Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 70 of 70 Records
-
1962 (1) TMI 10
Whether in any event, penalty for the assessment year 1949-50 could not be imposed upon the assessee firm because there was no evidence that the Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of any assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act that the firm had concealed the particulars of its income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of the income?
Held that:- The High Court was in error in holding that penalty could not be imposed under section 28(1)(c) upon the firm Messrs. S. V. Veerappan Chettiar & Co. after its dissolution. Appeal allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 9
Whether the benefit of the fifth proviso to section 18A(6) could be claimed in respect of the assessments of the income of the respondent's family which were completed by the Income-tax Officer before April 1, 1952?
Held that:- High Court was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had the power in the case of the assessments in question to exercise the authority conferred by the fifth proviso to section 18A(6) and he having failed to exercise the discretion, a writ requiring him to consider whether a case is made out for the exercise of his discretion was properly issued. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 8
Whether the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment?
Held that:- The Tribunal examined all the relevant materials produced by the assessee at the time of the original assessment and came to the conclusion that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The Tribunal referred to the account books produced by the assessee and particularly to the report of the examiner of accounts who submitted a report to the Income-tax Officer with regard to the bank account of the assessee in the Exchange Bank of India and Africa Ltd. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case the question whether the assessee had or had not failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment was a question of fact and we are unable to accept the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant to the contrary.
No question of law arose in this case and the High Court of Bombay rightly rejected the petition under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 7
Whether the aforesaid sum of ₹ 26,255-0-0 and ₹ 11,272-0-0 being selling commission credited to the aforesaid non-resident company's account in the books of the assessee are chargeable in the hands of the assessee under section 4(1)(a) for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 ?
Whether the amounts in the two account years can be said to be received by the Japanese company in the taxable territories?
Held that:- Clauses (a) and (c) of section 4(1) can be read disjunctively, and clause (a), which provides for receipt of income, profits and gains in the taxable territories cannot be subjected to the limitation that the income must also accrue or arise in the taxable territories. To make clause (a) depend on clause (c) is to make the " accrual " the test, while clause (a) only considers receipt in the taxable territories sufficient. The clauses are capable of being read independently though, sometimes, they may operate together.
The amount must be held, on the terms of the agreement, to have been received by the Japanese company, and this attracts the application of section 4(1)(a). Indeed, the Japanese company did dispose of a part of those amounts by instructing the assessee firm that they be applied in a particular way. In our opinion, the High Court was right in answering the question against the assessee. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 6
Whether under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act the petitioner is entitled to carry forward the loss for a period of six years notwithstanding the fact that during the period when the loss had occurred, the law applicable was the Travancore Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The High Court, with all due respect, was not right in thinking that the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1950, was meant to enlarge the rights of the new assessees brought within the reach of the Indian Income-tax law. The intention of the law was to make a dividing line between those previous years to which the provisions of the earlier law would apply, and those previous years to which the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act would apply. The rights were neither enlarged nor curtailed.
Since, in this case, the carry-forward of the loss was for only two years, and those years were before the previous year from which the Indian Income-tax Act began to apply, there is no question of the application of the Indian Income-tax Act. The appeal thus succeeds, and is allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 5
Whether the loss of ₹ 23,672 incurred by the assessee as a partner of the three firms outside India can be set off against the assessee's income from business in India having regard to the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act in this behalf ?
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the share of the assessee's loss out of the sum of ₹ 43,969 cannot be set off against the profits of the assessee's business in arriving at the total assessable income ?
Held that:- If as we hold that section 24(1) has no application to the facts of the present cases, he second proviso thereto can also have no application. Moreover, the second proviso to section 24(1) applies only where the assessee is an unregistered firm. That is not the case here. The assessees before us are, in one case, a Hindu undivided family and, in the other, an individual. It is obvious, therefore, that the second proviso to section 24(1) can have no application in these cases.
High court correctly answered the the questions in favour of assessee. Appeals dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 4
Office Appliance ... ... ... ... ..... spect of assessment year 1960-61 it claimed a development rebate on all its plants and machinery including business. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebate. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso offends article 14 in that it discriminates between machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicles and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Legislature from choosing the object of taxation from amongst various classes of machinery for the purpose of giving development rebate. The Constitution does not prohibit any such classification which has been made in the present case. The petition is wholly without merit and is therefore dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 3
Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was legally justified in issuing a notice under section 28 of the Income-tax Act in the circumstances of the case of the applicant in respect of the item of ₹ 76,836 ?
Held that:- It is not open to the assessee to make any grievance of the order of the High Court rejecting the petition under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 66. Those sub-sections were of no assistance to the assessee in the present case. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 2
Confiscation (Customs) - Import trade control ... ... ... ... ..... authority and by the petitioner and that the consignee of the goods should also be regarded as the petitioner because it was on account of the petitioner that the goods were imported. It suffices to say that this contention has no basis on the facts. The imports, as I said, were under the licence and all the documents relating to the imports were in the name of the licensee. The fact that the authorisation of the petitioner is found to be bogus one does not lead to the result that the import under the cover of the licence is illegal. The imports themselves being under a valid licence, Section 167(8) will clearly have no application. 5.It was suggested on behalf of the petitioner during the argument that in the circumstances the only recourse open to the respondent is to act under Section 88 of the Sea Customs Act. But this question does not fall to be decided in these petitions. 6. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitions are allowed and the rule nisi are made absolute.
-
1962 (1) TMI 1
Penalty - Natural justice - Statements - Cross-examination - Confiscation of diamonds ... ... ... ... ..... amonds within the meaning of section 167(8) and I do not, therefore, decide the same. 5. In the result, the petition must fail in so far as it challenges the order relating to confiscation but must succeed in so far as it challenges the order relating to the imposition of personal penalty. In the result there will be an order issuing a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order in so far as it imposes the personal penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- against the petitioner. I may make it clear that as the second part of the order has been quashed on the ground that in the holding of the inquiry there has been a violation of the principles of the natural justice, it will hereafter be open to the Customs authorities to hold another inquiry on the same subject-matter and to take appropriate action. As the petitioner has failed as regards the order relating to confiscation but succeeded as regards the order relating to personal penalty, I order that there shall be no order as to costs.
|