|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ut that these three petitioners were also members of the partnership-firm and were liable as detailed in the complaint. However, on the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Sat Pal v. State of Punjab 1993 2 Recent C. R. 21, where, in similar circumstances, it was observed that in the case of an alleged erroneous return a partner against whom there was no specific allegation, could not be held liable. The conclusion is that the present petition is partly accepted and the complaint (annexure P-1) and the summoning order (annexure P-2) are hereby quashed qua petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 only. As regards petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, the present petition is dismissed. This also disposes of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4217-M of 1992 where also the complaint qua Promila Devi, a partner, who has not verified the return is hereby quashed. As regards the co-accused, Satpal, the trial court shall proceed, provided there is sufficient evidence, in accordance with law.
-
1993 (10) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... the remission of tax paid on 50 per cent. of the total foreign income. In CIT v. Dr. R. S. Bhatt 1990 185 ITR 592 (Raj), the judgment of this court in CIT v. Dr. R. N. Jhanji 1990 185 ITR 586 (Raj) was followed. The question being covered by the two decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the assessee was not entitled under section 91(1) to credit for the entire amount of tax deducted at source in the foreign country. The decision given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Consequently, it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to credit for the entire amount of tax deducted at source in Iran under section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not in proportion to the income included in the total income of the assessee after considering the provisions of section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1993 (10) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Industrial Company, Industrial Undertaking, Movable Property, Processing Of Goods, Wealth Tax
-
1993 (10) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... nt. out of the income claimed under section 80P(2) of the Act for the overhead expenditure ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing the entire expenditure under section 37 of the Act against the taxable income? This matter has been considered in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 90 of 1982 in the case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 608 (Raj). Following the decision in the said case this reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... atisfaction which he thinks fit. We are concerned with the sense of law, and it is that sense which must prevail in sub-section (5) of section 43. Accordingly, we hold that a trans action cannot be described as a speculative transaction within the meaning of sub-section (5) of section 43, Income-tax Act, 1961, where there is a breach of the contract and on a dispute between the parties damages are awarded as compensation by an arbitration award. Hence, in the present case, the assessee is entitled to set off of loss of Rs. 36,192 against the profit of business which was not of speculative nature. Hence, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. With regard to question No. 1, in view of the aforesaid finding, it is not required to be dealt with in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, question No. 1 is left unanswered. In the result, the reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Capital Gains, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Income Tax Act, Reassessment Notice, Supreme Court, Writ Petition
-
1993 (10) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... it may, merely because the assessee s contention for spreading over the said addition over a number of years had been accepted, this cannot be a reason for concluding that the assessee was not guilty of concealing its income. The very fact that the assessee filed revised returns is an admission on the part of the assessee of concealment of income. The assessee cannot plead an agreement because there can be no agreement or estoppel against a statute. When the statute itself casts a liability on an assessee, no agreement with the Income-tax Department can entitle an assessee to avoid that liability. Once the assess ment has been made in respect of each of these years by giving effect to the spread over, the only implication in law clearly is that in each of these years, there was concealment of income and the Tribunal having decided the question of fact that the total amount concealed was Rs. 2,25,010 which was spread over, no question of law, in our opinion, arises. Dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Development Allowance, Income Tax Act, Weighted Deduction
-
1993 (10) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Income Tax Act, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... from July 25, 1978, to september 30, 1984, the petitioner is entitled to get 12 per cent. interest on the amount of Rs. 3,213. The Legislature has allowed 15 per cent. interest from October 1, 1984, onwards and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get 15 per cent. interest on the said sum till the date of payment, in view of the aforesaid decision. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the view taken by the Income-tax Officer (annexure C ) and the order passed by the Income-tax Commissioner (annexure E ) are erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. Both the aforesaid orders, therefore, are hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents to pay interest of Rs.3,213 as prayed for, vide annexure B , and interest on this amount at 12 per cent. per annum from July 25, 1978, to September 30, 1984, and at 15 per cent. from October 1, 1984, till the date of actual payment. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Liability For Surtax, Medical Expenses, Previous Year, Setting Up, Surtax Liability, Tax Liability
-
1993 (10) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... regard to the gratuity provision that the facts in the present case are similar to those in the case of Gaskets and Radiators Pvt. Ltd., decided by the Tribunal on October 27, 1978, and no new arguments were advanced before it by the parties. Following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. At the time of hearing of this reference, nothing was pointed out which would indicate that the conditions laid down in section 40A(7)(b) were not satisfied. It is to be noted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Gaskets and Radiators Pvt. Ltd. was confirmed by this court in its judgment in 1991 192 ITR 509. In this view of the matter, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 is not required to be answered. Hence, question No. 2 is left unanswered. In the result, the reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... the capital base. Hence, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 The fact-finding authority has considered that the reserve of amount of Rs. 75,000 is for doubtful debts. It is also not disputed that the said amount of Rs. 75,000 is not considered as bad debts and not included in computing the profits for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. That means, the amount is kept as other reserve. These reserves are appropriation of profits and are being retained in the form of capital employed in the business. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 75,000 should be considered as reserve liable to be included in the computation of capital base. Hence, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Income Tax Act, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... n, firstly, that the increase or decrease in liability should be taken into account to modify the figure of actual cost and secondly that such adjustment should be made in the year in which the increase or decrease in liability arises on account of the fluctuation in the rate of exchange. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is clear that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sums of Rs. 21,36,840 and Rs. 4,89,502 did not constitute additional cost of machinery imported by the assessee for the purpose of depreciation. We are of the clear opinion that in view of section 43A of the Act, these amounts are to be added in the cost of acquisition of the asset for the purpose of depreciation for the assessment years concerned. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Guest House, In The Nature, Weighted Deduction, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1993 (10) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Let Out, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... per annum, the National Savings Certificates 7 years, second issue yielded tax-free interest at 6 per cent. on maturity, 7 years, third issue 6 per cent. tax-free payable annually and 7 years, 4th issue 7.5 per cent. payable annually but subject to income-tax. In this case, the apex court while determining the compensation for the property based on rent, applied the multiplier of 12.5 per cent. in respect of the assessment year 1971-72. The multiplier of 14 was applied in the case of Smt. Sabita Mohan Nagpal v. CWT 1986 160 ITR 751 (Raj), referred to above, but in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of P. Veerabhadarappa 1985 154 ITR 190, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of 12.50 on the rent-capitalisation method while computing the value of the let out portion of Rathi House, Jaipur. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... , as stated earlier, all the liabilities are required to be taken into consideration including the provision for gratuity which is scientifically assessed at its discounted present value. That liability for gratuity may be either under the statutory provision or under the industrial awards or by contract. Hence, question No. 2 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. It is held that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the actuarially computed liability of Rs. 63,517 was not a rightful deduction as diminution in the value of the estate. The Tribunal rightly held that, for the said amount, deduction on the basis that it is a debt or charge cannot be allowed. Still, however, on account of the said liability, there would be diminution in the value of the estate, which is required to be fixed under section 36(1) of the Estate Duty Act and, therefore, deduction is required to be allowed. Reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... the conclusion that there was no mistake apparent on the record calling for rectification. If the assessee was aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal, then it ought to have challenged the original order by filing an application under section 256(1) which it did not do. Merely because the Tribunal considered and did not allow a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application under section 254(2), unless it can be said that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It is stated that a similar application under section 254(2) was filed in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 and the same was allowed. Each assessment year has to be considered separately and if for a subsequent year, viz., the assessment year 1983-84 an application under section 254 has been allowed, that by itself is no ground for allowing an application under section 254(2) for the year 1982-83. No question of law arises. The application is dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... Officer has become final and on that basis the order of assessment for various years have been passed by the Assessing Officer. Two items which were allowed by the Wealth-tax Officer while computing are disallowed by these orders. Therefore, what the Wealth-tax Officer is now required to do is to make the assessment keeping in mind the finding about these two items only and nothing further. In view of this, it is clear that the fresh reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the District Valuation Officer and in consequence the letter issued by the District Valuation Officer at annexure Q , dated July 15, 1982, informing the petitioner that the case is referred for revaluation by the Wealth-tax Officer and such other notices are required to be quashed and set aside. As a consequence of this, further proceeding in so far as they relate to the fresh reference to the Valuation Officer are quashed and set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Waiver Of Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... the concerned assessee. Thus, in all these cases, the impugned orders appear to have been passed without proper application of mind. Ordinarily, we would have quashed the orders and sent the matters back to the Commissioner for the purpose of passing fresh orders after proper application of mind, but these are 12 to 13 years old matters and, therefore, considering the fact that so many years have elapsed and the amounts involved are not substantial, we think it proper to put an end to these litigations by modifying the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner to the extent that the waiver of interest in Special Civil Applications Nos. 5401, 5403, 5404, 5405 and 5407 of 1983 shall be 50 per cent. and in Special Civil Applications Nos. 5402 and 5406 of 1983 and 3269 of 1984 shall be 75 per cent. In the result, we partly allow these petitions. The impugned orders stand modified to the extent stated above. Rule is made absolute in each of these petitions. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Waiver Of Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... the conditions of section 273A were satisfied and to pass a fresh order. But now as 13 years have elapsed and we find that there is no other objection to the granting of the petitioner s application, we have thought it fit to quash that part of the order and grant the application of the petitioner with respect to the penalty levied under section 273(b) and interest charged under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner with respect to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) is confirmed but the order passed by him with respect to the penalty levied under section 273(b) and interest charged under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act is quashed and set aside and we grant the application of the petitioner made for waiver of penalty levied under section 273(b) and interest charged under section 139(8) and section 217 of the Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
....
|
