Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 996 Records
-
1973 (11) TMI 24 - PATNA HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Application For Registration, Change In Constitution Of Firm, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act
-
1973 (11) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal Against Assessment, Mercantile System, Purchase Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ntly, during the previous year, the assessee has obtained whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by him or the value of benefit accruing to him shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession, and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. The position thus is clear that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the purchase tax in the assessment year in question and in case he succeeds subsequently in appeal, he shall be taxed again to the extent of relief granted to him. Thus, there will be no loss of revenue to the Government. For the reasons stated above we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (11) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Voluntary Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... t, the disclosures made in the offer ought to be excluded from consideration altogether. If the department s contention were to be accepted, it would defeat the very purpose of enacting section 271(4A) of the Act. We may observe that unless the offer is accepted and acted upon by the department, the other sub-sections of section 271 will be attracted in the matter of imposition of penalty and the two provisions cannot be allowed to be mixed up to the entire advantage of the department and disadvantage of an assessee. We, therefore, do not think that the present case is one in which we should call upon the Appellate Tribunal to refer any question to us, as we are fully satisfied that even though the main question posed might be one of law, there can be no other interpretation except the one put by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. As a result, these petitions fail and are dismissed summarily without notice to the other side. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (11) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... lections shall not be regarded as income and would be exempt from tax. In the case before the Full Bench it was found that the assessee had maintained a fund for charities and had made certain customary levies from its customers. It was held that as a result of the custom there was a legal obligation upon the assessee to spend the amount so collected on charities and, as such, the collections could not be taxed as his income. Such is not the case here. Neither there was any trust nor any other legal obligation under which the assessee was obliged to spend the collections on the construction of dharamshala. The collections were not made on account of any customary levy which may be said to have created a trust or a fund. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1973 (11) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
A Partner, Change In Constitution Of Firm, Partnership At Will ... ... ... ... ..... far as clause (b) is concerned, all the partners did not continue with some change in their respective shares or in the shares of some of them since Sarabhai who held thirty per cent. share in the profits of the firm had died on March 9, 1963, and, thereafter, there was no new partner in his place and stead. Of course the estate of Sarabhai as represented by his wife, Kanchanben, who was also a partner, got the benefit of the profits which went to the share of Sarabhai but Kanchanben got that amount as representing the estate of Sarabhai and not in her capacity as a partner of the firm. Under these circumstances, the provisions of section 187(2) cannot be said to apply to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows (1) In the affirmative as to both the parts and in favour of the assessee as to both the parts. (2) In the negative and in favour of the assessee. The applicant will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1973 (11) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
High Court To Interfere, Mixed Question, Previous Year, Question Of Fact, Substantially Interested
-
1973 (11) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... carried from the port of destination to other places where they are ultimately sold and delivered, it would still be carriage of the assessee s goods to destinations outside India and, therefore, expenses incurred would not qualify for weighted deduction. The expression destination in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B cannot mean the port of destination mentioned in the bills of lading. It would include the ultimate place or places where the goods are taken and sold. In this view, the expenses incurred under the above items would be expenses incurred in respect of distribution of goods outside India which would not qualify for weighted deduction. The result is that we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., for the Department and against the assessee. The parties will bear their costs. A copy of this judgment with the seal of the court and under the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1973 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of section 271(1)(c) and section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that these provisions of the Income-tax Act contravene the provisions of articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 31(1), 245 and 265 of the Constitution of India - challange on the ground of article 14 cannot succeed because it has not been established that there exists any hostile discremination against a particular type of taxpayer - both the challenges to the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions fail. We may point out that the other grounds of challenge to the constitutional validity have not been pressed before us and we, therefore, have not dealt with those challenges on the grounds of articles 31(1), 245 and 265 of the Constitution. We have confined our judgment only to the challenges under articles 14 and 19(1)(f) since they were pressed before us - applications fails and is dismissed
-
1973 (11) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
" Whether firm was entitled to relief under section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the profits from its business for the period from October 1, 1951, to December 28, 1951, relevant to the assessment year 1953-54 ? " - It is true that the mere fact that there are common partners between two firms cannot by itself indicate a succession for the purpose of section 25(4) but the court is entitled to consider this as one of the factors or pieces of evidence which, taken together with the other material on record, which I have already discussed, in my opinion, shows that there was not a discontinuance or a complete break with the past when the old firm has dissolved, as the Tribunal has held, but there was a succession to the business of the old firm within the terms of section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In this connection, it is important to bear in mind that the decision of the Supreme Court in Chambers' case shows unmistakably that no formal transfer is necessary and that it is sufficient if the overall business effect of the whole transaction or arrangement between the old firm and the new firm results in succession to the old business. Viewed in that manner, I have come to the conclusion that the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (11) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Whether, while computing the deduction of tax on inter-corporate dividend under section 85A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the income from dividend should be taken, at its gross figure or at net figure after deducting the expenditure incurred by the concerned assessee to earn that dividend - we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue
-
1973 (11) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the self-acquired and personal assets left by the said Manilal Chhotalal, the deceased father of the respondent, were to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family represented by the respondent and not in his hands in his individual capacity ? " - we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the self-acquired personal assets left by Manilai Chhotalal, the father of the respondent-assessee, were to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family represented by the respondent and not in his hands in his individual capacity
-
1973 (11) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cement factory agrees to supply water to a town in consideration of exemption from municipal taxes for fifteen years - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 2,09,459, or any portion thereof on water supply scheme, incurred by the company was allowable as deduction in determining the profits of the company? "
-
1973 (11) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessee received properties on partition of HUF, whether it can be assessed in his individual hands - " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee is that of a Hindu undivided family ? " – held that assessment has to be made on the assessee in the capacity of HUF
-
1973 (11) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and the Income-tax Officer, Allahabad. It is directed against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by which it rejected the claim of privilege raised by the petitioners under section 124 of the Evidence Act in regard to the production of certain documents and files - assessment proceedings were settled on the promise that penalty would not be levied - but subsequently it was levied - assessee summoned the assessment records to prove his claim - hether the department can refuse to produce the same on the ground of privilege
-
1973 (11) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Which would be the date of partition When an award by arbitrator dividing immovable property of the family by metes and bounds was not registered but a subsequent partition deed was registered - "Whether Tribunal was right in law in giving effect to the claim of partial partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from January 1, 1961, as against the decision of the departmental authorities that the claim was fit to be allowed with effect from February 2, 1962 ?" - hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not right in law in giving effect to the claim of partial partition under section 171 of the Act with effect from January 1, 1961. The decision of the departmental authorities that the claim was fit to be allowed only with effect from February 2, 1962, was correct.
-
1973 (11) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Prosecution proceedings for non-production of books without issue of notice under section 142 - when does the question of reasonable cause for the non-production of books arise - when the books were not produced and the assessee does not give any reason for the non-production, there is no question of reasonable cause for the non-production - Failure to issue a notice under section 142 does not bar a prosecution
-
1973 (11) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessee is a Hindu undivided family deriving income from property assessable under section 9 of the Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1958-59. For that year, the Income-tax Officer had determined the property income at Rs. 12,320. It appears that, thereafter, the Commissioner exercising his powers under section 33B of the Act cancelled the said assessment and directed fresh assessment to be made - When vacant land was let out and lessee constructed building which was passed on to the lessor at the end of the term - whether the value of the building can be treated as deferred rent and thus income of the lessor - whether it can be treated as income from dealing in immovable property
-
1973 (11) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contributions by the assessee to the political parties through the Punjab Motor Union, Chandigarh, were allowable under section 37?" Question answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1973 (11) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1957-58, the account year being the calendar year ending December 31, 1956, the assessee submitted a return and claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,98,993. The assessee was keeping its accounts on mercantile system. In the accounts for the calendar year 1956, the assessee made a provision for bonus payment of Rs. 1,50,000 for the year 1956 on the basis of 3 3/4 months' wages. The bonus was actually paid after the close of the accounting year 1956, the actual payment being of the order of Rs. 1,98,993 equivalent to five months' wages. The assessee claimed deduction also in regard to the difference of Rs. 48,993 not provided in the accounts of 1956 but paid for 1956 in later periods representing additional bonus liability equivalent to 11 months' wages - Whether the amount paid is deductible in the year in which provision was made
-
1973 (11) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Notice issued by the respondent herein under the provisions of sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Originally notice under section 22(2) of 1922 Act was issued, but assessee did not file any return of income neither an assessment order was passed. The time limit for completing assessment expired. Whether subsequently notice for reassessment under section 147(1)(b) can be issued – held that reassessment notice was valid
............
|