|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 150 Records
-
1975 (12) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... the total income contemplated by the first part of the section is a condition precedent to the working out of 8 deduction contemplated by its second part. Whatever is stated above with regard to the carried forward depreciation and development rebate applies with equal force to carried forward loss. Under these circumstances we are unable to take the view which the Kerala High Court has taken in the above-referred case. The result, therefore, is that, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that relief under section 80-I of the Act should be allowed to the assessee-company at 8 without first setting off unabsorbed losses, depreciation and development rebate carried forward from earlier years. Our answer to the question, which is referred to us is, therefore, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This reference is accordingly disposed of. The respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the revenue in this reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Income Tax Act, Total Income, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1975 (12) TMI 69 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Legal Expenses, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ntention urged on behalf of the revenue can be upheld. However, the question what we have posed to ourselves must be answered in favour of the assessee, that is, it must be held that it cannot be predicated that when the company initiated winding-up proceedings on January 15, 1955, its aim and object was to obtain complete control over the Lal Mills. What ultimately happened in those winding-up proceedings by way of compromise between the rival groups is no indication of why the winding-up proceedings were initiated. In view of this conclusion it must be held that the Tribunal was right that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the amount of Rs. 92,308 spent by the assessee was admissible as a revenue deduction and that was the correct conclusion in law. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1975 (12) TMI 68 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... te Assistant Commissioner when no further appeal is carried, or an appellate order of the Tribunal when no reference is carried or where a reference is taken, the result reached on the basis of the decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Every order of a statutory authority is final unless challenged in appeal or revision. Therefore, when the Income-tax Officer makes an order of assessment under the Act, it may be final. In the present case, by a final order of this type, the assessee was found not to be liable to any tax. Therefore, sub-section (2) was applicable to the situation and the entire penalty had to be cancelled. In our view, the reasoning advanced by the Tribunal is unsustainable. We would, accordingly, answer the question referred to us by saying On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied should have been cancelled in terms of section 221(2) of the Income-tax Act. We make no order as to costs of the reference. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... on. On the finding of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee is the owner of the assets of the clinic and the nursing home. The only dispute was whether these assets were used for the purpose of the business or the profession of the assessee. This court has held in M. CT. Commissioner of Income-tax, following the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramniklal Kothari that in the case of a partnership the business is not carried on by the partnership as such, but the business shall be deemed to be the business of the partners. If that is so, certainly the assessee in this case had used the assets for the purpose of his business as he was a partner of the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were, therefore, right in holding that the depreciation was allowable in the individual assessment of the assessee. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (12) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se of the export of the polythene bags by the purchasers. The relevant details of the import entitlements have been set out in paragraph 3 of the Tribunal s order. Therefore, on the facts, we are satisfied that this is a case where clause (iii) of section 2(5)(a) is satisfied and that the assessee was rightly held to be eligible for the allowance. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Another question included in the reference runs thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the extra shift allowance has to be calculated only with reference to the number of days for which the concern worked extra shifts ? The learned counsel for the revenue did not press for an answer to this question and we, therefore, return this question unanswered. As the assessee has substantially succeeded in the reference he will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (12) TMI 65 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Income Tax Act, Tax Deducted ... ... ... ... ..... atute and, moreover, the Division Bench found that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd. correctly summed up the legal position as it prevails in England. In our opinion, even if the practice referred to by the Bombay High Court were not to be followed, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd. sets out the correct law and must be followed and we respectfully follow it. Under these circumstances we hold that the asseessee-company was entitled to double income-tax relief under section 91 of the Act with respect to dividend income received from the companies in the U K. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered accordingly and the reference is disposed of .The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1975 (12) TMI 64 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Development Rebate Reserve, Income Tax Act, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... allowed is debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee during a period of eight years next following for the purposes of the business of the undertaking, other than-- (i) for distribution by way of dividends or profits or (ii) for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India ........ It is not the stand of the revenue that the conditions indicated in the aforesaid provision have not been satisfied. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Income-tax Act of 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that, the assessee-firm was entitled to the development rebate for the assessment year 1964-65. Assessee shall have its costs of this reference which we assess at rupees one hundred. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... uld be entitled, does not transgress the limits of the amount of 75 percent. reserve created by the assessee, we are of the opinion that these two items can be allowed to earn the higher rate of rebate at 35 . So far as the Turret worth Rs. 58,613 which is mentioned at Sr. No. 3 in the Table B is concerned, it does not admit the development rebate of 35 because if this is done, the reserve created by the assessee is not found to be sufficient. Under the circumstances, we find that the assessee cannot claim any development rebate on the cost of this machine. In view of this, our answer to the question which is referred to us is that the assessee was not entitled to claim development rebate at 20 of the actual cost of the three machines mentioned in Table B. The assessee was, however, entitled to development rebate at the enhanced rate of 35 on machines mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4 and 5 of Table B. We, therefore, dispose of this reference accordingly without any order as to costs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 62 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Revised Return, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... enalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 as being barred by limitation by holding that the amended provision of section 275 was not applicable to the facts of the case. We make no order as to costs. It may be stated that the assessee has made an application under article 226 of the Constitution to quash the imposition of penalty in O.J.C. No. 2044 of 1975, the main ground of challenge being that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has lost jurisdiction to the imposition of penalty. That contention Mr. Mohanty for the wanted to raise here, but the question referred did not permit him to raise such a point. Such question to be raised in the writ application is very different and does not stand in our way in disposing of this reference application. We have not waited for the disposal of the writ application as we are of the view that our opinion in the matter does not affect the tenability of the petitioner s contention in the writ application. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 61 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th regard to the speculation business is to be calculated only in terms of sub-section (2) of section 72 for the simple reason that sub-section (3) of section 73 specifically asks the assessing authority to do so. Therefore, whatever be the construction of sub-section (2) of section 72, would be the construction which would govern even the allowance on account of depreciation with relation to speculation business. In view of what is stated above, our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned, the discussion with regard to it is covered by what we have said above and, therefore, our answer to this question is in the affirmative as regards both of its parts. So far as the third question is concerned, our answer is in the negative. This reference is accordingly disposed of. It is ordered that the respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the revenue in this reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Claiming Development Rebate, Development Rebate Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... ed in its scope in that it provides only for making an amendment of the original order of assessment to the extent rendered necessary as a result of recomputing the total income of the assessee by withdrawing the development rebate originally allowed. The two sections thus operate in different spheres and if the circumstances of the case warrant the invocation of the wider power conferred by section 147(b)) it is perfectly open to the Income-tax Officer to take recourse to the said power even in a case where the reassessment is necessitated by reason of its being found that the development rebate originally allowed is liable to be withdrawn. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the department. The parties will 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.
-
1975 (12) TMI 59 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... of Income-tax clearly applies to this case. Sri Swamy referred us to a number of other decisions. It is not, however, necessary to refer to all those cases in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court. We will only refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Poonam Chand Trilok Chand, where also the assessee was following the mercantile system and the court held that the purchase tax collected by him was an allowable deduction. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the amount of Rs. 17,710 is not includible in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. If and when the sales-tax claim was finally disposed of and any deduction was made, the balance will be includible in the income during that year. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and against the revenue. Reference is answered as above. Regarding the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Liability To Penalty, Registered Firm, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ) of section 22 or sub-section (2) of section 23 even if the assessee has no assessable income. To the imposition of a penalty liability to pay tax by the person against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed is, therefore, not a condition precedent. After making these observations, the Supreme Court approved of the decision given by the Calcutta High Court in Khusiram Murarilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, wherein also the view, which we are taking in this judgment, was taken by the said High Court. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Act. Our answer, therefore, to the question which is referred to us is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. This reference is accordingly disposed of and it is ordered that the respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the revenue in this reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 57 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Concealment Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n regard to a pending action. If the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had passed final orders prior to the Amending Act of 1970, there would have been no question of loss of jurisdiction, but as the matter was still pending and by change of procedure the references became incompetent, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to complete the proceedings because he had no longer jurisdiction to deal with the matter of this type. We are of the view that the Tribunal came to the right conclusion on the facts of the case. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of section 274, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case had been referred prior to 1971 had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. The assessee shall have the costs of these references. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100. N. K. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Religious Purpose, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e present provision of law. The position, therefore, is that if the trustees hold the property for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature and if they misapply or commit breach of trust, they will continue to enjoy exemption under the Wealth tax Act. This position should receive consideration by the legislature in order to bring it at par with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. But until that is done, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the point that there were no grounds for believing that the wealth of the assessee had escaped assessment or had been under-assessed. In the aforesaid view of the matter the notices are hereby quashed and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the same. If any assessment has been completed pursuant to the said notices, the same are quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Operation of this order is stayed for six weeks.
-
1975 (12) TMI 55 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ince abolition of the estate till payment of the compensation. The two questions that have been referred to us are indeed one and we accordingly reframe the question thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest paid to the assessee during the year could be assessed as income of the year or the interest had to be spread over in the manner claimed by the assessee ? Our answer to the reframed question is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the total interest is assessable during the year of receipt, namely, assessment year 1965-66. The Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 13 of its decision required the Income-tax Officer to examine the claim of expenses. That part of the direction must be sustained and the Income-tax Officer should make an enquiry as contemplated in the direction to find out whether the entire sum of Rs. 26,007 or a part thereof only has to be taken as income of the year. We make no order as to costs. DAS J.---I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Foreign Company, Income Tax Act, Principal Officer, Such Person ... ... ... ... ..... Act, if on prima facie materials which have rational connection with that finding, the Income-tax Officer indicates the intention to the person concerned treating him as the principal officer, in my opinion, the requirements of law are fulfilled. It is a part of the machinery provision and must be construed and viewed in that light. The fact that the expression principal officer was scored out in the notice actually served does not, in my opinion, affect the position. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is manifest that the petitioner No. 2 was being treated as the principal officer and the notice was served upon him in that capacity. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the contentions urged in support of this application cannot, therefore, be accepted. The application is, therefore, rejected. The rule nisi is discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Therefore, there will be no order as to costs. There will be a stay of operation of this order for four weeks.
-
1975 (12) TMI 53 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Controller, Delay In Application ... ... ... ... ..... It is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramprakash P. Puri 1970 2 SCR 875 (SC), the Supreme Court pointed out that procedure is the hand-maid and not a mistress of law, intended to subserve and facilitate the course of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure this rule demands a construction which would promote this cause. Looked at from this angle, it must be held that there was no limitation at all and assessee s appeal satisfied all the requirements of law and was entitled to be disposed of on merits. For the reasons we have indicated above, our answer to the question referred, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal as barred by time is incorrect in law. Assessee shall be entitled to costs of the reference. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees two hundred. DAS J.-- I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Income, Speculation Business, Whether Allowable Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ulation business. If, therefore, I am wrong in the view which I have taken above, viz., that the said transaction does not amount to a speculative transaction within the terms of section 43(5), I would, in any event, hold that it does not amount to speculation business within the terms of Explanation 2 to section 28, and that section 73(1) of the Act is, therefore, not attracted in the present case. In that view of the matter, I would answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee. S. K. DESAI J.-- I agree, and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT -- The question referred to us is answered as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid to M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. cannot be disallowed as a deduction from the other business income of the assessee-company, having regard to section 43(5), Explanation 2 to section 28, and section 73(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner must pay the assessee s costs of the reference.
|
