Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... r tilling of the land is not necessary. It is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operations being carried on. Mr. Pal draws our attention to p. 8 of the paper book where the Tribunal observed as follows The Tribunal after considering the certificate from the garden manager of the assessee, the description of land sold in the sale deed, the fact of purchase by the owners of the adjoining tea estate and the extraordinary rise in price held that these facts supported the contention of the assessee that human labour and skill had been expended and the land had been made fit for immediate cultivation and that at the time of sale it was not overgrown with trees of spontaneous growth. In the face of such a finding and in view of the decisions of the various High Courts including the Supreme Court discussed above, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, There will, however, be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... emuneration paid to Rajeshwar Pershad is not out of proportion to the remuneration paid jointly to Smt. Yeshwant Kumari and the manager. From the above review of the facts it will be seen that there is on the one hand no material to suggest that the renumeration paid to Rajeshwar Pershad could have been intended to be a return to the family in respect of its investment in the business. On the other hand there is definite material to show that it could very well have been intended as remuneration for the services rendered by Rajeshwar Pershad. Both from the negative as well as positive aspects the conclusion that seems to us to be the only reasonable conclusion on the facts and in the circumstances of this case is that the remuneration received by Rajeshwar Pershad was his individual income. For the reasons above stated we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350 one set.
-
1981 (7) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ce of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or there is a change in the law as a result of s. 8 of the Succession Act has been elaborately considered by us in M.C.C. No. 131 of 1979, Shrivallabhdas Modani v. CIT, decided today We have held in that case that the property of a Hindu dying intestate after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act will devolve on his heirs in accordance with s. 8 of the Act and the successors will inherit the property in their individual capacity and not as representing their own HUF. Following that decision we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the department. Our answer is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was not right in holding that the sum of Rs. 34,355, being the credit balance of the assessee s deceased father, did not constitute the assessee s separate and individual property and consequently in directing the ITO to accept the partition. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... in what character the son would enjoy the property once he received it from his father in succession. With respect, we are unable to accept the Gujarat High Court s view on this question. As already observed, in construing a codified Act, we have to ignore the law which was in force earlier and confine ourselves to the language used in the new Act. So construed, s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act should be taken as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of a Hindu, dying intestate. Further, the weight of judicial authority is in favour of the law as stated and explained by the Allahabad, Madras and Mysore High Courts. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 as follows The property which devolved on the assessee, Shrivallabhdas on the death of his father, Gokalchand, did not constitute the HUF property consisting of his own branch including his sons. The answer is in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Capital Gains, Property ... ... ... ... ..... so, then it is not proper for this court to interfere with that finding of fact. In this connection reliance may be placed on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaichand Amoluk and Co. v. CIT 1962 44 ITR 511 at 516. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in the view it took on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, question No. 2, so far as the assessment year 1969-70 is concerned, must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered by saying that in determining the real annual value under s. 22 read with s. 23 of the I.T. Act, the rent receivable should be taken into consideration and not the amount actually supposed to have been received by the assessee. This question is answered in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal was also right on this aspect of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... in the drafting by the use of the expression thereof in more than one place in the provision with different meanings. But the words such house used in the said provision makes it clear that the exemption is only with reference to the house as such and, if it is partly occupied, the exemption available is only with reference to the proportionate part. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the exemption available under s. 33(1)(n) of the Act would comprehend the whole of rupees one lakh in the present case. On the facts here the exemption granted by the Asst. Controller and sustained by the appellate authorities is proper. The learned counsel wanted to rely on the provision of the W.T. Act in this connection. It is trite law that the provision of one statute cannot be construed with reference to the provision of another. The question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"If Sold" In S. 36, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... the said land was sold to Satyavadi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., after the notice of withdrawal of acquisition. The Asst. Controller was, therefore, justified in estimating the principal value of the property at the said amount for which the land was agreed to be sold and in fact was sold. We, therefore, do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor s case 1980 122 ITR 21 is of any assistance to the cause represented by the learned Advocate-General. No other contentions have been urged in this reference. The result is that this reference should be rejected and we answer the questions referred to us as under Question No. 1 In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 3 Does not survive since it has not been pressed. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Controller of Estate Duty.
-
1981 (7) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... this common reference for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the question of law referred to this court is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction of Rs. 19,313, Rs. 2,99,415 and Rs. 1,38,800 from his share income from the firm of M/s. Chitra Palayacat Co. under s. 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 ? The assessee is another partner of the same firm in Malaysia which was the subject-matter of consideration in T.C. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1977. The facts in this case are not different from those discussed in the other, and in fact the contentions were common. The answer to the question referred in this case is also that the assessee is not entitled to the weighted deduction from the share income from the firm of M/s. Chitra Palayacat Co., under s. 35B of the Act. The Department will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1981 (7) TMI 17 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... in the particular circumstances of the case. (Emphasis supplied). The basic question to be decided for imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The Explanation added to this provision merely relates to the question of burden of proof. If on an overall appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal arrives at a finding of fact that there is no concealment or inaccurate furnishing of particulars of income, the finding cannot be called perverse and no question of law will arise therefrom. In the instant case the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the AAC holding that the act of the assessee did not warrant the imposing of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact by the appellate authorities and no question of law arises therefrom. We, therefore, dismiss this application. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Income, New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry
-
1981 (7) TMI 15 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... appeal of Suresh Nandan Sinha has been dismissed but the appeal filed by the State of Bihar is still pending. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that s. 41 of the Act will have no application as the heirs are no longer indeterminate. It is difficult to foresee what will be the final decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessment which was made under s. 41(1) of the Act at the maximum rate is valid. The question as to who will inherit the estate and in what proportion is still a matter of controversy. The second question has also to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. It is, however, made clear that it will be without prejudice to the right of the parties to raise such questions before the Department as may be legal after the disposal of the appeal. In the result, both the questions are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In the circumstances, we would make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ond aspect on which the Tribunal disposed of the appeal before it. This results in the following position that even if we agree with the Department and hold that the transactions in question were speculative transactions, that will not have any practical impact on the assessment. The Department will not be able to succeed in restoring the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 unless the second ground of the decision of the Tribunal is also set aside. As to that unfortunately no reference has been made to us. In these circumstances, the reference before us is one of a purely academic nature. We therefore, express no opinion on the merits of either of the issues that really arise in this case (1) whether in a case of this type a speculative transaction can be said to be involved, and (2) whether the transactions in question were rightly held to be speculative transactions not in the nature of a business. The reference is, therefore, returned unanswered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... erable stress was only a clause regarding the payment. The assessee was liable to pay a commission of Rs. 1,00,000, but it was to pay the amount from time to time as and when the sale proceeds were received. If the Department is bringing to tax only the amount of sale proceeds actually received then the assessee would have been entitled to the deduction only in respect of the commission relatable to such sale proceeds. But, in the present case, when the entire sale price of Rs. 4,00,000 is being taxed, the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire sum of Rs. 1,00,000 which it was liable to pay as commission. In principle, we see no difference between the claim for commission and the claim for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 dealt with earlier. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in these two references also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee has succeeded, it will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500, one set.
-
1981 (7) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure To Protect Trade Or Business, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... he was taxed. The result is that the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee would be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. When the judgments were pronounced, the learned standing counsel for the Commissioner, Mr. J. Jayaraman, made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in accordance with art. 134A of the Constitution of India read with s. 261 of the I.T. Act. The question that has been discussed in the present case, is no doubt a routine one of the capital or revenue character of the expenditure. But the judgment of Balasubrahmanyan J. has brought out some apparent conflict between the decisions of the Supreme Court in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT 1970 75 ITR 373 and Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1971 81 ITR 754. In view of the matter having to be authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court, we think it fit to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in the present case. Accordingly, leave is granted.
-
1981 (7) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment, Income Tax Proceedings, Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... o discuss this question afresh. Accordingly, we answer this question in the affirmative and against the assessee. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, it is not necessary to answer this question. In view of our answer to question No. 1, this question does not survive. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the following manner I.T.R. No. 66/1977 Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 4 Not necessary to answer as this question does not survive in view of the answer to question No. 1. W.T.R. No. 18/1976 Whether, on the facts and in the In the affirmative and against circumstances of the case, the Appellate, the assessee. Tribunal was justified in law in holding that as on October 30, 1970, Shri Harshadrai was the sole beneficiary under the trust, A-1, as modified by deeds, A-2 and A-3 ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... his case the Tribunal has not, in our opinion, decided any question in vacuum. The Tribunal has borne the facts of the years in question in mind. The Tribunal has noted that the suit has not yet been decided . The Tribunal has, therefore, directed that the appeal should be restored to the file of the AAC and decided after disposal of the suit in the manner indicated by the Tribunal. Such a direction, in our opinion, is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We should rather think that it was desirable direction that the Tribunal could give. In that view of the matter, we answer question No. (i) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We answer question No. (ii) also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We would also answer question No. (iii) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee, is not appearing, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ds did not form part of the records as contemplated under s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This question is answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the facts that the assessee did not claim any relief in the return form or in the contentions urged before the ITO at the time of the Original assessment or in an appeal from such assessment order, we are of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to rectification under s. 154 of the Act. We, therefore, answer question (c) in the above manner and in favour of the Revenue. In the view we have taken, question (d) is of an academic interest and we decline to answer this question. We answer question (e) by saying that the Tribunal was right in holding that s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. This question is also answered in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties Will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Manufacturing Concern ... ... ... ... ..... with the revaluation on the basis of fluctuation in the value of the articles in question. Such is not the basis of the claim. The basis of the claim is that the jigs, fixtures, tools, etc., were actually used in the course of the manufacturing activity. If that is so, they form part of the machinery and depreciation can be claimed at the prescribed rate. In that event, it is not permissible for an assessee to make its own assessment of the extent of the depreciation by user and to claim it on the basis of the assessment made by its own expert. The view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, unexceptionable. Both these questions, therefore, must be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as under Question No. 1. In the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2. In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 3. In the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... to have been established. Something more than their estimate would be necessary to say that the father could not have such an income and that he could not have saved a large amount to be able to lend to the son, the assessee could not be held to have made a default under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We think that the assessee must be held to have discharged the burden resting on him by the reasonableness of the explanation and that it could not be impeached by any established material with the Department. We think that the assessee, in the circumstances of the case, has discharged the burden cast on him because of the Explanation and no penalty can be levied in the circumstances of the case. We would, therefore, answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In view of the fact that no penalty is leviable, the rate at which this could be levied would not arise. The second question, therefore, will not arise and it need not be answered.
-
1981 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... come could not be included in the assessee s total income ? In view of the facts relevant for these assessment years, which are the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, and in view of the provisions of s. 168 of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein it is clear that an administrator appointed by this court would admittedly come within the purview of s. 168, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion and the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties will pay and bear their own costs.
....
|