|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 200 Records
-
1979 (7) TMI 60 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appellate Orders, Delay In Submission, Penalty Provisions, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... added s. 271(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As such the answer to the question referred is that the Tribunal was not legally correct in refusing to rectify its order dated May 30, 1974, in I.T.A. No. 709 (Gau) of 1972-73 and the order dated May 31, 1974, in I.T.A. No. 710 (Gau) of 1972-73, having regard to the provisions of s. 13 of the Direct Taxes (Amend.) Act, 1974, on the ground that it was a debatable point and so no rectification order could be passed under s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to the assessment in question. Before parting we put on record the reason for delay in pronouncing the judgment. The matter was last heard on March 16, 1979. We had no time to deliver judgment forthwith one of us (Lahiri J.) was out on and from March 16, 1979, until further orders to hold circuit court at Agartala. The judgment was prepared, kept ready and delivered today immediately on return of Lahiri J. from Agartala on Saturday (A.N.), the 30th June, 1979. N. I. SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1979 (7) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact, Service Of Notice, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... n whether the notices dated March 4, 1965, and March 27, 1965, were duly served upon the petitioner. It is apparent that the question whether these notices were duly served upon the petitioner or not, is essentially a question of fact which should be determined by the ITO himself. In CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 1971 82 ITR 888 (SC), it was observed that the question whether the assessee had been served in accordance with law or not, was essentially a question of fact, for which the assessee should not be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. Thus the assessee should have first got the question of service determined by the ITO himself instead of rushing to this court on receipt of the letter, Ex. 11. Accordingly, we are not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage in exercise of our extraordinary jusisdiction. The writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... he other legal representatives could be brought on record. But then the tax authorities would have been faced with satisfying the court that the other representatives accepted the return already filed either expressly or impliedly and the assessment was binding on each and every one of them. As we are not expressing any opinion on this question in this appeal, we do not propose to enter into these complications. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The rule is discharged. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. We make no order as to costs. There will be a stay of operation of the order for two weeks but the oral application of Mr. Sanjay Bhattacharjee for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused on the ground that there is no substantial question of law of general importance in this case as no notice can be issued under s. 34(1A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, after the 31st day of March, 1956. S. K. DATTA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (7) TMI 57 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Excess Profits Tax, Interest On Tax, Orders Passed, Provisional Assessment, Regular Assessment
-
1979 (7) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... . Section 22(3) does not use this expression and whatever the impelling cause or motive, if a return otherwise valid is filed by an assessee before the receipt of a valid notice under section 34, it is to be treated as a return within section 22(3) for it falls within the language of the sub-section. In view of the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v. CIT 1947 15 ITR 302 and of the Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar 1965 55 ITR 630 and, lastly, of this court in Tarzan Hosiery P. Ltd. v. ITO 1968 69 ITR 842, in our opinion the position in this behalf is crystallised and admits of no doubt and we would, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Question No. 3 is consequential and it is also answered in the negative. Hence, all the three questions are answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Account Books, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... enalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument was that, in such circumstances, there will be no warrant to investigate whether the concealment was a conscious or intentional concealment as expressed in some of the decisions. There is force in the submission. Whatever that be, in the circumstances, we are satisfied that the finding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income meets the requirements of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, we answer questions Nos. (1) and (2) in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Question No. (3) relates to the quantum of the penalty. That is essentially in the discretion of the Tribunal. We answer this question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1979 (7) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation On Building, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry
-
1979 (7) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... in which he was put, when he claimed a bad debt in a particular previous year, but later the authorities found that the debt, although bad, did not relate to the particular assessment year. On this view, the principles enunciated in the cases relied upon by Mr. Gulati do not place any impediment to the claim being allowed, for they relate to cases where the assessee could have made the claim, and where there was no specific statutory provision which cast a duty on the ITO of the nature set out in s. 36(2)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in allowing the assessee to urge the additional ground and to allow an amount of Rs. 8,086 as bad debt on the ground that the assessee had been able to recover only Rs. 10,000, out of Rs. 18,086 claimed by it, from its trade debtors. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1979 (7) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... darnath v. CIT 1980 122 ITR 619 (Orissa) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee relied, has no relevance on the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, we answer the questions referred to us as follows (1) The inclusion by the assessee of the cash credit items in the return filed by it in answer to the notice under s. 148 as its income, amounted to an admission that the said items constituted its income. As these items were shown in the account books and in the original return as cash credits of third parties, the admission constituted evidence of concealment. The Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise. (2) The Tribunal was not right in holding that even in the presence of the aforesaid admission the department should prove by independent evidence that the amount represented concealed income of the assessee. (3) The Tribunal was not right in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (7) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof, Income From Property, Total Income
-
1979 (7) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... case where it is proved to his satisfaction that there is over-assessment, whether such over-assessment is due to a mistake detected by the assessee after completion of assessment or otherwise. In our opinion, the Commissioner has misconstrued the words subject to the provisions of this Act in s. 264(1) and read a restriction on his revisional power which does not exist. The Commissioner was, therefore, not right in holding that it was not open to him to give relief to the petitioner on account of the petitioner s own mistake which it detected after the assessment was completed. Once it is found that there was a mistake in making an assessment, the Commissioner had power to correct it under s. 264(1). In our opinion, therefore, the Commissioner was wrong in not giving relief to the petitioner in respect of over-assessment as a result of under-totalling of the purchases to the-extent of Rs. 20,000. Rule made absolute accordingly. Respondent to pay the costs to the petitioner.
-
1979 (7) TMI 49 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Application For Reduction Or Waiver, Waiver Or Reduction Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... whatever doubt may have been entertained prior to the introduction of s. 273 A, the position now under s. 273A is that the Commissioner has been empowered to waive or reduce the amount of penalty even for previous years. No period of limitation for making an application for waiver or reduction was prescribed under the old law nor is there any limitation for such an application under the new law. Such applications can be made also after confirmation of penalty order by the appellate authorities. Hence, we are of the opinion that the CIT has jurisdiction to entertain an application to waive or reduce the amount of penalty even in respect of years prior to the introduction of s. 273A. Accordingly, we allow both the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT and hereby direct him to dispose of the applications made by the assessee for reducing or waiving the amount of penalty, as the case may be, according to law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment Proceedings, Tax Liability
-
1979 (7) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Appellate Authority, Assessment Order, Doctrine Of Merger, Failure To File Estimate
-
1979 (7) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Application For Registration, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... sessee had forwarded a copy of the application on October 13, 1969, and requested that orders may be passed on the said application. But this would hardly satisfy the requirements of law, because sub-s. (3) of s. 184 requires that the application should be signed by all the partners personally. It is not possible either to regard the order of the officer as having been passed under s. 185(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that he had proceeded to condone the delay in not having made the application within time, and to refuse registration on the merits. We think the view taken by the Tribunal on the assessment of the facts and the circumstances disclosed, was correct. We answer the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of the judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1979 (7) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appellate Authority, Interest Payable To Assessee, Refund Of Tax, Regular Assessment
-
1979 (7) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Deemed Income, Petition Against Order, Waiver Or Reduction, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... issioner in revision but it was not for the Commissioner to apply his mind and exercise his discretion. The matter should have been remanded to the ITO for proper consideration of the same in accordance with law. Further, the admitted delay of 2 1/2 years in completing the assessment on account of investigations can be hardly attributed to the assessee without a proper consideration thereof by the ITO. For the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this application. The impugned orders of the ITO dated the 12th May, 1975, and that of the CIT, West Bengal XIII, dated the 4th March, 1976, cannot be sustained, and a writ in the nature of certiorari will issue to quash the same. The respondents, however, will be at liberty and are directed to, consider the application, of the petitioner under r. 40 of the I. T. Rules, 1962, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Income When Accrues ... ... ... ... ..... court, it was open to the ITO to disallow the claim for depreciation in case the assessee had not furnished the prescribed particulars. We do not understand this decision as in any manner laying down as a universal proposition of law that the ITO cannot allow depreciation in all cases where the figures had not been furnished by the assessee in the return. In the present case, it has also to be remembered that, though the figures have not been furnished in the return as such, still the figures were furnished by the assessee and the fact that it was done under protest is of no significance as far as the requirements of s. 34 are concerned. Section 34 does not state that the particulars should be furnished in the return and that too the assessee should do so on his own without any prompting by the officer. The result is, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (7) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment Proceedings, Tax Liability
-
1979 (7) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Guest House ... ... ... ... ..... sary amount as a reserve. This provision enabled the creation of a reserve of the requisite amount in the absence of profits or adequate profits to cover the reserve. However, what is clear from the whole provision is that the reserve is to be created out of the profits of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee for the business. In the present case, there is no such debit to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in directing the ITO to give the allowance. The presence of a larger amount in the development rebate reserve in an earlier year cannot be taken as satisfying the specific requirements of s. 34(3)(a), viz., of a debit to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year. The result is that the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
....
|
