|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 306 Records
-
1984 (7) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... d transfer and got reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Thereafter, the reason for the transfer was recorded in the order itself and communicated to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the reason given in the order of transfer, viz., that the transfer was effected in the interest of proper investigation, cannot be said to be no reason or mere conclusion. The very object of transfer may sometimes be defeated if the requirement to give detailed reason is imposed on the transferring authority. Inconvenience of the assessee cannot outweigh the need of the Revenue for proper investigation of the case. I, therefore overrule the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and hold that the impugned order of transfer is valid. In the result, the writ petition fails and the rule is discharged. No order is made as to costs. On the oral prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, the operation of the order/judgment passed this day, be stayed for three weeks from date.
-
1984 (7) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... hat year. In fact, deduction for that year was allowed by the Tribunal and other authorities to the extent of Rs. 31,690. However, the provision made in that year in the sum of Rs. 29,593, which is the subjectmatter of this reference, relates not to the liability of that year, i.e., 1973-74, but to that of 1972-73. That claim, for the reasons which we have already stated, ought to have been made in that accounting year, and not subsequently. In the circumstances, the claim for deduction in regard to the sum of Rs. 29,593 was, in our view, rightly disallowed by the ITO, and wrongly allowed by the AAC and the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (7) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... acted. Whether the employees had completed five years during the year of account or subsequently would make no difference in this respect. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order in regard to that aspect of the matter in the light of what is stated above. Question No. 4 cannot be answered in the form in which it has been cast. We, therefore, recast the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in remitting the case to the Income-tax Officer for the reason stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of its order ? We answer the question, as recast, in the negative that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (7) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Jurisdiction To Assess ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bound to set aside the assessment and to restore the proceedings of assessment at the stage at which irregularity supervened. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessment for making a fresh assessment according to law and the Appellate Tribunal was also justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of my above findings, the answer to the questions has to be in the affirmative to the effect that the Tribunal was correct in not annulling the assessment and in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the assessment, and so the answer to the question referred by the Tribunal is in favour of the department opposite party and against the assessee-petitioner. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1984 (7) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... y as Rs. 70,000 and the same has been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer and the Land and Building Tax Department has also assessed the same at Rs. 70,000 for the assessment year 1973-74 and the approved valuer has also valued the property at Rs. 70,000 on April 1, 1973, and it is only 35 of the total land which is the constructed area and 65 of the plot of land is uncovered, we do not find that question No. 6 as proposed by the petitioner arises in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, of course, relied on Amolak Rain Khosla v. CIT 1981 131 ITR 589 (SC), CED v. Radha Devi Jalan 1968 67 ITR 761 (Cal) and CED v. Smt. Shanta Ben Mani Lal Patel 1975 100 ITR 229 (Raj), in favour of his contention that the Department should have valued the immovable property by applying capitalisation or rental method. We have examined these cases. The facts of these cases are quite distinguishable. Hence, we are not directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer question No. 6.
-
1984 (7) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment, Reopening Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ases is that on the basis of the same material, a change of opinion cannot form a legal basis for reassessment under s. 147 of the Act. It has already been made abundantly clear that the instant case is not a case of change of opinion in respect of the same material. It is on the contrary a case of non-disclosure by the petitioner of all material facts necessary for his assessment. In conclusion, therefore, I hold that both the conditions for giving jurisdiction to the ITO to act under s. 147(a) of the Act are satisfied in this case inasmuch as (i) he had reason to believe that some income of the assessee had escaped assessment, and (ii) he had also reason to believe that such escapement was by reason of the concealment by the assessee of the particulars of its sales during the relevant year which were necessary to be disclosed to enable the ITO to make a correct assessment. This writ petition must, therefore, fail and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000.
-
1984 (7) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... thority. Turning to the facts of the case before us in the light of the aforesaid observations, we are inclined to hold that the instrument of partnership does contain a provision for sharing the total loss by two major partners. The position stands clarified by the contents of the application to the effect that in case of loss, if any , the two major partners named therein shall bear the loss 50 50. As such, there remains no ambiguity so as to disable the assessing authority to ascertain the actual shares of the partners in losses. The conclusion drawn, therefore, is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper consideration of the partnership deed dated January 27, 1966, and application in Form No. 11, the Tribunal was not correct in law in refusing grant of registration under section 185 of the 1961 Act to the assessee-firm. Consequently, we answer the question referred to us in the negative. i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1984 (7) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... gs were barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the proceedings were barred by limitation under section 149 of the Act. A copy of the said order has been marked annexure C to the statement of the case. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue relied upon two decisions, namely, Jai Hanuman Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 36, Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and New Bank of India Ltd.v. ITO 1982 136 ITR 679, a Bench decision of the Delhi High Court. These decisions can hardly be pressed into service on behalf of the Revenue in the instant case. Having gone through the appellate order of the Tribunal (annexure C), we are not satisfied that there is any illegality or perversity in the order. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred for our opinion in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal, was justified in holding that the proceeding under section 147(a) of the Act was barred by limitation. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 18 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... n the instant case, there is no material on record which has not been taken note of by the Tribunal nor has any irrelevant fact been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In the case of Nelliappan 1967 66 ITR 722, the Supreme Court again assessed a case of cash credits in relation to which a finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal was held to be a finding of fact. We have already observed above that it is a pure question of fact and can be interfered with only if it is held to be perverse by applying any of the rules enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Jain 1973 87 ITR 370 (SC). In the result, therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal was not perverse and cannot be said to have been based on no material. The question is thus answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... se (xxxii) of excluding those items of land and building or interest in such land or building or assets in respect of which exemption had already been given under other clauses should not again come up for exemption under this clause, if any land or building or interest in any land or building or any other asset had been excluded under other clauses in sub-section (1) of section 5, those items cannot again be excluded under clause (xxxii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. Such being the object of the provision, we have to interpret clause (xxxii) as not including any land or building or interest in any land or building or asset which has been referred to in any other sub-clauses under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. In this view, we have to agree with the interpretation given by the Tribunal on clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Act. We have to, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... donees will have to pay gift-tax will not go to reduce the value of the gifted properties. It may be that for non-payment of gift-tax either by the donors who are primarily liable to pay the same under section 29 of the Gift-tax Act or by the donees in cases where the whereabouts of the donors may not be found, the gifted properties may be proceeded against for realising the gift-tax. But that does not mean that the value of the gift can be taken to be the market value less gift-tax, as has been assumed by the Tribunal in this case. Since the Tribunal, in our view, has taken an irrelevant consideration for fixing the value of the gift, we have to answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The result is the Tribunal has to refix the value of the gift after eschewing from consideration the liability fastened on the donees under the gift deeds to pay the gift-tax. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs from the assessees. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1984 (7) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeals, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... such other legal remedies as may be open to them under law. Accordingly, T.R.C. Nos. 85 and 105 of 1982 are dismissed but the other four tax revision cases, viz., T.R.C. Nos. 87, 106, 108 and 109 of 1982, are allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. The learned Government Pleader makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our decision in T.R.C. Nos. 85 and 105 of 1982 under article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. We are not, however, persuaded that these cases involve a substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, needs to be decide by the Supreme Court. As pointed out in the judgment, we have merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay 1965 16 STC 613 (SC), though, it may be, that we have disagreed with the view taken by some other High Courts. The request for oral leave is accordingly rejected.
-
1984 (7) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Circulars, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... t relied on a circular of the Department No. 334 dated April 3, 1982 levy of interest under section 220(2) when the original assessment is set aside-instructions regarding. We find it difficult to rely on the circular. The circular only gives the view of the Department in the matter. The provision has to be interpreted regardless of the views expressed in the circular. In CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. and Ltd. 1983 143 ITR 29, this court held (headnote) The court will have to put its own construction upon the provisions of the Act regardless of the practice of the Department and the directions for the guidance of the officials. In the result, we dismiss the writ appeal and confirm the judgment of the learned single judge. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel for the Revenue asked for leave to appeal. We do not think that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Leave refused.
-
1984 (7) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... that may be found by the High Court. We have earlier referred to the facts found and the circumstances relied on by the Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority. It is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this court has jurisdiction to go behind or to question the statements of fact made by the Tribunal. The statement of the case is binding on the parties and they are not entitled to go behind the facts found by the Tribunal in the statement. In the circumstances indicated above, we are constrained to hold that we cannot entertain the arguments of the counsel stated supra. In the above conclusion, the questions referred to us have been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (7) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1984 (7) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r himself has no power to levy penalty less than the minimum prescribed under the aforesaid sections. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in view of the decision of this court in I. T. R. C. Nos. 32 to 37 of 1968, has no jurisdiction to enhance the penalty to the minimum prescribed. On the other contentions relating to the cause shown by the assessee, the Tribunal has observed that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee for not furnishing the required returns and for non-payment of advance tax within the prescribed time. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has recorded a finding that the assessee consciously disregarded its obligations under the Income-tax Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to disagree with that finding. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... ve transaction under section 43(5) of the Act if, instead of effecting the delivery or transfer of the commodity envisaged by the contract, the promisee, in terms of section 63 of the Contract Act, 1872, accepts, instead of it, any satisfaction which he thinks fit and what is really settled by damages is the dispute between the parties and, therefore, it is quite different from the settlement of the contract. A contract is settled when it is either performed or the promisee dispenses with or remits, wholly or in part, the performance of the promise made to him or accepts instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit. In the instant case, as we earlier observed, the buyer, instead of waiting to take actual delivery of the cotton, has accepted a total amount of Rs. 35,000 in full settlement of the contractual obligations. This case, therefore, clearly falls within section 43 (5) of the Act. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1984 (7) TMI 9 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cash Payments ... ... ... ... ..... marked as annexure-C. On a consideration of the assessment order (Annexure-A), the first appellate order (Annexure-B) and the second appellate order of the Tribunal (Annexure-C), we find that the matter has been decided on the evidence and materials on the record and the legal points raised on behalf of the assessee were rejected on an appreciation of all the materials on the record. Mr. K. N. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, was unable to satisfy us that there was any perversity in the appellate order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we find that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the Revenue was justified in adding back Rs. 10,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act in the context of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. We accordingly answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Commissioner. In view of the fair attitude of learned counsel for the assessee, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hares in the books of the company in her name. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed on August 17, 1982, is set aside. There will be a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the 900 equity shares of East India Film Co. P. Ltd. described in the plaint. There will also be a decree directing rectification of the share register and/or register of members of East India Film Co. P. Ltd. by inserting the name of the plaintiff and/or her nominee in respect of the said shares. There will also be a mandatory injunction directing East India Film Co. P. Ltd. to deliver to the plaintiff the share scrips and/or certificates in respect of the said 900 shares after rectification of the share register. In default, East India Film Co. P. Ltd. is directed to issue duplicate share scrips in respect of the aforesaid 900 shares of the company to the plaintiff in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1984 (7) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ble to infer that the assessee should have adopted the same modus operandi. As a matter of fact, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has not relied also while disposing of the reassessment under section 147(a) on the fact of this additional factor. However, since the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act could be sustained on the factum of non-disclosure of the construction of the second floor before March 31, 1965, it is unnecessary to go into that aspect of the case in detail. The question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and accordingly answered. Since the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the reassessment and as it cancelled the reassessment made under section 147(a) of the Act, the Tribunal is directed to consider the order of reassessment on merits and as modified by the appellate authority and the appeal will be restored to its file. The Revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
....
|
