|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 364 Records
-
1995 (2) TMI 44 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Advertisement, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... 22 and the circumstances which led to the dropping of the word necessarily from sub-section (1) of section 37, the expression wholly and exclusively used in section 10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act, does not mean necessarily . Bearing in mind this history and the distinction brought about, the case relied upon by learned counsel for the Revenue, on the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, is not attracted. The assessment year 1977-78 relates to the period when emergency was in force, a fact of which judicial notice can well be taken of. When the payments were made by the assessee to the Delhi Flying Club Ltd., Delhi, and the AICC Souvenir Committee on account of advertisement expenses, as already noted above, the commercial expediency is to be considered from the businessman s standpoint, and on such consideration our answer to the question posed, in view of the foregoing discussion has to be in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (2) TMI 43 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Power To Remand, Powers Of Tribunal, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that is, Commissioner s order relating to the preceding year, was removed as illegal by the judgment of this court. That being so, the Tribunal itself having come to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order was not sustainable, it could not pass the remand order on the terms it has been passed in the instant case. Following the same obviously the Tribunal having concluded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order was not sustainable (sic). Although rule 28 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules provides for remand of cases by the Tribunal, in view of the facts as found by the Tribunal, and there being no cross-objection or other materials available on record, we find no reason to take a different view. Our answer to the question, as referred, is in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (2) TMI 42 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Agricultural Land, Assessment Year, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... 47(viii), it was provided that any transfer of any agricultural land in India effected before the first day of March, 1970, will not be considered as a transfer and, therefore, will not be liable to capital gains tax. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A Sheth, v. N. D. Nirgudkar 1981 128 ITR 87 was held inapplicable in view of the retrospective amendment of law. The use of the land for nonagricultural purposes was liable to capital gains tax and the retrospective amendment of law from April 1, 1970, has also brought within its ambit the agricultural land liable for capital gains tax. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above does not provide any assistance to the assessee. The sale of agricultural land was liable to capital gains tax irrespective of the use it has been put to. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 41 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... eferred to above, the said decision cannot be considered as laying down the correct law. It may also be observed that Explanation 2 added by the Finance Act, 1992, from April 1, 1993, in section 15 makes it clear that the salary received by a partner of a firm shall not be regarded as salary but this amendment has been brought on the statute book because of the change of basis of assessment of the firm and the partner under the new scheme. The provisions of section 40(b) provide that in the case of a partnership firm, any payment of salary, etc., to a partner is not allowable and has been treated as business income of firm. On the basis of the above discussions and the provisions of section 15 read with section 16 of the Income-tax Act, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the standard deduction from salary received by a partner from the firm. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 40 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... x Officer found that except for agricultural land valuing Rs. 39,000 the remaining properties of the assessee were not exempt. The matter under the Income-tax Act, 1961, was considered by this court in the case of the assessee (CIT v. Paramhans Ashram Trust 1993 203 ITR 711) in D. B. I. T. Reference No. 48 of 1982 decided on December 8, 1992, and it was held that the assessee is a charitable trust and entitled for exemption of income-tax under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The provisions of section 5(1)(i) are for exemption to any property held by a trust which is held for public purpose by a charitable trust of religious nature. Since the assessee has been held to be a public charitable/religious H trust, the exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act is also allowable. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for the exemption. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... itioner falls under item 28 of Schedule V, was duly considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well and it was found that the said item does not fall within the category of processed seeds. Since we have come to the conclusion that the production of items contemplated under section 33 to have special development rebate on the products which are mentioned in the Fifth Schedule and the products manufactured by the assessee cannot be considered to be processed seeds or vegetable oil/oilcakes produced by the solvent-extraction process, the Income-tax Officer had committed a mistake which is apparent from the record and, therefore, the action of the Income-tax Officer in rectifying the order was in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that section 154 of the Income-tax Act could not have been invoked in this case. The reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 38 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... be disallowed in view of the provisions of section 40(b). In view of the specific provisions of the Act we are of the view that it will not make any difference with regard to disallowance of interest paid to the partner, if the same is paid on the amount which is credited in the books by way of capital or otherwise. The amount of interest which has been paid to the partner is not disputed as the said proprietary concern was owned by the partner and, therefore, any payment of interest would amount to payment of interest to the partner which is specifically disallowable under the provisions of the Act. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the interest of Rs. 30,000 paid in Sarsoon Trading account to Anil Kumar Ajay Kumar, Alwar, was disallowable under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (2) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Partner, Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... al has held that no referable question of law arises. Hence, this application under section 256(2) has been preferred by the Commissioner. Shri S. R. Ashok, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that as the assessee was not himself carrying on any profession, the deduction under section 35CCA is not available to him. This contention has been met by the Tribunal holding that the word assessee defined in section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act means a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable and that by no stretch of imagination it could be contended that the partner of a firm did not fulfil this condition to be deprived of the statutory benefit under section 35CCA. We do not find any illegality in the approach of the Tribunal. On the facts found by the Tribunal and on consideration of section 35CCA and section 67, we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct. In this view, no referable question of law arises. The income-tax case is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 36 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Valuation Date, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... r, wealth-tax has to be assessed on the net wealth of the joint family and each member or group of members shall be liable jointly and severally to the tax that is assessed. This provision places the position beyond doubt that partition of the joint family on the valuation date relevant for the assessment year in question, had to be ignored for the purposes of assessIng wealth-tax for the assessment year in question. On the strength of the observation of this court in CWT v. Tatavarthi Rajah and Satyanarayana Murthy 1983 143 ITR 441, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment of net wealth of the bigger Hindu undivided family was valid as the partition pleaded took place on the valuation date and so section 20(1) of the Act was attracted. As we are in entire agreement with the approach of the Appellate Tribunal, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is answered as mentioned above.
-
1995 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Income Tax Act, Indian Company, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... of clause (o) of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act is April 1, 1965. This provision is introduced in the Act by the amendment Act of 1965. If the interpretation put forward by the Revenue is accepted the proviso shall be inoperative for the said period of five years commencing from March 31, 1964, and there shall be no exemption available to the donee if the property passed on to him on the death of the donor during the said period. It is obvious, the property taken under any gift beyond a period of five years must mean beyond a period of five years prior to the death of the deceased and that period may be prior to April 1, 1965, the date with effect from which this provision is introduced in the Act. In the instant case, the gift is of the year 1963 and it is obviously beyond five years of the death which took place in the year 1974. The Tribunal, in our view, has committed no error in this behalf. Both the questions referred to us are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... not able to prove that the apparent is not real, that the persons in whose names the fixed deposits stand are only benamidars for the assessee-firm and, secondly, the Revenue also failed to prove that the assessees were capable of saving so much money either in the preceding assessment year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 or in the immediately preceding assessment year beginning from 1979-80. Therefore, even assuming that the sworn statements given by the above three F. D. R. holders are held to be not acceptable, even then there is no justification to treat Rs. 1,50,000 to be the income of the assessee. Hence, we delete this addition. These findings by the Tribunal are findings of fact and they are not questioned by the Department. When these findings are accepted, we do not see how these questions of law, sought to be referred, arise. In the circumstances, we find that the Tribunal rightly refused to refer the questions. The income-tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Development Allowance, Income Tax Act, Industrial Undertaking, Small Scale Undertaking, Weighted Deduction
-
1995 (2) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cash Payments, Development Allowance, Income Tax Act, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... or provision outside India or on the carriage of such goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of goods in transit maintenance outside India of branch office or agency, preparation and submission of tenders for the supply or provision outside India of goods, etc. furnishing of samples or technical opinion, travelling outside India for the promotion of the sale outside India of goods, etc., performance of services outside India in connection with, or incidental to, the execution of any contract for the supply outside India of goods, etc., or other activities for the promotion of the sale outside India of goods, etc. None of the items of expenditure as shown in section 35B(1)(b) of the Act is attracted on the payment of royalty. The Tribunal has thus, on the first question, rightly decided in favour of the assessee and on the second question, erred in holding in favour of the assessee. The two questions in the instant case are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... guishable. From the extract of the judgment of the High Court in R. C. No. 67 of 1969 dated November 5, 1971, quoted by the Tribunal, we may note the following observation made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, as he then was, speaking for the Bench. The learned judge observed, Her interest in the jewels is limited to being allowed to wear them if the trustees do not withdraw them from her. To our minds, the interest appears to be of a permissive nature and cannot be called property, however widely the expression may be interpreted. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that neither the interest of the Sahebzadi in the jewellery fund nor her interest in the shares fund is an asset within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act. We are in entire agreement with the observation of the Bench. In view of the said observation, the point is squarely covered by a binding judgment of this court. Therefore, no referable question of law arises. In the result, the wealth-tax cases are dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Income Tax Act, Indian Company, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... rred to this court is only with regard to the grossing up and including the amount of tax deducted in the income of the assessee and we are of the opinion that the amount of tax which has been deducted has to be added up and that is the total amount which will be deemed to be the total income of the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the absence fees of Rs. 11,280 for the assessment year 1977-78 and of Rs. 12,766 for the assessment year 1978-79 were not taxable in the hands of the assessee as revenue receipts and also erred in further holding that the tax paid by the Indian company on behalf of the assessee amounting to Rs. 12,466 for the assessment year 1977-78 and of Rs. 14,109 for the assessment year 1978-79 could not be grossed up and included in the income of the assessee. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Application For Revision, Delay In Application, Income Tax Act, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... estion of condonation, but demolish the order so far as it rejected the application dated February 21, 1985, seeking condonation of delay with the direction to the authorities to revivify this application and to decide it afresh after hearing both the sides in this behalf. For this purpose, the points posed or opposed shall also be treated as open and litigable. The authority shall also take into account the conduct of the petitioner, the time spent in other proceedings and the desirability or otherwise of examination of the matter on the merits for doing justice between the parties and decide the question afresh in conformity with law. If the authority elects to condone the delay, then the application submitted under section 264 of the Income-tax Act shall be heard and decided on the merits. This petition is, thus, disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.
-
1995 (2) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... 276B of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that no deduction was made and even the tax was paid as claimed and the provisions of section 276B of the Act are not attracted. the question whether the petitioner has contravened section 194A of the Act or not and whether the complaint is justified or not are all matters of evidence. The petitioner can raise such contentions before the court below. I see no ground to quash the complaint. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M. P. No. 15414 of 1989 is also dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 27 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Proceedings, Revised Return, Waiver Of Penalty And Interest
-
1995 (2) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Computing Cost, Cost Of Acquisition, Fair Market Value, Income Tax Act, Set On
-
1995 (2) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ons. The assessee filed a return on June 28, 1985, declaring a total income of Rs. 52,070. On September 5, 1985, a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Department on the business premises of the firm and also residential premises of the partner. On the basis of the documents seized at the time of search and seizure, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 2,68,146. Finally, the Tribunal found that the document annexure-C-23 did not belong to the assessee-firm and, consequently, deleted the addition of Rs. 46,378 and Rs. 41,000. We have gone through the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and also the provisions of section 132(4A) and also the document annexure-C-23, In our opinion, prima facie, the finding of the Tribunal regarding ownership and construction of the document gives rise to the aforesaid question of law. Consequently, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law for the opinion of this court.
....
|
