|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes, Mistake Apparent From Record, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... ns 80T and 80M, he has allowed the former and so the deduction under section 80M cannot exceed Rs. 14,994 (which is the figure of gross total income minus section 80T relief). In the assessment year 1969-70, the gross total income being nil, there can be (no ?) deduction under sections 80L and 80M at all. It is, therefore, clear that while the Income-tax Officer ruled out the application of section 71, the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that for the assessment year 1968-69, section 71(2) is attracted. That being the position, the Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that no debatable issues were involved thereby permitting application of section 154 of the Act to the facts of the case. In the background of legal propositions, which we have analysed, the inevitable conclusion is that so-called mistakes were not of the nature covered by section 154 of the Act. Our answer to the question is, therefore, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (10) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t was not valid. In Desai Brothers case 1999 240 ITR 121, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the requirement of recording the reasons as a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings under section 147 was mandatory and the court can examine the nexus between the material on record and the belief formed by the competent authority that the income had escaped assessment. In Laxmidebi Mehta s case 1993 70 Taxman 399, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that where the first assessment proceedings had failed to result in a valid assessment due to lapse on the part of the income-tax authorities, they were not entitled to initiate fresh assessment proceedings on identical facts. In our opinion, none of the aforementioned decisions has got any bearing on the petitioner s challenge to the notice which, as mentioned above, do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Assessment, Protective Assessment, Recovery Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... substantive assessment is made in the hands of another. There was no definite finding recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal as to whether there was any substantive inclusion in the hands of any other person so far as the wealth in question is concerned. In case it has been so done, obviously protective assessment could have been made as was done by the Wealth-tax Officer. As the material facts are not borne out from the orders, we think it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal, instead of answering the questions referred, for hearing the matter afresh and to find out whether there has been inclusion of the concerned properties in the hands of any other person. If that has been done protective assessment shall be continued. It is fairly conceded in view of the settled position of law, that for a property which is included on protective basis, corresponding tax element cannot be recovered. The references are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... case of Mrs. Shakuntala Bhatia and order dated January 21, 1992, in I. T. A. No. 2701/Delhi of 1990, for the assessment year 1980-81 in the case of Smt. Santosh Gupta. Having regard to the facts and material, we see no infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same are upheld. A perusal of the reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal shows that similar additions made by the Assessing Officer in other cases were deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and his orders were upheld by the Tribunal. It has not been shown to us that the orders passed by the Tribunal in similar cases are the subject-matter of any reference pending before this court or any appeal pending in the Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. For the reasons mentioned above the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... l. (vii) a patent or flagrant error of procedure. (viii) order resulting in manifest injuries. The case at hand does not suffer from any of the enumerated deficiencies to warrant interference. It is to be noted that the authority dealt with each of the objections raised by the parties and has recorded its reasons which it is required to do under the statute, which provides for recording of reasons under section 269UD(1B). As has been rightly submitted by counsel for the respondents, the authority has considered the objections in detail, its conclusions are essentially factual and, it cannot be said that the conclusions are perverse or that it has ignored relevant material or has taken into consideration irrelevant material. That being the position, this does not appear to be a case where interference under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, is called for. Judged in the above background, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Burden Of Proof, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... sessment at a particular figure that did not per se bring in the concept of concealment. On the mer its it was held that the Revenue did not prove concealment which would enable it to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessment order, as noted above, was passed on April 5, 1955. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though it was submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) with effect from April 1, 1964, applies, we do not find any substance. In fact the return was filed much earlier to April 1, 1964, and reassessment was completed on August 28, 1958, which again was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on November 6, 1959. That being the position, the Tribunal was correct in its view that the Revenue was required to prove concealment. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... etter dated December 30, 1997, was, in fact, delivered to the petitioners. The respondents have also not explained the long time gap of about four months between the commencement of retention of documents, etc., from April 1, 1997, and the delivery of the letter dated July 1, 1997. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The concerned authority of the Income-tax Department is directed to release the books of account and other documents seized from the premises of the petitioners on September 26, 1995. This shall be done within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the concerned authority to retain photostat copies of the documents after getting them signed by the petitioners or their representatives, who shall certify the same to be true copies. The petitioners are also directed to make available the original documents as and when the same are required by the competent authority or any court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 27 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Export Markets Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... romotion of the assessee s sales in general. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that in the instant case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1) of the Act in respect of the expenditure on payment of commission on the sales effected by it. The payment made by the assessee by way of commission is nothing but sales commission to a person for the purposes of effecting sales. Even if the middleman brought the assessee and the foreign buyers together for the sale of carpets, as contended by the assessee, the commission paid to the middleman would not fall in any of the sub-clauses, including sub-clause (i), (ii) or (vi) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act. In the premises, the question referred to us is answered 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.
-
2000 (10) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trustee, Rate Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ch provision was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, the Legislature did not touch the proviso to section 164(2) which has been on the statute book right from April 1, 1985. The said proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 1984. The proviso specifically refers to violation of section 13(1)(d) and its consequences. In the circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that in the present case, the maximum marginal rate of tax will apply only to the dividend income from shares in Mafatlal Industries Limited and not to the entire income. Therefore, income other than dividend income shall be taxed at the normal rate of taxation under the Act. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Question No. 1 is answered in our judgment in ITA No. 81 of 1999. Accordingly, all the above appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
2000 (10) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Transfer, Definition ... ... ... ... ..... riate Authority v. Smt Sudha Patil 1999 235 ITR 118. After discussing the provisions referred to in Chapter XX-C of the Act as well as power of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has observed that at . . . we are of the considered opinion that merely because no appeal is provided for against the order of the appropriate authority, directing compulsory acquisition by the Government, the supervisory power of the High Court does not get enlarged nor the High Court can exercise an appellate power. In the light of the law laid down by the apex court, after examining the order of the appropriate authority, in detail, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the said order. Further, the appropriate authority considered all the aspects and afforded adequate opportunity to the parties concerned. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, both the writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... oner is liable to set aside an, accordingly, it is set aside. Though Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel, made a fervent plea that the matter need not be remitted to the Commissioner and this court itself may consider the matter on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as the Commissioner is entrusted with the powers under section 264 of the Income-tax Act to consider the question of waiver of interest. Since the Commissioner has arrived at his conclusion not on valid grounds, the order of the Commissioner is set aside. I direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax for fresh consideration. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 19763 of 1989, is closed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... reference to the object for which those provisions are introduced. The question of evasion of income-tax in a court sale by reason of the property being undervalued does not arise. Moreover, the authorities under the Income-tax Act cannot sit in judgment over the court s decision in the matter of determination of the price at which the property should be sold. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Elite Optical Industries 1995 1 LW 67 it has been held by this court that when a sale deed is executed pursuant to an order made by the court under section 9(l) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, at the price determined by the court in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the document is required to be registered by the registering authority without reference to Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The learned single judge (see 1991 192 ITR 391(Mad) has rightly held that Chapter XX-C of the Act is inapplicable to court sales. Writ appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Legislative Powers, Discrimination ... ... ... ... ..... ter left over in the net income that is to be shared between husband and wife taking into account the principle of community of property. According to him, what really is meant by section 5A is the charging of income. We cannot agree to this submission. The computation of income of course is done under section 14 of the Act. But, section 5A too, according to us, has prescribed another manner of computation of income as regards the spouses of Goan origin who follow the rule of community of property. Therefore, section 5A has also laid down a computation. To sum up we are not agreeable to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners for the classification made to the salaried persons for denying the benefit of section 5A. In the result, we find that section 5A is constitutionally valid and the challenge of the petitioners against that section is to be rejected. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Legal Representatives ... ... ... ... ..... 1969-70 ? We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice. In all these references the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the service of notice was not legally done because all the legal heirs of the deceased assessee were not notified and notices proposing to take action under section 147(a) were not given to all of them. The matter stands concluded by the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh 1996 219 ITR 737, wherein it was held that no fallacy can be attached to the action of serving notice on one of the legal representatives, and that was sufficient compliance as the defect, if any, emanated from irregularity. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal will do well to remit the matter back to the Income-tax Officer for proceeding afresh after notice to all the legal representatives.
-
2000 (10) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Attachment And Sale, Limitation, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... in support of the petition and the counter affidavit and I find that the petitioner was also issued notice and it was served on the petitioner demanding payment of arrears of tax with interest. Therefore, I hold that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The result is the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased defaulter, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given some time to clear off the arrears of tax. Accordingly, the petitioner is given six months time from the date of the receipt of the order to clear off the arrears and if the amount is not paid within the time stipulated, it is open to the Department to proceed against the property on the basis of the notice issued on January 5, 1996, and also by the issue of a fresh proclamation of sale. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as, to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore it was a case where there was no circumstance to lead to a reasonable and positive inference that the assessee s case-that the cash credits were arranged as temporary loans, was false. The facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that it could have been sundry loans in small amounts obtained from different parties. In our opinion, therefore even taking recourse to Explanation 1, the same circumstances or state of evidence on which the cash credits were treated as income, could not by themselves justify imposition of penalty without anything more on record produced by the assessee or the Department. In the conclusion, all the questions posed, which are interrelated to the main question of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered and be informed to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... of his death or (ii) in the case of settled property of which the deceased was a life tenant, the settlor was domiciled in India at the date the settlement took effect. Rule 8 deals with the location of movable property. Further, in this case rule 8 will apply under which the monies payable under a policy of assurance or insurance, shall be deemed to be situated at the place where the policy provides that the monies shall be payable or in the absence of any such provision, at the head office of the company. Here, on the death of a person the policy matures. It forms part of the estate of the deceased. The only distinction that was sought to be made was that at the time of the death, there was no movable property. But movable property arises only on the death. We are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the amount vested is assessable to estate duty (sic). Hence, we answer the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (10) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... at indicates that by such conveyance of right, he actually transfers a portion of his exclusive privilege to deal in liquor covered by the licence that he got. Such a transfer is hit by rule 6(22) and conveyance in favour of the firm would be void under section 23 of the Contract Act. Such a void contract cannot be recognised as a genuine partnership under the Income-tax Act, 1961. I am aware that the petitioner has a case that there was an oral partnership already brought into existence as on the day of bidding in the auction. According to me, this does not make any difference as long as there is no record to show that the bid he made was for and on behalf of the firm. According to me, the Commission was right in refusing registration of the firm though not for the reasons mentioned in exhibit P-3. I do not think, therefore, that this court would be justified in invoking its writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the original petition is without merit and it is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Suit, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... vide its order dated February 21, 1994, stands answered as in para. 18. Whereas the entire petitions have been referred as per the last part of the order dated February 21, 1994, making reference, we find that both these petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly we allow both these Special Civil Applications and the entire proceedings in both the civil suits, i.e., Civil Suit No. 1196 of 1986, and Civil Suit No. 1197 of 1986, including the proceedings and the Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 1986 and Miscellaneous Application No. 236 of 1986, therein respectively in the court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar, are declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction both the suits are hereby dismissed, both the miscellaneous applications, as above, are hereby rejected and the ex parte injunction orders dated November 25, 1986, passed in each of these two matters are also set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each of these two petitions. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Retention of Seized Documents ... ... ... ... ..... he respondents to return the books of account and other seized material within a period of 15 days from today after obtaining an undertaking from the assessee that as and when the original books of account/material are required by the authorities, they shall produce the same before the respondent authorities. It would be open to the respondent authority to take out copies of the documents required by them and to do the needful for the purpose of making identification marks or signs on the documents to be returned to the petitioners. The learned advocate for the respondent authority has submitted that the petitioners are not co-operating in the process of assessment. Mr. Puj, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners shall extend their co-operation so as to see that the assessment in accordance with law is framed as soon as possible. In view of the above direction, the petition is disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
....
|
