|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 401 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Central Government, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the actual cost . The expression actual cost in section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, needs to be interpreted liberally. Such a subsidy does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions for its deductibility from actual cost . The amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost under section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation, etc. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the fact that the two decisions rendered by this court have been reversed/overruled by the Supreme Court, we hold that no question of law arises for determination by this court. Hence, these petitions are dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority ... ... ... ... ..... able to the sole selling agent is pending adjudication before the appellate authority. In view of the admitted fact that the issue relating to the quantum of commission payable to the sole selling agent of the assessee, is still undecided, determination of the question of law called for by this court would be a futile exercise. In our considered opinion, the question referred to this court by the Tribunal on February 23, 1978, does not deserve to be answered because in fact no such question arises in the facts and circumstances of this case. For the aforementioned reason, we dispose of these petitions without answering the question of law referred to by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that once the appellate authority decides the matter afresh in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal, the parties shall be entitled to avail of the remedies available to them by way of further appeals and then by filing applications under section 256(1) or 256(2) of the Act.
-
1996 (10) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ined in section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, unless that person is under eighteen years of age. It is clear that the learned magistrate has fallen into an error in not considering the provisions of this section. The respondent, Ajit Singh, is having two daughters of marriageable age, as observed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment. The other respondent, D. P. Mishra, is alleged to be the accountant. Therefore, none of them can be under the age of 18 years. Respondent No. 1 is, of course, a company. In view of the above reasons, the order of probation cannot be upheld. The revisions are, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the trial court so far as its grants probation to the respondents is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for passing orders according to law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Additional Depreciation, Appeal To Tribunal, Assessing Officer, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Claiming Depreciation, Expenditure Incurred, In The Nature, Investment Allowance, Revenue Expenditure, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1996 (10) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... upon by the contesting parties before the Tribunal. The net result of the above discussion is that the situation is governed by the statutory provisions of section 8(1)(a) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, and in the process, the assessee cannot be taxed as a single unit, but with reference to four minors mentioned in paragraph 5 of the trust deed quoted hereinbefore during the judgment. The assessing authority would proceed to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of section 8(1)(a) of the Act taking into consideration the underlined portion thereof in the above judgment out of section 8(1)(a) of the Act reproduced hereinbefore. For the above reason, we answer both the questions in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Family Arrangement, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ate the cases and refer the aforesaid two questions, as noted above, we do not deem it proper to express any final opinion one way or the other at this stage. Suffice it to say that the case is made out for calling upon the Tribunal to state the cases and refer one question each in both these cases as particularised above. We have taken this view because in our view it is necessary to consider and answer whether the family arrangement amounts to a partial partition in terms of the Act or not. In the result, we allow these miscellaneous civil cases in part and call upon the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the aforesaid question in each case as expeditiously as possible for our consideration and opinion. We, however, make no orders as to costs. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for compliance. Retain this order in the record of Miscellaneous Civil No. 120 of 1989 and place its copy in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 578 of 1992 for ready reference.
-
1996 (10) TMI 55 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation And Development Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... tes constitute plant within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the assessee is entitled to depreciation. On similar analogy, the assessee would be entitled to development rebate on bottles and crates. In this respect reference may also be made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. 1979 117 ITR 321. In so far as question No. 3 (pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74) is concerned, the same stands concluded against the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308. For the aforesaid reasons, the question in respect of the assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 and questions Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 29,601 to the income of the assessee, on the basis of his earlier order passed under section 171 of the Act. The Tribunal, on the basis of its order relating to partial partition under section 171 of the Act, reversed the order of the Income-tax Officer and deleted the addition made by the Income-tax Officer. It was held that since the partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family was accepted, the addition made of Rs. 29,601 in the hands of the assessee on account of the determined share from Prabhu Singh Tirlok Singh Grover could not be sustained. In view of the decision of this court in Wazir Singh s case 1989 179 ITR 601, the matter stands concluded between the parties. The partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family has already been accepted. The addition made, under the circumstances, could not be sustained. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... there is no direct decision or authoritative pronouncement with regard to the question on hand. The Division Bench, in its reference order, observed thus There is no direct decision of any High Court or the Supreme Court on the point. There is no specific statutory law or otherwise precluding the wife from causing such severance. True these are some of the salient features that are to be adverted to and in the light of these two conflicting decisions, at any rate, this court felt the expediency of referring the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question. For the aforementioned reasons, we declare that the wife who was a member of the Hindu undivided family comprising herself, her husband and her sons, can never sever herself from the membership of the Hindu undivided family by a unilateral declaration to that effect, yet retaining the marital tie. For all these reasons, we answer the reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (10) TMI 52 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... ong the heirs as matruka on the death of the last holder of the properties, the mere fact that the Nizam was having overall supervision of the properties as head of the family would not make the properties personal properties of the late Nizam and if this fact he acknowledged by issuing the firmans and retroceding the properties, it would not amount to transferring the properties in favour of the Sahebzadas and Sahebzadis. It is also possible that the late Nizam has title to some or all of the properties which he purported to transfer under the firmans . These facts can only be ascertained by a perusal of the firmans . But these essential facts are not found by the Tribunal. In the absence of the factual basis, we decline to answer the second question as well. We leave this aspect also open for the Tribunal to collect the necessary facts and decide the matter. The reference is accordingly answered. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1996 (10) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Raw Material, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... that the remand report gives minute details not only with reference to the location but also with reference to the management on the basis of which the factual position could get determined rightly by the Tribunal. The apex court itself has observed that no particular decision in one case can lay down an inexorable test to determine whether a given case comes for a claim after deduction or not, there must be a new emergence of a physically separate industrial unit which may exist on its own as a viable unit. In our judgment, it is not possible, although relating to factual basis, to interfere with the careful and cautious order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (annexure C ). For all the above reasons, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 49 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... r loss allowed by the Department was between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. and for the assessment year 1966-67 river loss of 20 per cent. was allowed. Only on that premise, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee for deduction of the loss to the tune of 7 per cent. In our opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from a patent illegality because it not only failed to examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority but decided the case only on the basis of conjectures. The order passed by the appellate authority is well reasoned and is supported by the facts placed on record. Therefore, we hold that the assessee was not entitled to the river loss at 7 per cent. for the assessment year 1972-73 and the appellate authority rightly allowed river loss to the extent of 3 per cent. only. In the result, we allow the petition and answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (10) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Additional Evidence, Assessment Proceedings, Financial Year, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... s decision was already on record in the assessment proceedings. It is pertinent to mention that the correctness of the facts as set out by the Tribunal in its order, rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act has not been disputed either in the application under section 256(2) of the Act or during the course of the arguments by learned standing counsel, before this court. This being the factual state of affairs and there being no challenge on merits to the view entertained by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the construction of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, in our considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any statable question of law. On the contrary, the question does not arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In any view of the matter, for the reasons stated earlier, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed in appeal is concluded by findings of fact. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1996 (10) TMI 47 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... herein. In the context Form No. D-2 can be understood only in the light of the language used in section 21 read with rules 3 and 4 along with Form No. D-1. Hence, there can be no doubt whatever that the licence fee paid by the assessee in this case is for the purpose of construction and working of distillery. Consequently, it is only capital expenditure but for which the assessee could not have established the distillery. He cannot claim this to be revenue expenditure as one having been spent for the business. It follows that the view expressed by the Tribunal is correct. Question No. 4 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative by upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in that the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid to the Himachal Pradesh Government for obtaining a licence for establishing a distillery at Solan for the production of Indian made foreign liquor cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee-company. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 46 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Company Surtax, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ng so, the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Kerala High Court in A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 159 ITR 431 FB and reversed the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1989 178 ITR 453. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court this question is no longer available for discussion in this court. Hence, the reference is answered by holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the corresponding surtax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income. Reference is ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ax Appellate Tribunal have not been challenged in the questions proposed in the reference application. In these circumstances, when the sales and purchases were found verifiable and so also the expenditure claimed, there seems no justification to make the assessment in disregard of the book version. The plea that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should have adhered to its earlier decision, directing the assessment by application of net rate on estimated turnover, cannot be accepted. The question of estimate could, only arise when the books were not found reliable as contemplated under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 145 or under sub-section (2) of that section. No such situation arises in the instant case. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the questions sought to be referred do not arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in any case the said order is concluded by findings of fact. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1996 (10) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Finality Of Findings Of Fact, Question Of Law, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... he ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is perverse. Moreover, when a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, whether that is sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. It is not possible on the facts of the instant case to hold that any irrelevant material has been taken into consideration. It is also not possible to hold that any relevant material has not been considered or that the authorities including the Tribunal have acted on conjecture or surmise. When a finding has been recorded on a pure question of fact and the authorities have found that they are not satisfied with the genuineness. or creditworthiness of the creditors, in our view, on such facts no question of law can be said to have arisen. We, for the said reason, decline the petition. The petition is dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ounsel for taxes. The assessee does nothing else further than to sell his article and it is purchased by many other companies for the purpose of manufacture and production of their final products such as tyres, tubes, etc. For the above reasons, the situation would not be governed by the decisions placed for our consideration by reason of totally different and opposite factual peculiarities. For the above reasons we answer the questions as follows I. T. R. No. 46 of 1993 The question is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. I. T. R. No. 38 of 1996 The question is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. I. T. R. No. 125 of 1996 The question is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Liability To Tax, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... ttedly sold. The situation gets more than affixed when there is material that the first consignment was received thereafter on the next day on April 6, 1980. It is not possible to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal that when the amount is invested in the purchase of goods it gets automatically taxed as income. It is obvious that unless there is income there cannot be any expenditure and because there is expenditure it cannot be presumed that the income gets taxed. In our judgment, the reasoning of the Tribunal is an error of law and is unsustainable on any count. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 1, it is unnecessary to record any answer for question No. 2 and we decline to do so. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
....
|
