|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 229 Records
-
1985 (3) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he firm included in the net wealth of the partner, being the interest of the partner of the firm, shall be entitled to exemption to the extent allowed by s. 5(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, when the interest in the assets of the firm belongs to the individual partner and is chargeable to wealth-tax, the partner will be entitled to exemption in the computation of such wealth under the W.T. Act. We may mention that an identical question came up for consideration before this court in the case of CWT v. Sri Naurangrai Agarwalla (Matter No. 761 of 1979) By the judgment dated June 20, 1983- 1985 155 ITR 752, this court held that the exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) cannot be denied to the assessee who is a partner of a firm in respect of the house which forms part of the assets of the firm. In the premises, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (3) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... he true ratio in Kousali s case 1985 155 ITR 739 (Kar) does not bear on the point and assist Sri Srinivasan. When once I hold that the notes had to be excluded, if follows that there are no reasons recorded by the ITO to justify the reopening of the concluded assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. From this, it follows that the notice cannot be sustained either under s. 147(a) or (b) of the Act and is liable to be quashed. Sri Prasad next contends that even otherwise, the notes prepared by the ITO does not also constitute an information as to a fact to justify reopening under s. 147(b) of the Act. As I have held that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the very first ground, it is not necessary for me to examine this contention and pronounce on the same. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the impugned notice. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 48 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... titution of the market value of the the ITO to adopt any reasonable undertaking as on 1-1-1954, for the method for determining the cost of acquisition under the provisions market value of the assets of the of section 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, undertaking as on 1-1-1954, 1961 ? without reference to the observations or findings recorded by 7. Whether the manner laid 0the Tribunal as to the method down by the Tribunal for the appor- of valuation. tionment of the compensation amount between the various assets of the undertaking as on the date of acquisition is correct in law ? 8. Whether the directions of the Tribunal with regard to the computation of the cost of acquisition and of improvement are correct in law ? 9. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for the determination of the market value of the undertaking as on 1-1-1954 on the basis of the capitalisation of the maintainable profits, profits of the years subsequent to 1-1-1954 should not be taken into account.
-
1985 (3) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Tax Holiday ... ... ... ... ..... is involved. So, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. As far as we can see, the second question does not arise in this form on the facts of this case, because there is no circular issued under s. 84. This provision requires a computation of the capital employed for the purpose of the business. The Tribunal has merely adopted the principle that if the machinery purchased on hire-purchase belongs to the assessee for depreciation and development rebate, then it also belongs to the assessee for the purpose of applying s. 84 of the Act. We have not been able to find any infirmity in this reasoning so we answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We have not referred to the other judgments cited on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, but have relied only on the circulars. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er found that there was no borrowing at all by the assessee and even assuming there was one, the creation of the capital asset could not precede the borrowing as in this case and, therefore, the requirements of the proviso are also not fulfilled. We may also point out that the Tribunal was in error in stating that r. 1 deals with capital corresponding to the assets in the assessee s balance-sheet. In the decision in Kannapiran Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 947 (Mad), it has been pointed by this court at page 953 that the idea of creation of a capital asset referred to in the proviso does not take into account intangible additions to the assets of a company as shown in the balance-sheet. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is unsustainable. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set
-
1985 (3) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Mistake Apparent From Record, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... here is no question of any further deduction under s. 80M. The consistent view taken by this court is that the provisions of s. 80A are clear and no deduction can be allowed if the result after setting off of losses is a negative figure. This view taken by this court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 252 (Cal) and Mcleod and Company Ltd. 1982 134 ITR 674 (Cal) is supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC), Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 243 (SC) and Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 777 (SC). A mistake in the allowance of relief under ss. 80L and 80M made because of the misreading of s. 80A would be a mistake apparent from the record and such a mistake can be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (3) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ically enables the assessee to put forward all the contentions before the Income-tax Officer, we do not think there is any justification to give a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question set out above. In view of the fact that the determination of the cost of acquisition of all the shares held by the assessee on the basis of the market value as on January 1, 1964, being prejudicial to the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income-tax had justification to invoke section 263. A mere look at the order of the Income-tax Officer would indicate that the computation of the cost of acquisition of shares acquired after January 1, 1964, on the basis of the market value as on January 1, 1964, is on erroneous basis. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. We are not, therefore, directing a reference in this case. The petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
False Return, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nt. The essence of an offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act lies in the verification of an untrue statement. Where verification was deliberately false, subsequent rectification cannot alter the position. It is not enough to sustain the conviction under section 277 by merely showing that the return was false, but it must also be established that the accused knew that the return made is false to his knowledge. The prosecution has to establish that not only the verification made by the accused was false but also that he has made such verification with the belief and knowledge that such verification was false or at least that he believed such verification not to be true. The same would apply to a case for an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, regarding cheating about which also there is no prima facie material or evidence adduced by the petitioner. For all these reasons, I see no merit in this petition which is dismissed and the order of discharge is upheld.
-
1985 (3) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court In Directing Reference ... ... ... ... ..... r vouchers evidencing the expenditure was possible of being produced according to the assessee. In view of this and in view of the finding earlier recorded by the appellate authority that the expenditure did in fact relate to monies spent on coffee or tea on customers, the Tribunal, having regard to the large business of the assessee, has made rough and ready estimate at 50 per cent. This would hardly raise any question of law. Strictly speaking, how much amount should be allowed as deductible in the absence of any material which cannot be produced because of the lapse of time must essentially relate to the exercise of discretion having regard to the nature and extent of the business of the assessee. Accordingly, we do not think that even with regard to the second question, any statement can be called for from the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we reject these petitions. The assessee would get costs of these petitions from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (one set).
-
1985 (3) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e that on the relevant date, Geethalakshmi held the funds as the wife of the assessee. But the relevant date to be taken into account, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is the date when the transfer was made, not when the marriage actually took place. It is also not relevant to consider whether there is any violation of the terms of the trust deed. Even if there is any violation of the provisions of the trust deed as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue, once the factum of payment is admitted to be before the marriage, then the legal consequence has to follow from such payment. Even if the payment was contrary to the terms of the trust deed, it is not possible to ignore the factum of payment before the marriage. In this view of the matter, since the questions appear to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, we are not inclined to direct the Tribunal to make a reference in this case. The tax case petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 40 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Current Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... demur. Even the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also went into the exercise of comparing percentage of expenses on account of repairs and renovations. This analysis shows clearly that the expenses over renovation and replacement were not on the high side. In view of the facts mentioned in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, we have no difficulty in holding that the expenses on account of repairs and renovation to the furnace of the assessee must be held to be current repairs within the meaning of section 31 (1) of the Act. They cannot be dubbed as capital in nature. For the reasons stated above, it is obvious that the Tribunal was fully justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations were of the nature of current repairs and thus revenue in nature. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... wing observations in that case which contains the reason for holding that the sale of import entitlement must be regarded as the profits of the assessee in its business Now, in the present case, the facts found by the Tribunal clearly show and this is not disputed by either side that the import entitlements were obtained by the assessee in the course of its business, so that the value of the same constituted profits and gains of the business of the assessee within the meaning of the said term in clause (iv) of section 28 of the said Act. In these circumstances, it is impossible to regard these import entitlements as capital asset of the assessee. It is equally clear that, in these circumstances, the amount realised by the assessee on the sale of these import entitlements must also be regarded as profits of the assessee in its business. In this view of the matter, we do not think we will be justified in directing a reference in this case. This petition is, therefore, rejected.
-
1985 (3) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Income ... ... ... ... ..... peculation income were not assessable as the income of the assessee. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal in this case has found that there was a bank account in the name of the assessee s daughter. She had her own capital. The business was done by the assessee as guardian of his minor daughter and the brokers also supported the assessee s contention that the business was carried on by the minor daughter, though the transaction was done by the assessee. Where the minor carried on the business through guardian father and the father was acting not for himself but as the guardian, for and on behalf of the minor, the income earned by such business carried on by the minor cannot be included in the hands of the guardian father. We are, therefore, of the view that, on the facts of this case, the Tribunal arrived at the correct conclusion. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeals, Appellate Orders, Deduction U/S 80J, New Industrial Undertaking, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... r himself. The order of the Income-tax Officer granting relief under section 80J for the assessment year 1974-75 is only an order which is consequential on giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Under the guise of exercise of power under section 154 of the Act, the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be rendered ineffective. The Revenue had a right to agitate the correctness of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by taking the matter to the Tribunal. If the Revenue has not chosen to do that and allowed the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to stand, that order cannot now be undone by adopting the circuitous procedure of purporting to exercise the powers under section 154 of the Act. In our view, both these petitions must, therefore, be allowed. The notices issued under section 154 of the Act are quashed. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of these petitions, one set. (Rupees 500).
-
1985 (3) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Valuation Officer, Valuation Report ... ... ... ... ..... e may note for the sake of convenience that the power under Chapter XX-A to acquire immovable property is meant to guard against evasion of tax. It is a power to make a compulsory acquisition of property. In order to justify the action, the necessary preliminary facts have to be established. It has to be found that the fair market value exceeds the apparent consideration by 15 and unless some material of this type is forthcoming, action cannot be initiated. If the learned counsel for the Department is right, the proceedings can be initiated in almost every case by merely making presumptions that the conditions are satisfied. We reject such a construction of the Act and do not think that this is a legally tenable interpretation of the provisions. Even the presumptions under section 269C(2) can operate only if there is some material on the basis of which the Competent Authority arrives at a prima facie estimate of the market value. We accordingly reject this appeal with costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Remuneration Paid To Director And Chairman ... ... ... ... ..... . If he was alive, it was the duty of the assessee-company to bear all expenses for his return and such expenditure would have been for the purpose of business of the company. The death of K. C. Thapar at Delhi did not make any difference. It was the duty of the assessee-company to make arrangements for bringing his dead body to Calcutta and to bear the expenses incurred for that purpose. Expenses incurred by the assessee-company for carrying the dead body of late K. C. Thapar was the liability of the assessee-company and as such was incidental to the business carried on by the assessee-company and should be borne by the assessee-company. For the reasons stated hereinabove and following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Supreme Motors Private Ltd. 1972 84 ITR 1. We answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (3) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the applications made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 27(1) of the Act has held that the finding recorded by it in its appellate order did not give rise to any referable question. In view of what has been pointed out above, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in this behalf is incorrect. The assessee, in view of the fact that he had complied with the requirements of section 15 of the Ordinance and in view of the order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer quoted above, was entitled to the immunity from imposition of penalty as held by the Tribunal. It is in this view of the matter that we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal so as to require the Tribunal to refer that question to this court for its opinion. In the result, all these applications are dismissed. The assessee will be entitled to one set of costs of Rs. 125.
-
1985 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Capital Employed, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Profits And Gains, Setting Up
-
1985 (3) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... R 283. We, accordingly, answer this question also against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Referred Case No. 194 of 1980. This case was referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee and is identical both in fact and law with the facts and the questions of law which we have considered in Referred Case No. 129 of 1980. The only difference is that in this referred case, we are concerned with the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The questions referred for the opinion of this court in this referred case are also exactly similar as in Referred Case No. 129 of 1980. In fact, no separate arguments are advanced. Following our decision in Referred Case No. 129 of 1980, we answer the first, second and the fourth questions referred to us in this referred case in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and we decline to answer question No. 3 as it was not argued before us by the assessee. The referred cases are answered accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... -examining the witnesses who had previously not been examined. This, of course, was one course which a court of fact could adopt but it was equally open to the court to hold on the facts that the cash credits stood explained. We do not think the question of law now survives. Turning now to the last question regarding half interest on bank deposits, we think the answer to the question is self-evident. For one thing, the bank deposits were in the joint names of husband and wife and there is no material on record to show who earned the money which was deposited, nor is there any material to show that the money belonged more to the husband than to the wife. Furthermore, the wife has been assessed on half the interest at least in one year in her own assessment and she is admittedly owner of half the house which is the subject-matter of questions Nos. 1 and 2 above. We, therefore, think that no question of law arises. The application is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
....
|
