-62, though Shri Rameshchandra, who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership as a minor, had attained majority at the time when the application for renewal was made and the same had not been signed by him. The reference is answered accordingly. The department shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 200 (Two hundred).
-
1977 (7) TMI 13 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, High Court, Income Tax Act, Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... d its decision on the alleged concession made by the assessee s authorized representative. No penalty can be imposed merely on the concession of an assessee or his representative unless the facts justify or warrant the levy of penalty. Again, there is a catena of authorities for the proposition that the question of concealment of income must be fully investigated and the finding recorded on positive evidence before penalising the assessee. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the revenue had not established the question of concealment of income derived by the assessee from M/s. New Bharat Transporters and as the fact of concealment was not established, imposition of the penalty was not justified. Answer given to question No. 1. in favour of the assessee against the revenue has clinched the whole matter. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to give answers to questions Nos. 2. and 3. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... ed from the date of the commencement of the firm or the year and not from the date of execution of the deed. We must, however, hasten to add that in such a case, however, the deed itself must record the anterior date on which the partnership was formed. Reading the document (annexure I ) as a whole and in view of our finding recorded above that the recitals do show that the firm was actually constituted and came into being with effect from 1st January, 1968, and the application for registration along with annexure 1 having been filed before the end of the accounting year, that is the end of the matter, once it has been held that the firm was genuine and not bogus. For the reasons given above, this application must be allowed, the impugned orders as incorporated in annexures 2 and 5 of the application are quashed and it is directed that the respondents do register the petitioner s firm in accordance with the provisions of s. 185 of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (7) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Cinema Theatre, Claim For Depreciation, Depreciation On Building, Question Of Law, Supreme Court
-
1977 (7) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... to its logical conclusion which is permissible. It is true that cl. (b) which has been introduced in sub-s. (3) of s. 4 of the W.T. Act by the Finance Act, 1975, has created another legal fiction for the purpose of s. 5, but instances are not wanting where deeming provisions which create legal fiction are also introduced by way of abundant caution and, therefore, simply because these amendments have been effected in the W.T. Act by the Finance Act, 1975, it would not necessarily lead to an inference that the position prior to the amendment would be otherwise as suggested by Mr. Joshi. Having regard to the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the 400 shares of Colour Chem Ltd. transferred to the assessee s wife were exempt under s. 5(1)(xx) read with s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The question is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee. Revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1977 (7) TMI 9 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ofits should be calculated on the net receipt basis, it was open to him to disclose the gross receipt, indicate the recoveries and specifically state that the amount disclosed was net and not gross receipt. In the absence of such specification and on the basis of the previous practice, the disclosure in the return was misleading. The IAC and the Appellate Tribunal have examined the circumstances of the case and have come to the conclusion of fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income. We do not think we can come to hold on the materials available before us that the finding is not legally available to be reached. Our answer, therefore, is in the affirmative, that is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee had concealed the particulars or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and, therefore, was liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Parties to bear their respective costs of this reference. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1977 (7) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... he Bill) amends s. 4(1) (of the W.T. Act, 1957) and also clarifies that s. 4(1)(a)(ii) applies to indirect transfer. It is quite evident from the objects and reasons that this is a clarificatory provision and not a declaratory one. Declaratory provisions may have retrospective effect but so far as a clarificatory provision is concerned, it is always prospective in its operation. Thus, both having regard to the difference in the language of the two sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of s. 4(1)(a) of the Act as well as the comparison of the language of s. 16 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and introduction of an amendment by the W.T. (Amend.) Act, 1964, It is quite evident that prior to the amendment if a transfer was effected indirectly in favour of a minor child then it was not capable of being included in computing the net wealth of an assessee. In the result, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessees.
-
1977 (7) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ther by the respondent, and the Tribunal shall, so far as that question is concerned, pass its orders under sub-section (5) conformably to the decision of the valuers. We are informed by Mr. Kolah that there are similar provisions contained in the G.T. Act at the relevant time and the valuation was made, by arbitration of two valuers, one appointed by the Tribunal and the other appointed by the assessee. If such valuation was at the last stage produced by the assessee s counsel, the Tribunal was fully justified in taking the view that the valuation was a proper valuation by referring the matter to two valuers in the manner required by s. 24(6). Thus, in our opinion, in view of the unanimous valuation report of the two valuers which was produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was fully justified in valuing the shares in conformity with the valuation made by the valuers. Thus, our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Tribunal.
-
1977 (7) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us to refuse to answer this question so that it would be open to the Tribunal to consider the matter once again after this error is corrected. This request is made ignoring the true controversy between the parties which is clearly set out by the Tribunal at the outset that there was no dispute before the Tribunal that the salary paid to the karta of the HUF was excessive or not a bona fide one and the only controversy was as to whether such remuneration was paid for services rendered to the HUF. Once that controversy is disposed of by holding that the conclusion as per the settled legal position was wholly erroneous, we must answer the reference in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue because this remuneration ought to have been allowed to the assessee in the assessment years in question. In that view of the matter, both the references are accordingly disposed of and the revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee in each reference.
|
