|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 92 Records
-
1973 (9) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... t. The petitioner in order to justify the deductions claimed failed to adduce any proof. Mr. Sharma contended that our order in this case may affect the petitioner in relation to its assessments for subsequent years but his apprehensions have no justification. For, if in the subsequent years, evidence can be produced to establish justification of the petitioner s claim, the same shall have to be viewed in a different light. For the years under review, however, the petitioner failed to provide the required proof. The Tribunal thus has not ignored any relevant legal principles. The findings reached by it were conclusions of fact and we do not find that they gave rise to any question of law requiring reference to this court. The order of the Tribunal declining to prepare the statement of case and making the reference applied for, therefore, is justified. In the circumstances of the case, this application is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing of section 34(1)(a). The contention of the learned counsel that this observation of the Supreme Court was applicable only to the cases of non-residents and not to the cases of residents is also without substance as the next sentence in the judgment of the Supreme Court is There is no warrant for the submission that section 22(1) applies to residents only and that an obligation to make a return on the part of a non-resident can only arise if a notice under sub-section (2) is served. Residents are certainly under an obligation to submit a return and an omission to file a return which results in the escapement of an income from taxation will bring the case within the clutches of clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax will be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits ... ... ... ... ..... ection. The Explanation makes applicable the same definition of accumulated profits to the expression wherever used in section 2(6A). In that case the Supreme Court held that the profits earned till the date of liquidation even in the middle of a year can be accumulated profits. This decision also leads to the inference that accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) will consist of the entire distributable profits available to a company till a particular date, which would, in the present case, be the date on which the payments were made to the assessee. For the reasons given above, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that only Rs. 8,082 and not the entire amount paid to the assessee by the company was dividend within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the department. As no one has appeared for the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Provident Fund, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... cessary to find out as to how the payments were made to the fund. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that actual payment was not made but credit entries were passed in the books of accounts. In order to determine as to whether such credit entries would amount to payment within the meaning of section 10(4)(c) it would be necessary to know the nature of the entries, viz., as to whether the credit entries are in favour of the trustees or in favour of the employees concerned, etc. In the absence of such facts the question cannot be answered. We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to record a finding on the material already on the record on the question as to whether the contributions in question can be allowed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) read with section 10(4)(c) of the Act. As the case has been pending since long we direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case within one month. At this stage we make no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Excess Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the departmental appeal? On behalf of the assessee it was argued before the Tribunal that the appeal filed by the department was barred by limitation and the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay. The Tribunal held that the appeal was beyond time but it had the power to condone the delay. On a consideration of the facts of the case it condoned the delay in filing the appeal. When this case was called for arguments no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the assessee s interest would not be affected in any manner if the second question is returned unanswered, we consider it a futile exercise of jurisdiction to give an answer to question No. 2 without the assistance of the assessee s counsel. We leave this question unanswered. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel is, however, assessed at Rs. 200. Let the papers be returned to the Tribunal with the above opinion and answer.
-
1973 (9) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... and the previous year in respect of such a business can only be 12 months or less. The first accounts of the assessee which started on April 11, 1957 to March 31, 1958, should be taken to be the first year and there is no question of the first year of business being more than 12 months either by operation of law or by option of the assessee. Therefore, the first previous year can be taken to be from April 11, 1957, to March 31, 1958. If the manufacture and production of articles have started during this period, then it may not be possible to uphold the assessee s claim for the benefit of section 84 for the assessment year 1963-64. We have to answer the first question in favour of the revenue. But as we have held that the manufacture and production of articles by the undertaking had commenced only after April 1, 1958, the benefit of section 84 will be available to the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (9) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commercial Profit, Development Rebate Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... efore, there appears to be no basis for the contention of the revenue that there was excess provision for depreciation and that has been wrongly excluded in the computation of the profits in the profit and loss account. In view of this position, the order passed under section 23A has rightly been set aside by the Tribunal so far as the assessment year 1961-62 is concerned. Even as regards the assessment year 1960-61, though before the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the item relating to development rebate was adverted to, that point was not urged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was not called upon to consider that aspect. On the face of the order of the Tribunal and on its findings, we find that the Tribunal was right in holding that the application of section 23A is not called for in this case. In this view, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (9) TMI 45 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Criminal Proceedings, Criminal Prosecution, Legal Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... to the limited extent to which the allegations contained in the first information report were against Premchand Gokaldas. Hence, in trying to defend Premchand Gokaldas, the assessee-company was defending its own representative or nominee. Under these circumstances, it must be said that in trying to defend Premchand Gokaldas, the assessee-company was defending its own name as an upright business organization and hence the amount of Rs. 15,420 referred to above must be held to have been spent wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 15,420 incurred by it as and by way of legal expenses in defending Premchand Gokaldas in the criminal case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Earning Income, Expenditure In The Nature, Expenditure Incurred, Income Returned
-
1973 (9) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
In Good Faith, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... It follows that before exercising his jurisdiction to reduce or waive the amount of penalty as specified in section 18(2A), the Commissioner should apply his mind to the fact whether the assessee had acted honestly in disclosing all the particulars required to be mentioned in the return, and if the assessee so satisfies the Commissioner and further complies with clauses (b) and (c) of the section the Commissioner must consider his prayer for exercising its power under section 18(2A) for revoking the minimum penalty imposable on the assessee on merits. Since, in this case, the Commissioner misdirected himself with regard to the scope of the condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 18(2A), the impugned order cannot be permitted to stand. In the result we allow this petition with costs and quash the order dated 17th January, 1973. We direct the Commissioner to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Article 14 Of The Constitution, Cost Of Acquisition Of Capital Asset, Fair Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... ted position that the applicant-company is not an assessee acquiring depreciable assets in any of the modes mentioned in section 49 and clearly, therefore, this case falls within section 50(1) and, therefore, in case of the applicant-company for purposes of computation of capital gains tax adjusted written down value as defined in clause (6) of section 43 of the Act would be the cost of acquisition of the assets. We do not think that there are any justifying grounds for us to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which has confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Income-tax Officer. In that view of the matter, there fore, we answer the question in the negative as under On the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant was not entitled to substitute the value as on January 1, 1954, as the cost of acquisition of the buildings and machinery. The applicant-company will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
1973 (9) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sales Tax, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... er part of his business or another class of customers. He may also keep accounts in respect of different parts of the same business on different basis. If such different methods are employed regularly and consistently the profits have to be computed in accordance with the respective methods, provided it results in a proper determination of the true profits. The assessee should, therefore, be taken to have adopted the cash basis so far as the sales tax collections are concerned and, therefore, the principle of the decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax will stand attracted. We have to, therefore, hold that in this case the assessee has maintained his accounts in relation to the sales tax collections only on cash basis and, therefore, only when he pays out the amount for discharging his sales tax liability he can claim deduction. We, therefore, answer the question against the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1973 (9) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Undisclosed Income, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... 19 and 24, 1963, and February 9, 1963). The conclusion was strengthened by the short time lag between the withdrawals and the payment, which was only of about two months. It was held in Commissioners of Income-tax v. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co., what inference should be drawn from the facts proved is a question of fact and the Tribunal s finding on that question is final. (Also see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nelliappan). We are also satisfied that the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the facts proved on record was neither unreasonable, nor perverse, nor could it be said to be based on mere conjectures or surmises, nor could it be said to be based on no evidence. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in rejecting the revenue s prayers for referring the aforesaid questions to this court on the ground that no question of law had arisen from its order. The petition under the circumstances is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 39 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... Court (2) decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. and (3) the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devidayal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., In our opinion, the question which arises for our consideration is totally different from the questions which arose before the different High Courts in the three decisions relied upon by Mr. Kaji and, therefore, we follow the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in the two decisions referred to above. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1.---In the affirmative. Question No. 2.---In the affirmative. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee in Reference No. 8 of 1971. Since the assessee in Reference No. 15 of 1971 has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs in that reference but the questions in that reference are also answered in the affirmative so far as each of the two questions is concerned.
-
1973 (9) TMI 38 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, High Court, Revised Returns
-
1973 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Cost Of Acquisition, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... de. Even if such a thing has happened and the assessment has been made on the said sum of 25,506.41 as tin tributes on the basis that it is taxable, that cannot be taken to be decisive and the taxability or otherwise of the sum in question could not be decided with reference to the conduct of either the assessee or the income-tax authorities in any assessment year. On the facts of this case, we are clearly of the opinion that the assessee is not a dealer in leases or tin mines. It is true that he is a dealer in real estate. But that will not make him a dealer in leasehold rights. The mere fact that he took a lease of certain lands for mining purposes and thereafter sub-leased the same to third parties will not make him a dealer in leasehold rights or mining rights. The result is that all the contentions advanced on behalf of the assessee, are rejected and the question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs.250.
-
1973 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Income From Property, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... he property gifted to the accountable person. The obligation being a condition upon which the donee took the property, attaches to the property in her hands or in the hands of those claiming under her with notice Vide Tavakalbhai Sultanbhai v. Imtiyajbegum. Therefore, Fathima Bi should be taken to have a charge on the property for realisation of the income. It is well established that wherever an amount is to come from a specified property that amount should be taken to have been charged on the property so that the amount could be realised by proceeding against the property. In this view, we must bold that Fathima Bi should be taken to have an interest in the property which ceased on her death and a corresponding benefit created to the accountable person on the cesser of such interest. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the accountable person. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Contract Business ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal was justified in holding that the cost of material supplied by the Government was not to be included while estimating the profits of a contractor ? That is how these cases have been placed before us. The learned counsel for the department relies on the decision of this court in Brij Bushan Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax. I was a party to this decision. On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the assessee, draws our attention to the decision of the Kerala High Court reported as M. P. Alexander and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax which has taken a contrary view. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we see no reason to depart from the view we took in Brij Bushan Lal s case. This decision binds us. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs in both the references. C. G. SURI J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Indian Company, Purchase Price ... ... ... ... ..... ble by the assessee-company to the non-resident vendor of the ship, section 40(a)(i) is a bar for invoking section 36(1)(iii), in that, in computing the income of a person, no deductions can be made under sections 30 to 39 if the assessee has not paid or deducted the tax due thereon as provided for in Chapter XVII-B of the Act. We need not, therefore, go into the elaborate arguments addressed at the Bar as to whether the claim based on section 36(1)(iii) is a new point which the learned counsel for the assessee is not entitled to urge, or only another aspect of the matter within the framework of the question referred to us. Our answer to the question is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference including advocate s fee of Rs. 250. A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... specified sum which was agreed upon by the parties as purchase price of the business. Such circumstances were taken to indicate that the payments are of revenue nature in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. 36/49 Holdings Ltd. In that case certain periodical payments were taken to be revenue expenditure for the following reasons (1) The payments were to be made in perpetuity until the right to commute is exercised (2) the payments were related to the turnover which were the trading activity, and the sums paid were in that respect not dissimilar from royalties (3) the sums payable under the second category were not tied in any way or related in any way to any special sum whatsoever. We, therefore, answer the first question in T.C. No. 87 of 1968 and the only question in T.C. No. 175 of 1969 in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will have his costs in T.C. No. 87 of 1968 alone. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. There will be no order as to costs in T.C. No. 175 of 1969.
|
