|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 97 Records
-
1974 (7) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment, Individual Partner, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... -62. None the less, the Tribunal at the instance of the department has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding, that the sum of Rs. 1,14,212 received by the assessee as compensation from the Custodian of Enemy Property is a capital receipt ? From a perusal of the rectification order dated 14th July, 1970, it is apparent that the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the question whether the receipt of Rs. 1,14,212, which was admittedly a part of the decretal amount, was capital or revenue in nature. It was hence not right to assume, as the question referred to us seems to do, that the sum of Rs. 1,14,212 was held to be a capital receipt. In this view it is not necessary to answer the question as framed and referred to us. We, therefore, return the reference unanswered. We, however, direct that the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1974 (7) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Coparcenary Property, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ld that the expression would have been allowed must be equated with the expression allowable under the Indian Income-tax Act . The Ordinance assumes that the Indian Income-tax Act was in force and that claim was made for depreciation and also assumes that that claim has been allowed. Mr. Kolah submitted that this is not a correct decision and it is open to him to argue to the contrary. In our opinion, a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction is clearly binding on us and it is not open to us to differ therefrom. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly ascertained the written down value of the assets of the assessee for the purpose of making assessment for the assessment year 1950-51. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as under Questions Nos. 2 and 3 As we have no jurisdiction to decide the questions referred to, we express no opinion thereon. Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1974 (7) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A Firm, A Partner, Proper Notice ... ... ... ... ..... f the firm, but a firm does not represent a partner. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the notices which have been served for both the assessment years on March 2, 1961, are on the individual non-resident, Bhawandas Naraindas, and not upon. the firm of M/s. Naraindas Dwarkadas. This finding itself, in our opinion, is sufficient to answer the question referred to us and we do not consider it necessary to go into the other grounds which the Tribunal was persuaded to go into. As in the present case proceedings for reassessment are adopted against the firm of Messrs. Naraindas Dwarkadas without a proper notice as contemplated by section 34, the entire proceedings are ab initio void and orders in reassessment proceedings passed as a result of such notices are also liable to be set aside. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (7) TMI 34 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Withdrawal Of Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ct law. On the aforesaid conclusion, we are clearly of opinion that the declaration filed on June 28, 1962, is of no avail to the assessee as it did not file the return of income and as such the declaration was not filed with the return. The decision of the Tribunal can be supported on this ground and it is not necessary to answer the second part of the question. We would accordingly reframe the question as follows Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the declaration filed by the assessee under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 claiming continuance of registration for that year is of any avail when it was not filed along with the return of income ? We would answer the question in the negative by saying that, in the facts and circumstances, the declaration under section 184(7) is of no avail. In the result, the reference is discharged but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. B. K. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 33 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Preference Shares ... ... ... ... ..... entitled to receive or the company may be liable to disburse. So long as the shareholders of the Corporation are potentially entitled even at a future date to receive dividend at a rate of more than 3 1/2 per cent., such shareholders cannot in any view of the matter be termed as preferential shareholders. In the result, therefore, I must answer the first part of the question referred in the negative and hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the shares of the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna, were not preference shares, and the second part of the question in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to a further rebate of 7 1/2 per cent. on the amount of dividend declared the question is thus answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. The department will be entitled to its costs from the assessee a consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200. UNTWALIA C.J.-I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... said view of the matter we are of the opinion that no further addition should be made on account of average profit under sub-rule (5) as contended by the assessee. In our view because of the particular method of calculation followed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case, viz., by taking into account the current assets and the current liabilities of the business, profit of the year is included in the sum of Rs. 21,23,545 being the amount of capital employed computed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case and no further addition of profit should be made as urged by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case the amount of capital employed has been correctly determined at Rs. 21,23,545 and no further addition of Rs. 1,45,110 as urged by the assessee should be made and we answer the question referred accordingly and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. A. N. SEN J.-I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment, Individual Partner, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Globe Engineers (P.) Ltd., wherein it had been held that where a registered firm manufactures or processes articles in an industrial undertaking, every partner of the registered firm does so and would also be entitled to any rebate in income-tax allowed to a manufacturer. Those observations were made not in a case which arose out of the assessment of a firm, but were made in a case which arose out of the assessment of the individual partners. This case, therefore, is no authority for the proposition that the question whether individual partners are entitled to a particular rebate on the share of income allocated to them as a result of the firm s assessment, should be decided in the assessment proceedings of the firm itself. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference, which are assessed at Rs. 200, to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
1974 (7) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... an advertisement expenditure, and, in our view, it cannot be so regarded. By purchasing the film the assessee-company did not indulge in any advertisement at all, but advertisement was to be indulged in after the asset was acquired by the assessee-company. In other words, the asset that was acquired by the assessee-company was a capital asset to be used for the purpose of advertisement of the business that the assessee-company was going to carry on in future and, therefore, the expenditure will have to be regarded as a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. In this view of the matter, we feel that the Tribunal was not right in allowing the purchase cost of the film, Pomposh , to be deducted in computing the business income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1956-57. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us for our opinion in the negative and against the assessee-company. The assessee-company will pay the costs of the reference to the revenue.
-
1974 (7) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... sub-clause (iv) of clause 4(1) of the deed is either incidental or ancillary to the other objects mentioned in clause 4. In our view, it is one of the independent objects on which the trustees in exercise of their power conferred on them under clause 4(2) could spend even the entire income or the corpus of the trust property during the course of administration of the trust. In other words, it is clear to us that even if the trustees under the indenture dated June 12, 1959, were to spend the entire income over non-charitable object as mentioned in sub-clause (iv) of clause 4(1), they would not be committing any breach of any of the terms or conditions of the trust. In such a situation, it is clear to us that the trust cannot be regarded as one created wholly for charitable purposes. In this view of the matter, the first question referred to us will have to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the department.
-
1974 (7) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits, Capital Gains Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hat the said section had been specifically introduced for charging as of capital gains any money or assets received by a shareholder in the liquidation of a company. Having regard to the fact that section 46 is an express provision for bringing into charge any money or asset received by a shareholder of a company in liquidation treating it as a capital gain, the assessment in regard to sums received in the assessment year 1962-63 has to be upheld. We have to, therefore, answer the second question as follows No portion of the distribution can be assessed as capital gains for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, while such distribution is liable to be assessed as capital gains for the assessment year 1962-63. The computation of capital gains for the assessment year 1962-63 will have to be made in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. As the revenue has succeeded on the first question, it is entitled to costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 100 in each case.
-
1974 (7) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Distributable Surplus, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... int of view even in applying the provisions of section 23A the provisions of section 56A shall not be overlooked as both the sections deal with the topic of super-tax. Thus, even though in section 23A no specific reference is made to dividend which is exempt from super-tax under section 56A, as all the provisions of the statute have to be taken into account for determining the liability for payment of super-tax, even in determining the statutory percentage of liability for payment of super-tax under section 23A the dividend which is exempt from super-tax cannot be ignored. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in deducting the sum of Rs. 17,027 which was exempt from payment of super-tax under section 56A in determining the liability of the assessee-company for payment of super-tax under section 23A. Accordingly, our answer to question No. 3 referred to is in the negative. As both the sides have partially succeeded, each party will bear its respective costs of the reference.
-
1974 (7) TMI 26 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... from the records would make the position abundantly clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer s order imposing the penalty cannot be assailed on the grounds that have been set out in para 15 of the Tribunal s order. Before parting with this reference, we would like to observe that although the Income-tax Officer s order, as such, is not assailable, if as a matter of fact, the tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 had been reduced by any appellate authority, there would be consequent reduction in the amount of penalty imposable on the said assessee. No doubt, before a penalty is finally levied, this aspect of the matter will be given due consideration. Our answer to the question will, therefore, be in the negative, subject to our observations regarding the reduction, if any, of the tax payable and consequent reduction of the penalty leviable thereon under section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. D. PATHAK J.--I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 25 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... rietary right or an exercisable right that can be proceeded against. Otherwise, there is no question of recovery of the income-tax. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the petitioner has still the option open to him to withdraw the amount. The department cannot have a higher right than the petitioner. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amount in deposit in court and awaiting to be paid to the second respondent on registration being completed does not belong to the petitioner. The learned judge of the court below has, in my opinion, made a wrong approach to the problem by trying to find out whether the second respondent has become the fall owner of the money. That is clearly trying to resolve the problem from the wrong end and on a wrong basis. For these reasons I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the court below made in E.A. No. 35 of 1974. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1974 (7) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... e with the provisions of sections 192 to 194, section 194A and section 195 shall, at the time of credit or payment of the sum, or, as the case may be, at the time of issue of a cheque or warrant for payment of any dividend to a shareholder, furnish to the person to whose account such credit is given or to whom such payment is made or the cheque or warrant is issued, a certificate to the effect that tax has been deducted, and specifying the amount so deducted, the rate at which the tax has been deducted and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Such a certificate was not filed by the assessee nor was it issued in her name. The certificate that was filed was obtained by Mr. Taraporewala in his name and filing of such a certificate obtained by a shareholder will not enure to the benefit of the assessee who is not the registered shareholder. In the result, the reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1974 (7) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... that it is not supported by any evidence or was unreasonable or perverse. In the present case we have already pointed out that the Tribunal has considered the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee in respect of the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs probable and we have rejected the contention on behalf of the revenue that there is no evidence to support it or it is inconsistent with the evidence on record. Such a finding in view of this decision is really one of fact. Accordingly, our answers to the questions referred to us are as under Question No. 1 is answered in the negative. So far as question No. 2 is concerned it proceeds on the assumption that the burden is cast upon the revenue. It was only a passing circumstance while considering the other circumstances in coming to the conclusion whether the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee was probable or not. As the assumption is incorrect this question need not be answered. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1974 (7) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Loss, Commercial Profit, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... while considering the feasibility of a declaration of a larger dividend, it is possible to question the conclusion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, took that circumstance as a relevant circumstance and ultimately held that the declaration of a larger dividend in the circumstances of the case would not have been unreasonable. Though the learned counsel for the assessee would contend that the other circumstances pointed out by the Tribunal are not germane for deciding the question of feasibility of a declaration of dividend, we are not in a position to say that the other circumstances pointed out by the Tribunal apart from the capital loss are irrelevant, in considering the feasibility of declaring a dividend. We, therefore, accept the view of the Tribunal that section 23A has been properly invoked in this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (7) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... lly credited the account of the trustees of the Employees Provident Fund with that amount in that very year. In this view of the matter the assessee was entitled to claim allowance in respect of this expenditure which had been laid out for purposes of the assessee s business and which expenditure cannot be said to be a capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee. This allowance was claimed in respect of payment of provident fund dues of the employees with regard to which the assessee had made effective arrangements for the deduction of tax at the source under the head Salaries . Accordingly, the bar created in respect of the scheme under section 10(4)(c) did not come into operation. The assessee was, therefore, entitled to claim this expenditure as an allowance under section 10(2)(xv). In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. He would be entitled to receive the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (7) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gift By Deceased, Refund Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... his daughter-in-law and his grandsons came into existence and that from out of Rs. 62,567, the refund and admissible in connection with the assessment of the Hindu undivided family, only a sum of Rs. 31,288 was includible in the estate duty assessment of the deceased. In the result we answer the various questions referred to us as follows -- Question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Question No. 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. Question No. 4 in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. Question No. 5 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Question No. 6 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Question No. 7 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Question No. 8 in the affirmative and in favour of the department. In view of the divided success, parties are directed to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1974 (7) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... the buses themselves, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment could not be questioned. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Tribunal was in error in holding that section 34(1)(b) was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the revenue. As we have already pointed out, the Tribunal had not gone into the other grounds as regards the quantum of profits determinable under section 10(2)(vii) in view of its opinion that section 34(1)(b) was not applicable. The result of our answering the reference in favour of the revenue would mean that the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee before the Tribunal would have to be restored to file and heard on the merits. The parties will be at liberty to adduce any evidence relating to the route value and the fixation of the fair market value of the buses. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (7) TMI 18 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A Firm, A Partner, Proper Notice ... ... ... ... ..... alleged arrears of income-tax claimed under notice dated 5th April, 1968, for the assessment year 1963-64 . On a careful perusal of the above-mentioned pleading and the reliefs claimed, it clearly seems to us that in substance what the plaintiff has sued for is a declaration that his liability under the notice of demand no longer subsisted and, therefore, the same must be deemed to have been discharged and the relevant tax recovery certificate fully satisfied. In this view, the subject-matter of the suit clearly attracts the bar enacted in the main part of rule 9 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We hold, therefore, that the suit is not maintainable, in reversal of the conclusion arrived at by the learned civil judge. In the result this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
|
