|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 422 Records
-
1999 (7) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is also sad that the Revenue should have protracted this litigation for years on by catching hold of a non-issue of limitation in disregard to the crux of the matter, viz., whether penalty was leviable for non-filing of the audit report. All this suggests that the Revenue thrived on launching frivolous litigation at public cost. There is no dearth of cases which involve petty amounts and are dragged on in courts for years. It serves the interest of none. It is high time that the Revenue authorities indulged in self-introspection and realised the need for developing a tax friendly culture. It is hoped that they would change with the times and exercise due application of mind in contesting litigation against taxpayers. This application is frivolous and is accordingly rejected. The Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, for necessary action.
-
1999 (7) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Capital Gains, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... is an adventure in the nature of trade has necessarily to be determined in the light of the cumulative effect of the entire set of facts to be gathered from the relevant material brought on record. In the present case, while holding that the assessee entering into an agreement with the builder to get the multi-storeyed residential units constructed on the plot of land where a single-storeyed house, occupied by the assessee since 1973, existed up to 1989, did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, the Tribunal has observed that the entire exercise undertaken by the assessee was for realisation of a capital asset the intention at the time of purchase of the house his contemporaneous conduct and the circumstances peculiar to the assessee s case left no room for doubt that the transaction resulted only in capital gains. These facts, found by the Tribunal, are not sought to be challenged by the Revenue in the proposed question. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... fire was that they got rid of so much timber and got the insurance money at that figure, and that seems to be precisely in the same position, as if they got rid of it by giving it to a customer. In the light of our discussion as above, we have no doubt that the money that was received by the assessee from the insurance company was a trading receipt, and that receipt was not one which can be regarded as capital receipt. To the extent that the amount received was in excess of the value of the goods that were lost, that constituted taxable income in the hands of the assessee. The question referred to us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,07,294 being the surplus amount received by the assessee towards loss of raw materials, stores, etc., due to fire from the insurance company ? is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (7) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... und that the Revenue had not produced any order of the Range Deputy Commissioner despite opportunities granted to show that requisite approval was granted for issuance of notice under section 143(2). The Tribunal accordingly quashed the assessment made under section 143(3). The Revenue sought reference which was rejected and then filed an application for seeking reference upon which the Tribunal has submitted the statement of case. In our view, the issue is factual in nature. Because so long as the Revenue had failed to show that requisite approval was granted for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, it could not be presumed that such approval was granted and was in existence. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2)(b) could not be issued without such approval and once the requisite approval was found missing, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment made under section 143(3). Reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative.
-
1999 (7) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Competency Of Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... st in it, the same can be adjudicated in the appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. It is contended by learned counsel that a question, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance in the identical circumstances was considered to be a question of law by this court in CIT v. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 1995 211 ITR 555. At the first instance, the said case is distinguishable from the present case. Even if it is found that the question involved is identical, then also, simply because a question of law is involved in the appeal and on the same question, a reference has been made, it will not be a substantial question of law for the purpose of section 260A of the Act. Learned counsel has failed to satisfy us that a substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal does not deserve to be entertained under the provisions of section 260A of the Act, which is hereby dismissed in limine.
-
1999 (7) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Draft Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... t section 144B is procedural, the Revenue cannot derive any benefit so far as the assessment in question is concerned, as on account of the Income-tax Officer having proceeded to make an order which has been found to be unsustainable on account of lack of jurisdiction in the officer, the Revenue cannot extend the period of limitation prescribed in section 153, for completing the assessment. Had the Incometax Officer followed the correct procedure, the assessment would have been finalised within the period of six months, Now a period of well over sixteen years have gone by. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the negative, and the first question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue also in the negative. Regarding the second question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, we answer the first part of that question in the negative and the latter part in the affirmative as the proceeding is now barred by limitation.
-
1999 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ntee was made. There is no impeachment of that sentence in the writ petition as being incorrect or mala fide. Furthermore, if in regard to the outstandings of the two assessment years appeals are possible, and stay pending such appeal can also be applied for in the Department, I do not see why the writ court should be approached. It is most improper that when the Department claims for bank guarantee it will not be given and then the party will come to court and offer a bank guarantee for obtaining an interim order from the writ court. This is an abuse of the process of law, which permits issuance of high prerogative writs in extraordinary circumstances when there is no adequate alternative remedy left to the person, who has all along acted in a bona fide and clean manner. The writ petitioner does not satisfy this test. The application is summarily rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 10,500. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertaking.
-
1999 (7) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... v. M. P. Tiwari 1992 195 ITR 607 Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confers power on the Commissioner to exercise discretion in compounding offences. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued instructions from time to time. The Explanation empowers the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions for the proper composition of the offences under section 279(2). Mr. Puj could not point out anything from the material on record that the Commissioner has failed to exercise his discretion under section 279(2) of the Act in conformity with the instructions issued by the Board from time to time. If the powers are exercised in conformity with the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, then, in the absence of any material placed on the record, it would not be correct to say that the impugned order is bad in law and, hence, the application is required to be rejected. The application is, accordingly, rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (7) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Circulars, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Literal Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... condoning delay on the ground of hardship or other reason, for non-payment within the time specified. The petitioner lastly contended that as his declaration was deemed to have never been made under the scheme, he amount paid on March 31, 1998, by way of tax and interest (Rs. 1,66,950) should be refunded. When the declaration is deemed to have never been made, there is (no ?) need to pay the tax or interest, nor has the Department any right to retain such amount. But, annexure C dated June 25, 1999, does not treat the amount paid as forfeited nor refuses to refund the amount. If the petitioner has paid any amount as tax or interest on the declared amount, it is open for him to make an application for refund as the declaration is deemed never to have been made. As and when such application is filed, the respondent shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. With the above observation this writ petition is disposed of. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1999 (7) TMI 13 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Relief, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... extent. The illegality with regard to not sending intimation is only procedural without affecting the rights of the Department. The provisions of prior intimation are only to safeguard the interest of the assessee to the extent if the amount is not payable then set off should not be made. It may be because some amount has already been paid or some relief has been given, in appeal, rectification, revision, etc., or for some reason, the demand shown to be outstanding may not be the correct figure. It is not in dispute that the amount of demand to that extent was outstanding. In these circumstances, in respect of Rs. 3,96,505 since nothing has come on record regarding giving any prior intimation nor adjustment or any order communicated to the assessee, it is considered that the declaration to that extent alone was pending. The Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to pass an order treating the sum of Rs. 3,96,505 as outstanding of dues. Petitions are accordingly partly allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... bunal. It has been held by this court in the case of CIT v. Shree NarasiMha Textiles (P.) Ltd. 1999 238 ITR 351, that the expenditure of replacement of parts of machinery is not to be regarded as capital in nature. The Revenue s contention that the cost of replacement of ring frames should be treated as capital expenditure had been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Renewal Of Registration, Delay In Filing Return, Circular, Return ... ... ... ... ..... ld apply since ex parte assessment was not made and the declaration was filed with the return and that would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of the provisions of section 184(7) of the Act and the refusal to renew the registration is not justified on the facts of the case. In the view I have taken, it is not necessary to examine the question and express any opinion, whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in holding that the assessee has not shown any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the declaration. 1, therefore, hold that the renewal of registration to the assessee-firm should be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is set aside and I direct the second respondent to renew the registration to the petitioner and make proper adjustment in the order of assessment. The writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in W. M. P. No. 24150 of 1997.
-
1999 (7) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ction by section 2 of the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980. While so holding, the Constitution Bench approved the earlier decision of the apex court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1986 162 ITR 846 that such processes were not so alien or foreign to the concept of manufacture that they could not come within that concept. The word manufacture occurring in section 32A(2)(b) of the Act would therefore, comprehend processing. The processed article is the article that is produced as a result of such manufacture. The question referred to us, namely Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses see is engaged in the manufacture or production of an article as envisaged in section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and consequently entitled to investment allowance and relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act? is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty, Concealment of Income ... ... ... ... ..... 8-89. The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was dismissed. The order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty was confirmed. The assessee being aggrieved filed a further appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed, It was held that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. The assessment had been framed as per the revised returns filed by the assessee. The order levying penalty was quashed. The Revenue filed a petition under section 256(1) requesting the Tribunal to refer the two questions of law said to be arising from the order of the. Tribunal which has been dismissed holding that the finding regarding concealment of income was a finding of fact and no referable question of law arises. We have examined the order of the Tribunal carefully and we are in agreement with the same. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact and no referable question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Reference, Assessment, Business, Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ad been made consequently. There is no finding on the assessment orders, either before the Wealth-tax Officer or before the Commissioner or the Tribunal that the assessees had at any stage concealed facts in the matter relating to the wealth-tax assessments. Regard being had to the circumstances that the assessee is in business and the Department itself adapted, the yield method, the assessment orders must be given finality and rest. Merely because the Department would like to have a look at the assessments in another way, when the one which has been adapted is not incorrect, that does not permit this court to direct the Tribunal to refer a question of law. Rejected.
-
1999 (7) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Weighted Deduction, Export Markets Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... e incurred in India should be allowed towards weighted deduction as contemplated under section 35B of the Act? If the goods were analysed abroad for which claim was made, the situation would stand on a different footing. Sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of section 35B(1) refers to distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services or facilities not being expenditure incurred in India in connection therewith, This is a case where the expenditure was incurred within the country. Therefore, under some other provision if the assessee is entitled to claim benefit it can get the benefit but so far as weighted deduction as contemplated under section 35B is concerned, we are of the view that in view of the language which is explicitly clear the Tribunal has erred in law in granting the benefit. In view of what we have stated hereinabove the question has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Rule made absolute with cost.
-
1999 (7) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... as already with the Assessing Officer. The apex court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996 (SC) held that The opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded as information enabling the Income-tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147(b). The Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him . Thus, the material which was already before him, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by the Revenue. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we answer the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (7) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reference, Addition To Income, Investment Deposit Account, Entitled To Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has taken the particular view and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with. So far as question No. 2 raised in Income-tax Application No. 71 of 1999 is concerned, Mr. Naik has rightly not pressed this question stating that the same is not necessary in view of the fact that the High Court has rejected the contention of the Department. So far as question No. 1 in Income-tax Application No. 71 of 1999 is concerned, it relates to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting interest of Rs. 76,64,412 on account of interest-free advances made to the sister concerns. In our opinion, the same is based on the facts of the case. Since in the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee was granted benefit, as there was a change in the system of accounting year. On the facts, the Tribunal has not accepted the contention and we also do not find any merit in the same. Hence, the applications are rejected.
-
1999 (7) TMI 4 - SC ORDER
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, benefit of section 80HHC can be claimed on the total income after deduction of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation or otherwise - High Court was not correct in dismissing the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A question of law does arise. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the above question of law to the High Court
-
1999 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Expressions "any individual" and "such individual" in section 64(1)(i) and (ii) are employed in a restricted sense and do not include a karta of a Hindu undivided family - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the minor children of the assessee from the two firms was not includible in his individual assessment under section 64(1)(i)
....
|
