|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 364 Records
-
1995 (2) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Protective Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Assessing Officer in the year 1974-75 has assessed the income of Rawat Electricals, a proprietary business in the hands of one Sri Gulzarilal Rawat and assessed the same income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee, Suresh Kumar Rawat, son of Sri Gulzarilal Rawat. During the assessment, it was also found that Suresh Kumar Rawat was born on May 6, 1957, and the business of Rawat Electricals was looked after by one Mukut Beharilal, brother-in-law of Sri Gulzarilal. Even no source has been explained of the initial expense of Rs. 8,000 by the assessee. We perused the assessment order and the appellate order in the case of the assessee. We find no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal regarding benami is perverse. Consequently, there is no reason to disturb the assessment in the hands of the assessee on protective basis, vis-a-vis, the income from Rawat Electricals. In the result, we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (2) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax Act, Weighted Deduction, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1995 (2) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... net dividend, which ultimately came to be included in the total income after allowance of relief under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The second question, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital computed under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, should not be reduced in proportion to the relief allowed in the income-tax assessment under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in terms of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, has to be answered in one sentence, as we have done in Tax Cases Nos. 853 to 858 of 1982 (judgment dated February 2, 1995) and in the same way as the Supreme Court has done in Second ITO v. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P.) Ltd. 1991 187 ITR 108, there is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee, with which we agree . The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company Court, Earning Income, Expenditure Incurred, Interest Income ... ... ... ... ..... case, the Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority, pointed out that all the expenses have to be incurred to maintain the infrastructure for earning or making the interest income. Without incurring these items of various expenditure, it would be impossible for any one much less the official liquidator, to earn this income by way of interest receipts or miscellaneous receipts. It was, therefore, held that these expenses were incurred by the official liquidator wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of earning or making the income as contemplated under section 57(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the abovesaid conclusion on an appraisal of facts arising in this case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 57(iii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... yment of any pension and that Anantharamakrishnan was not an employee of the assessee-company and so the payment was not to the widow of an employee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the authorities below. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of Amalgamations(P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1995 214 ITR 396 (Mad) in Tax Cases Nos. 1109, 1110 and 1180 of 1979 for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 to which one of us was a party (Thanikkachalam J.), wherein by order dated August 30, 1994, this court answered the question referred to it at the instance of the assessee in-the affirmative and against the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances arising in the present case are similar and identical to the earlier case, following the earlier decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Advance Tax, Delay In Filing Return, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... f the advance tax on the due date, so long as the payment is accepted, it can only be towards advance tax. Any payment made before the end of the accounting year for which the assessment is made should be taken as advance tax. In view of the abovesaid decision, regarding the sum of Rs. 1,24,409 paid by the assessee which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer as advance tax, it cannot be said that there is delay in filing the return and payment of the advance tax due. In fact, in the present case, the assessee is entitled to a refund of Rs. 7,647 since the assessee has paid over and above what is due by way of tax. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the decision cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that interest is leviable in the case of the assessee under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner held that there was suppression of investment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 49,750. On appeal, the Tribunal found that while there was enough time for making the penalty order, the disposal of the penalty proceedings without waiting for the completion of the assessment proceedings, which was pending on appeal appeared to be premature. The Tribunal, therefore, deemed it fit to set aside the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and restored the matter to him for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as, in the matter of levy of penalty, the Tribunal has remitted back the issue for fresh consideration and disposal, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative against the Department, with costs of Rs. 500.
-
1995 (2) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm Consisting, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... act remains that between April 1, 1979, and March 27, 1980, the partnership-firm was in existence with six partners. Two new partners had contributed their capital and accounts were maintained on that basis. But, later on, the assessee wanted to say that since the original partnership deed dated April 1, 1974, was restored, the profit was allotted to the four partners and not to the other two partners. As already pointed out after the deed dated April 1, 1979, the partnership created under the deed dated April 1, 1974, cannot have any existence so as to restore the same. In view of all these facts, the Tribunal was justified in doubting the genuineness of the firm. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pro nouncement cited supra, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs. Counsel s fee fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1995 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Debenture Redemption Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... rely because a fund has been set apart for debenture redemption, a specific liability, it is a provision, it is equally wrong to hold that since it is not a provision it is a reserve which qualifies for computation in the capital. The various questions which should be asked are indicated by us above and we recorded that it must, before any such claim of the assessee is accepted, be examined that the reserve whether general or specific represented money which was available with the company for utilisation during the year, that it belonged to the company and was not owed to any one as on the last day of the accounting year it is created by way of appropriation of profits and there was no liability of the current year which had to be met by the fund in redeeming debentures in the year. We hold for the said reason that the case needs a fresh examination in the light of the answer to the question as above by the Tribunal. The case is accordingly remitted to the Tribunal. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... n under section 263 of the Act is unwarranted. In that view of the matter, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act and restore the grant of continuation of registration by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years under consideration. The question as framed and referred to us by the Tribunal does not reflect the correct issue arising in this reference. Therefore, we reconstruct the question as follows Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer in granting continuation of registration for the assessment years under consideration after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act ? Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us (reconstructed by us) in both the assessment years under consideration in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A Partner, Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction credited by section 68 can be invoked. In these circumstances, we are of the view that simply because the amount is credited in the books of the firm in the partner s capital account it cannot be said that it is not the undisclosed income of the firm and in all cases it has to be assessed as an undisclosed income of the partner alone. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the cash credits of Rs. 11,502 in the account of Shri Kishorilal, one of the partners, could not be assessed in the hands of the firm and in deleting the same. Since the matter was not considered by the Tribunal on the merits, the Tribunal would be free to hear the arguments of both the parties and decide afresh in view of the observations made above. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Embezzlement By Employee, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... roperties were not recoverable. It is on this basis that the claim made by the assessee for deduction of Rs. 25,000 being the value of the unrecovered goods which had been stolen, was allowed as deduction. But, in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that money was handed over to the said Balakrishnan, and the case of embezzlement filed against the said Balakrishnan ended in acquittal and damages were awarded for filing a false complaint. In such circumstances, the above cited two decisions would not render any assistance to establish the case put forward by the assessee. Inasmuch as the Tribunal came to the conclusion on an appraisal.........of facts that the loss was not proved by the assessee, we consider that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested at the instance of the assessee. Accordingly, we answer all the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Assessed Tax, Delay In Filing Return, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... advance tax which covered the tax due, and the State did not suffer any loss, obviously interest could not be charged. This principle will not apply to imposition of penalty. Learned counsel relied on the decision in CIT v. Deepak Trading Co. 1994 208 ITR 304 (Cal), which refers to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes at page 309. The Board issued a circular instructing the Assessing Officer that section 271(1)(a) should not be invoked in the case of a registered firm unless its income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax by Rs. 1,500. Since the imposition of penalty is on account of some action or inaction on the part of the assessee, the Board decided to take a lenient view in the case of borderline cases. The circular cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. For the reasons indicated above, we follow the view taken in the decisions of this court, sustain the impugned decision of the learned single judge and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... forward of loss ? It remains to be seen that there was delay in filing the return by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee submitted Form No. 6 explaining the delay in filing the return, and asking for extension of time. The Income-tax Officer did not consider this request made by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal followed a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Lachman Cltaturbhuj Java v. R. G. Nitsure 1981 132 ITR 631 and held that the delay should be deemed to have been condoned and the time would have been extended for filing the return by the Assessing Officer. This conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the facts available on record in the matter of condoning the delay in filing the return. No question of law arises as framed and suggested by the Revenue and we are unable to direct the Tribunal to refer the abovesaid question as requested by the Department. Accordingly, the tax case petition is dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Valuation Of Land ... ... ... ... ..... ppeal before the Tribunal. The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, questioning the quantum of wealth determined by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). The assessee did not furnish any particulars with regard to the price for which the property in question was purchased by the assessee. No particulars were also produced as to what was the value of the property, which was taken into consideration in the earlier assessment years. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the depressing factors, directed the Wealth-tax Officer to take the value of this property as Rs. 1,05,720 and it was only under those circumstances, that the Tribunal came to the abovesaid conclusion. This conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the facts arising in the case. Therefore, we hold that no referable questions of law arise. out of the common order of the Tribunal, as framed and suggested by the assessee. Accordingly, all the tax case petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... t follow that the amount agreed to be added is concealed income as there may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission. The Supreme Court further held that in a case where the assessee realises the true position and did not dispute certain disallowances it does not absolve the Revenue from proving the mens rea of quasi-criminal offence. As there is no conscious concealment of the income and as this is not a case where the Revenue through its machinery unearthed the concealment and as also there is no finding that the tax returned showed 80 per cent. concealment as provided under section 271(1)(c) and as the Tribunal on a consideration of the entire gamut of the matter found that there was no concealment as such by the assessee and as it cannot be said that the Tribunal s finding is perverse or legally wrong there is no point for reference before us. In the result we do not find that this is a case where, reference is warranted. Hence, we decline to answer the reference.
-
1995 (2) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
House Rent Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... free car provided to an employee should be taken at Rs. 150 per mensem as per rule 3(c)(ii) of the Rules for the assessment of the employer-company. The ceiling for disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act should be worked out accordingly. This decision was rendered following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. 1982 135 ITR 35. We have already pointed out that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. 1982 135 ITR 35 has been explained by various High Courts with regard to the facts on each case. In view of the majority judgment, rendered on this aspect by various High Courts, we consider that the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that actual amount paid by way of house rent allowance is assessable in the hands of the employer under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Act is in order. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirma tive and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Criminal Proceedings, Retrospective Effect, Taxing Statutes
-
1995 (2) TMI 6 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Partnership Deed, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... n he was a minor, to the benefits of partnership does not elect to become a partner within six months of his attaining majority, would become a partner after the expiry of the said period (six months) and thereafter his rights and liabilities would be the same as those of the other partners as from the date of his admission to the benefits of the partnership. In the instant case, the finding as recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal are concurrent. The findings as recorded by the Tribunal on the question of grant of registration, are concurrent, although learned counsel appearing for the Revenue urged that the plausibility of the explanation furnished by the assessee and accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is far from convincing, we are not impressed by this submission. In view of the foregoing discussion, the question as referred is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (2) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... se of transparency of transactions more than an account payee demand draft. It appears to us that the omission to refer to an account payee demand draft in section 69D is probably inadvertent. The various decisions referred to in the order of the Tribunal about the nature of the cheque and a demand draft were rendered in the background of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and those considerations are not germane to the purpose behind section 69D. In our opinion, the object of making disallowance under section 69D is only in the event of the transaction being unverifiable. When it is seen that the repayment by an account payee demand draft is equally efficacious in verifying the identity of the payee, we share the view of the Tribunal that an account payee demand draft also should be treated as an account payee cheque drawn on a bank for the purpose of the provisions of section 69D. We, therefore, answer the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
....
|
