|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 224 Records
-
1984 (4) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he converted property or any part thereof so far as it is attributable to his interest shall be deemed to derive to the individual and not to the family. This provision will apply to these cases as the assessment years are 1972-73 to 1974-75. The Tribunal has not, however, considered this aspect of the case. Therefore, even if the property is taken to have been thrown into the common stock as found by the Tribunal, it was only from January 31, 1973, when the properties were partitioned between the three brothers. Therefore, it comes within the mischief of s. 64(2) and the income derived from the property which is said to have been thrown into the common stock has to be assessed only in the individual capacity of the assessee and not in the capacity of a joint Hindu family. Thus, in any view of the matter, we have to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Excess Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... that the total income of the assessee has been earlier computed and assessed under the I.T. Act. Therefore, the fact that in the computation of income under the I.T. Act, the assessee has got relief under s. 25(3) does not mean that he is entitled to the same relief under the Excess Profits Tax Act. Unless a similar relief as the one under s. 25(3) has been provided for in the Excess Profits Tax Act, the Excess Profits Tax Officer need not take note of the relief granted for income-tax purposes for computation of chargeable profits under the Excess Profits Tax Act. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the relief obtained by the assessee under s. 25(3) of the I.T. Act in the income-tax proceedings will automatically enable him to claim non-liability to tax under the Excess Profits Tax Act. In this view, question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will get the costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1984 (4) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed return seems out of place now, because after the remand, if no such notice is issued, it may be open to the assessee to raise this very contention in respect of the assessment made after remand. We do not think that any question of law arises in the case because this is a mere case of a remand for re-decision by the ITO, and the remand is perfectly in accordance with the powers of the AAC under s. 251(1)(a). For convenience, this power can be set out here (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Income-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ........ In the circumstances, we reject the application. In view of the novelty of the points and particularly the contentions raised regarding procedural irregularity and procedural illegality, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... aim is created in a subsequent assessment year, in which the assessee-company earns income and the period for which the development rebate reserve can be legally carried forward had not expired, there is no reason why the claim cannot be allowed under s. 33(2)(ii). With these observations, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in ignoring the assessee s claim of development rebate. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside their order in so far as it related to a consideration of this claim and restored the matter to the ITO. The ITO was called upon to consider the assessee s claim on merits and quantify the development rebate, if any, which was to be carried forward for the purpose of being adjusted in a year in which the company earns profits and also creates the necessary reserve. For the reasons recorded in ITR 195 of 1975 CIT v. Metal Forging (P.) Ltd. 1984 149 ITR 259 (Delhi) , we answer the reference against the Department with no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ween Begum Sakina Bai and her children to divide the profits or losses referable to her share in the firm. We are, therefore, of the view that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, no sub-partnership has been made out. Inasmuch as we have considered the question referred to us on the basis of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, it is unnecessary to deal with the decisions relating to sub-partnership and the effect thereof relied on by the learned counsel for the Revenue On a careful consideration of the terms of the agreement dated April 15, 1963, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that no assessment can be made in respect of the share income from the firm of M/s. Abbasbhoy Taharally and Company in the status of an unregistered firm. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1984 (4) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income, Property ... ... ... ... ..... to the hands of the assessee, as such that part of the rental income never constituted part of the income of the assessee. We have also pointed out above that it must be found as to what was the real income of the assessee. To the extent a part of the income was diverted before it reached the hands of the assessee, the same could not have been assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 23 of the I.T. Act. In view of our answer to the first two questions, the third question referred to us need not be answered. As half of the rental income was already diverted to Nitin Mohan before it became the income of the assessee, the question of claiming any deduction in respect thereof under s. 24(1)(iv) did not arise. The agreement dated November 5, 1964, did not create any annual charge on the property of the assessee within the meaning of cl. (iv) of s. 27 nor could any deduction be claimed on that basis under s. 24(1)(iv) of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1984 (4) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... m undisclosed sources. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, in m opinion, the amount in question could not be added as the assessee s income from undisclosed sources and thus, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 as assessee s income from undisclosed sources and was also right in allowing the interest of Rs. 1,318 on the same. The question referred for our opinion is, thus answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Hearing fee Rs. 200. SUSHIL KUMAR JHA J.-I entirely agree. But, in deference to the tenacity of the learned counsel for the Revenue, I wish to add a few observations of mine. The very fact that all the transactions were entered into between the parties through account payee cheques, makes the question of identity fall into oblivion. As my learned brother has already observed that all the transactions took place through account payee cheques, the identity of the creditors becomes absolutely irrelevant.
-
1984 (4) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee, Information, Reassessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... . There is no question of any finding of fact. The observation of the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment on the sole ground of audit pointing out a mistake that the assessee being a Hindu undivided family was not entitled to exemption from capital gains under section 54, helps the Revenue and not the assessee and there is no question of disturbing the finding of fact. This court in Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl. CIT 1979 119 ITR 980 at p. 986 has held that the word assessee occurring in section 54 is applicable only to a living person and not to an artificial juridical person. In that case, the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, sought exemption on capital gains in respect of a house property and it was held that the same is not allowable. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to refer the case to this court for its opinion on the question mentioned above. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ablished its factory during the assessment year in question, there is no question of computation of business income during that year. Therefore, there is no question of application of sections 70 and 71 during the assessment year in question. Only in the computation of business income, expenditure or set-off of the loss from the income from business will arise. Thus, on a due consideration of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the Tribunal is not right in this case in holding that the interest receipts cannot be assessed and that the difference between the interest paid and the interest received should be capitalised. We have to, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee and hold that the interest earned by the assessee on investment of share capital in call deposits could be assessed separately under the head Other sources for the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee will pay the costs to the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1984 (4) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... alteration to the nature and the material itself. It was unanimously held that the activity carried on in the building involved subjection of coal to a process inasmuch as dirty coal in bulk was brought in the building and what was turned out of the building after coal was subjected to the process therein was clean coal, duly packed in paper bags of 28 lbs. each after dross was removed therefrom. It is obvious that the goods i.e. coal in that case under went a change in its quality and form. The further observations of the Lord President (Clyde) that indeed in his view any such alteration as taken place to the goods in the building was not essential to involve subjecting the goods to a process, were in the nature of obiter. In conclusion, in view of what has been said above, we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1984 (4) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income, Time Of Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... es from the time possession of the land is taken and it accrues from year to year until the amount of compensation is so paid or deposited. The person whose land is acquired has a right to receive interest. The decision in CIT v. Raja S. M. Bhanja Deo 1977 106 ITR 748 (Orissa) is clearly distinguishable, wherein it has been held that as long as compensation was unquantified under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, it was difficult to hold that interest was accruing on yearly basis and so interest was assessable during the year of receipt. The High Court did not consider that earlier the interest has already been taxed on accrual basis and once the method of accounting is accepted by the Revenue, it cannot be changed unilaterally as has been held in Rattan Chand Dhavan v. CIT 1973 87 ITR 660 (P and H). Accordingly, we answer the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nal is competent to decide the question whether a particular transaction of immovable property made by the assessee is sham, collusive or colourable or is a genuine transaction. That apart, a perusal of the record shows that a civil litigation is also going on between the Union of India and the present assessee, Shri Prithvi Raj Daga, with regard to the transaction in question. The Union of India had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil judge, Churn, being Civil Suit No. 71 of 1962, seeking a declaration that the transaction in question was fictitious and was made in order to defeat and delay the creditors including the Union of India. In view of these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the question as mentioned above, sent for our opinion, is not a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal and, in these circumstances, there is no necessity to answer the above question. This reference is accordingly disposed of in the manner indicated above.
-
1984 (4) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction, Property, Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... the property is concerned, it has to be determined in accordance with section 23(1) read with the first proviso and thereafter some compensation by way of statutory deductions are allowed in other parts of section 23 which may be on account of construction of new residential units or use of the property by the owner for his own residence. So far as section 24(1)(i) of the Act is concerned, it allows an assessee deduction to the extent of 1/6th of the annual value by way of repairs. In our view, it appears to be quite reasonable and just that the allowance for repairs should be calculated on the annual value of the property determined as a whole under the first proviso to section 23(1) of the Act and not after making statutory deductions from the annual value. In these circumstances, we hold that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is correct and the reference is answered in the affirmative. On the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not possible to construe the monthly payment of Rs. 1,000 to the assessee as relatable to the shareholding as the karta of the Hindu undivided family. If a person is entrusted with the overall management of a firm and its business by designating him as the managing partner, it can easily be assumed that such a partner has to necessarily manage the affairs of the firm. It is not the case of the Revenue in this case that though the assessee has been designated as the managing partner, he did not attend to any work connected with the overall management of the firm and its business and that some other person was attending to the same. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month paid by the firm to the assessee can only be taken as compensation paid by the firm for services rendered by him as the managing partner. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The reference petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking
-
1984 (4) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TR 998 were disapproved. However, the point decided by the Supreme Court in the above case of CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294 is not directly involved in the case before us. The authority of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 1973 91 ITR 393 has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the above case on another point. In view of all these circumstances, we are inclined to follow the view taken in Mahinderpal Bhasin s case 1979 117 ITR 26 by the High Court of Allahabad and affirm the view taken by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal in this regard. We have already dealt with, in detail, the facts and circumstances of the case while dealing with I.T. Ref. No. 42 of 1974 and as such it is not necessary to deal with the facts and circumstances of I.T. Ref. No. 43 of 1974 in detail. In the result, questions referred to above are answered in the affirmative. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... cision of the Tribunal in this case, this court has taken uniform view that the residence should be proved for an unbroken or continuous period of two years for claiming exemption under section 54 in M Viswanathan v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 244, CIT v. R. Mala 1982 135 ITR 302 and S Radhakrishna v. CIT 1984 145 ITR 170. The above decisions clearly cover the questions referred to us. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, refers to a decision of a single Judge of the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT 1984 145 ITR 159, which has taken a view different from the one taken by this court in the decisions referred to above. We would, however, prefer to follow the decisions rendered by this court in preference to the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT 1984 145 ITR 159. Following the decisions of this court referred to above, we answer the questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... Court should be taken to have become final and conclusive and in so far as this court s judgment in Tax Case No. 1231 of 1977 (CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam 1984 147 ITR 732) is in conflict with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it should be taken to require reconsideration. We are not in a position to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, for the rejection of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court cannot be taken to be an expression of its opinion on the question involved. The fact that the Supreme Court has refused to entertain a special leave petition against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot be taken to be disapproval of the judgment of this court referred to above. In this view of the matter, we are bound to follow the decision in Tax Case No. 1231 of 1977 (CIT v. Balasubramaniam 1984 147 ITR 732 (Mad) and the decision in Tax Cases Nos. 458 to 461 and 530 of 1978. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemptions, House Property, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... urpose for which it is created because in this case we are not extending the fiction beyond the purpose for which it was created, but in effect we give only effect to the fiction created and are not extending the same. (Emphasis supplied). While respectfully following the reasoning given in S. Naganathan s case 1975 101 ITR 287 (Mad) which has consistently been followed in the authorities referred to above, we hold that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the value of his 1/4th share in the house property which was thrown by him into the common hotchpotch of the Hindu undivided family which was includible in his net wealth under section 4(1A) of the Act. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative in favour of the assessee-respondent and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the Appellate Tribunal be informed in accordance with section 27(6) of the Act.
-
1984 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... mere possession of the assets without anything more, as the fulfilment of one of the requirements under section 32 of the Act to be eligible for the grant of an allowance by way of depreciation. On the ratio of the decisions earlier referred to and also on an interpretation of the language employed in section 32 of the Act, we are unable to subscribe to the views taken by the Allahabad and Patna High Courts in the decisions referred to above and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee. Having carefully considered the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error when it made available to the assessee in this case the benefit of depreciation allowance as claimed by it in respect of the building which was not owned by the assessee, though used by it, during the relevant accounting period. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|
