|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 97 of 97 Records
-
1974 (7) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... gistration has to be considered on its own merits having regard to the requirements of rule 6 and the requirements of the form prescribed. Even if the provisions of rule 6 and the form prescribed are required to be strictly complied with, in our opinion, not a single departure from compliance with those provisions has been pointed out by Mr. Joshi. If the words as specified in the instrument of partnership are not omitted from consideration, whatever is stated in the application for renewal of registration is correct having regard to what is contained in the original deed of partnership. Thus, every requirement of the form has been strictly complied with in the present case and the taxing authorities were bound to issue a certificate for renewal of registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1959-60. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee-firm. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (7) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee had taken a dasti summons for production of a witness and had not produced him. It is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to enforce the attendance of the witness if his evidence is material, in exercise of his powers under section 37(1) of the Act read with Order 16, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the service of a writ of summons if the witness does not appear then upon a request of the party concerned, the authority will be bound to issue a warrant for his appearance. But such a case does not exist in the present case. Here, the man from whom a loan is alleged to have been taken could not be traced at the address furnished by the assessee. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the Income-tax Officer rightly treated the sum of Rs. 25,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings, Undisclosed Income
-
1974 (7) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Distributable Income ... ... ... ... ..... declaration of dividend. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion. In this connection we may state that the view we have taken is in consonance with the views expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Rasipuram Union Motor Service Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1964 53 ITR 702 (Mad) and in the case of Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1966 60 ITR 417 (SC). We must, however, observe that in respect of the first year, having regard to the quantum of the profit made, perhaps section 23A had been resorted to not quite reasonably but the ambit of the question does not permit us to embark upon an examination of this aspect. In the aforesaid view of the matter we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, each party will pay and bear his own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... tion exercised by the Commissioner unless there is a patent error of law or error apparent on the face of the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that assessments would not be made in a fair and impartial manner by the 2nd respondent. But this plea was not accepted by the Commissioner in view of the reports submitted by the 2nd respondent and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. This court would not, under article 226 of the Constitution, normally interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commissioner under section 127 of the Act, unless the order is ex facie perverse or vitiated by any patent error. In the present case, I do not think the discretion of the Commissioner in refusing to transfer the case of the petitioners from the file of the 2nd respondent is vitiated by any such error which warrants interference under article 226 of the Constitution. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (7) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Coparcenary Property, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... mplated and the existence of an open market in which the asset can be sold must be assumed. That apart, in the present case, the value of the entire separate estate of the testator is known and the only debt which is an ascertained debt, being the balance of the estate duty payable, is also known. The ascertainment of the value of the clear residue is to all intents and purposes a matter of calculation and the determination of the assessee s share therein is a matter of logical sequel therefrom. It can hardly be said, therefore, that the assessee s interest in the residue is incapable of valuation. In the result, we hold that the properties bequeathed to the assessee under the will executed by his grand-father are includible in the net wealth of the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act and accordingly answer the question reframed by us in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner and bear his own. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (7) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Factory Building, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... regard to the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal was right in allowing the depreciation allowance at the rate of 25 per cent. on the basis of the roads or roadways which were regarded as of a first class material and the first question, therefore, will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. On the question as to whether the roads or roadways laid out by the assessee-company in the factory premises constitute plant or not, which is the subject-matter of the second question referred to us, we are clearly of the view that the frame of the second question itself suggests that that question will not arise in view of our answer to the first question, for the second question arises only if the first question is answered in the negative. Since we have answered the first question in the affirmative, there is no necessity to deal with the second question, as it does not survive. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (7) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Current Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... ld parts by introducing the Casablanca conversion system . The claim was felt to be admissible as an allowance under section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On reference to the High Court of judicature at Madras, the court held that the sum of Rs. 93,215 was allowable as an expenditure incurred for current repairs under section 10(2)(v) of the Act. Shah J. agreed with the view expressed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. This is also a case where there has been replacement of worn out sheets, that is, replacement of old cement sheets with new sheets and it is for the assessee primarily to decide when such replacement or repairs are necessary. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant-assessee is entitled to claim deduction, of the amount of Rs. 8,000 which has been disallowed by the income-tax authorities. In the result, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the writ appeal allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (7) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Partner, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... was being credited in the account of the donee and ultimately the donee withdrew the entire amount from the firm and invested the same elsewhere. There is nothing on the record to show that after the amount together with interest thereon had been credited in the personal account of the donee, the petitioner could exercise any dominion over the same. We are, accordingly, of opinion that in this case, after relevant entries were made in the books of the firm, the dominion and control over the sum of Rs. 20,000 passed from the donor to the donee and the gift in question was quite valid and complete. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The finding recorded by the Gift-tax Officer, A Ward, Mathura, in his order dated October 22, 1971, to the effect that the gift in question was not valid is quashed. The order of the Gift-tax Officer determining the amount of taxable gift and directing the issue of demand notice and challan on that basis is maintained.
-
1974 (7) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Withdrawal Of Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ess of the firm. This is sufficient for the purpose of attracting section 2(47) of the Act which speaks of extinguishment of any rights therein , therein standing for capital asset which term is defined in section 2(14) of the Act. It is not contended before us that the machinery brought in by Abdul Rahim for the formation of the partnership is not capital asset . There was thus a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) attracting sections 34(3)(b) and 155(5) of the Act. The transfer is clearly by the assessee in this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Being a question of law on which there has been no authoritative ruling of this court, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1974 (7) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... December, 1973, continued to remain in operation notwithstanding the amendment made by the Income-tax Officer to the original notice of demand. The return of current income and advance tax payable submitted by the petitioner on 15th March, 1974, being a reiteration of the return filed by it earlier on 17th December, 1973, could not be treated as a revised return within the meaning of section 212(2) of the Act. It was at best a reminder to the Income-tax Officer that the assessee reiterates that its current income estimated in the return filed on 17th December, 1973, remains in operation. The notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on 20th March, 1974, requiring the petitioner to pay advance tax in accordance with the notice dated 14th February, 1974, and in default taking coercive measures was illegal and cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 20th March, 1974, is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to costs.
-
1974 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ons of the law and rules, the assessee-company is entitled to 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation on the plant and machinery on account of double shift allowance for the whole year or for a proportionate period ? to the court. Following the earlier decision in the case of Raza Sugar Co. 1970 76 ITR 541 (All), the court held that the assessee-company was entitled to 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation on the plant and machinery on account of double shift allowance proportionately for the actual number of days worked. We must, therefore, hold that the claim of the assessee-company for depreciation on machinery as extra shift allowance to the extent of Rs. 32,929 was rightly disallowed in the assessment year 1964-65 and we have to answer the question accordingly. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In the facts of the instant case we do not propose to make any order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... rt where the identical question was raised as to the interpretation of s. 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is true that the point of view which Dr. Pal sought to argue before us for interpreting sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not presented before the Gujarat High Court. But in our view the same question was involved in a different form, and whether the imposition of interest under prov. (iii) to sub-s. (1), of s. 139, made any difference as to the liability of the assessee who had filed his return under sub-s. (4) of s. 139 was not directly dealt with. But it must be held to be indirectly overruled by the final observation which we have quoted before. The new angle from which Dr. Pal asked us to interpret the said section, as we have noted before, makes no difference to the construction of the provisions of the said sub-s. (4) of s. 139 as we have observed before. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C.J. -I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Original Assessment, Rate Applicable, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ove, in our view, having regard to the nature and terms and conditions of the three agreements evidencing the arrangement between the assessee-firm on the one hand and the company on the other, the arrangement cannot be regarded as an ordinary routine trading contract entered into by the assessee-firm with the company in the ordinary course of its business and that the arrangement was one the cancellation of which affected the profit-making structure of the assessee-firm, and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 which was receivable by the assessee-firm, in our view, would fall in the first category indicated in the observations relied upon by Mr. Joshi. Having regard to this discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax and, therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (7) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... by the ITO after making additions and other deductions was Rs. 8,56,580. Since the amount of Rs. 81,745 transferred to the special reserve fund by the Corporation was less than ten per cent. of the said total income-the whole of it was permissible to be deducted under s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act-it was rightly allowed by the ITO in his original order and the order of rectification was not correct. On a careful consideration of the matter, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the question of law referred for the determination of this court has got to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I accordingly hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the deduction referred to in s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act envisages 10 of the total income, and not 10 of the total assessed income, before deduction of the amount so allowed. The Department must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100 only. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1974 (7) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - Whether income computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be recomputed for the purposes of Super Profits Tax Act - Tribunal considers this question in proceedings under section 19 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, read with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Though, normally, the income computed under Income-tax Act should be the chargeable profits for the purposes of Super Profits Tax Act, its recomputation is necessary due to a mistake in the assessment under Income-tax Act or any other justifiable reason, the income can be recomputed. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered technically in favour of the assessee, leaving the question of deduction for consideration by the Tribunal on merits
-
1974 (7) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would not apply to the capital gains arising from the transfer of goodwill by the assessee-firm ? " - we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of consideration received by the assessee-firm for transfer of its goodwill is not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the department.
|
