|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 280 Records
-
1984 (2) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 3 ITR 429 and the provisions contained in s. 3(3) of the UP Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, which came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Balrampur Sugar Co. Ltd. s case 1982 135 ITR 227 and the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. s case 1983 144 ITR 732. For the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment, it must be held that the interest that was payable under s. 11B of the Sales Tax Act is not a penalty but is a revenue expenditure which is deductible as interest under s. 37(1) of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the provisions for payment of penal interest amounting to Rs. 5,050 on sales tax collection withheld by the assessee in utilising for the purpose of its own business, was not admissible as deduction in computing its total income. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... expiry of eight years from the end of the previous year in which it was acquired or installed. In that case, it was held that though there was a transfer of the machinery, the transfer was not by the assessee but by some other person to whom the assets had been allotted. Thus, even assuming that after the partition of the joint family assets among its coparceners, they had transferred their share in the assets to the partnership, (the transfer was) not by the assessee and the same cannot attract the provisions in sections 34(3)(b) and 155(5). Thus, as a result of the above discussion, in any event, sections 34(3)(a) and 155(5) cannot be applied to the facts of this case and the development rebate granted already could not be withdrawn. In this view of the matter, we have to agree with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the first question is also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1984 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... our ladies. The partnership, M/s. Jai and Co., can be assessed as being the partnership of the persons who had made the gifts to those four ladies which would include their husbands uncles and so on. At the penalty stage, it has to be positively established that this income is of the assessee-firm. Inasmuch as there is a positive bar in the agreement with M/s. Rohtas Industries against the assessee-firm taking any other agency, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that this can be established. We do not think it has been established as a positive fact in this case and, therefore, following the aforementioned Supreme Court judgments, we think there is no positive evidence to establish that there has been concealment of income or furnishing of deliberately false particulars. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative holding that the penalty is not leviable in the circumstances of this case. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction, Disposition, Estate Duty, Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... answered in the negative and against the accountable person. Question No. 6.-This question is covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Barkat Ali Khan 1974 TLR 90, against the assessee. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. For the reasons stated above, the referred case is accordingly disposed of. No costs. After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Y. Ratnakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made a request for grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. Questions Nos. 5 and 6 were answered against the accountable person following the judgments of this court in CED v. Estate of Late Om Prakash Bajaj 1977 110 ITR 263 (AP) and CIT v. Barkat Ali Khan 1974 TLR 90 (AP). It is represented by the learned counsel that leave was granted against the decisions in those two cases and appeals are pending in the Supreme Court. In view of this, we grant certificate in this case also, in respect of all the questions.
-
1984 (2) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Dealer In Shares ... ... ... ... ..... result would be that the sale of the shares in question in this case involving two assessment years would not attract capital gains and hence neither section 52 nor section 47 would apply. We answer the question referred to us by holding that the income in question has to be treated as business income and not under the head capital gains and, therefore, the, question referred to us has become redundant. If the assessee is not treated as a dealer in shares, then section 52(2) is not attracted because of the Supreme Court s judgment in K. P. Varghese s case 1981 131 ITR 597, and, in any event, even if section 52(2) applied, section 47(iii) would apply and no capital gains would be involved. Having examined various aspects of the case as they now exist, we hold that the question referred to us has become redundant but even if it survived, it had to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly, as salary but from that date, their salaries were increased to Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 1,400 and the question that arose before the income-tax authority was whether the increased amount of Rs. 1,000 each was to be taxed in their individual hands or in the hands of the Hindu undivided family which the brothers were representing along with other profits and salaries which were being received by the two brothers on behalf of their respective Hindu undivided families. The answer to the referred question in the case of the brother was that the increased salary was also taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and not in the hands of the karta as individual. On parity of reasoning, we have to hold that in this case also, the salary has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee family and not in the hands of the karta. In other words, we answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Department, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends, Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... erence application. On a reference application being filed by the aggrieved party, it is open to the non-applicant to ask for a reference of those questions of law which arise on its submissions negatived in the appeal by the Tribunal. We find that the controversy on the basis of which question No. 2 has been referred has not been dealt with by the Tribunal at all, although Mr. Dastur pointed out that an argument had been advanced as mentioned earlier in that connection by the respondent-assessee before the Tribunal. Nothing has been shown to us from the judgment of the Tribunal to show that the Tribunal has dealt with that controversy. As that question has not been gone into by the Tribunal, we do not see how it would be proper for us to consider and determine that question. It will be open to the Tribunal to consider the controversy reflected in question No. 2 if it thinks fit, in view of question No. 1 having been answered by us against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Dividends, Rebate And Relief ... ... ... ... ..... ss in the present case can be determined for the purpose of its being carried forward and set off in the assessment year 1964-65. To conclude, there is no provision under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the assesseecompany which has suffered a loss under the head Capital gains in previous year relevant to an assessment year to which the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable, to have this loss ascertained or determined in the assessment year in which it arose. The assessee can, therefore, exercise the right to carry forward and set off such a Capital loss in subsequent year against the capital gains of that year. The loss will have to be computed or determined in the year in which the assessee claims the right of set off. In the premises, question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The applicant will pay to the respondent the costs of the reference.
-
1984 (2) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... in the said question cannot be treated as reserves in terms of rule I of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. It is, however, equally clear that parts of these amounts seem to be in the nature of provisions and the balance of the amounts appear to be in the nature of reserves. When the matter goes back to the Tribunal, it will be for the Tribunal to ascertain, in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court which we have set out earlier, as to what portions of these amounts are liable to be treated as reserves and what portions thereof are liable to be treated as provisions and to compute the capital of the assessee company in accordance with the conclusions which the Tribunal reaches. We further clarify that before deciding these questions, an opportunity must be given to the assessee as well as the Department to place such relevant material, as may be necessary, before the Tribunal. Parties to bear and pay their own costs of the reference.
-
1984 (2) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Disposition, Estate Duty, Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... decision in this case was followed by our High Court in the case of CIT v. Emco Electro Pvt. Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 864 (Bom). The Gujarat High Court has also held that there is no reason to exclude from the wide meaning of the term plant objects such as drawings, patterns, designs, etc., which, like books, are the embodiments of know-how and serve the purpose of teaching at long range. It also held that know-how would be included within the meaning of the word plant in section 32. In the present case, know-how was in the form of printed literature giving technical information under the agreement in question. Such technical know-how would, therefore, be covered under the definition of the word plant , in view of the ratio laid down in the two judgments referred to above. Question No. 3 will, therefore, have to be answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of the reference.
-
1984 (2) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has undoubted discretion to appraise the material on record and come to a decision whether the delay should be condoned or not. The Tribunal has given valid reasons in support of its conclusions. The delay in filing the application for registration was on account of disputes among the partners. The firm was found to be a genuine one. A fresh application signed by all the partners was filed before the Income-tax Officer, though belated, before the assessment was completed. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in observing that the delay should be condoned as the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the firm. The Income-tax Officer has now no option but to condone the delay and grant registration to the assessee-firm on the basis of the application filed on February 8, 1973. We accordingly answer the reference in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1984 (2) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... y, is the observation of the Commissioner in regard to the third item. The Commissioner has stated that although the assessee would be entitled to get the deduction of auditor s fee paid for getting the accounts investigated, preparation of profit and loss account and balancesheet, the assessee has not established that he has paid the auditor s fee only for such purposes. It is too much to presume that the auditor has been paid for any other work. The auditor has no other work in company. It is, therefore, unnecessary to investigate this matter also when it is clearly stated that the sum of Rs. 1,800 was paid as auditor s fee. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The order of the Commissioner so far as it relates to the consultancy fee, subject to the observations indicated above, is kept undisturbed. This aspect of the matter will now be considered by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The order in so far it relates to the other two items is set aside.
-
1984 (2) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reference, Reference By Non-applicant, Technical Know-how Fees ... ... ... ... ..... to achieving maximum production of P.I.V. gears and was closely related to the profit-earning process. Following the said decision, therefore, the payments in question must be held to be of a revenue nature and allowable as deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee. We may point out that we are further supported, in our view, by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Wyman Gordon (India) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 911 (Bom). In view of the aforesaid, the first question referred to us being the common question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As far as the second question is concerned, it is agreed by Mr. Shetty that it was not open to the assessee to raise that question at all in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Damodaran 1980 121 ITR 572 (SC). In view of this, we decline to answer the said question. In view of the fact that there is no serious contest, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ion 2 (15) of the Act and held that once it is found that the business itself was held under a trust for religious or charitable purpose, then the trust cannot be treated as having undertaken a business activity in order to advance any object of general public utility, which will take it out of the purview of section 11. In this case also, the business of printing press which was run by the founder of the trust has been endowed as a trust for the purpose of conducting the charitable objects referred to in the trust deed. It is not in dispute that the objects in the trust deed will come within the definition of charitable purpose in section 2(15). Hence the decision of the Supreme Court will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we have to answer and we accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee-counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only).
-
1984 (2) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... ants. It is not the case here that the trees have become old and useless by efflux of time so that it could be said that the sale proceeds of the trees will be capital receipts as was the case before the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. 1966 60 ITR 275 (SC). In this case, as found by the Tribunal, the trees have been allowed to grow tall and big with suitable pruning which will not be the case if the trees are intended to give shade to the tea plants, It is not also the case of the assessee that the trees have become useless by efflux of time and their continued existence will affect the tea plantation. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that this case is governed by the principle laid down by this court in Nellayappan Sastha and Brothers v. Commr. of Agrl. I. T 1979 117 ITR 696 and the decision of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The tax cases are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... l conclusions have been reached, but only guidelines were drawn for the Income-tax Officer in case a set of circumstances are found against the assessee. It would be open to the assessee to explain how and why 30 vehicles were supplied out of turn. However, the concluding observation of the Tribunal that even for one day s favour shown to a customer, the Income-tax Officer would be justified in estimating the suppressed profits is too wide. It is doubtful if for one day s out-of-turn supply of a chassis, a customer would pay substantial on money. So this observation is not conclusive on the Income-tax Officer. What the Tribunal wanted to convey was that there cannot be even one day s out of turn supply without some valid reason and it is for the assessee to explain the same. So no question of law arises. Accordingly, we refuse to answer the questions since no question of law arises from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Registration, Sub-Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... wered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue in CIT v. Kanhayalal Ram Chand 1979 119 ITR 377 (P and H), (Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1975 decided on December 10, 1976). When the Commissioner of Income-tax applied to the Tribunal for reference in the instant case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, once registration had been granted for the earlier year, it would enure for the subsequent years also. In fairness to the Tribunal, it must be said that by that time the Division Bench had not decided the earlier reference. Because of the decision in Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1975- 1979 119 ITR 377 (P and H) registration has now been declined to the sub-partnership firm and the very basis of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal has gone. We are, accordingly, of the view that a question of law does arise and we direct the Tribunal to make the reference prayed for. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Brokerage, Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate, Rebate At Higher Rate ... ... ... ... ..... payment of the said brokerage has not been disputed by the Department. The only contention taken by the Department was that the payment of brokerage was excessive as the products manufactured by the assessee did not require any canvassing. As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is for a businessman concerned to run his business as he likes and whether to employ a broker or not so long as the genuineness of the employment of the broker is not in question. The Tribunal has moreover pointed out that the payment of brokerage for the sale of articles is the normal and established practice in the market and no material was brought before the Tribunal to show that any extra-commercial consideration was involved in the employment of brokers by the assessee or in the payment of brokerage to them. In view of this, we see no reason to direct the Tribunal even to refer the questions in this regard for determination by this court. In the result, the rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Wealth-Tax decretal amounts in his books as still due, would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that they would be valued at those sums without taking into consideration the hazards for realisation of the decrees
-
1984 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal was right in including in the assessee`s net wealth a positive figure on account of zamindari compensation without taking into consideration the arrears of agricultural income-tax instead of taking the figure of compensation receivable from the Government of Bihar at nil
....
|
