|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 479 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 119 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Capital Gains, Firm, Construction, Question Of Law, Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... aw up a statement in the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of the High Court as arising for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 (1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in assessing income from sale of portions of the building (known as Hansalaya), at Rs. 4,33,685 under the head Capital gains and in holding that the said building is not stock-in-trade of the assessee and income from sale is not assessable as income from business ? (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the valuation made on March 17, 1979, is the actual cost relevant for the purposes of calculating depreciation for the period relevant to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 ? (3) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in working out capital gains on the basis of valuation made by the approved valuer on March 17, 1979, and taking cost price at Rs. 28,17,565 instead of actual cost of construction, i.e., Rs. 3,40,231?
-
1998 (11) TMI 118 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Settlement, Full And True Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... on receipt of an application under section 245C. It enables the Commission, inter alia, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case to allow the application to be proceeded with or reject the application. The circumstances of the case have been considered by the Commission after calling for a report of the Commissioner. It is on such consideration the Commission has rejected the application. The reasons given for such rejection are reasons which are clearly relevant. The assessee s failure to make a full and true disclosure being patent, it was not necessary for the Commission to proceed with the further consideration of the application only to pass an order of rejection at the end of such further proceeding. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference in exercise of the discretionary power of this court. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,500. Consequently, WMP Nos. 23284 and 23285 of 1995 are also dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 117 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends, Domestic Company ... ... ... ... ..... terest on monies borrowed for earning such income, and not with reference to the full amount of dividend received by the assessee. We have also considered the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. 1993 202 ITR 559, wherein it has been held that relief under section 80M is admissible on the gross amount of dividend income without deducting therefrom the interest paid for earning the dividend. In that case, the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120, was not brought to the notice of the court. The above decision of the Calcutta High Court, appears to be inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120. For the reasons set out above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 116 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Directors, Profit In Lieu Of Salary, Service ... ... ... ... ..... onal services rendered by him. That being so, it will clearly fall within the definition of profits in lieu of salary contained in clause (3) of section 17 of the Act. Section 17(3), at the material time, read as under 17. Salary , perquisite and profits in lieu of salary defined.---... (3) profits in lieu of salary includes--- (i) the amount of any compensation due to or received by an assessee from his employer or former employer at or in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto That being so, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to Shri I. K. Agarwal at the time of his leaving the company was profits in lieu of salary under sub-clause (i) of clause (3) of section 17 of the Act. Question No. 2 referred to us, is therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interest, Monies Borrowed, Deposits, Payment Of Tax, Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... assessee for the purpose of payment of income-tax is, therefore, not tenable. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of this court in Abdulhussein G. Tambawala v. CIT 1998 234 ITR 258, wherein it was held that the benefit of this provision is available only in respect of interest paid by the assessee in the previous year on any money borrowed for the payment of any tax due from him under the Act . Learned counsel for the assessee relies on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. 1988 171 ITR 583. The ratio of that decision, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case. Otherwise also, we are of the clear opinion that no deduction under this section is available unless money is borrowed specifically for the payment of any tax due under this Act. In view of the above, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an intra vires power. The civil right of the petitioner cannot be arbitrarily taken away even without him being heard. Annexure-C is therefore liable to be quashed. I do so. 15. Now as the respondent has set out certain circumstances in the statement of objections, which needs investigation the respondent will issue a showcause notice to the petitioner disclosing the circumstances in detail proposed to be relied on to vary annexure-B certificate and after granting the petitioner an opportunity to submit objections if any, and after hearing the petitioner pass a speaking order in the event it intended to cancel the certificate. Till a final order is passed by the respondent, the operation of annexure-B shall stand suspended. 16. Now, as the incumbent officer who issued annexure-C has already taken a view in the matter, the authorities will designate another officer of corresponding rank to deal with the case of the petitioner. 17. The writ petition stands disposed of as above.
-
1998 (11) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Constitutional Validity, Interpretation OF STATUTES ... ... ... ... ..... finition of "tax arrears" in clause (m) of section 87 should be so read as to mean the amount of tax, penalty or interest determined by any competent authority on or before March 31, 1998, though such determination might have been set aside at a later stage, if such setting aside has not been accepted by the Department and continues to remain under challenge before a court or Tribunal. (3) The rest of the Scheme is intra vires the Constitution. We would like to place on record that the entire case before us was argued solely by reference to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and our judgment deals with the submissions so made. The petition is allowed in part. The proviso to section 92 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, is struck down as violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The rest of the scheme is held to be intra vires the Constitution subject to reading down the definition of "tax arrears" as indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 112 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... et wealth and whether the interest of the deceased which has vested in his heirs as independently of their interest in the Hindu undivided family properties in their individual capacity will continue to be taxed in the Hindu undivided family was neither raised nor decided. In fact the only question before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of section 20 would govern the case where status of the Hindu undivided family has come to an end even before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, on the question before us, the decision is of little assistance. We answer the second question accordingly, also in negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee on finding that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal did not consider the existence of facts necessary for application of principles of law which it has posited correctly. The assessee has not appeared in spite of notice. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 111 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Royalty, Fees For Technical Services, Foreign Company, Export Commission ... ... ... ... ..... ge of the definition of royalty as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) and fees for technical services in -the Explanation to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. We, however, fail to understand how services referred to in clause (a) of the agreement can be regarded as royalty or fees for technical services . Commission attributable to services referred to in clause (a) of the agreement, therefore, cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services falling under clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding so. In view of the above, we answer question No. 2, which is referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 1, which is referred at the instance of the assessee, is returned unanswered as desired by learned counsel for the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 110 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Hoisery Exports ... ... ... ... ..... noticed that these expenditures were not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for purposes of development of the export market under any of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35B(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed, after considering various sub-clauses, that there was no evidence on record to show that the payments were made wholly and exclusively for the purposes specified in the sub-clauses. The Assessing Officer, therefore, did not allow deduction on the aforesaid payments under section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed deduction under section 35B on the aforesaid payments. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner before the Tribunal, but failed. A similar question has been considered by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. 1997 228 ITR 171. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Foreign Currency, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking, Penalty, Interest
-
1998 (11) TMI 108 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Closing Stock, Condition Precedent, Revised Return, Actual Payment ... ... ... ... ..... s of account on the ground of applicability of section 43B of the Income-tax Act as the assessee is maintaining his books of account on the mercantile system. It is on that premise the enquiry was made and claim was investigated and allowed. Camouflaging language of framing reasons the Assessing Officer cannot confer upon himself jurisdiction which does not exist. The consistent view of this court is that even after the amendment of section 147 mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings for reassessment merely by resorting to Explanation 1 on the basis of change of opinion. On the facts of this case the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclose no more than a mere change of opinion. As a result, these petitions succeed. The impugned notices in each case for initiating reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87 are quashed. Rule is made absolute in each case. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Bonus, Ex-gratia Payment, Stevedoring Charges
-
1998 (11) TMI 106 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Solatium Received, Slump Sale ... ... ... ... ..... ue of the plant, machinery and dead stock as assessed by the valuer at Rs. 15,87,296. The Supreme Court held that it was not a case in which it could not be said that the price attributed to the items transferred was not indicated and hence section 41(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, could not be applied. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. In this case also there is a finding of the Tribunal that the assets had been taken over at a stipulated price. It is in view of this finding that the Tribunal held that it was not a case of slump sale and section 41(2) would apply. In view of the above finding of the Tribunal, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in C-IT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. 1997 227 ITR 260, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Material Facts, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... and hence it was for the assessee to tell the Assessing Officer whether there was any cost of acquisition or not and disclose the material facts in that regard. Later, the Income-tax Officer having discovered that there was a cost of acquisition of the beneficial interest initiated proceedings under section 147(a). The reassessment proceedings were, therefore, held to be valid. Applying the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the present case, we are of the clear opinion that the Income-tax Officer was justified in exercising power under section 147(a) of the Act. There was a patent nondisclosure of material facts by the assessee which resulted in the escapement of capital gains from tax and the Income-tax Officer had cogent reasons to form an opinion to that effect. In view of the above, we answer both the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 104 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Tax Audits, Constitutional Validity, Due Dates ... ... ... ... ..... Constitution by this court in the case of T. S. Nataraj v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 81. The Gujarat High Court in Rajkot Engineering Association v. Union of India 1986 162 ITR 28, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. S. Sarma v. Union of India 1989 175 ITR 254, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohan Trading Co. v. Union of India 1985 156 ITR 134, the Rajasthan High Court in Abhay Kumar and Co. v. Union of India 1987 164 ITR 148 and R. Sathya Moorthy v. Union of India 1991 189 ITR 491 (Mad), have also taken the same view. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed. The petitioners have filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which were dismissed on June 4, 1992. The petitioners have a remedy to challenge that order by filing second appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners may file such appeals within four weeks from today and if the appeals are filed within the aforesaid period no objection regarding limitation would be raised.
-
1998 (11) TMI 103 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Loss, Additional Tax, Tax Evasion, Constitutional Validity, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... count of prima facie adjustment figure is varied resulting in higher income or lesser loss or loss figure is converted into income figure. The provision being within the legislative competence ensuring proper and correct payment of tax and particulars in the return dispensing with hearing at pre-decisional stage and providing such hearing under the provisions of the Act subsequently under different provisions cannot be considered as unreasonable. The Legislature can by specific provision exclude an opportunity being given and if such an opportunity -is given subsequently for redressals then the provision cannot be considered to be beyond the competence of legislation. In view of the above observations, I feel that additional tax which has been levied uniformly at 20 per cent. on account of prima facie adjustment cannot be considered to be unreasonable or violative of the provisions of articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 102 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Business Loss, Developement Rebate, Export Turnover, Surtax, Bank Guarantee
-
1998 (11) TMI 101 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Question Of Law, Reference, Refund, Property Passing On Death, Accountable Person
-
1998 (11) TMI 100 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ecause of bar of limitation or on the ground that no tax having been found leviable in respect of the receipts in question either in the hands of the assessee in his capacity as individual or in the hands of the firm. With this obvious result emanating from the order itself, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioners to pursue alternative remedy and wait the formal result thereof. The impugned orders in each case are therefore quashed. We may make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion as to what course can be adopted by the Assessing Officer after the decision of the Supreme Court is known in the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of this court. The parties shall be free to agitate whatever questions arise in respect of action that may be taken by the Assessing Officer then. Accordingly, these petitions succeed. The impugned order levying penalty in each case is quashed. Rule in each case is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
............
|
