|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 236 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... utside India of goods, services or facilities. Therefore, merely because the Tribunal has directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide whether the expenses claimed by the assessee were incurred for the purpose of export promotion, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to examine whether the items of expenditure were allowable under sub-clause (ix) of sub-section (1)(b) of section 35B. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner will now have to examine the activities in connection with the expenditure that was incurred by the assessee and will have to decide whether such activities come within the ambit of any of the sub clauses mentioned in sub-section (1)(b) of section 35B. In that view of the matter, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. B. L. JAIN J. - I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 75 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and I. T. References Nos. 137 and 138 of 1979, CIT v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (No. 2) 1989 178 ITR 403 rendered on November 17, 1988, in favour of the assessee. Following the decisions recorded therein, the question is answered in the affirmative, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... te Tribunal. He said there was no finding that there was any infringement of section 13(1)(a) of the Act. He appears to be right in his submission but then it does appear to us that there was a mistake in setting out the question. The High Court has power to recast or amend the question so as to bring out the real controversy between the parties. In fact, this can be done even at the time of deciding the reference. It is not necessary to set out the details of the controversy at this stage. It does, however, appear to us that a question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The question can be set out as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, though there was infringement of the provisions of section 13 of the Act ? We would, therefore, require the, Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer it to this court for decision.
-
1988 (12) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee was not occupying the rent-free accommodation by virtue of his posting as an employee of the foreign company in Calcutta. It is in connection with his official duty for the purpose of supervising the erection of gas turbines at Calcutta, Siliguri and Haldia that the assessee had to visit these places. Such visits are in connection with his official duty. In the premises, the expenditure which has been incurred must be held to be wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing his official duties. This expenditure, on these facts, cannot be treated as a benefit given to the assessee. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion and the question referred in this reference must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to Orr. Dignam and Co. to file the vakalatnama within two weeks after the Christmas vacation. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 72 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o and decide whether there has been any concealment of income. But where there is a dispute as to whether such income allegedly concealed would be assessed in the hands of X or Y, unless the determination is made by the Income-tax Officer, no charge of concealment can be made against the person in whose hands the income is added on protective basis. He is liable only if it is his income which has been concealed. In other words, only person upon whom a substantive assessment is made would be liable for penalty provided the conditions precedent for imposition of the penalty are satisfied. It has been stated by counsel for the Revenue that the Departmerit did not dispute the assessments made in the hands of the said Mahabir Prosad Modi. In either view of the matter, no penalty can be levied in this case. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... judgment of the Supreme Court or of this court. Mr. Bhatia then stated that since this court had taken the view that, in tax matters, the judgment of any High Court would be treated as binding Kirloskar Asea Ltd. s judgment 1979 118 ITR 703 (Kar) was binding. No opportunity having been given to us by the Revenue to determine how the question should be answered, we had to turn to the assessee for assistance. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee, took Us through the provisions of section 84 which was deleted with effect from April 1, 1968, and the provisions of section 80J then came into operation. He also took us through the provisions of rule 19, applicable for calculation under section 84 and rule 19A applicable for calculation under section 80J. We then went through Kirloskar Asea Ltd. s judgment 1979 118 ITR 703 (Kar) and respectfully agree therewith. Accordingly, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 1,00,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction of the liability under Balrampur Tenantry War Loan ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and especially in the absence of any additional evidence produced by the Department, the Tribunal s reversal of the findings of the Settlement Commission for earlier years in respect of ground No. 1 is sustainable in law ? The application is partly allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... 1980 121 ITR 680 in which it was held that if an assessee makes payments at different times during the day and he has no idea that he has to pay to the same person on more than one occasion, he cannot be subjected to the statutory provision contained in section 40A(3) of the Act, unless any one payment is above Rs. 2,500. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts of that case are different. If this view is allowed to prevail, then the provisions contained in section 40A(3) would become nugatory. We have examined the question. We are also conscious of the fact that the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Orissa High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court but the fact remains that it was dismissed in limine. In our considered view, this question is an important question of law and requires consideration. We, consequently, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer question No. 3 to this court for its opinion.
-
1988 (12) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest On Refund, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... und due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months, whereas, under section 244(lA), proviso, no interest shall be payable for period of one month from the date of the passing of the order. This later provision clearly indicates that Parliament in its wisdom intended to give the benefit of interest to the assessee from the date of payment of tax except for a period of one month. Even accepting for a moment that the provisions can be read either way, it is well-settled that a construction which is favourable to the taxpayer will have to be taken. Only in this context, the circular of the Board is relevant. We are of the view that the construction placed by the Tribunal on section 244(1A) is correct on the clear language of the provision. Hence, we are not inclined to direct the Tribunal to state a case on the question of law raised by the Revenue. These tax case petitions are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (one set).
-
1988 (12) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Film Distribution Business ... ... ... ... ..... applicability of the new rules qua the picture Bobby and for the applicability of the circular to the other two films, has to be ignored. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue, in the negative, that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the option once exercised by the assessee under rule 9B(7) could be subsequently revised before the final assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative to state that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exercise its option under rule 9B(7) in respect of one or more films for the applicability of the new rules while not exercising such option in respect of other films released in the same assessment year with the result that the films for which option is not exercised, the assessment of the same would be governed by the old rules read with Circular No. 154. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 66 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... red as sums not includible in the total income for income-tax assessments and, therefore, would not fall for deduction under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for computing the capital employed ? Keeping in view the judgment in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. 1980 123 ITR 273 (P and H), which was between the same parties, as also our recent judgment in ITR No. 70 of 1980 (CIT v. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) P. Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 142 (P and H)), decided on December 1, 1988, question No. 1 is hereby answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As regards the second question, this is covered by our decision in ITR Nos. 71 to 74 of 1980 (CIT v. Pure Drinks (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 194 (P and H), decided on December 1, 1988, and it is accordingly answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Income-tax Officer could not thereafter take recourse to section 147(a) to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight. The rationale of this judgment clearly applies to the case here. The point to be emphasised in the present case is that the amount collected as royalty, namely, Rs. 28,160, was specifically mentioned in the return. A plain reading of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act would show that the return as filed by the assessee would not be covered by it This was thus clearly a case where the Income-tax Officer could not have proceeded under section 147(a) of the Act as he had purported to do in this case and that too after the prescribed period of four years had elapsed. Such thus being the situation here, the reference has consequently to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 64 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... in the individual assessment of the assessee under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? A similar question came up for consideration before this court in Income-tax Reference No. 25 of 1980 (Amrit Lal v. CIT 1989 179 ITR 105 (P and H)) decided today, that is, December 2, 1988. For the reasons recorded therein, this reference too is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax assessments and, therefore, would not fall for deduction under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for computing the capital employed ? The answer to the question referred regarding the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 has clearly to be in the affimative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, keeping in view our judgment in Income-tax Reference No. 70 of 1980 (CIT v. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) P. Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 142 (P and H)), decided today, that is, December 1, 1988. The other question too, namely, that pertaining to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee against the Revenue as the point raised therein is covered by the decisions in CIT v. Sundaram Industries (P.) Ltd. 1985 151 ITR 769 (Mad) and CIT v. Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. 1987 167 ITR 359 (Ker). This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r wrongful deprivation of the security deposit. This case clearly falls in line with Ballantine s case 1924 8 TC 595 (C. Sess), which was noticed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and was distinguished because there the interest was awarded by way of compensation for loss suffered on account of deprivation of property under the orders of the court and not under any statute like the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the amount of interest received by the assessee was by way of compensation and was a casual receipt and could not be included in the income of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. However, the Tribunal was not right in observing that the awarding of Rs. 13,871 as interest was in the nature of ex gratia payment. The payment was under the discretion of the court but not ex gratia. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the negative, with costs quantified at Rs. 500.
-
1988 (12) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... to the category of the income included in the total income and not to the quantum of the income so included. Following this judgment, our court in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. 1980 123 ITR 273 held that when the Legislature speaks of income by way of dividends , it refers to the gross income shown in the books of the assessee and not the net dividend which actually forms part of the total income of the assessee. A similar view has been taken in a string of authorities, namely, CIT v. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. 1985 154 ITR 323 (Cal) CIT v. Sundaram Industries P. Ltd. 1985 151 ITR 769 (Mad) CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) CO. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 178 (MP) and A. V. Thomas and Co. v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 515 (Ker). It is clear, therefore, that what had to be excluded were gross dividends. Such, thus, being the settled position in law, the reference is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Business ... ... ... ... ..... an be adjusted against the income from other sources in view of section 71 of the Act. In this case, the applicability of section 72 would not arise as, after adjustment, there is a net profit of Rs. 1,441.21. Viewing the case from this angle, we are of the opinion that the question whether the interest income was business income or not has become purely academic. Accordingly, we answer the referred question in the negative to the effect that the Tribunal did not err in holding that the income from short-term loan as interest derived by the assessee-company was taxable as income from other sources and not as business income but the Tribunal is directed to decide the admissibility of business expenditure against the aforesaid interest income as income from other sources under section 71 of the Act. In view of our decision recorded above, Income-tax Case No.47 of 1980 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. Parties are left to bear their own costs in both the matters.
-
1988 (12) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... ay be an oral agreement between the assessee and the seller for payment in cash. seller may not be willing to accept cheques cash payment may be made at the request of the payee who is also an assessee and a certificate to that effect filed absence of banking facilities in places where cash payments are made. All such cases would come within the purview of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. On the facts of, this case, where the assessee has satisfied the Assessing Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee, the circumstance that there was a delay in making payment of the bills by itself would not take the case out of the ambit of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances referred to in rule 6DD(j) and deduction of the expenditure which is otherwise allowable to him cannot be denied. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ideration would be with a view to reduce the tax liability. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 52(2) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer should have material before him because the onus is on the Revenue on which he has to record a finding. Since the Income-tax Officer invoked the provisions of section 52(2) of the Act, he would be having material before him and on the peculiar facts of this case, no jurisdiction has been shown by the Revenue for a further opportunity to collect facts and material. Even in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, no foundation was laid for such permission. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in giving to the Income-tax Officer a further opportunity to collect further facts and material relevant for the valuation of the land. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, i.e., in the affirmative.
-
1988 (12) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 64(2)(b) of the Act specifically enjoined that the income derived from the converted property or any part thereof should be deemed to arise to the individual and not to the Hindu undivided family. When the sum of Rs. 30,000 was invested in the partnership business, that amount became converted property within the meaning of section 64(2)(b) of the Act. The money which belonged to the assessee was thrown into the common stock of the family by a positive declaration of the assessee. It was the converted property which fetched income during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The income derived from the converted property, therefore, must be deemed to arise to the assessee as his individual income and not to the Hindu undivided family of the assessee. A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Allahabad in CIT v. Mulkh Raj and Sons 1982 135 ITR 89. The reference is thus answered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
....
|
