|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 92 Records
-
1973 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hedging Transaction ... ... ... ... ..... in respect of contract or contracts of sale entered into by him of the same goods. As already stated, the assessees in these cases have not shown that the forward contracts of purchase entered into by them which were ultimately settled by payment of the difference in price were to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of any specified contract or contracts of sale for actual delivery. In view of this fact we are not able to hold that the transactions of forward purchases in both the cases will come under proviso (a). The result is that we have to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the losses in question have to be taken as losses sustained in speculative transactions under Explanation 2 to section 24(1). The questions referred in both the cases are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the assessees. The revenue will have its costs in both the cases. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 in each case. Questions answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 31 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Change Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. It is to be noted that the penalty proceeding continues to be penal in nature even after the introduction of the Explanation. The quantum of proof necessary to discharge the onus by the assessee would be as in a civil case, that is, by preponderance of probabilities. After applying the Explanation the taxing authorities would take into consideration all the facts and circumstances, pros and cons, and then determine whether the assessee has discharged the onus. On the aforesaid analysis, the Tribunal acted contrary to law in not applying the Explanation to the facts of this case. We would accordingly answer the question in the negative by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in law in cancelling the penalty without resorting to the Explanation. In the result, the reference is allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. S. K. RAY J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 30 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessment Of Income, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... 2,18,442 was rejected as not genuine, then there is no question of any adjustment of the credit and debit entries. The credit entry alone stands. The fact that in 1967 the railways filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 89,946 out of Rs. 1,34,028 paid by them in 1961 is wholly irrelevant. If the railways would ultimately get a decree and recover any amount from the assessee, then the same would be adjusted as a business loss in the accounting year in which recovery is to be made. The mercantile system of accounting cannot be stretched to embrace all sorts of provisional, notional or contingent payments which the assessee considers he might be called upon to pay. (See New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax). On the aforesaid analysis, we are satisfied that the Tribunal s view is contrary to law. The question referred is answered in the negative. The reference is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. S. K. RAY J.-I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Tax Holiday ... ... ... ... ..... ere is no scope for the application of the fiction incorporated in sub-rule (5). But as pointed out by us in the illustration given above unless the fiction is applied and taken to its logical conclusion, one would not be in a position to ascertain the real and actual capital employed in the business of an industrial undertaking. In that view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the appeal of the assessee and rejecting the contention of the revenue. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the figure arrived at by computation under rule 19(5) was to be added to the figure arrived at by computation under rule 19(1) for determining the average capital employed in the assessee s undertaking. Having regard to the fact that this reference involves a question of interpretation on which there are no rulings, we think that there should be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sales Tax, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... claimed the loss of Rs 41,676 during the assessment year 1961-62. It is not in dispute that the assessee continues to be the owner of the mining lands right through and the realisation by way of lease amounts during the period when a third party was carrying on the mining operations as a lessee has to be taken as the income of the assessee from the same business in our view, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the same business continues right through and that the losses incurred for the years 1952-53 to 1959-60 were in relation to the same business from which the share income has been received by the assessee is correct on the materials on record. We have to, therefore, answer questions Nos. 2 and 4 in the affirmative and against the revenue and we answer accordingly. As regards question No. 6, in view of our answers regarding questions Nos. 2 and 4, this question has also to be answered against the revenue and it is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
1922 Act, 1961 Act ... ... ... ... ..... and does not help the assessee. For the reasons stated above, I would answer the reframed question in Tax Case No. 15 of 1968 against the assessee and in favour of the income-tax department. I would hold that the sum of Rs. 14,228 paid by the assessee to Srimati Pushpa Devi cannot be deducted either under section 12A or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, nor can it be treated as not forming part of the income of the assessee under section 10(1). The reframed question in Tax Case No. 16 of 1968 and the questions in the other three tax cases must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department, and it must be held that the various sums paid by the assessee to Srimati Pushpa Devi in relation to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 must be deducted from the assessee s income under section 39 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in any of the tax cases. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1973 (9) TMI 26 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Law Applicable, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... c) had been deleted. The Tribunal should have, therefore, determined the question of validity of the penalty with reference to law as it was subsequent to April 1, 1964. In other words, the Tribunal should have considered the effect of section 271(1)(c) after the amendment and the effect of the Explanation. Without applying the correct law, the Tribunal relied upon Anwar Ali s case which enunciated the position of law prior to the amendment effected on April 1, 1964. The Tribunal s finding of fact was accordingly vitiated. It was reached without keeping the correct law in view. After the case goes back, the Tribunal will apply the correct law and record its finding of fact whether the penalty imposed was valid or not. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us by saying that in the facts and circumstances of this case the order of the Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the penalty was not justified in law. There will be no order as to costs. S. K. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1973 (9) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Body Of Individuals, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, High Court
-
1973 (9) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... was taken to set apart these sums or any portion thereof as a reserve or reserves . The balance-sheet drawn up by the assessee as showing the profits was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and they do not indicate that these items were allocated to any reserve. These items were items providing for payments of existing liabilities and any provision made for meeting an existing liability cannot, in our opinion, constitute reserve . An amount provided for meeting an accrued and existing liability cannot be said to have been set apart for meeting a contingency which may arise in future and cannot, therefore, constitute reserve. It is, indeed, a provision for meeting an existing liability and not a reserve for any future contingency. The question No. 2, therefore, has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and the said question is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. HAZRA J.-I agree.
-
1973 (9) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Compulsory Acquisition, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ourt has to come to a conclusion that the said sum of Rs. 4 lakhs paid as rent under the lease includes within itself an amount which is really being paid as premium for the said lease. Apart from this aspect, in our opinion, the question raised in the present reference does not permit this court to go into this aspect. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case the Tribunal was not right in its conclusion that the document in question is not a document of lease and the annual payment of Rs. 4 lakhs paid by the assessee to the lessor is not a payment of rent on the basis of the said document of lease. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative, against the department and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the second question really does not fall for determination and does not call for any answer and we may also note that the second question has also not been pressed. There will be order as to costs. HAZRA J.--I agree.
-
1973 (9) TMI 22 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Income Tax, Interest On Securities, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Writ Jurisdiction
-
1973 (9) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... rm by reason of the sale of the building which it had purchased earlier, it becomes part of the firm s total income just like any income under the law and the partner does not realise any capital gains on such sale. It was also held by the Full Bench that section 114 of the 1961 Act which was included in Chapter XII of the Act applied to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1967-68 and by virtue of the first proviso to section 114(b)(ii), the minimum rate at which net capital gains was to be taxed was fifteen per cent. and the Full Bench also took into consideration the provisions of section 2 of the relevant Finance Act applicable to the assessment year 1967-68. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the respondent was not liable to pay tax on capital gains made by it under section 114 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner.
-
1973 (9) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... -tax Officer to go into the true scope of the provisions of the Act in a rectification proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the officer was wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of assessments of the firm. In view of this clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that in the instant case also the Income-tax Officer was wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of assessment of the assessee-firm and it was not competent for him to go into the true scope of the provisions of the Act in rectification proceedings under section 154. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that question No. 1 as renumbered by us, must be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, question No. 2 as renumbered by us, does not arise for consideration. We, therefore, answer the questions accordingly. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1973 (9) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm – registration - licence for trade in liquor is in the names of some of the partners - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 ? "
-
1973 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
" Whether, the Income of the society from ginning and pressing with the aid of power of a co-operative society engaged in marketing cotton, was exempt under section 81(i)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment on 1st April, 1968 ?" The result is that we answer the question referred to us in favour of the revenue and against the assessee-society. Our answer is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee from ginning and pressing with the aid of power was not exempt under section 81(i)(c) of the Income-tax Act as it stood prior to its amendment on 1st April, 1965
-
1973 (9) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Certain expenses were incurred prior to nationalisation. This was allocated between life and general business. The claim of expenses allocated to life business was rejected by Life Insurance Corporation, whether the amount can be set off as bad debts - " Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of ₹ 76,306 was allowable as deduction in computing the profits and gains of the business for the year 1961 relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 ? " - Unless there was an admitted debt and it became irrecoverable, no question of writing it off as a bad debt would arise. - Reference answered in the negative
-
1973 (9) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of the instrument of partnership dated 1st April, 1960, a valid partnership came into existence ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, read with rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, 1922 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the parties of the second part have been found to be benamidars of the parties of the first part, the assessee-firm is entitled to the grant of registration ? "
-
1973 (9) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
“(i) Whether the order of penalty passed by the ITO dated March 19, 1969, in pursuance of the directions contained in the order of the ITAT in I. T. A. No. 9202 of 1966-67, dated December 7, 1968, is time-barred ? (ii) Whether the assessee is estopped from contending that the order of penalty passed by ITO in pursuance of the directions contained in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 9202 of 1966-67, dated December 7, 1968, is illegal and void by not challenging the said decision of the Tribunal by applying for a reference therefrom under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether the acceptance of the assessee's contention by ITAT and the grant of relief on that basis would not amount to a review of its earlier order and whether the Appellate Tribunal is competent to review its previous order?” - Section 275 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 does not permit any relaxation of the rigidity of the rule of limitation, it is specifically mentioned in section 153(3) and 263(3) that period of limitation will not apply when the authority acts under the direction of appellate authority
-
1973 (9) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether the assessee is liable for interest as provided by section 215 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether provisions of section 263 can be invoked when there is failure to charge interest under section 215 - " (1) Whether the presumption made by the Appellate Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer had exercised his discretion and decided not to levy the penal interest u/s 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is supported by any material ? (2) Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in modifying the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "we have to answer question No. 1 in the negative that no material has been relied on by the Tribunal for the presumption it had drawn - second question referred to us has to be answered also in the negative, that is in favour of the department and against the assessee
-
1973 (9) TMI 13 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - " (1) Whether the inclusion of the share of goodwill at 2 years' purchase of average profits in M/s. Ismail Haji Suleman Sait, Hospet, as belonging to the deceased is valid in law ? (2) Whether the inclusion of Rs. 71,900 being the gifts (inclusive of interest) made by the deceased to his wife and five sons, by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ? " (3) Whether Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee ? " - On the material on record, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had no material to hold that there was a goodwill of the business. The usual rate of capitalisation in the case of ordinary retail customary business not very well established is two years' average profits. Therefore, there is no error in the valuation made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person
|
