|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 213 Records
-
1993 (6) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... amount was in fact misappropriated by its accountant or not. We are only holding that the Tribunal was wrong in proceeding on the basis that there was no material before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There was some material before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was, therefore, not correct to hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had misconceived the facts and had misdirected himself on all material aspects of the case. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and state that it cannot be said that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had misconceived the facts. Question No. 2 need not be answered at this stage as the Tribunal will have to examine on merits whether, in view of the material on record, it can be said that the said amount was in fact defalcated and the assessee s claim in that behalf was justified. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemption From Additional Tax, Manufacture Or Processing Of Goods, Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... f the agreement dated August 23, 1976. When no valid transfer could have been effected by that document for the reasons mentioned earlier, the compromise between the parties and the order of the court recording that compromise will not confer any right on the assessee. For the same reason, the payment of plantation tax, if any, will not also clothe the transferee with ownership. The transfer by a registered document took place only in 1985. A valid transfer had taken place only then. The Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any error in finding that possession and enjoyment of the property continued with the assessee and that the property was released to his children only in 1985. For the reasons aforesaid, the questions referred to this court are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum.
-
1993 (6) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate, Non-resident, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... rein for the purpose of reading time. It was not pointed out to us that keeping of a wall clock in the factory is required under the Factories Act or any other labour legislation. But its necessity in the factory cannot be seriously doubted. It would certainly be useful for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee and if, for that purpose, the assessee thought it fit to install the same, it cannot be said that it did not play an essential part in the assessee s operations. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that it was not a tool of the assessee s manufacturing trade. In the result, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... able. In that case, the assessee was an individual and he surrendered 15 per cent. of the shares of his profits to his three sons. The business was carried on by the firm and not by the individual. The gift was not of a property of the firm. It was in these circumstances that this court observed that it cannot be said that there is an integral connection between the new arrangement that was made and the business that was carried on. This decision is, therefore, of no assistance to the Revenue. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act. The question referred to this court is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (6) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld like to make one observation. Before the statement of the case is finalised, notice was given by the Tribunal to the assessee as well as the Revenue. On the day of finalisation, it is the duty of the assessee as well as the Revenue to point out the mistakes, if any, occurring in the statement of the case and any other or further documents that will have to be appended to the statement of the case in the light of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the questions of law that have been formulated, etc. This is not the first instance when the essential documents are not forwarded along with the statement of the case by the Appellate Tribunal. We are at a loss to know as to where the fault lies. We leave it there. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, shall submit the supplementary statement of the case within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Registrar shall communicate this order forthwith to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (6) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Abkari Contract, Income, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... e interest taxable in that year. It is taxable the moment it accrues. That it accrues every year cannot admit of any doubt. Since the method of accounting followed herein is mercantile, we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Appellate Tribunal were wrong in holding that the interest becomes taxable only in the year in which the Excise Department gives credit to the assessee. The moment the interest accrues it will be caught within the tax net, since, admittedly, the method of accounting is mercantile. We, therefore, hold that the decision to the contrary by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal are erroneous in law. We answer the questions referred to this court in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (6) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e three appeals (I. T. A. Nos. 20, 26 and 31/(Coch) of 1986), to file and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. This case is also governed by the common order of the Tribunal dated July 31, 1986, which was answered on the above lines by this court as early as September 17, 1990, in Income-tax References Nos. 211 to 213 of 1987 (see 1991 187 ITR 417). We are of the view that the reasoning and conclusion in Income-tax References Nos. 211 to 213 of 1987, contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment, which we have extracted hereinabove, should apply in this case also. We decline to answer the question referred to this court but, at the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to file and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (6) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... cord with the test and guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in the three recent decisions referred to above. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal has over-emphasised the fact that the assessee had acquired an enduring benefit of planting rubber trees by obtaining long-term lease arrangements and so, the expense incurred relating to stamp duty, adjudication fee, registration fee, etc., in respect of lease deeds covering the lands leased to the assessee by the Government is a capital expenditure. Following the decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts referred to above, we hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is a revenue expenditure. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this court in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, forthwith.
-
1993 (6) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... that the assessee is entitled to depreciation allowance. This is improper. We set aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 12, 1990, which are attacked in T. R. C. Nos. 154, 159 and 160 of 1991, as also the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated February 25, 1991, which is attacked in T. R. C. No. 177 of 1992 in so far as the said orders hold that the respondent-assessee is entitled to depreciation allowance in respect of the sprinkler machinery. Only to this extent, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in these four cases. We direct the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeals to file and consider as to whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to the depreciation allowance in respect of the sprinkler machinery for the relevant assessment years. The Appellate Tribunal shall determine the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The tax revision cases are allowed to the above extent.
-
1993 (6) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... so. In this state of affairs, the Appellate Tribunal should have held that the sum of Rs. 1,86,395 received under the agreement in question was for sale of trees. We are of the view that there is absolutely no material on record to show that any portion of the said consideration was received by the assessee for slaughter-tapping. The reasoning and finding of the Appellate Tribunal to the contrary is wholly conjectural and due to faulty reasoning and wrong assumption of facts. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it holds that the consideration received as per the agreement was for slaughter-tapping as well as for cutting and removal of trees. To this extent, the common order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 12, 1989, in so far as it relates to assessment year 1979-80 is set aside. This revision is allowed. The Appellate Tribunal as well as the assessing authority shall give effect to this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 43 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... that while computing the capital employed, borrowed moneys are required to be excluded. In Kaira Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. CIT 1986 162 ITR 496, this court has held in terms that debts and liabilities have to be deducted while computing the capital for the purpose of section 84/ 80J. Following the said judgment of the Supreme Court and the decision of this court, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J should be arrived at without deducting the liabilities and debts. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the manufacture or production of articles or things specified in item No. 1, viz., iron and steel (metal), of the list of articles or things specified in Schedule V to the Act. The Supreme Court further held that mild steel rods, bars and rounds manufactured by the assessee can be said to be finished forms of the metal and not articles made of iron and steel. Interpreting item No. 1, the Supreme Court held that the word metal in iron and steel (metal) is obviously not used to denote the metal in its pristine form as an ore or as an extraction from the ore. In the context of a manufacturing industry, it is used for emphasising the distinction between the metal used as a raw material in the manufacture of various articles and the commercial articles made therefrom. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... roved in the Full Bench decision, viz., that the jurisdiction and the power to deal with the matters in issue must be from the perspective as to what was the subject-matter of the assessment and not merely on what was the subject-matter of appeal. On the facts of the case, there is no dispute that the subject-matter of the assessment was the computation as regards the profits arising from the sale of the property in question coupled with the computation of longterm capital gains. Thus, it was this issue which was directly before the Income-tax Officer and it was the very same issue which was open before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in specifying the three questions raised in the present reference for our consideration and each question must be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Offences And Prosecution, Return, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... wers vested in him as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in an appeal preferred before him. In such a case, a second appeal is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable. We concur with the Tribunal that the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is incompetent and the declaration of the Appellate Tribunal on that score is justified in law. In the circumstances, the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue by passing an appropriate declaration that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is illegal and unauthorised. The appeal filed by the Revenue should not have been dismissed. It should have been allowed. We hold so. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders in conformity with the judgment herein. We remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for the said purpose. The revision is allowed to the above extent.
-
1993 (6) TMI 39 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purchase. The method of valuing the site and the building separately and adding up the values would be improper in such cases. We entirely agree with the said decision and we are of the opinion that in the absence of definite and better material, the rental method should have been adopted as the appropriate method for determining the market value of the tenanted property where eviction and increase in rent are controlled and determined by the relevant provisions of the Rent Control Act. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the property should have been valued on the basis of the rental method. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative. Question No. 2, is also answered in the affirmative subject to what the Tribunal has observed, namely, that it would be open to the Wealth tax Officer to value the property at a higher figure even after adopting the rental method. These references are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 38 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Form No. 12, Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... explanation of the assessee. As stated earlier, the explanation of the assessee was also accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as he believed that the declaration of the partner was genuine that it was customary to take signatures of partners on blank forms and that when the date June 30, 1973, was Put thereon, it was with a view to show that it was presented on that day. The Tribunal thus accepted the explanation of the assessee that it was under a mistaken belief that such a thing could be done that the declaration form signed by a dead partner was presented by it on June 30, 1974. Considering the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed an error of law in accepting the explanation of the assessee. In the result, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. Question No. 3 is also answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assets, Reversionary Interest, Settlement, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... essee, i.e, the Appellate Tribunal did not err in law in holding that there was no reversionary interest of the assessee in respect of the trusts in question. As regards question No. 3, we are required to hold in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, viz., that the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the additions specified in its order on the ground that there was no reversionary interest of the assessee in the trust in question for the relevant assessment years and that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is accordingly sustainable. We may observe in passing that the three questions which we have referred to hereinabove are identical to questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in R. A. No. 237/(Ahd.) of 1979, and are also identical to questions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in R. A. No. 238/(Ahd.) of 1979. The same questions have already been answered by us by way of answer to questions Nos. 1. 2 and 3 hereinabove. These references are, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Perquisite, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... time by the supplier after giving three months notice or at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of installation. On these facts, it was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the assessee, by installing the data processing machine, had not acquired any enduring benefit or advantage. No decision taking contrary view has been cited before us. As regards the payments by way of bonus, it is settled law that such amount cannot be regarded as perquisites but they are required to be regarded as salary. In CIT v. India Radiators Ltd. 1976 105 ITR 680, the Madras High Court has taken that view and we respectfully agree with the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Tribunal was wrong in declining to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Fines And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... to existence certain capital assets and to put them, in working condition. These items of expenditure were incurred as an integral part of the cost price of the machinery and formed part of the cost of acquisition of the capital assets. This expenditure must thus be regarded as a capital expenditure. Thus, even this question is required to be answered in the affirmative, viz., the payment of Rs. 70,392 as bank guarantee commission is expenditure of a capital nature. At this stage, learned counsel for the assessee makes a request that the Tribunal be directed to examine as to whether the benefit of depreciation and/or development rebate can be given to him on the aforesaid amounts, wherever applicable. While we do not propose to issue any mandatory directions, we merely observe that, if it is open to the Tribunal to do so, it may consider this aspect of the matter while giving effect to the present order. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (6) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... do not propose to enter into a detailed discussion as to the treatment given by the Tribunal on the material on record and the appreciation of such evidence. Suffice it to say that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of such material is eminently reasonable and sustainable and it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in law in arriving at such a conclusion. In the aforesaid premises, the question before us would be required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was carrying on a business or an adventure in the nature of trade when he purchased and sold the agricultural lands. Before parting with this matter, we may observe that the applicant was directed to be served with notice of this reference and in fact he has so been served as per the endorsement on the acknowledgment slip on October 20, 1992. This reference is, therefore, disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
