|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 178 of 178 Records
-
1980 (1) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... laim on the basis of an earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. However, in the grounds of appeal before the AAC, the assessee had pointed out The Income-tax Officer should have held that the appellants were under an obligation to contribute to the said funds and that, therefore, such contribution was properly allowable either under section 28 or under section 37(1). The implication behind this ground is that the amount would not come within the scope of s. 36(1)(iv) and that would have to be considered only in the light of the other provisions. We do not consider that this is an entirely new argument taken for the first time before us by the assessee. As the Tribunal has not gone into these aspects, we do not think it possible to answer the question referred to us. We, therefore, return the reference unanswered. The Tribunal will go into the facts and decide the matter de novo in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gift By Deceased, Property Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... s as a consequence of the original gift of Rs. 84,000 and of their joining, the firm. As the original gift of Rs. 84,000 itself stands excluded from the assessment since S. 10 of the E.D. Act does not apply, the sum of Rs. 18,000 cannot also stand in the assessment. The Tribunal appears to proceed on the basis that there was earlier partnership so that the deceased could not have dealt with the goodwill separately as a partner in the firm. From the facts stated earlier it would be clear that the firm itself was constituted simultaneously with the gifts. Therefore, there is no question of the deceased dealing with goodwill as an asset of the partnership during the currency of the partnership. However, it is unnecessary to go into this aspect any further in the view that we have taken earlier. The result is that both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. The accountable person will be entitled to his costs counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (1) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rtner of the firm before its dissolution. It was held that the service of such a notice, addressed to the firm, on a person who was a partner thereof before its dissolution, was a valid and proper service of notice under s. 34(1) of the Act. In the present case, one of the partners of the firm, Tiwari Govind Narain, expired on June 9, 1957, and the notice for reassessment under s. 34(1) of the old Act was addressed to the firm. The business of the firm was also continued, even after the death of Tiwari Govind Narain, and the firm was reconstituted. The firm was liable for payment of income-tax in respect of the income received by it before its reconstitution and also for imposition of penalty, irrespective of the death of one of its partners, Tiwari Govind Narain. The question, which has been referred at the instance of the assessee is, therefore, also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Both the references are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
-
1980 (1) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . That is what the Appellate Tribunal has held and on the facts the Appellate Tribunal has found that the interest was paid to the HUF and not to the individual partners of the firm. That being the finding of fact which the Appellate Tribunal could reach on the material before it, the answer to the question must necessarily be given in favour of the assessee. The facts of this case are more akin to the facts in Addl. CIT v. Vallamkonda Chinna Balaiah Chetty and Co. 1977 106 ITR 556 (AP) and not similar to the facts of the cases referred for the decision of this court in CIT v. T. Veeraiah and K. Narasimhulu 1977 106 ITR 283 (AP) and Addl. CIT v. K.G. Narayanaiah Chetty and Co. 1977 106 ITR 420 (AP). In Addl. CIT v. Chinna Balaiah Chetty and Co. 1977 106 ITR 556 (AP), a Bench of this court held a similar question referred to it in favour of the assessee. For the foregoing reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Priority Industry, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... me to be Rs. 1,78,560. But he rejected the assessee s claim for the relief under s. 80-I without practically any discussion. The AAC, on appeal, held that no relief was available to the assessee, as the manufacturing income was only a loss. The Tribunal, on further appeal, considered this question and held that the relief should be worked out on the positive income that was assessable in that year. As far as this year is concerned, from the assessment order itself, it is clear that the assessee had a positive income of Rs. 1,78,556, which includes Rs. 1,74,331 as business income. In the view that we have taken for the earlier years, the assessee would be eligible for the relief under s. 80-I on the income attributable to the manufacture of the items listed in Schedule VI. The quantum of relief would have to be worked out in the light of s. 80-I. The fourth question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ld that the user must be for the purpose of enabling the owner to carry on the business to earn profits in the business. In other words, the machinery or plant must be used for the purpose of that business which was actually carried on and the profits of which were assessable under s. 10(1) and not for any other purpose which had already been closed down. Their Lordships had not to, go into the question in the context of the language of s. 32(1). It is not, therefore, possible to apply the said decision to the facts of this case. In that case, there was no reference to s. 10(3) of the 1922 Act, which is the predecessor of s. 38(2). If s. 10(3) had been construed, then it would have been necessary to examine how far the interpretation applies to s. 38, which is not identically worded. Section 10(3) was not referred to in that decision. The result is, question No. 4 referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee s income by averting payment of a toll which was allegedly being illegally collected. This item had also, therefore, a proximate connection with the earning of the agricultural income by the assessee. Hence, the Tribunal was clearly right in holding that the claim put forward by the assessee for the deduction of the expenditure incurred by it under the aforementioned two heads during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 was admissible under s. 5(j) of the Act. In the result, we answer the question raised in I.T.R. No. 40 of 1979 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department and in I.T.R. Nos. 41 to 43 of 1979, the question will stand answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1980 (1) TMI 11 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Partnership At Will ... ... ... ... ..... AC and so also by the Tribunal against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the statement of the case, this fact has been particularly mentioned that notice was served on the other partners of the firm as well. It is not open to us to go behind the facts so found by the authorities below. That being so, the provisions of s. 43 of the Partnership Act stand fully satisfied. Thus, the Tribunal was right in concluding that it was a case of dissolution of the firm and not expulsion of a partner. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. That being so, the new firm having come into existence with effect from 1st April, 1969, having four partners, was entitled to be registered under s. 185 of the Act and thus the answer to the second question is also to be returned in the affirmative, i. e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. We order accordingly. Costs Rs. 250 to be paid by the revenue
-
1980 (1) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment, Substituted Service ... ... ... ... ..... ce under s. 34(1)(a) read with s. 22 of the old Act issued in the name of the firm could be properly served upon any one of the partners of the reconstituted firm, which was sought to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of s. 26 of the old Act and there can be no doubt that the service of notice could be effected upon any one of the partners of the reconstituted firm. We have already expressed this view in the case of CIT v. Tiwari Jhumarlal Saruplal D.B. Civil Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1970) decided by us on January 2, 1980- 1981 130 ITR 449 (Raj) . Thus, question No. 2, which was referred at the instance of the assessee in Reference No. 12 of 1970, is, therefore, decided in the affirmative and the view taken by the Tribunal in this respect is upheld. The aforesaid references are, therefore, decided and the questions referred are answered as mentioned above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ect of income-tax and what is paid under the said section by an assessee is on account of income-tax. Therefore, by such payment it cannot be said that the assessee was absolved from the liability for the payment of wealth-tax. The cases referred to in the instant reference, namely, Tulsiram Sanganaria v. Smt. Anni Bai 1971 79 ITR 502 (SC), Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection 1974 93 ITR 505 (SC), C. K. Babu Naidu v. W70 1978 112 ITR 341 (Ker) and D. C. Shah v. CWT 1979 117 ITR 348 (Kar), in our opinion, are not very relevant and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the same in any detail. Further, in the instant case, as the language of the said section is quite clear, in our view, no reference can be made to the Finance Minister s speech read in Parliament while introducing the Bill in Parliament. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1980 (1) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ompany as per accounts of the chit fund had received Rs. 1,437 as discount money in the bids made by other contributors. The company contributed to another chit fund for Rs. 5,000 with monthly instalment of Rs. 250 and paid ten instalments and bid for Rs. 4,480. The ITO allowed the difference between the chit amount and for which it had bid. The difference amount and discount received was allowed as a business loss of the company. The Commissioner, however, in exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), held that such a loss of the company was not to be allowed. The I.T. Appellate Tribunal on appeal found as of fact The assessee had entered the chits only for the purpose of finding finances for business ... (and) the chit amounts bid had been utilised only for the business ......... On the above facts, the question referred can be and is answered only in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... olved. The petitioner did not raise any doubt or dispute that the ornaments that he possessed were not jewellery as interpreted in common parlance or that the word jewellery is to be interpreted as in common parlance, and that the amendment as contemplated by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, could not give an extended meaning to the word jewellery as used in the Explanation. Both the petitioner as well as the Revenue authorities took it for granted that the ornaments in question were jewellery. The question of any difference of opinion is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has not been disputed before us that, in view of the retrospective amendment in the law, Jewellery became liable to assessment under the W.T. Act, and in this situation the case was one of escapement from assessment. It was a case of a mistake apparent on the face of the record which can be rectified under s. 35 of the W.T. Act. The petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment, Income, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... 3, 1956, were not or could not be implemented and so a totally new agreement was arrived at in June, 1958. We may also point out that actually the above question may not be material to decide the issue in this case. Even, according to the assessee, it became the owner of the film on June 30, 1958. The letter of June 30, 1958, makes it clear that the parties agreed that the assessee was to retain the benefits under the agency agreement, and was not accountable to the producers in reset of the collections therefrom. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 79,681 clearly constituted the income of the assessee from the film which was assessable for the assessment year ending on September 5, 1960. For the above reasons, we answer the question, which we have reframed earlier, by saying that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was rightly assessed in respect of the sum of Rs. 43,881 for the assessment year in question. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... next contended that we must take the entire transaction as having become finalised only on July 9, 1969, and that the period of two years would have to be computed from that date. Even assuming that the learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that the transaction was completed on July 9, 1969, still in view of the interpretation placed by us on the expression in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place as meaning only during the entire period of two years preceding the date of sale and in the face of the finding that the assessee had vacated the dwelling house on August 1, 1967, this submission cannot be accepted. Therefore, with reference to none of these years that we are concerned with, the assessee is eligible for exemption under s. 54. The result is that the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1980 (1) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly and these rooms were let out to persons, who occupy them for various periods of time. There were no permanent tenants so to say, and the persons, who occupied the rooms, did not enjoy any tenancy rights as such. The occupation of the several persons, on the particular facts here, could be treated more as licence than as a lease. Apart from providing ordinary amenities like water supply, electricity, etc., the assessee has provided cot, table, chair, attached bath-rooms, hot and cold water, room service and also telephone facility. All these features, in our opinion, satisfy the requirements of the lodging house being run on a commercial basis, rather than as the owner of a property . It is not necessary to refer to any decision as such, as the matter is decided with reference to the facts of this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The, assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1980 (1) TMI 3 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - computing the value of the deceased`s share in the commission business - inclusion of the value of the deceased`s share in the goodwill of the commission business in the estate of the deceased
-
1980 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Assessment Order - Inherent Powers - Defect in notice under s. 142(1) is a procedural lapse and does not affect the fundamental jurisdiction of ITO to make assessment. High court has jurisdiction to direct ITO to make a fresh assessment.
-
1980 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee carried on business in coal as the owner of various collieries. The South Samla Colliery, which was one of them, was occupied by the military from 1942 until it was derequisitioned in 1955 - Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure claimed on the South Samla Colliery at Rs. 1,61,742 was capital in nature - High Court is right in holding that the expenditure is not of a capital nature
....
|
