|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 70 Records
-
1974 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... price of the cinder sold in the various years as Rs. 1,31,517 resulting in a net profit of Rs. 27,572 21. From the said entries in the ledger, it is clear that the assessee had sold certain lots of cinder during the earlier years and he showed a notional stock of cinder on April 1, 1962, the beginning of the year, and struck the profit in the year 1963-64, taking into account the sale price of the entire stock. These accounts showed that the purchase cost of cinder as on April 1,1962, was deducted from the total sale price to ascertain the net profits. If one goes by the said accounts of the assessee, the profit of Rs. 27,592.21 can be said to have accrued only during the assessment year 1963-64. Therefore, on the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the income of Rs. 27,972 arose only in the assessment year 1963-64. We answer the reference accordingly. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1974 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, High Court, Income Tax, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... etitioners have not filed appeals under section 253. If they were to file the appeals now and wish to advance the above reason as being a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals, we may also mention that on 24th of June, 1974, when the writ petitions were first filed, interim stay of operation of the impugned orders was granted by this court in both the writ petitions. This stay would come to an end only by the dismissal of these writ petitions. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there are no exceptional circumstances to persuade us to depart from the normal rule that a writ petition complaining against the order of an Income-tax Commissioner would not be entertained in the absence of an adequate explanation why the petitioner does not avail himself of the appeal provided against the impugned order by the Income-tax Act. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed in limine but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1974 (10) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... tioned in connection with the Gift-tax Act and the Gift-tax Rules were ordinarily applicable. What the rule-making authority has subsequently provided for the purposes of the Wealth-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Rules can hardly be of any assistance to us in construing the provisions of the Gift-tax Act and the Gift-tax Rules. Under these circumstances we have not considered the question before us from the point of view of what has been prescribed with effect from 1967 in the context of the Wealth-tax Act. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Tribunal was right in holding that the shares have to be valued with reference to the break-up value method applied in the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question (1) In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question (2) In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question (3) Not pressed. The Commisssioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1974 (10) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Family Property, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ... ... ... ... ..... te duty under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. In any case Bai Subhadra being the full and absolute owner of the right which she had acquired on the demise of her husband and of which she was possessed on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, would be property which she would be competent to dispose of, it being incident of full ownership as she would have a right of disposal by act inter vivos or by will at her pleasure and, therefore, would be deemed to be property passing on her death under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act. In that view of the matter, therefore, we answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 4 is a general question and is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Question No. 5, as stated, was not pressed by the learned advocate of the accountable person. The accountable person shall pay costs of this reference to the revenue.
-
1974 (10) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Book Entries, Carry Forward ... ... ... ... ..... t rebate by way of deduction from the income cannot be allowed and once it is found that it cannot be allowed in the relevant previous year, in the year of assessment relevant for the previous year in which the machinery or plant was installed or the ship was acquired, it cannot be allowed to be carried forward in any subsequent year. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows Question No. (1) In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. (2) In the negative and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. After the above judgment was delivered, the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the assessee applies under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a certificate that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. In view of the conflict of decisions which we have indicated in the course of this judgment, in our opinion, this is a fit case for appeal and hence the certificate is granted.
-
1974 (10) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Bona Fide, Gift Tax, Income Tax Authorities, Market Value, Reason To Believe, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1974 (10) TMI 24 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... the conditions imposed by him and their acceptance by the assessees all culminated into an order passed by the Commissioner under section 271(4A) of the Act which is binding on the revenue and its validity cannot be questioned by either the revenue or the Tribunal. For these reasons I would answer the second question framed by the Tribunal in the affirmative and hold that the penalty would be restricted only to 20 of the tax attributable to the income of the New Bharat Transporters. Both the questions framed by the Tribunal are, therefore, answered in the affirmative. 2. Regarding the case of Shrimati Shama Mir (Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1973) as she is also a partner of the firm, Fairdeal Motors, and is bound by the orders of the Commissioner, the questions referred to by the Tribunal in her case are also answered in the affirmative. The references are disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. MUFTI BAHAUDDIN FAROOQI J.--I agree.
-
1974 (10) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1974 (10) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Bona Fide, Gift Tax, Income Tax Authorities, Market Value, Reason To Believe, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1974 (10) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... is not quite appropriate. The punctuation mark is also suggestive of contrary conclusion but, having regard to the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and having regard to the purposes for which the proviso came into effect we are of the opinion that the proviso really exempted transfer of assets which were chargeable for any assessment year commencing after 31st of March, 1964, or where the transfer was not chargeable under section 5 of the Act for any assessment year commencing after 31st of March, 1964. This construction is in consonance with the later amendment made, though that is not a relevant factor. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct on the interpretation of the proviso. The question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (10) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Asset, Capital Or Revenue, Provision For Payment, Retirement Of Partner
-
1974 (10) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ption that the Income-tax Officer did not apply his mind on the earlier occasion and the assessee did not appear to have questioned that fact before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal also is silent in this regard. We have to assume, therefore, that the assessee did not raise this question specifically before the Tribunal. The only question that was argued on behalf of the assessee was that the assessment on the company was confirmed by the same officer prior to the original assessment on the assessee and there was no information coming to the possession of the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the original assessment so as to justify action under section 147. We, therefore, consider that there was neither any need for calling for supplementary statement nor for directing that matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the reference in the affirmative and against the assessee. Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee 250.
-
1974 (10) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... open market that is relevant. If an encumbered asset is to be disposed of in open market on the relevant valuation date, it cannot be said that that valuation of the asset free of encumbrance is the market value thereof. It is only after excluding the amount of mortgage debt which is the valuation of the encumbrance that one gets the valuation of an encumbered asset. In that view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in reaching the conclusion that while estimating the value of encumbered asset with which it was concerned in the particular assessment years in reference, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of the amount of the mortgage debt for purposes of evaluating the encumbered asset. The result is that we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (10) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Equity Shares, Preference Shares ... ... ... ... ..... y shares on or after 1st July, 1961, but not later than 30th June, 1966, and they were redeemable at par at any time after 30th June, 1966, at the option of the company by giving notice of three calendar months. This is a case where there were unsubscribed ordinary shares and the company allowed exchange of such shares with the preference shares in accordance with the terms and conditions attached to the issue of preference shares. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we hold that the conversion of preference shares into ordinary shares is a transfer by way of exchange within the meaning of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Since the first question has been answered in the affirmative, the second question does not arise for consideration. The reference is answered accordingly. The department shall pay the costs to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irrespective of whether they are sustainable in law or on the materials on record. In a number of cases this court has set out the principles upon which it will interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. We need not in this case travel beyond the scope of those principles. The above observations of the Supreme Court will clearly show that this court can interfere with the finding of fact reached by the Tribunal in this case as we are of the view that there are no materials which are relevant, which could form the basis for a finding that the assessee had actually lent Rs. 10,000 to Padmanabha Chetty and that the same represented the undisclosed income. We have to, therefore, answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer in respect of question No. 2, it is not necessary to express our opinion on question No. 1. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (10) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... Previously, the appellant had no right to adduce additional evidence. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner could permit the production of additional evidence if he thought it was necessary to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or if he thought it fit to make further inquiry but under sub-rule (1) of rule 46A the appellant had a right to produce additional evidence in the circumstances mentioned in its various clauses. We are unable to agree with the submission that rule 46A or its sub-clauses is ultra vires section 250 or 251 of the Act. The rule does not affect the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner conferred upon him by that rule. It in addition gives a right to the appellant in the matter of production of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not take up before us any question relating to the merits of the appellate order because an appeal is pending before the Tribunal. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
-
1974 (10) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, In Part, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ahabad High Court in the case of P. C. Kapoor v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 90 ITR 172 (All) FB . In this case the provisions of the Control Order, as we have set out hereinbefore, do not prohibit entering into a partnership or make the formation of partnership illegal. On the contrary, the provisions seem to suggest that on reconstitution of the firm the new firm is entitled to apply for fresh licence. We are of the opinion that the constitution of the firm was legal and as such the firm was entitled to registration. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to a correct decision and the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In this connection we must observe that the assessee did not appear in this reference. But we are grateful for the assistance we have received from counsel for the revenue, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1974 (10) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... must also fail. These were the only two contentions which could possibly be urged on behalf of the respondents in support of the orders for rectification which have been passed in this case. Since both these grounds fail, it must be held that the orders of rectification disallowing the development rebate allowed in the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were contrary to the provisions of law and must, therefore, be quashed and set aside. This special civil application is, therefore, allowed and the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside. There is no reason why the normal rule of costs following the event should be departed from. The respondents must, therefore, pay the costs of this special civil application to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. The amount of tax recovered from the petitioner on the basis of the rectification orders is directed to be refunded to the petitioner-firm.
-
1974 (10) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Of Income, Previous Year, Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... into existence. This new firm is a distinct assessable entity different from the firm before its reconstitution. The Tribunal was right in its view that two different assessments had to be made against the assessee-firm, one in respect of the income derived by it during the accounting year ending 31st March, 1962, and the other derived by the old firm during the relevant previous year ending on 30th September, 1961. While dealing with the assessment of the new firm in respect of the income derived by it during the year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, it was justified in excluding the income derived by the old firm during the accounting period 30th September, 1960, to March 13, 1961. In the result both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to receive from the Commissioner of Income-tax costs of this reference which are assessed at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (10) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward ... ... ... ... ..... iled under section 139(1) the assessee lost the right to carry forward the loss in a particular year. The Mysore High Court did not have the advantage of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned before which the Supreme Court delivered subsequently even in respect of the previous enactment. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, which we are of the opinion are applicable in this case, we are unable, with respect, to accept the conclusion arrived at by the Mysore High Court on this aspect. In this case the return was filed. As a matter of fact, the assessment under section 143 has been made. If that is the position, then the assessee is entitled to demand that the loss should be determined and carried forward as a matter of course. In that view of the matter, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear their own costs. PYNE J.--I agree.
|
