|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 516 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 56 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... ee, is not factually and legally correct. It is also fairly accepted by him that fact situation necessary to bring in application of the Gujarat High Court s decision was absent in the case It hand and no such finding has been recorded by the Tribunal. The above being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not examined the factual position correctly and has not even referred to the decisions which throw light on the controversy. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case which needs to be beard afresh by the Tribunal for adjudication of factual aspects keeping in view applicable legal principles. Since, we are remitting the matter back to the Tribunal, we do not think it necessary to give a positive finding as to which of the decisions, referred to above, has application to the case at hand. The Tribunal will consider and apply them to the fact situation to determine its applicability. Reference application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Settlement Commission ... ... ... ... ..... f the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In the instant case too, the error is not such as is open to correction by means of a writ of certiorari. The error of law---if any, is not apparent on the face of record. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Settlement Commission on one of the issues dealt with by it, namely, the deduction of development expenditure cannot be interfered with under article 226. We would like to make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the Settlement Commission as regards the nature of expenditure and we shall not be understood to have expressed any view on the merits on that aspect. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Computation Of Capital, Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. 1993 201 ITR 208 (Guj), where they have quoted the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and the provisions of section 80J and rule 19A(3)(b) of the Act and observed that the language of these two provisions is in pari materia. Therefore, following the view taken by the apex court in the case of New India Industries Ltd. 1995 212 ITR 653, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal, that borrowed capital payable beyond seven years after amendment in the original agreement should be taken into account for capital computation for the purpose of relief under section 80J of the Act of 1961. In the result, we answer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2, as admitted by Mr. Mukherjee, does not arise out of the orders of the Tribunal. We decline to answer that question. The reference application is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 53 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reason To Believe ... ... ... ... ..... any (I) Ltd. and Rohini Properties (P) Ltd. and the particular transaction of Rs 13,36,600 between Numdang Tea Company (P) Ltd. and Gladiolai Estate (P) Ltd. were fictitious and were not genuine. The AO, therefore, could not possibly entertain a belief that the income of the said company had escaped assessment warranting initiating of action under s. 147 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the AO in fact has no reason to believe that any income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the asst. yr. 1991-92 and that the initiation of the proceedings under s. 147 r/w s. 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned notices under ss. 148 and 147 for the asst. yr. 1991-92 are accordingly quashed. Considering, however, facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ion 142. With effect from September 1, 1980, sub-section (9) has been introduced which provides that where the assessing authority considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective, he may intimate the defect to the assessee and give him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a stipulated time and if the defect is not rectified, the return shall be treated as an invalid return and the provisions of the Act shall apply as if the assessee had failed to furnish the return and if the defect is rectified, the Assessing Officer shall treat the return as a valid return. In which circumstances the return is to be regarded as defective have been laid down in the Explanation to sub-section (9). The above being the position, the irresistible conclusion is that the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly. That being the position, the conclusions of the learned single judge cannot be faulted. Writ appeal being without any merit is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Powers Of Court ... ... ... ... ..... sessing Officer before the assessment was made. Learned senior standing counsel for the Department has submitted that the petitioner had shown the differential cost proportionately in the declarations relating to assessment years filed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and that itself would furnish a legitimate basis for reassessment. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The decision to initiate reassessment proceedings is not based on that ground. Nothing is mentioned about the declarations filed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. It is well settled that the court cannot go beyond the recorded reasons, nor can it take into account any supplementary reasons which did not enter into the mind or the assessing authority at the time of issuing the reassessment notice. For the above reasons, we are constrained to quash the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act and allow the writ petition. No costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... e case of the Revenue in the case on hand. Therefore, that decision has no application. In the result, in R. A. No. 580(Cal) of 1995, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2-the deduction should be allowed on proportionate basis on account of premium payable by the company over the term of the debentures. Question No. 3.---We answer in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question in R. A. No. 581(Cal) of 1995 Question No. 1---We answer that deduction should be allowed on proportionate basis during the years over the term of debentures. Question No. 2.---We answer in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question in R. A. No. 582(Cal) of 1995.---We answer that assessee was entitled to deduction of premium of Rs. 10 lakhs payable on the debentures to be spread over the term of debentures. The application is accordingly disposed of. All parties are to act on an operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (3) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... 21, 1997. It is true that alternative remedy has been availed of, but at the same time the appeal was not disposed of. Therefore, that order has not been challenged on the ground that the order of the Tax Recovery Officer can be considered by the Division Bench. As this order was not the subject-matter before the learned single judge in the writ petition, we would not like to go into the merits of that order of the Tax Recovery Officer. If the petitioners-appellants have any grievance against that order, they are at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if the writ petition is maintainable within a month from the date. For a period of one month from the date status quo as on date, as regards the property in question and any amount realised on account of rent will be maintained. Both the appeal and the application are, accordingly, disposed of with the above observation. All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (3) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ). The clarification tendered sets at rest the alleged confusion about the respondent s stand on this issue. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. We reject the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the rule is discharged. However, having regard to the fact that there was some bona fide controversy with regard to the issue whether interest under section 220(2) was part of tax arrears, we feel that the petitioner deserves one more opportunity to comply with the respondent s letter dated February 10, 1999, and pay the additional amount demanded. Accordingly, we grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to deposit, in terms of letter dated February 10, 1999, the sum of Rs. 37,91,152 within thirty days from today, failing which the respondents will be free to take whatever further action they propose to take in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Valuation Of Stock, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... sition of the provisions of excise duty on PME as per the books of account of the assessee, forming part of the said return, it appears that a sum of Rs. 2,52,55,000 has been reduced from the total provision credited as amount written back during the year 1983. In view of the stated factual position, the answer to the proposed question No. 3 would be of academic interest only and, therefore, we deem it unnecessary to call for a reference on the question. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to call for reference on the proposed questions Nos. 1 and 3 but direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 1,13,81,810 from the value of the closing stock on account of excise duty paid thereon ? The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... he changed officer. Under such circumstances, considering all the aspects of the matter and since it is a question of law, I allow the writ petition without giving any direction for filing affidavit herein. Therefore, the appropriate authority is directed to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by issuance of notice and by passing a reasoned order of transfer within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. Till one week after passing of such order by the Commissioner, the impugned assessment proceeding shall remain stayed. There will be no order as to costs. The learned advocate for the petitioners is permitted to take the gist of the order and communicate the same to the concerned respondent and the respondent will act on the basis of such communication. Let urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the learned advocates for the parties within two weeks from the date of submitting of the requisites.
-
2000 (3) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets, Reference To Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... t. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that a different method could have been adopted, that does not in any manner affect the acceptability of the method adopted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) or the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the position shall be different when the question is the method of valuation vis-a-vis manner of valuation. According to him, the manner of valuation involves a question of law. Attractive though the submission is, it is without substance. Both are conceptually similar. Method means a procedure or process for achieving an end an orderly arrangement manner of performance. Manner means a characteristic way of acting or proceeding, the way in which anything is done. The inevitable conclusion is that the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact. The answer to the question referred is, therefore, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Tax reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Apparent Consideration ... ... ... ... ..... from the date of tender of payment of the consideration to the transferor and ending with any stipulated date if any fixed for payment of balance sale consideration under the agreement entered into between the parties. Since the appropriate authority has not determined the discounted value in accordance with the provisions of section 269UA(b)(1)(i) of the Act, the appropriate authority is directed to redetermine the discounted value payable to the petitioner in accordance with law and pay the correct amount of the purchase consideration to the petitioner within a period of one month from this date and the petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum from this date till the date of payment. In the result, Writ Petition No. 17591 of 1997 is dismissed. Rule nisi is also discharged. Writ Petition No. 17590 of 1997 is allowed and rule nisi is made absolute. However, considering the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ection 271(1)(c) is given in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of the Act which provides that in cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income. When in the penalty order, the Income-tax Officer has imposed penalty on 100 per cent. tax evaded-the calculation provision is there. Therefore, by not calculating the penalty amount in the order, in our view, it does not vitiate the penalty order and we are in agreement with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Frontier Veneer and Saw Mills 1976 104 ITR 479. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference application is, accordingly, disposed of. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (3) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ngineering Co. Ltd. 1974 96 ITR 672 (Guj)). The two ingredients for depreciation allowance are (i) that the depreciable asset is owned by the assessee, and (ii) that it is used for the purpose of the assessee s business or profession subject, however, to the provisions of section 34. As noted above, the only dispute that was raised by the Revenue is that there was no positive material to show even the existence of the asset at the work site. The Tribunal, on a consideration of factual aspects and more particularly with reference to the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) about the normal time required for bringing the asset from Pondicherry to Cochin, has recorded a finding about passive user. The said conclusion essentially is factual and it cannot be termed to be one without any basis or illogical. The above being the position, we accept the view of the Tribunal. The questions referred to us are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (3) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... in case of motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies used in a business of running them on hire, the rate of depreciation is specified as 40 per cent. When there are two different rates in two different types of cases the mistake is apparent, if the rate is not applied for which the assessee is entitled. The findings of the Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal are that the vehicles in question are not run by the assessee on hire. When those vehicles are not run by the assessee on hire, the depreciation rate is 30 per cent. specified in the Appendix annexed to the Income-tax Rules. Therefore, in our view, there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the result, we answer all the three questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference application is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... e are on the same date. It is true that the transactions are with some brokers, but in the share transactions, the purchase and sale are normally through some broker. Payment by account payee cheque has not been disputed. Payment on purchase and sale and payment received by account payee cheque was on two different dates. If the share broker, even after issue of summons, does not appear, for that reason, the claim of the assessee should not be denied, specially in cases when the existence of the broker is not in dispute nor the payment is in dispute. Merely because some broker failed to appear, the assessee should not be punished for the default of a broker and we are in full agreement with the Tribunal that on mere suspicion the claim of the assessee should not be denied. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. All parties are to act on the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (3) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemption, Interpretation OF STATUTES ... ... ... ... ..... ce a rational construction. The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sells his residential house and purchases a new house against those sale considerations that capital gains tax arising out of the sale of the earlier house should not be taxed. Whether the assessee himself constructs the house or he gets it constructed by a contractor or a third party that does not make any difference. The basic requirement for the purpose of relief under section 54(1), is that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds in the construction of a residential house, which has been constructed for the assessee. Keeping in view the above observations and reasons given by the Tribunal, no case is made out for interference. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The application is, thus, disposed of. All parties are to act on an operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (3) TMI 38 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment, Notice, Validity, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... tisfied that the said reasons are just and proper and the decision with regard to the transfer is in the interest of administration. Simply because the said reasons are not incorporated in the impugned order, the reasons would not become non-est. Looking to the ratio of the judgments cited by Shri Naik, we do not find any illegality in the order whereby the Proceedings have been transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Circle), Rajkot. Looking to the facts of the case and the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not think that in this writ petition, at this stage, this court should interfere especially. when, as a result of the search, some material has already been found by the authorities. Moreover, even after the assessment is framed, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order of assessment by filing an appeal as per the provisions of the Act. The petition, therefore, stands disposed of as rejected with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company, Book Profit, Bad Debt ... ... ... ... ..... hat the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) to recalculate the quantum of book profits under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by not allowing any amount under clause (b) of the first proviso to section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 . Of course, the Bombay High Court has held as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent. However, in view of the discussion made above by us and in view of the decisions of the apex court mentioned above, which are more apt to apply to the case on hand than the one rendered by the High Court of Bombay, relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, we are not able to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in directing the assessing authority to rectify the alleged mistake of inclusion of the unascertained liability in the book profit and communicating the same to the respondent under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
