|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 311 Records
-
1996 (5) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Or Profession, New Industrial Undertaking, Question Of Law, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... on No. (i) as well. So far as question No. (iii) is concerned, the Tribunal itself has found that its decision was based on a correct interpretation of law. In a way the Tribunal has conceded that question No. (iii) is a question of law but refused to refer the question on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal was based on the correct interpretation of law. Question No. (iii) is on the interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 32AB. The interpretation of a provision of the Act would be a question of law there being no authoritative pronouncement on this point of this court or of the Supreme Court of India. The Tribunal has wrongly declined to refer the same to this court for its opinion. In our opinion, questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) arise from the order of the Tribunal and we accordingly direct the Tribunal to refer questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment to this court along with the statement of case for its opinion. No costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Incentive Bonus, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... pensate him for performing duties of a special nature relating to his office or employment unless such allowance is related to the place of his posting or residence This court has held in Misc. Civil Case No. 69 of 1991---CWT v. Smt. Gayatridevi, decided on February 27, 1996 (see 1996 222 ITR 797), that in case of conflict of opinion a referable question does arise and is required to be answered by this court so as to settle the controversy. In view of the aforesaid position, we allow this application and call upon the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid reshaped and reformulated question of law for our consideration and opinion. We, however, make no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal immediately. The Tribunal is directed to make an endeavour to comply with the direction issued by us within ten months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order by it.
-
1996 (5) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... hat (page 529) Sub-section (2) of section 214 of the Act is not applicable to the refunds from amounts deducted at source. It speaks of any portion of such amount which is refunded under this Chapter. The word such refers to sub-section (1) of section 214 dealing with advance payment of tax and not with tax deducted at source . The same view has also been taken in Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. v. ITO 1989 176 ITR 508 (Ker). For the same reasons given in CIT v. Hindustan Engineering Co. 1995 215 ITR 527, this reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not legally justified in directing to allow interest under section 214 on the excess amount of tax deducted at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act. A Copy of this judgment/order may be sent to the Registrar, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, as required under section 260 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1996 (5) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Incentive Bonus, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... 1997 227 ITR 7, who was also a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, For the same reasons, the abovequoted two questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner. Consequently, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal was right in treating the incentive bonus as salary paid to the Development Officer by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal was right in not allowing deduction of 50 per cent. as expenditure out of the incentive bonus paid to the assessee by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. A copy of this judgment/order may be sent to the Registrar, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, as required under section 260 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1996 (5) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Income, Circular Issued By CBDT, High Court, Incentive Bonus, Question Of Law, Standard Deduction
-
1996 (5) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... I prescribes the rate of tax in respect of a Hindu undivided family which has at least one member whose net wealth is assessable under the Wealth-tax Act. The use of the word member in the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, in the light of the decisions of the apex court and the provisions of the Hindu law make it clear that the wife is a member of the family and is not a coparcener. There is no requirement under law that the member should be a coparcener. The apex court itself has considered a wife a member and since the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act has not required that the member should be a coparcener, the concept of Hindu law of a coparcenary cannot be invoked. It is not in dispute that the wealth of the wife of the karta is taxable wealth and she is also a member of the family. In view of the above, we are of the view that the correct status of the assessee was specified Hindu undivided family. The reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Question Of Law, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s consequently allowed. The Revenue filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act, which was dismissed, as according to the Tribunal the findings recorded by it were findings of fact and no referable question of law arose from its order dated March 29, 1994. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under section 256(2) of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the department and after perusing the orders of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the following question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was eligible for investment allowance under section 32A and to the deduction under section 80-I of the Act in regard to its new industrial unit set up at Chandigarh ? In the result, we allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to refer the above question of law to this court along with the statement of case.
-
1996 (5) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... l income-tax can be imposed even in the case of loss. The amendment by the Finance Act, 1993, was made with effect from April 1, 1989. Since the amendment is with effect from April 1, 1989, it will apply to the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards. The Supreme Court in Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 921 has held that the law to be applied is the law in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided. Hence, the amendment to the law which came into effect from April 1, 1989, will apply to the assessment year 1989-90 with which we are concerned and hence it will apply to the facts of the present case. As regards the decision of this court in Indo-Gulf Fertilizers and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. 1992 195 ITR 485, this decision was delivered in 1992 and hence this court could obviously not be aware of the amendment which was made in 1993. Thus, there is no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed. Interim order dated April 2, 1992, is vacated.
-
1996 (5) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... person . Following the aforesaid decision in Shankar Construction s case 1993 204 ITR 412, this court in M. C. C. No. 143 of 1993 (CIT v. P. D. Agrawal and Co. 1997 226 ITR 924), decided on April 4, 1996, has held that an assessee engaged in the business of construction of buildings, roads, etc., is not an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things. In view of the factual and legal position above, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The miscellaneous civil case thus stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. Counsel s fee is allowed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action in accordance with law.
-
1996 (5) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Law Applicable, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s concluded by the decision rendered by this court in the aforesaid cases. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. In Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO 1977 106 ITR 1 AIR 1977 SC 429, pertaining to the Income-tax Act, it is held that (headnote of AIR 1977 SC) At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This miscellaneous civil case is thus, disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... y explained, the Income-tax Officer is justified to treat it as income from undisclosed sources (iv) the firm has to establish that the amount was actually given by the lender (v) the genuineness and regularity in the maintenance of accounts has to be taken into consideration by the taxing authorities, and (vi) if the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked. Therefore, from the series of decisions of various High Courts, it is well established that in such a situation where there is a credit entry in the books of account of the assessee and there is no satisfactory explanation, then it will be deemed to be the income of the firm and will be added to the income of the firm and can be accordingly taxed. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous on the face of it. Hence, we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Excise Duty, Liquor Business, Regular Assessment, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... his court in the case of Ramjee Prasad Sahu 1993 202 ITR 800, that so far as section 206C of the Act is concerned, in pursuance of the said provision, no tax is to be collected or is to be paid on the amount deposited by a retail vendor by way of excise duty directly with the State Government. In the aforesaid background, it is evident and clear that the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna, all dated November 8, 1995, in C. W. J. C. Nos. 5038, 5039 and 5040 of 1996, have been so passed without taking note of the aforesaid facts and decisions of this court and the Supreme Court. The same is the position with regard to the assessment orders dated March 1, 1993, and March 4, 1993, passed in C. W. J. C. Nos. 5041 and 5042 of 1996. They are accordingly set aside. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned observations.
-
1996 (5) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, Financial Corporation, Hybrid System, Special Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... special reserve account up to 40 per cent, on their total income computed before making any deduction. So far as computation of deduction before the provisions of Chapter VI-A are applicable it has been so provided specifically and there is no problem. The income without giving any effect to the deduction computed under this section has been interpreted by the various High Courts referred to above. We also agree that 40 per cent. of the total income computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-A of the Act is interpreted by the provisions of this section and accordingly, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the allowance under section 36(1)(viii) is to be computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A as well as any deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Financial Corporation, Hybrid System, Interest On Sticky Loans, Powers Of Commissioner
-
1996 (5) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, High Court, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... erred to this court. He relied on Haripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 592 (Cal) and CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas 1962 44 ITR 726 (SC). We are unable to agree with this contention of learned counsel. The finding regarding the validity of the gift has been challenged by the Department and the Tribunal itself has referred that question to this court against its order in G. T. A. No. 3 of 1988. The cases relied upon by learned counsel are distinguishable on the facts. In the result, we allow these petitions and direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 made in the hands of the assessee relating to dividend income on bonus shares received by Yogesh Chander and Brothers Associates to whom the assessee had earlier gifted the equity shares ? No costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ent in the rules brought about by the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, would not cover the year under consideration, namely, the assessment year 1978-79. The Tribunal further recorded a finding of fact that the tubewell was supplying water to the factory and was a part of the manufacturing process of the assessee-company. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, question No. 1 has been rightly declined. Question No. 2 has been declined by the Tribunal relying upon a judgment of this court in the assessee s own case reported as CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India Private Ltd. 1993 202 ITR 968. Since the issue is covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the earlier years in the case of the assessee, the Tribunal has rightly declined to refer the same for the opinion of this court. Counsel for the parties conceded that question No. 3 does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. No referable question of law arises. Dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Hindu Succession Act ... ... ... ... ..... h lays down the mode of valuation of such interest, can apply only when the joint family property is vested in more than one person. It is only then that an interest in the joint family property ceases on the death of a coparcener and the valuation of such an interest has to be ascertained on the basis of the principal value of the share which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. When the entire property vested in the deceased because the deceased was the sole coparcener, there is no question of any other person getting any interest or share on a notional division immediately before his death and sections 7 and 39 have no application to such a case. As earlier stated, the whole of the property in such cases passes under section 5 read with section 6. The view that we have taken is fully supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CED v. Smt. Kalawati Devi 1980 125 ITR 762, with which we entirely agree.
-
1996 (5) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... thority for curing the defect by obtaining prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, they are bound to take into consideration the fact that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have to be restricted to the addition of Rs. 23,600 out of the entire addition of Rs. 32,707. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while according approval and the Income-tax Officer while imposing penalty shall keep in mind this factual position. Question No. 1, therefore, deserves to be answered like this that the levy of penalty by the Income-tax Officer without previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was illegal but while curing the defect the concerned authorities shall take into consideration the factual position of the case as indicated above. The reference thus stands decided in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary in accordance with law.
-
1996 (5) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... re, after examining the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment, it is more than evident that tendu patta does not undergo any processing except sprinkling of water so as to avoid breaking of leaves and sorting of leaves which are of poor quality. Thereafter, the leaves are packed and dried from both sides. After processing and drying, the bundles are collected and kept in heaps. After this, it is examined whether the dried leaves are soft enough for the manufacturing of bidis. If they are not so soft, then again water is sprinkled on these heaps of bundles so that the brittleness of the leaves goes away. After sprinkling of water again the leaves are dried for two-three days. After this process, soft dry leaves are obtained. It is to keep some moisture in the leaves so that they may be useful for manufacture of bidis. This process does not amount in the real sense of the word to processing , as nothing emerges from this, hence we find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Customs Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... tuation, he had taken a risk of ordering such goods which were not included in the open general licence and he only took a chance by showing that on July 27, 1987, the Government issued a notification clarifying the position. This will not be of any avail to the assessee, but this item was not included in the open general licence and still he took risk knowing fully well that this item is not included in the open general licence. The assessee wanted to take the benefit of it and when the Government issued a notification on July 27, 1987, therefore, he wanted to take the benefit thereof. Therefore, the penalty which is being levied, is not something which the assessee was not aware of. Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this expenditure cannot be deductible under section 37 of the Act and it has to be added in the income of the assessee and charged to tax. In the result, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
