Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 89 Records
-
1973 (2) TMI 29
Non-payment of advance tax – imposition of penalty under section 221 ... ... ... ... ..... and will be liable under section 221 to a penalty which may be as great as the amount of the instalment. These two paragraphs leave no doubt that the legislature intended that if an assessee committed default in the payment of any instalment of advance tax, he was liable to penalty under section 221 of the Act. This Form expressly deals with advance tax and no other tax and, therefore, provides the strongest clue to the interpretation of section 221 of the Act, that is, it applies to all assessees in default or deemed to be in default and that the penalty imposed under section 221 is in addition to the arrears and the interest payable by them under sub-section (2) of section 221 of the Act. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred to us for opinion is in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (2) TMI 28
Sales tax department enhanced turnover for sales tax assessment. The enhanced sales were not included in income-tax returns - whether there is deliberate concealment by the assessee attracting levy of penalty - whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been Tightly levied - If the above question is answered against the assessee whether the quantum of penalty levied is justifiable
-
1973 (2) TMI 27
Petitioner in this application challenges three orders of penalty passed under section 73(5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - When a certificate was issued for collection under Public Demands Recovery Act and the certificate officer allowed payment to be made in installments, whether penalty can be levied by Assistant Controller for non-payment of installments as allowed by him
-
1973 (2) TMI 26
Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 - This appeal has been preferred by an auction purchaser against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the sale of his properties held in recovery of certain dues under the Income-tax Act - Whether the sale proceedings are valid under s. 3(b)(iii) of Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964
-
1973 (2) TMI 25
Seizure and confiscation of smuggled goods - Whether record of criminal court proceeding could be relied on in assessment proceedings and whether Evidence Act could be applied to assessment proceedings - if the proceeding section was enacted subsequent to the assessment year, whether it is applicable to the assessment proceedings i.e. the finding that assessee was in possession of gold during the seizure and was therefore the owner of it was justified - Whether smuggled goods confiscated by the Customs authorities can be claimed as business loss and provisions of set off are available
-
1973 (2) TMI 24
Assessee in this case are the trustees to the estate of late Tarun Kumar Roy - Portion of the income was payable to one beneficiary and the balance was payable to more than one beneficiary - whether the shares can said to be indeterminate - whether maximum marginal rate will have to be applied - Whether on a correct construction of the trust deed the Tribunal was right in holding that the maximum rate of tax could not be applied in this case under the 1st proviso to section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1973 (2) TMI 23
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties settled under the deed of settlement dated 6th October, 1941, was exempt from assessment under section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? " - The beneficial interest alone to which the deceased was entitled during his lifetime will be property under Estate Duty Act - Such a beneficial interest having ceased on the death of the deceased and a benefit having arisen by cessor of such interest - It could be brought to tax under section 5 read with section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act - Value of the entire property cannot be liable to estate duty.
-
1973 (2) TMI 22
This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against a seizure of currency notes of the value of Rs. 2,02,500 by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Chhindwara, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (2) TMI 21
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the profit on the sale of shade trees is assessable as capital gains under section 45 of the Incometax Act, 1961 ? "
-
1973 (2) TMI 20
This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel or to rescind the said notice issued under section 148 - When the Tribunal observes that the amounts in question must have been earned in an earlier year whether it is a finding or direction within the meaning of section151 and whether it saves limitation for reassessment of an earlier year - observation that the said sum of Rs. 25,000 was earned by the assessee in earlier year or years, that is to say, in years prior to the assessment year 1959-60, cannot be the finding or direction within the meaning of the expressions used in sub-section (1) to section 150 of the Act of 1961 and section 150 would not be attracted for the purpose of giving effect to the aforesaid directions and observations - this application must succeed.
-
1973 (2) TMI 19
Whether the provision for treating the registered firm as unregistered one for the purpose of levying interest for belated returns would be in violation of article 14 of the Constitution -Whether advance tax paid can be reduced for the purpose of levying interest from the tax payable - the application is partly allowed. While the order of the Income-tax Officer charging interest holds good, he is directed to determine the actual interest payable by the assessee by making appropriate allowance of the advance tax paid by the assessee
-
1973 (2) TMI 18
Gratuity paid to employees in the absence of gratuity scheme - Whether the amount paid was not related to the salary or the length of service would be allowable if the decision to pay gratuity was taken after the employees left the services – held that amounts were not deductible as business expenditure
-
1973 (2) TMI 17
Trust - A trust filed an appeal before the Tribunal. For the subsequent years, it filed revision petition before the commissioner after the Tribunal's decision - Whether the trust can file an application for amending the revision petition - It cannot hence be said that the assessee was guilty of raising a fresh point for the first time in the revision petitions without raising them at the appellate stage when the matter was decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Similar was the situation when the revision applications were filed. In our opinion, in the context of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the amendment application ought to have been allowed and the point raised therein ought to have been considered on merits - writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the Commissioner disposing of the revision petitions are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Commissioner for the disposal of the revision petitions in accordance with law
-
1973 (2) TMI 16
This petition has been filed by an assessee to quash an orderof the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, in so far as he has included a sum of Rs. 13,607 in the total income of the assessee under the head capital gains while giving substantial reduction to him under other heads - When the Commissioner allows assessee's claims and also rectifies omission in assessment, whether the order is valid when the final order was not prejudicial to the assessee - Dealing with section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which contains the same provision as section 264(1) of the present Act, the Privy Council stated that an order under section 33 of the Act can be said to be prejudicial to the assessee, only when he is, as a result of it, in a different or worse position than that in which he was placed by the order. The contention raised by the petitioner cannot, therefore, succeed. This original petition is accordingly dismissed
-
1973 (2) TMI 15
Petitioner belongs to the Garo community, which is a Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution, and is a permanent inhabitant of the Garo Hills District, which is an area specified in Part A of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution - Whether the provision granting exemption for the income of a member of Scheduled Tribe accruing in certain areas and no exemption being given to income from other areas would be discriminatory and contravenes article 14 of the Constitution - challenge to the validity of section 10(26) cannot survive - Application dismissed
-
1973 (2) TMI 14
The assessee is a firm registered under the Act. For the assessment year 1962-63 it did not file a return of its income as required by section 139(1) of the Act - assessee estimated the income below the taxable minimum but the assessed income was in excess of the taxable minimum - whether penalty can be levied for failure to file the returns
-
1973 (2) TMI 13
Firm - registration - one of the partners has not signed the partnership deed ... ... ... ... ..... sent case, I am of the opinion that the question that the registration should have been refused on the ground that the application for registration was not signed by Shri Rabinder Kumar was not raised before or decided by the Tribunal and, therefore, it cannot be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, this objection of the revenue is to be overruled. Since I have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself while recording a finding to the effect that there was no firm in existence constituted as shown in the instrument of partnership, therefore, the question of law referred to us has to be answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the registration of the firm was not rightly refused. For the reasons recorded above, the question referred to this court for opinion is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with costs. PREM CHAND PANDIT J. - I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (2) TMI 12
Valuation of shares - methods of valuation - If section 7(2)(a) had been properly applied by the Wealth-tax Officer at the stage of the original assessment, the original assessment order cannot be said to proceed on a wrong basis - Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the reassessments for 1959-60 and 1960-61 made under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act as illegal
-
1973 (2) TMI 11
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest amount of Rs. 16,878 and the ground rent of Rs. 3,793 constituted part of the actual cost of the plot to the assessee for the purpose of determining the capital gain? "
-
1973 (2) TMI 10
Under section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922, a statutory Notification No. 47 dated 9th December, 1933, has been issued granting exemption from payment of super-tax - On 9th June, 1961, the petitioner-company applied to the Central Board of Revenue for exemption from payment of super-tax in pursuance of the aforesaid notification. This has been refused by the Central Board of Revenue by its order dated 30th December, 1963 (annexure " F "), on the grounds that all the conditions laid down in the aforesaid notification had not been satisfied by the petitioner-company. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order on the grounds, inter alia, that the order of the Board is not a speaking order and does not give reasons for refusing the exemption and, secondly, that, on the merits of the case, the order is not sustainable in law.
|