Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 2969 Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Agricultural Produce, Best Judgment Assessment, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... n the matter of receiving and perusing documents or papers, by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority or the second appellate authority and the well-settled norms and forms that should be followed in such cases are not borne in mind. The records relating to the assessment are perfunctorily kept. Vital aspects or matters are left to guess work. This is, indeed, unfortunate. We are stating the above aspects for future guidance, so that the Board of Revenue (Taxes) as also the Appellate Tribunal may notice the above matters and issue appropriate instructions or guidelines to all the concerned authorities in the matter. We are inclined to think that earnest efforts should be made by the Government to impart effective and practical training to all concerned persons in the Revenue to keep them selves up to date in substantive and procedural laws and equip such persons properly in the larger interests of the Revenue itself. Both the revisions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act, Rejection Of Accounts
-
1993 (12) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e could hardly be any savings out of which the deposits in question could be made. The depositors were not aware of the returns having been filed by them although returns had been filed on their behalf. Likewise where the Tribunal has accepted the deposit, it has found as a fact that the identity and the capacity both have been proved from the material that had been brought on record. In a given set of circumstances whether a cash credit had been proved or whether the additions under section 68 of the Act were justified or not is purely a question of fact and does not give rise to any question of law when the conclusion is based on appreciation of relevant evidence placed on record. It is not possible to say that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was arbitrary or the inferences drawn by the Tribunal were not possible having regard to the evidence discussed in the order of the Tribunal. Both these applications are accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Concessional Rate, Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... ated April 30, 1960. The Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that the cost audit statutory report was of no significance even though the said report was made on the footing that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of goods. Having regard to the binding judgment of this court and the admitted or proved facts of this case and the documents on record, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of goods and thus an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In other words, we hold that the assessee was an industrial company as defined in the Finance Act, 1974, during the relevant assessment year and thus entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax as provided by the said Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ot be relied upon to assess the income, profits or gains of an assessee. In such a situation, the authorities would be justified to reject the account books under section 145(2) of the Act and to make the assessment in the manner contemplated in those provisions. The material on which the rejection of account books was sustained in the case on hand was relevant material. Taking all these aspects and the material into consideration, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the claim of the assessee for acceptance of the account books was not sustainable. On the findings of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in our opinion, its order does not give rise to any question of law to direct the Tribunal to make a reference to this court. In our opinion, the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal do not suffer from any legal infirmity which are based on appreciation of facts. The application is devoid of merit and is rejected with costs which we assess at Rs. 150.
-
1993 (12) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... assessee-company was able to remove Laxmi Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. forthwith and to let out the very same space to the bank at a much higher rent and also receive substantial deposits from the new tenant. These facts clearly go to support the case of the respondent-assessee that the expenditure in question was a revenue expenditure and was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of letting of properties. The assessee did not acquire any new asset, right or advantage of an enduring nature by making the payment of Rs. 6,96,288 to Laxmi Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. We do not consider it necessary to deal with the various other cases cited on behalf of the assessee in this case. The first question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we, therefore, decline to answer the first question. The second question as reframed is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY J. -- I agree.
-
1993 (12) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Income From Business, Income Tax Authorities, Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... g as to the norm of the gross profit on the basis of comparative cases. Therefore, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to counter the comparative statement cited by the assessee before he can have the option to estimate the gross profit. Again, it is the comparative instance that alone can be the foundation of such estimate in case the accounts are really found to be unreliable and requiring to be rejected. Therefore, in the interest of justice for both the parties, the assessee and the Revenue, it is necessary for us to direct the Tribunal to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the whole matter in the light of the observations made by us in the foregoing and redo the assessment accordingly. All opportunities should be given to the assessee in order to lead any evidence that the assessee may feel necessary to rebut the case against him. As a result we decline to answer the question. There will be no order as to costs. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY J.-I agree.
-
1993 (12) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure On Sales Promotion ... ... ... ... ..... distinguish any activity as sales promotion by the mere effect of the activity on the saleability. It is only such expenditure in the nature of advertisement and publicity which creates a stir amongst the consumers directly by means of exhibitions, shows and other methods of popularising the assessee s commodity, that can be said to be activity similar to or of like nature as advertisement and publicity. By giving rewards to the selling agents to motivate them for performance is not anything that publicises the assessee s commodity. In this view of the matter, we find ourselves in agreement with the Tribunal that neither the special discount nor the foreign tour expenses of the dealers are covered by the expression sales promotion expenditure as appearing in section 37(3A) read with section 37(3B) of the said Act. We, therefore, answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY J.-I agree.
-
1993 (12) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... hs immediately preceding the date of its transfer does indicate that the capital asset must exist as an identifiable capital asset during the period it is claimed that it is held by the assessee. If the capital asset consists of bonus shares, the bonus shares must exist as bonus shares throughout the period for which they are supposed to be held by the assessee and obviously there would be no bonus shares prior to the date of their issue. Hence, in our view, the court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and after taking into consideration all the relevant decisions and dealing with all the arguments which are advanced in this matter and, therefore, the judgment rendered by this court in Chunilal Khushaldas case 1974 93 ITR 369 does not call for any reconsideration. Hence, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, the reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nt which is referable to section 80P(d) after applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Co. 1978 113 ITR 84 and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and, if necessary, by giving an opportunity to lead additional evidence on the point in question. Considering the aforesaid facts pointed out and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. 1985 155 ITR 120, the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee are required to be accepted. Hence, the Tribunal is required to decide the said question on facts after referring to the test and the steps indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Co. 1978 113 ITR 84. In the result, the question is left unanswered. The Tribunal is directed to decide the question on merits after considering the relevant facts and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Carry Forward, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Set Off Of Loss, Special Deduction, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1993 (12) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Educational Trust ... ... ... ... ..... since 1956, no educational activity in the sense of normal schooling or actual imparting of knowledge or learning to the students is carried on by the trust. Admittedly, since 1956, the institute was simply giving scholarships to needy Parsi students for technical education without keeping any control over such students or without actually imparting any knowledge to the said students. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trust was carrying on educational activities or that it was an educational institution established for educational purposes. Therefore, the said trust was not entitled to total exemption under section 10(22) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the trust was entitled to total exemption. We entirely agree with the aforesaid observations of this court. In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, High Court, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... infirmity is manifestly perceivable in the decision. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Maneklal Chunilal s case 1953 24 ITR 375, this court in CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Ltd. 1983 143 ITR 473, 486, observed that, even though we may be persuaded to take a different view, we are not inclined to do so in view of the settled practice referred to in the decision of the Madras High Court and the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court adverted to above . In view of this settled legal position and also because we agree with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court, it will have to be held that the representative assessee in the case of a discretionary trust must be regarded as an individual and thus would be entitled to the benefit of deductions under section 80L of the Act. In the result, we answer the questions referred in all these references accordingly, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources, Income Tax Act, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... s answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Regarding question No. 2, the Tribunal has considered the said contention in paragraph 11 of its judgment. In the said order, the Tribunal has dealt with the question as to whether the payments which are made by the assessee towards interest are wholly deductible in computing the income from business or the amount so claimed as deduction required to be split up in the manner discussed therein and has held that only the gross amount of interest would enter into the computation for the purpose of allocation and not the net amount. In our view, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the gross amount of interest would enter into the computation for the purpose of allocation and not the net amount. Hence, question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, the reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Income Tax Act, Share In Firm, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ip firm, namely, Messrs. Kinariwala R. J. K. Industries. By the deed, the assessee s assets in the partnership-firm are assigned and for that purpose, it is not necessary that the capital owned by the assessee ought to be transferred. In the result, section 60 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the reasons recorded in the judgment dated October 29, 1993, in Income-tax Reference No. 191 of 1980 (Sunil J. Kinariwala v. CIT 1995 211 ITR 127 (Guj)), it is held that the amount of Rs. 26,405 being 40 per cent. of income by way of share in the firm of Messrs. Ramniklal J. Kinariwala and Co. was not includible in the total income of the assessee. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... -75 to Rs. 3,73,169 which was reduced in first appeal to Rs. 3,28,380. The valuation which has been adopted for wealth-tax purposes can also be one of the methods of adopting valuation for the estate duty purposes. Irrespective of the valuation report or without going into the merits of the case what was the reason for difference between the valuation by the approved valuer and the Departmental valuer, once there is a decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax that could have formed the proper basis for the Controller to adopt the value of the property. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty who reduced the value of the immovable property known as Nagpal Hotel from Rs. 5,61,000 to Rs. 3,28,380 in which the deceased had one-third share. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue.
-
1993 (12) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Electricity Charges, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax Act, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1993 (12) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Registered Valuer, Valuation Of Assets Of Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... view of this court consistently had been that where no proceedings are pending before the Wealth-tax Officer, then no reference to the Valuation Officer can be made under section 16A. If there is no information as contemplated by section 17(1)(b), then there could not be valid initiation of proceedings. In the present matter, since the assessments of the above two partners/assessees had already been completed, the reference by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A for valuing the property of the firm, Messrs. Maniram and Sons, in respect of Gem Cinema, cannot be considered to have given any right for reopening the completed assessments. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings and in cancelling the assessments made under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1993 (12) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... one set of books of account was maintained. The finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal that the profit due to Sakhi Bai was credited to a wrong account would not disentitle the firm from registration. Even by subsequent events it was found that the profit which should have been distributed in accordance with the deed of partnership shall be deemed to have been distributed and it was only the balance amount standing in the account of Ramchandra which was distributed unevenly amongst the legal heirs and that fact did not affect the validity of registration. No question has been framed that the finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. A finding of fact which has been recorded by the Tribunal has to be considered to be conclusive and on these facts we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1993 (12) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... estion, it is not necessary to decide the ambit and scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act of passing appropriate orders as it thinks fit. In the result, the Tribunal was not justified in annulling the assessment order dated September 19, 1984, made under section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act. We answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Mr. Kaji, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that a certificate as provided under section 261 of the Act be granted. In our view, no substantial question of law is involved and that the question involved in this reference is not likely to occur repeatedly nor can it be said that the question involved in this reference is of public importance. Further, the question involved in this reference only pertains to procedural aspect. Hence, the prayer for grant of certificate is rejected.
............
|