Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 295 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... rkash Co. Ltd. 1964 52 ITR 23 (SC), (ii) CIT v. Managing Trustee, Jalakhabai Trust 1967 66 ITR 619 (SC) and (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT 1968 68 ITR 177 (SC). None of these cases pertained to a notice of motion taken out in a pending reference for calling upon the Tribunal to refer a question of law which stood concluded against an identical factual background by a decision of the jurisdictional High Court and calling for an additional statement of case was not at all necessary. We must notice that at one stage, it was in passing submitted by Shri Dewani that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 452 an additional statement of case by the Tribunal may be necessary. We do not think that this submission was seriously made. Perhaps it was made only to dissuade us from adopting this unusual course. The original question No. 5 in the application is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ppellate Tribunal. The plea taken before the Appellate Tribunal that the property was thrown into the common hotchpot of the joint family, having been negatived, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the property belongs to the smaller Hindu undivided family. In the absence of the partition deed and the declaration and on the basis of the material on record, we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the property belonged to the smaller Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife and, consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the value of the property and the income therefrom have to be assessed in the hands of the smaller Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife does not suffer from any infirmity. For the aforesaid reason, the questions referred to us have to be answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The referred cases are accordingly answered.
-
1992 (9) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... t the time of retirement could not be construed as capital gain under section 45 of the Act as there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, and such excess was not exigible to tax as capital gains. This judgment was followed by the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion to which it reached. From the above judgment it follows a fortiori that when the amount standing to the capital amount of the retiring partner is drawn by him at the time of his retirement, it cannot be said that there was any transfer of a capital asset in favour of the existing partners by him for the purpose of section 45 of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, the second question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The first question which is only a consequential question is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The referred case is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ot a transfer without consideration in Ghiasuddin Babu Khan v. CIT 1985 153 ITR 707 (AP) FB , it follows that the property purchased from out of the said amount cannot be included in the assets of the assessee for the purpose of wealth-tax under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the first question is answered in the negative (sic) i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In so far as the second question is concerned, it may be observed that the basis of the second question is not laid down either in the order of assessment or in the order of the appellate authority or the order of the Tribunal. Once it is held that Rs. 1,20,000 is paid to the wife of the assessee towards meher amount, the said amount cannot be treated as the debt due from his wife to the assessee. Therefore, this question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered. No costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Book Entries, Capital Gains, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... r. He placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narsibhai Patel v. CWT 1981 127 ITR 633. This submission cannot be accepted for the reasons already indicated above. The ratio of the Madhya Pradesh decision does not apply. It was a case of computation of wealth of the firm under section 4(1)(b) after taking into consideration the exemptions contained in section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the case of Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal v. Bishwanath Prasad, AIR 1963 Patna 221, it has been held that no registered document is necessary when a partner contributes his immovable property as his share of the partnership because of section 14 of the Partnership Act. In this case, we are not even concerned with such a situation. Under the circumstances, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... d the income originally assessed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the original order of the Income-tax Officer was set aside with certain directions the scope of which was very restricted and limited, beyond which the Income-tax Officer could not go. The parties have produced the order dated June 15, 1976, before us and we have taken it on record by consent. Having perused the whole background and the said order, we entertain no doubt that the scope of enquiry of the Income-tax Officer was not at all restricted. The original order was ex parte. It has been set aside. Certain reasons are given. This does not mean that the setting aside was only on restricted grounds. The following observations of the order are significant I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer has not gone through all the details of the case. Hence, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application For Rectification, High Court, Investment Allowance, Original Order, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings
-
1992 (9) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Investment Allowance, Mercantile System, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... ed deduction of the liability on the ground that the liability is statutory and, therefore, should be a revenue deduction. The assessee s claim was upheld by the Supreme Court, holding that the assessee having followed the mercantile system is entitled to the deduction claimed, as such liability being a statutory liability is ascertained as soon as the sale takes place. The same principle shall apply to the present case. Here the quantification of the liability presents no problem. The assessee also follows the mercantile system of accounting. The fact that the assessee was contesting the vires of the levy itself is immaterial. We are, therefore, of the view that the question referred for our opinion is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. Respectfully following the said decision, we answer the additional question for the assessment year 1978-79 in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (9) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, False Return, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... d there, even from the larger and long-term point of view of tax collection. The promise was clear, it had to be kept and hence, it was not open to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under the circumstances. After studying the figures and making calculations the Department agrees before us that the income returned is more than 80 per cent. of the income assessed and, therefore, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is not attracted and, hence, the question of penalty will have to be enquired into and adjudicated upon without the deeming provisions of the Explanation. Under the circumstances, we record our answers as under Question No. (i).--In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (ii).--In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (iii).--In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (iv) and Question No. (v).--Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act does not apply. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Initial Depreciation, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... in section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, should be understood in a wide sense so as to embrace passive as well as active user. In a subsequent decision, the Bombay High Court in Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 1971 79 ITR 613, following the above decision, has given the same meaning to the word user as found in the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. A bare perusal of those provisions will indicate that the object, the words and the context of section 10(2) are not similar to the object, words and context of section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The case of CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. 1981 128 ITR 675 (Mad) pertains to development rebate under section 33 of the 1961 Act. The object of this provision and that of section 32 are not similar and hence the ratio of that decision also does not apply to this case. Under the circumstances, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Commission Payment, Income Tax Act, Power To Admit Additional Evidence, Powers Of Tribunal
-
1992 (9) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Taxing Statutes, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... declarant, grant a certificate to him setting forth the particulars of the voluntarily disclosed income, the amount of income-tax paid in respect of the same, the amount of investment made in the securities referred to in sub-section (3) of section 3 and the date of payment and investment. Section 8(1) speaks of the three conditions upon satisfaction of which alone the relief is grantable. The matter is restored to the Income-tax Officer to examine whether those conditions have been satisfied or not by the Tribunal. Production of certificate under section 8(2) is not a condition precedent. It is a mandate to the Commissioner to grant to the assessee a certificate of the voluntarily disclosed income and other enumerated particulars, if applied for. Rightly has the Tribunal held that the holding of the certificate was not a condition precedent to the grant of relief. Hence, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in disallowing the loss of ₹ 50,724 claimed by the assessee and in making an addition of ₹ 1,21,276 as short term capital gain on the basis of break up value of the shares on the date of transfer as the market value of shares
-
1992 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty orders of the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, on the ground that the penalty orders were illegal and not according to law
-
1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally, how far in reassessment on an escaped item of income is it open to the assessee to seek a review of the concluded item - HC clearly fell in error in permitting the assessee to reagitate, in the reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a), the finally concluded assessment proceedings and to grant to him relief in respect of items not only earlier rejected, but also unconnected with the escapement of income
....
|