Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 464 Records
-
1998 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... from the purchaser was assessable as income of the decree-holder. The sum of Rs. 75,000 received by the assessee in terms of the compromise decree having regard to the circumstances in which that sum was paid to the assessee must be regarded as the amount that the assessee would have received through the company had it been under his control and which amount when received by the company would clearly have been a revenue receipt. That character cannot change because of the fact that the amount had been initially misappropriated by Raman who had abused the assessee s trust and had formed the company with himself and his wife as owners of the shares and as directors and had received the amounts from the Indian Cotton Mills Federation and had retained the same for his own benefit. Our answer to the question that has been referred to us, therefore, is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in a sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
1998 (4) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for carrying on the business or an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In fact, it is an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the closing down of his business. Accordingly, the amount in question cannot be allowed as a deduction. This court in arriving at the conclusion followed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation 1967 65 ITR 643. It goes without saying, in the face of the decision cited above, that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the compensation paid by the assessee-company to its workers pursuant to the award dated September 30, 1978, of the Industrial Tribunal under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not allowable as a revenue expenditure. The point is answered accordingly. The tax case is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (4) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... it had taken loans for the purpose of transacting the business of the firm. By way of elucidation, it may be stated that the firm was stated to have contracted loans from seven persons, who it was found by the tax authorities, inclusive of the Tribunal, are hawkers, not having any required capacity to lend money to anyone else, much less to a person like the assessee and it is very difficult for such persons to take out their livelihood by the profession, they have conducted. Such being the case, we are prima facie satisfied that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is only a finding of fact, in the sense of there being concealment of income on the part of the assessee in term s of clause (B) of Explanation 1 appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. This apart, the questions as set out above do not arise at all from the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the tax case petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... force. That rule came into force on April 2, 1983 and no retrospective effect has been given to that rule. It is, therefore, obvious that for the assessment year in question, namely, 1981-82, the amendment rules which came into effect from April 2, 1983, could have no application. Our answer to the question that has been referred to us is, therefore, that for the assessment year prior to the date of the commencement of the Amendment Rules, 1983, the rule has no application. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 750 (rupees seven hundred and fifty only).
-
1998 (4) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Company ... ... ... ... ..... be regarded as an employee of the assessee-company or not. The Tribunal found that the managing director was an employee and the assessee had not placed any material to show that the managing director cannot be regarded as an employee within the meaning of section 40 of the Act, Further, we have seen that the provisions of sections 40A(5) and 40(c) of the Act have both to be applied for determining the ceiling to be allowed under the provisions of the Act and the higher ceiling limit would apply in the case of a director-cum-employee. If the managing director cannot be regarded as an employee, then the remuneration paid to him would be subject to the provisions of section 40(c) of the Act. In any event, the application of either of the provisions cannot be avoided. Therefore, the second question raised is purely academic in nature. Therefore, we answer both the questions of law in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 750.
-
1998 (4) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Stock-In-Trade, Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... r of Income-tax and direct the Income-tax Officer to reframe the assessment of the newly constituted firm for the assessment year 1975-76 after valuing the opening stock at market price. The point is answered accordingly. I The tax case and the writ petition are thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. After the dictation of the order in the open court was completed, Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel, representing the Revenue, made an oral application under article 134 of the Constitution of India, praying for a certificate to be issued for appeal to the Supreme Court that the question involved in the writ petition is a substantial question of law of general importance and we also feel that such a question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court by way of an authoritative pronouncement and in this view of the matter, the certificate prayed for by the said learned senior counsel is granted.
-
1998 (4) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Export Business, Industrial Undertaking, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... court in CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd. 1991 190 ITR 259 rejected.
-
1998 (4) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... visions of section 142(2B) of the Income-tax Act which stipulates that the provisions of sub-section (2A) shall have effect notwithstanding that the accounts of the assessee have been audited under any other law for the time being in force or otherwise. The argument is that the existence of the non obstante clause in section 142(2B) exempts operation of section 142(2A) in cases where there has been an audit under section 44AB. This argument is not acceptable for the reason that the non-obstante clause and the phrase any other law for time being in force must of necessity include section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation against this order pointing out to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Pali, that audit as directed by him by the impugned order is not necessary stating the reasons therefor, and the Assessing Officer shall decide the representation and proceed with the matter accordingly.
-
1998 (4) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Interest On Deposits ... ... ... ... ..... at there was a delivery of title deeds to create a valid charge. In the case of a floating charge, we are of the view that a charge can be created orally as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M. L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons, AIR 1969 SC 1147, and the case of M. C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1970 SC 504 and by the conduct of the parties, the creation of a valid charge can be inferred. Hence, we are not able to agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no valid charge and, consequently, we hold that no part of the interest is disallowable under section 40A(8) of the Act. Hence, our answer to both the questions of law referred to us is as under First question There was a valid charge and hence this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Second question It is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Special Deduction, Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Actual Cost, New Industrial Undertaking
-
1998 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation, Law Applicable
-
1998 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... after elaborate consideration reversed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 885, in the sense of answering the question raised against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Such being the position, it goes without saying that the Tribunal was rather wrong in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, placing implicit reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 302, which followed the decision in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 885 (Cal). We, therefore, answer the common question that the provision for taxation amounting to Rs. 57,86,074 cannot at all be deducted from the cost of the investments to be reduced from the capital base under rule 2 of the Second Schedule. The question is answered accordingly. These tax cases are thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases.
-
1998 (4) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... n is for a similar notice issued for the year 1984-85. That being so, I do not find any special reasons or grounds in the case on hand to take a different view than that which was taken by this court in W. P. No. 9339 of 1988 (Kamalam Rajendran v. IAC of I. T 1999 237 ITR 299). Therefore, the order passed by this court in W. P. No. 9539 of 1988 (Kamalam Rajendran, v. IAC of I. T. 1999 237 ITR 299), squarely applies to the present case also. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to discuss any of the decisions relied on by the parties herein. Therefore, for all the reasons aforesaid and in view of the order of this court made in W. P. No. 9339 of 1988, dated March 24, 1998 (Kamalam Rajendran v. IAC of I. T. 1999 237 ITR 299 (Mad)), this writ petition also has to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the notice impugned in this writ petition is hereby quashed. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 11452 of 1989 is dismissed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Accrual Of Income, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... tax (Appeals) dated November 3, 1997, is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Similarly, questions Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) dated March 15, 1989, are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 raised at the instance of the assessee in respect of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) dated March 15, 1989, are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Similarly, the first part of question No. 1 raised at the instance of the assessee in respect of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated November 3, 1987, is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the second part of question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA J.---I agree.
-
1998 (4) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Markets Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Condition Precedent, Business Expenditure, Disallowance
-
1998 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... fact that the money remained with the transferee and was not invested in a bank or elsewhere does not make any difference to the character of the interest paid being a receipt of revenue character. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT 1964 53 ITR 151, has held that the statutory interest paid under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the amount of compensation awarded for the period from the date the collector had taken possession of land compulsorily acquired is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation and is, therefore, a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. That principle is equally applicable to the case of the assessee herein. Interest paid on the delayed payment of compensation or unpaid price is a revenue receipt and is taxable accordingly. The question referred to us is therefore answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Association Of Persons, Trust ... ... ... ... ..... bling provision. The charge that is imposed by section 4 of the Act may be computed and recovered in the manner laid down in the Act including sections 160, 161 and 166 of the Act. When the minors along with their mother formed a body to generate income, the levy of tax under section 4 was on that body. The mother could not insist that the income of the joint venture must be assessed separately on the minors and on her, even when a joint business was carried on. For the reasons as above, it goes without saying that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the income from business of Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit) run by Sankaralingam and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of an association persons as such but should be assessed on each beneficiary individually. The question is answered accordingly. The tax case is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Ownership Of Asset, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nsport Corporation Ltd. 1998 230 ITR 288. The questions therein were answered in favour of the Revenue and the same answer is required to be given for this assessment year also. These two questions, namely, the second and third questions, are answered in favour of the Revenue. The question similar to the fourth question was considered by this court in another case of the assessee in T. C. No. 140 of 1985, decided on August 21, 1996, and it was held by the court that though the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 36(1) of the Act, its claim for such deduction under section 37 of the Act was required to be considered and this court remitted the matter of the Tribunal. A similar course is to be adopted for this assessment year also. The Tribunal is directed to consider the claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount paid as interest on the loan obtained from the Tamil Nadu Government under section 37 of the Act. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Surcharge, Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... see had satisfied the requirements of the proviso to section 2(1)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, and as the statutory conditions are complied with by the assessee-company, the assessee is eligible to get the credit for the deposit made by the company with the Industrial Development Bank of India under the scheme in accordance with section 2(1)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, and becomes eligible to get the same deducted from the surcharge levied on the assessee-company. We hold that the assessee was justified in its claim that the deposit made by it should go reduce the surtax payable by it and the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the deposited amount Rs. 2,12,821 made on March 15, 1977. We hold that there is no error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and, accordingly, we answer the second question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the above circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... account of the circumstances noticed above did not get appropriate opportunity to get adjudicated from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the matters raised in the application dated December 29, 1995. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to decide within two months the matters raised in the application (annexure F), dated December 29, 1995, without being influenced by the order dated December 29, 1995. In respect of the orders by the income-tax authorities it would be open to the petitioner to approach the said authorities in accordance with law after the decision by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in terms of this order. Till the matter is decided by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the income-tax authorities will not enforce the demand relating to exemption under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
....
|