|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 223 Records
-
1989 (11) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Non-resident, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... im to have a sense of security of receiving the money back, the use to which the borrower was going to put the money lent to. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. 1967 63 ITR 609, for the purpose of this part of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act corresponding to section 9(1)(i) of the 1961 Act, the knowledge of the fact that money lent is going to be brought into India in cash or in kind both to the lender and the borrower is an integral part of the transaction. This can happen only when the borrower and the lender are not merely borrower and lender in the strict sense of the term but are a little more involved with each other so as to form one transaction. This is what has happened in this case. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted in this case. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s borrowed and actually spent on the existing crop in the land from which income is derived and it will not apply to any interest payments on amounts borrowed for maintaining the other areas or plants from which agricultural income is not derived in the assessment year. In view of the above ratio laid down, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the distinction between section 5(e) and section 5(k) is liable to be set aside. For all these reasons, while sustaining the remand passed by the Tribunal, we direct the Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax, to apply section 5(k) only in relation to the interest payments on the amounts borrowed and actually spent on the land from which income had been derived in the previous year and not in respect of the interest paid on the amounts borrowed for maintaining the immature plants which would clearly fall under section 5(e) and not under section 5(k). The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (One set).
-
1989 (11) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... t or on termination of employment for any reason. This-restriction will, however, not apply in relation to a provision made for the purpose of payment of a sum by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund that has become payable during the relevant year, or for the purpose of meeting actual liability in respect of payment of gratuity to the employees that has arisen during such year. Certainly, we must bear in mind that fiscal statutes should be strictly construed, but it does not rule out the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose or intention of any particular provision on a plain reading of the provision and understanding the apparent scheme of the Act. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 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.
-
1989 (11) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... of wealth for the assessment year 1966-67 and the assessment year 1973-74 and, the Tribunal has already held that the said bank account stood gifted by the assessee to his wife. In this background, the Tribunal has cancelled the penalties under section 271(1)(c) and this essentially is a finding of fact in the context of the facts mentioned above. The finding that the jewellery of the deceased wife of the assessee went to his married daughter is supported by the evidence on record. The cancellation of penalty did not entail any question of law. We think the Tribunal has rightly held that it had essentially recorded a finding of fact on the basis of which the provisions of section 18(1)(c) of the Act could not be said to have been attracted. No question of law, therefore, can be said to arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. We are, therefore, constrained to reject this application. The application is, accordingly, rejected. We, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... matter of fact, the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have both held that though the calculations of tax were shown to have been made on October 24, 1981, they were, in fact, made somewhere in March, 1982. In the light of these facts, no credence can be attached to the date mentioned in the rectification orders under section 154(1) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer nor is the purported date sacrosanct. Accordingly, it must be held that the orders of rectification under section 154 were barred by limitation. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the calculation of tax payable by the assessee having been done as per ITNS-150 forms in March, 1982, the rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the aforesaid question of law is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1989 (11) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Ceiling On Perquisite Given To Employees ... ... ... ... ..... settled law so far as the Tribunal, subject to this court s jurisdiction, was concerned and that, therefore, there was an error apparent from the record. It would bear repetition to say that in the instant case, on the date when the Tribunal had passed the appellate order, this court s decision was not there. In the second place, the decision of this court was and is already pending before the Supreme Court to be tested. Therefore, it cannot be said that the point is not debatable. It will, therefore, be seen that it involves long-drawn process of reasoning to establish that there was an error apparent in the Tribunal s appellate order for the assessment year 1974-75. In the result, therefore, the question referred to this court must be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee as the Tribunal was not legally correct in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1989 (11) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of reasoning, we are of the view that the provision in the agreement that the assessee would retake the workers if, for any reason, the oil mill was restarted, is of no consequence, in view of the fact that there was unity of control in the nature of the two lines of business. In the light of our above reasoning, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the oil mill was only a branch and did not constitute a separate business. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. The aforesaid finding is based on proper and legal material and is not vitiated. We answer question No.1 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In consequence, we answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1989 (11) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... necessary for the Tribunal to record a categorical finding on the first point aforementioned. We are, accordingly, constrained to call for a further statement of the case from the Tribunal after recording its finding on the question whether the assessee had all along been disclosing the written down value of the assets taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and the compensation received from time to time from the Board in its balance-sheets commencing from March 31, 1965, up to March 31, 1973, or not for, if the answer be in the affirmative, there would be no need to go into the other question. If, on the contrary, the answer be in the negative, then only it would be necessary to dwell on the other aspect of law. In the circumstances, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, which is the successor-in-office of the Nagpur Bench, to submit a further statement of the case with findings on the points aforementioned. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any, of any business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year Provided that the business or profession for which the loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in the previous year relevant for that assessment and (ii) if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on .... So, the loss has to be computed and carried forward where the net result of the computation under the head Profits and gains of business was a loss to the assessee. There cannot be any dispute that, as a result of the computation, the assessee has suffered a loss. Such loss has to be either set off in the very year of assessment or if it cannot be so set off wholly or in part, the amount which cannot be set off has to be carried forward. In view of the above, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee had paid the purchase price and had become the owner of the asset, the assessee had claimed depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. Such depreciation allowance can only be claimed by an owner of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture . In the instant case, the ownership of the technical know-how and drawings and designs remained with the foreign company. The assessee had only a right of user for a limited period and that too under certain restrictions. The principles laid down by it in the case of Ciba of India Ltd. 1968 69 ITR 692 (SC) will clearly apply to this case. I was referred to the judgments of several other High Courts on behalf of the Revenue. But, in view of the clear enunciation of the law by the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to refer to these judgments. Both the questions are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... The only question that has been raised was whether the amount was allowable as a deduction. In view of the inferences of fact that have been drawn by the Tribunal which are not under challenge, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was for the purpose of welfare of its employees. The Tribunal held To keep the employees loyal and also make them work sincerely it is necessary for the assessee to look to their welfare. It is for the purpose of their welfare that the assessee contributed the amounts and, therefore, there is a close nexus and an intimate connection between the expenditure incurred by the assessee and business expediency . In view of these findings of fact which are not under challenge, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Firm, Profession Tax ... ... ... ... ..... profession cannot be brought to tax again in the hands of an individual member thereof and vice versa because the charging provision of the Act does not provide for the same. On the other hand, the Explanation referred to above indicates to the contrary. Subsequent to April 1, 1989, the law stood amended and entry 20 to the Schedule of the Act has been substituted by making a partner of a firm liable to tax. This amendment further strengthens our view that, prior to April 1, 1989, the partner was not liable to pay tax at all and was not covered by entry 2 of the Schedule. Therefore, with great respect to the learned single judge ( 1986 161 ITR 668), we are unable to share the view taken by him and we set aside the order under appeal, with the result the proceedings of the respondent calling upon the appellant to register himself as an assessee under the Act shall stand quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the rule made absolute. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (11) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ITR 161) and they were disposed of by this court on September 1, 1989. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, these writ petitions are partly allowed, the assessments are quashed is so far as they relate to the inclusion of the income as back pool payment by the Coffee Board and remand the matter to redo the assessments in the light of the aforesaid decision in W. P. No. 11507 of 1981 (see 1990 184 ITR 161) and connected matters, and in accordance with law. Except to the extent indicated above, the assessment orders remain undisturbed. These writ petitions are dismissed in so far as they relate to the constitutional validity of rule 9(c) of the Rules. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
1989 (11) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with Shri P. C. Poddar. All these and other matters have not been considered by the Tribunal while cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The finding in the quantum appeal and the conduct of the assessee and the nature of the explanation offered by the assessee are all relevant considerations while disposing of an appeal against imposition of penalty. The Tribunal was bound to consider the evidence in support of the findings given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. A good piece of evidence though not conclusive, has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was not justified in saying that there was no evidence for imposing the penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. When the Tribunal has overlooked all these factors, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative.
-
1989 (11) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... years 1983-84 to 1986-87. On examination of the records and after perusal of the reports of the lower authorities, 50 per cent. of penalty and interest waived for all the years. No doubt, as contended by learned standing counsel for the Revenue, the Commissioner has applied his mind which is reflected in the reduction of penalty to 50 per cent., yet the order suffers from the vice of absence of reasons. From the impugned order it can be inferred that though the conditions precedent for the exercise of the jurisdiction have been satisfied, the Commissioner has not given any reason as to why the relief is limited to waiving 50 per cent. of penalty and interest. For these reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be quashed and we accordingly do so. The Commissioner is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... f the Income-tax Act. The same reasoning will hold good to hold that the processing of prawns will amount to production of articles and so it is an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J of the Incometax Act. This was so held by a Bench of this court in O.P. No. 10279 of 1987. In the light of the earlier Bench decision in Marwell Sea Foods case 1987 166 ITR 624 (Ker) and the earlier decision in which the very same assessee was the respondent in 0. P. No. 10279 of 1987, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the respondent (assessee) under section 80J of the Act for the entire business income of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (11) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... cover the case before us. Here, the income has not been transferred but the property has been transferred and the income whereof was received by the company which is not only in possession but also enjoying the income and, for the transfer of the property, there was a consideration, viz., the allotment of shares of the company to such members of the family in proportion to their shares. No registered deed of conveyance that was required for transfer of property was made though the fact is that the transferee was in possession of the property. This is a clear case where the company who is in possession continued to be in possession of the property and received income from such property. Therefore, the provision of section 60 of the said Act does not apply at all in this case. Accordingly, the question of law referred to this court in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SUBAS CHANDRA SEN J. - I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... rporation Ltd. 1987 166 ITR 797. Unfortunately, the attention of the court was not drawn to the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this court in the case of Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. 1982 138 ITR 326. In any event, the facts of that case are entirely distinguishable. In that case, the assessee, a foreign company, had declared dividends in England. The business of the assessee was carried on in India. In order to discharge the legal obligations arising out of declaration of dividends, the assessee had to remit monies from India to England. In that process, the assessee suffered certain losses. On that finding of fact, the court held that the expenditure was allowable. The facts of this case are entirely dissimilar and are more akin to the facts in the case of Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. 1982 138 ITR 326 (Cal). In view of the above, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... t of provident fund dues in time was not in the nature of penalty and that was in the nature of compensation paid to the Government. The Tribunal had no occasion to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries 1979 55 FIR 283, and the Tribunal had not considered in what circumstances the damages have been imposed and there is no finding by the Tribunal on the basis of which it could be concluded that the entire sum was imposed by way of penalty or was imposed for serving two purposes, namely, whether the entire sum was imposed merely for default and penalty in nature and the imposition of damages under section 14B to what extent was to provide reparation for the amount of loss suffered by the employees. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries 1979 55 FIR 283. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1989 (11) TMI 4 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Prima Facie Case, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ich has been sold and that there is no such separate thing as tal which can be said to fetch income. In the clarification submitted by the petitioners, no valuation has been assigned to any part of the wastage. This wastage has been shown between at 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the total weight. The complainant has examined witnesses in order to show that there is some material of value in between the finished product and the wastage, which goes away with the water in the business of manufacturing of precious and semi-precious stones and at present it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material for proceeding against the petitioners. The accused can be discharged only if it can be said that there is no ground for proceeding against him. This is not the position in the present case. The matter has been examined at length by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and there appears to be no reason to interfere with the order passed by him. This petition is dismissed.
....
|
