|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 996 Records
-
1973 (12) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Profit On Sale ... ... ... ... ..... that in arriving at its decision the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material, or failed to take into consideration any relevant material, there is no room for interference by the court. Precisely the same is the position in the instant case. On the facts found by the Tribunal it has come to the conclusion that the purchase and sale of shares by the assessee was not an adventure in the nature of trade, it not being its regular business. The circumstances taken into consideration by the Tribunal cannot be said to be irrelevant nor is it the case of the department that the Tribunal has omitted to take into consideration any relevant circumstance. In these circumstances, we find no justification to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Questions answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (12) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... e pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the findings reached on the evidence before it. If the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are not coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice, such conclusions being of fact, are not liable to be reversed by this court in the present jurisdiction. We have already held that the conclusions reached in the present case by the Tribunal in holding that the share income of Rajendra Kumar from the partnership firm is the income of the Hindu undivided family have been reached on proper consideration of the evidence on record. The finding of the said Tribunal has to be accepted and the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question which has been referred to us for answer by the Tribunal must be answered in the affirmative and the reference is accordingly disposed of with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100, if certified. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (12) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Inaccurate Particulars, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... down by the Supreme Court that when a statute creates a fiction the situation in which the fiction can work should be postulated. Reliance may be placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Girdhardas and Co. Private Ltd. . In the aforsaid view of the matter we are of opinion that the action in this case was valid and the notice cannot be challenged in this case. Our attention was drawn to several decisions, viz., Niranjan and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Gopichand Sarjuprasad v. Union of India, S. B. Jain, Income-tax Officer v. Mahendra and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajinder Nath. But in the view we have taken it is not necessary for us to discuss the aforsaid decisions in detail. In the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned trial judge are set aside and the rule nisi is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C.J.--I agree.
-
1973 (12) TMI 31 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... to say that the deduction as contemplated by clause (iii) of section 57 is earned by the assessee. The learned Advocate-General then contended that, so far as the loan amount which is raised for annuity deposit is concerned, the same is definitely covered by clause (iii) of section 57 because annuity deposit earns interest income for the assessee. Here also we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that at the relevant time it was obligatory upon the assessee to make annuity deposits and that the earning of interest through such deposits was merely incidental. Section 280C of the Act makes this position quite clear. To conclude, therefore, our answer to the question referred to us is that the expenditure in question was not an admissible deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the revenue. This reference is accordingly disposed of. The applicant shall bear the costs of the Commissioner in this reference.
-
1973 (12) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Financial Year, Gift Tax, Income Tax Act, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... ub-clause (c) of clause (xx) is to find out what would have been the previous year if assessment of the income of the assessee were to be made for the purpose of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year in question. In this case the gifts to be assessed are made on 22nd February, 1963. The previous year for the income assessment of the assessee was admittedly the Samvat year corresponding to the assessment year in question. The day of 22nd February, 1963, fell in the Samvat year 2019 commencing on October 29, 1962, and ending on October 17, 1963. The assessment year for this period would, therefore, be the year 1964-65. In view of this, we answer the question which is referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. In our opinion, the previous year should be the S.Y. 2019 for the gifts in question and the assessment year should be the year 1964-65. The respondent-assessee shall bear the cost of the Commissioner in this reference. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (12) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Actual Cost, Capital Reserve, Foreign Company, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... ons cited at the Bar on behalf of the assessee dealing with the question of this liability not being time barred have not been discussed in the course of this judgment. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows. For the assessment year 1961-62, the depreciation was rightly allowed to the assessee on the basis that the cost to it of the machinery in question was Rs. 30,572. For assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65, the depreciation was wrongly allowed to the assessee on the basis that the cost to it of the machinery in question was Rs. 30,572. As observed above, while calculating the actual cost to the assessee the amount of Rs. 30,572 should be taken out and the actual cost to the assessee should be reduced by the amount of Rs. 30,572 for these four assessment years. The question will, therefore, be answered accordingly. In view of the fact that the assessee has partially succeeded and the revenue has partially succeeded, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (12) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Burden Of Proof, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e in the nature of trade. The facts of that decision are entirely different from the facts we are dealing with here. This is the case of an isolated transaction. The land purchased was an estate. The assessee who bought it was an estate owner who owned one thousand acres of estate at the time he purchased the estate in question and he was making his living by managing estates. He never dealt with the purchases and sales of land or estate. It is not shown that he has any business or trade. The bulk of the estate purchased had been retained by him. The inference is irresistible that the intention was to invest. We answer the question referred to us in the negative that is against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (1) of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1973 (12) TMI 27 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Foreign Company, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... eturn pointedly drew the attention of the assessee towards the provisions of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which section deemed the deduction of the purchase tax claimed by the assessee during the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 to be his income for the year 1962-63. It is apparent that the authorities below did not consider this case keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and on the other hand without examining the facts and finding out whether there was any conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income decided the case. So far as the first contention is concerned the question whether the amount was immune from tax, cannot be accepted in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs. PRITAM SINGH PATTAR J.-I agree.
-
1973 (12) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Taxing Statutes, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... arise as the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the assessee cannot be said to be reasonable or possible interpretation. The result is that we allow the reference so far as assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 are concerned and reject it as regards assessment year 1962-63 is concerned. We, therefore, answer the first question as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jewellery including gold ornaments would not be entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) for assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. They would be entitled to exemption only for assessment year 1962-63. As far as the second question was concerned, Mr. Kaji has not pressed the same. We, therefore, answer it as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of tax as finally determined on assessment . Having regard to the fact that this was a question of interpretation of a clause, we think that there should be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (12) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ator should be found out mainly from the language of the will and the surrounding circumstances under which it was made and, finding out the intention of the testators in this manner, we have no doubt that the executants of the will intended that the survivor of them shall be the full owner of the property with full powers of disposition. In view of what is stated above, we answer the question which is referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The reference is accordingly disposed of. The respondent-accountable person shall bear the costs of the Controller of Estate Duty in this reference. On an oral application of the learned Advocate-General, we certify this to be a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court because, in our opinion, the questions involved in this reference are of general legal importance and also because there are conflicting decisions of different High Courts in India on the implications of mutual wills. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (12) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge, Chargeable To Tax, Initial Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... preted as giving any relief to the transferor or exempting him from the provisions of section 41(2). It is no answer for the transferor to say that the allowances or deductions are taken into account in the assessment of the transferee and that, therefore, he shall not be assessed, when the transaction squarely falls under section 41(2). The statute deals with the allowances in respect of various persons and categories of assets. It chose to provide for allowances and depreciation in respect of a subsidiary company only to the extent provided under section 43(2), which, in our opinion, does not mean that the parent company which transferred the asset would be excluded from the clutches of section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the sum of Rs. 6,098 is includible as profit under section 41(2). Accordingly, we answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (12) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Application For Extension, Delay In Filing Return, Income Tax Act, Penal Interest, Registered Firm, The Constitution
-
1973 (12) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... other coparcener or extinguishment of any right at the expense of the deceased. In these circumstances, Explanation 2 to section 2(15) is not attracted. The decision of the Punjab High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Jai Gopal Mehra 1972 85 ITR 175 (Punj) FB related to a case of a relinquishment of his interest by a coparcener and is clearly distinguishable as in such a case there is no partition of a Hindu undivided family and the undivided family continues, only the member relinquishing his interest going out of the family and his interest would be extinguished and the benefit would go to the other members of the continuing family. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Tribunal rightly held that the sum of Rs. 49,545 was not includible as the value of any property passing on death and answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. The respondent shall be entitled to the costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (12) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... the trustees to the deed of trust could utilise the entire income for an object which was not an object of a public charitable nature, and by reason of such provision the trust cannot be said to be one with an object primarily and predominantly of a public charitable nature and would accordingly fail to qualify for exemption. In my judgment the view taken by the Tribunal as to the requirements of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act was not warranted by the wording thereof and cannot be upheld. The correct view is the one which I have indicated earlier, and in that view of the matter the trustees claim to exemption will have to be upheld in its entirety. VIMADALAL.--I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Question no. 2.--The trust property is wholly exempt under the provisions of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1973 (12) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Income Tax Act, Mutual Association ... ... ... ... ..... ection 28 in any such manner. The plain reading of section 28 suggests that the income derived by a trade association from specific services rendered by it should be brought to tax. From such a reading no exclusion of any other type of income can be implied, if such other income can otherwise be taxed under other provisions of the Act. Section 14 of the Act of 1961, when read with section 4 thereof, makes it clear that every type of income falling within any of the heads mentioned in section 14 is chargeable to tax unless a specific exemption is given by the provisions of the Act itself. Under the circumstances, we see no force even in this contention of Shri Patel. Under these circumstances, our answer to clause (i) of question No. 3, which relates to the annual subscriptions received by the assessee is in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The reference is accordingly disposed of. The respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the Commissioner in this reference.
-
1973 (12) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... ent year 1945-46 as a matter of strict law could have been imposed in August, 1957, even though the assessment was completed in March, 1950, but the propriety required the changed circumstances to be taken into consideration and the responsibility for the inordinate delay to be fastened before levying the penalty and upholding it. In the present case, the Tribunal which was the final court of fact did not apply its mind to the rival contentions of the parties and did not fix the responsibility for the delay. There is no finding as to whether the delay was innocuous or it affects the levy of penalty because of any changed circumstances. In this view of the matter, we would answer the question referred to us by saying that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the levy of penalty without recording relevant findings and fixing responsibility for the delay and finding its effect upon the penalty order. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1973 (12) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... adras High Court in the said case by the learned counsel for the assessee, the question as to whether, in a notice issued under clause (a) of section 34(1), items under clause (b) thereof could be reopened, did not arise and was not considered or decided by that court, and the only question before it was, whether the period of limitation prescribed for cases falling under clause (b) would be applicable to items falling under that clause in case they were sought to be reopened by a notice issued under clause (a). There is, therefore, no question of following the judgment of the Madras High Court in Veerappa Chettiar s case 1973 91 ITR 116 (Mad) as a matter of uniformity as an authority in support of the second and the alternative proposition propounded by Mr. Dastoor. S. K. DESAI J.--I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT--We answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner must pay the assessee s costs of the reference.
-
1973 (12) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of commission was allowable as a deduction under section 37, in fact and in law it was allowable under section 36(1)(ii) and that all the requirements of law including the test of commercial expediency regarding the reasonableness of the payment of the commission are satisfied in the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal were right in holding that the amount of commission paid to the employees was allowable as a deduction but we hold that it was allowable under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the assessee but holding at the same time that it was allowable not under the specific section referred to by the Tribunal but under another provision of the same Act. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1973 (12) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Waiver of penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(c) - if the commissioner passes an order levying minimum penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and did not say anything about penalty under s. 271(1)(a) whether it can be deemed that the penalty has been waived - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalties of Rs. 24,671 and Rs. 24,388 levied under section 271(1)(a) for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60
-
1973 (12) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Estate Duty Act was made applicable to Pondicherry from 1-4-1963, whether it is applicable to a person who is domicile outside Pondicherry and vide on 2-2-1963 - " Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the shares held by the deceased, Mr. H. R. Goosey, in M/s. Best & Company (Pondicherry cherry) (Private) Ltd., Pondicherry, is not includible in the estate of the deceased for purposes of levy of estate duty.? " - Question answered in the negative
........
|
