|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 280 Records
-
1984 (2) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nd to continue as such getting the same share which he was entitled to hitherto. The only difference is that he would be liable to share the loss also proportionately. That would be an inevitable consequence when he elects to become a full-fledged partner. When the terms of the deed provide for the minor to exercise his option to continue as full-fledged partner, we do not think there was any necessity to have a new deed of partnership. What is brought about from the above events is a change in sharing the losses by the partners and not in the constitution of the firm or in the ratio of profits. The view taken by the Commissioner that a new partnership came into existence is erroneous and his order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Commissioner are set aside and the orders of the Agrl. ITO granting renewal of registration are restored. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100, one set.
-
1984 (2) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest On Excess Payment ... ... ... ... ..... o been taken by the Kerala High Court in Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India 1982 135 ITR 39 and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Traub (India) P. Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 525. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jagannath Narayan Kutumbik Trust 1983 144 ITR 526, has also taken the same view. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1980 121 ITR 339, had been dissented from in some of the above decisions. Thus, as a result of the above discussion, we have to hold that the assessee is entitled to claim interest under s. 214 notwithstanding the fact that one of the instalments of advance tax has been paid beyond the due date so long as that amount has been accepted by the Department and the Revenue had the benefit of the said payment. In this view of the matter, we have to answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue, The Revenue will pay the costs to the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1984 (2) TMI 78 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... transaction of gift. Thus, there was nothing artificial on the part of the father retaining a dominant position in the affairs of the partnership especially when Paras Mal was quite young and inexperienced in business. The partnership between the father and son could not be termed as a fictitious one merely on the ground that the father had, under the terms of the partnership, retained the main control over the business. Therefore, cl. 7 of the partnership deed, as mentioned above, does not make the partnership a fictitious affair. In view of the above discussion, the answer to the first question is in 40 the negative. Answer to question No. 2 does not arise and the answer to the third question is also in the negative, and it is found that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the gift made by Poonam Chand to Paras Mal was valid and Paras Mal can become a partner of the HUF business and the firm should have been granted registration under S.185 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
-
1984 (2) TMI 77 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Department. Should this principle be given a go-by merely because the Coffee Board had declared the dividends by the time the assessment was concluded ? We do not think that it should make any difference in the absence of any finding recorded by the assessing officer that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee cannot be accepted for any reason or in the absence of a finding that the valuation made is considered to be at too low a rate. Our view finds full support from the provisions of s. 7 read with cl. (c) of r. 9 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Rules, 1957, and also by the decision of this court in B. V. Veerathradhya v. Commissioner of Agrl. LT. 1973 87 ITR 193. In the result, we allow these petitions and set aside the orders of all the authorities below and direct the assessing officer to redo the assessments on the basis of the value estimated by the assessee for each of the years concerned. The assessee is entitled to her costs. Advocates fee Rs. 150 in one set.
-
1984 (2) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... n Part I of the Schedule is almost similar to the provisions of S. 67(5). But one has nothing to do with the other. Each operates in different circumstances, although the intent of the Legislature in incorporating these provisions appears to be the same. That is, the land with crops which have not reached the stage of yielding should be excluded for compounding as well as for assessment. It is not in dispute that the four acres with which we are concerned had not started yielding any income during the relevant assessment years. It must, therefore, fall to be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner was assessable or not. If that is excluded, the remaining extent of land yielding agricultural income is admittedly less than 50 acres of the eighth class of land. In the result, we allow these petitions and, in reversal of the order of the Commissioner, restore the assessment orders. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in one set.
-
1984 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... e, at a lower rate of interest. Though the learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the receipt of such subsidies cannot be taken to be income from banking business, we are of the view that it will clearly be income from banking business. This has been so held by the Allahabad High Court in H. R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1970 77 ITR 614, and by the Bombay High Court in Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 473. Even otherwise, the subsidy amounts received by the assessee are definitely attributable to the banking business carried on by the assessee. Thus, on the wording of s. 80P(2)(a)(i), the assessee will be entitled to claim exemption in relation to subsidy amounts which are clearly attributable to the assessee s business of banking. In this view of the matter, we answer the second question also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred only). One set
-
1984 (2) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Award, Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... 22 years and has not to be treated as a revenue receipt for only one year. Now, we proceed to answer the questions referred to us. The first question is as to whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest awarded to the assessee was of the nature of interest on the enhanced compensation and not the initial interest. It has already been observed above that this interest is in lieu of the loss of income and is equivalent to the income for the period during which the amount of compensation was delayed. It, therefore, corresponds to interest payable under s. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e., an equivalent statutory provision for payment of interest. Now, turning to the second question, which is as to whether the amount is taxable in a lump sum, we have answered this question in the negative, and hold that the interest has to be assessed as spread over the period of 22 years. The questions are answered accordingly. As this is an unusual case, no costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Rule Against Double Taxation ... ... ... ... ..... is proportionate share from the firm or association, the ITO is precluded from assessing the firm in the status of an unregistered firm or an association of persons. The circular clarifies that although the Supreme Court s aforesaid decision is under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the Board is advised that it will equally apply to assessments made under the I.T. Act, 1961. This Circular set out in the above paragraph is binding on the I.T. Department as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Zaveri v. K. K. Sen, AAC of LT. 1965 56 ITR 198 and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 913. In view of this, it is clear that the ITO was not entitled, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to tax the assessee as an association of persons. In view of this conclusion, question No. 1 sought to be referred becomes academic because the same position would prevail whether the revised return was valid or not. In the result, the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 72 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, HUF, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... he HUF itself and not to the partnership firms by way of looking after the business interest of the HUF in these firms. The net of the income-tax law is to rope in real business profits. Therefore, their Lordships were at great pains to point out that this was not in any manner a device so long as remuneration claimed was a bona fide claim and was not an excessive one as it was genuine business expenditure justified by commercial expediency, when the HUF paid its member for looking after and managing its interest even in the partnership business. Applying these principles and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee s claim that deduction of salary paid to the karta is admissible. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, we make it clear that the Tribunal is free to assess the actual amount that is admissible as deduction in the facts and circumstances of the case. No costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... a reference unless it appears that there, was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they as reasonable men could come to the conclusion to they have come. In other words, such finding could be reviewed only on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is perverse See CIT v. Daulat Ram 1973 87 ITR 349 (SC) . In the present case, the finding of the AAC and the Tribunal is that some of the customers had rejected the goods and returned the same to the assessee. Thereafter, these were hypothecated by the assessee with the bank. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the AAC by which he included the value of the goods in the assessee s stock and thus inferred that he had the right to hypothecate the goods. In such a situation, it cannot be held that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, question No. (ii), being one of fact, also does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we dismiss the petition. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... invoked to calculate the assessed tax. The Gauhati and Madras High Courts held that if no penalty could be imposed because of the assessed tax being nil, the assessee was not liable to penalty within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 271. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court held that the moment the assessee committed default, it was liable to penalty and as such assessed tax has to be calculated in accordance with the said sub-s. (2). But, in the present case, the amount of the assessed tax not being nil and the amount of penalty being capable of quantification, there can be no two opinions that the assessee was liable to penalty within the meaning of sub-s. (2). The Tribunal, therefore, went wrong in holding that the assessee was not liable to penalty even after recording the finding that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. Consequently, question No. 2 is also answered in the negative and against the assessee. P. C. JAIN, ACTG. C.J. -I agree.
-
1984 (2) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deposits, Income ... ... ... ... ..... nt treats it subsequently in his own accounts as his own. This judgment, in our view, does not help the respondent, because, looking to the nature of the transaction in question as set out in the statement of the case, we are of the view that the receipt in question cannot be considered as an amount held by the assessee for the benefit of anybody else. Looking to the fact that the deposit is in respect of a specific transaction of sale and is adjusted towards the purchase price of the machinery that is sold, it has a close connection with the transaction of sale. It is more in the nature of trade receipt, especially when the assessee brings such surplus deposit remaining in its hands to its profit and loss account. Therefore, it can be taxed as a trade receipt in the hands of the assessee. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The respondents will pay to the applicant costs of the reference.
-
1984 (2) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. He produced before us the agreement which is dated September 11, 1963, between the assessee and its agents, M/s. Khimji Ramdas of Muscat. The agreement is an agreement of agency. Under one of the clauses of the agreement, the agents are required to use their best endeavour to secure a certain amount of business. The minimum amount of such business is also prescribed under the agreement. The agents are also required to publicise the assessee s products in the agent s territory and are required to maintain show-rooms at their own expense of a certain minimum size. In view of this agreement and in view of the circumstances of the case, the payment made to these agents would fall under s. 35B(1)(b), sub-clauses (ii) and (ix), of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the position is clear, we do not see any reason why the Tribunal should be asked to state the case and refer this question to us. Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 67 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Marriage, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... hich are bound to be given at a wedding of a son or daughter. The Tribunal was hence constrained to remark that the details of the expenditure furnished by the assessee s, legal representatives were not complete. That there was steep rise of prices since 1941-45 to 1959-60 also does not leave room for a doubt or dispute. The Tribunal has of course remarked that the prices have gone up 4 to 8 times. That does not mean that it has based its finding on the footing that the prices have gone up by 8 times. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the finding is based on conjectures, suspicions and surmises. There was sufficient material for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that it will be reasonable to consider the total marriage expenses at about Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1984 (2) TMI 66 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Technical Know-how ... ... ... ... ..... . Pvt. Ltd. 1980 123 ITR 538, as also a decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Wyman Gordon (India) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 911. In the earlier case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Division Bench of this court has held that technical know-how and technical advice for the time being cannot, in these days of technological and scientific development and consequent change in production techniques, be treated as a capital asset. We have not been pointed out any features of any of the two agreements entered into by the assessees which would distinguish this case from the cases decided by the Division Benches of this court in the above two references. In view of the ratio laid down by those two decisions, which is applicable to this case, the questions will have to be answered in favour of the assessees. Both the questions are answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessees and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Award, Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... ies discounted and valued as necessary can be taken into account as trading expenses, if they are sufficiently certain to be capable of valuation and if profits cannot be properly estimated without taking them into consideration. It is the case of the assessee that since their liability to pay gratuity has been actuarially valued, they would be entitled to claim the said amount as a deduction. There are several decisions of the Tribunal where such a deduction has been allowed to the assessee in respect of its liability to pay gratuity, not provided for in the balance-sheet. In these circumstances, the question whether the said amount should be allowed to the assessee as deduction or not is obviously a debatable question. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly observed that the provisions of s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, could not be utilised for the purpose of altering the orders passed by the ITO allowing such a deduction. In these circumstances, the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... e throughout the accounting year, and nothing but a change in the constitution took place on the death of the partner. The court also held that it was not correct to say that s. 187(2) of the Act contemplated a change in all cases where the business continued though in the hands of a different firm provided there were common partners. We may also note that Shri O. P. Dua, learned counsel for the assessee, produced before us a chart showing that the preponderance of the view of the various High Courts was the same as that of the Delhi High Court. But, as stated above, it is unnecessary for us to refer to all these decisions one way or the other. We, therefore, hold that there were two separate firms in existence during the periods July 9, 1967, to December 12, 1967, and December 13, 1967, to June 26, 1968, the incomes of which are required to be assessed separately, and answer the question accordingly in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay costs to the assessee.
-
1984 (2) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he non-recovery could not be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on the petitioner s part in relation to the affairs of the company. It is the case of the company and of the petitioner that the profits in the case of a builder cannot be arrived at and taxed on the basis of work-in-progress. This is a contention which was agitated up to the Tribunal and is now pending before this court in references under the I.T. Act, 1961. This was made clear to the ITO in reply to the show-cause notice. One would have thought that this was enough proof that the non-recovery could not be attributed to neglect or misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the petitioner. The ITO in passing the order under s. 179 of the I.T. Act, 1961, has, however, not chosen to consider this aspect of the matter at all. It must, therefore, be held that the order is bad on this count also. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b), with costs. Rule accordingly.
-
1984 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... tax. And it is also possible that advance tax paid may not be counted as an asset for the purpose of rule 19A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. In the present case, however, the entry on the assets side when read with the corresponding entry on the liabilities side correctly shows that the total liability to pay tax stands reduced by the amount of advance tax paid. Instead of these entries, it would have been legitimate for the assessee to have shown on the liabilities side the tax liability as reduced by the advance tax paid. In the present case, instead of showing the reduced liability for payment of tax in this manner, the full liability has been shown and on the assets side the amount of advance tax paid has been shown. This, how ever, makes no difference to the net result. In our view, therefore, the capital employed in the present undertaking for the purpose of s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, has been correctly calculated. The rule is, therefore, discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 61 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... uine firm with the constitution so specified was in existence during the relevant period. The expression genuine firm would mean that a firm is really in existence and the partners carry on the business of the firm in accordance with the terms of the deed of partnership. This is what is ordinarily understood by genuine firm. It should not be sham or bogus. It would thus be seen that the ITO was wrong in refusing registration to the firm on the basis of the compromise deed dated July 30, 1970, and particularly with reference to cl. 5 of the compromise deed. We should, however, not be understood to lay down that the ITO could not look into the subsequent events, after the close of the relevant year, to decide the application for registration, if pending, whether a genuine firm as evidenced by an instrument of partnership existed during that period. We accordingly answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay costs to the assessee.
....
|
