Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 96 of 96 Records
-
1975 (3) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... the questions are as follows Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1973. Reply to Question No. 1. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,03,938 was disallowable under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, however, could take into consideration section 40(c) of the aforesaid Act, even though it was not referred to by the Income-tax Officer, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Reply lo question No. 2. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 4,03,938 out of the remuneration paid to the sole selling agents is not based on relevant material and is not sustainable in law. Income-tax Reference No. 24 of 1973. The Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent in its order, dated January 12, 1972, which could be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances of these cases, however, we make no order as to costs. MAN MOHAN SINGH GUJRAL J.--I agree.
-
1975 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Investment Company, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... ries under the mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that for the purpose of passing an order under section 23A of the Act the distributable profits in the instant case have to be calculated keeping in view the profits of the previous year as can be calculated by a trader in calculating his profits . It has been held by this court in the case of Indra Singh and Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, at pages 346-347 of the report, that while acting under section 23A of the Act the Income-tax Officer must pay regard only to the money that was actually at the disposal of the company and not money of which it might be deemed to be possessed . Hence we are not impressed by the contentions of Mr. Pal noted earlier, and we return our answer in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1975 (3) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Profits, Finding Of Fact, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... of Rs. 2,31,124 on receipts of Rs. 11,11,100 or it made a profit of Rs. 2,88,076 as computed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and that having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case it would be fair and reasonable to take neither profit nor loss in the contract for the accounting year in question. It is thus only an inference of fact from basic or primary facts and circumstances in the case and does not involve any point of law. As observed by the Appellate Tribunal, it was not the suggestion on behalf of the assessee-company that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to justify its conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in declining to make a reference to this court under section 256(1) and we also decline to require the Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) to state the case and refer any of the two questions to this court. I. T. C. No. 25 of 1974 is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1975 (3) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... ee of Lada Trading Corporation in respect of the same income for the same year. The Tribunal is not right in their view that the prior order is a bar. In the result, the two questions referred for decision are answered as follows. On the first question our answer is that the Tribunal is not right in confirming the cancellation of the order passed in respect of the ment year 1968-69 under section 163 of the Income-tax Act, I961, treating the assessee as agent of Lada Trading Corporation, Geneva, Switzerland. On the second question our answer is that the Tribunal is right in confirming the order passed in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 under the same section treating the as as the agent of Lada Trading Corporation. Thus, both the questions are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. The parties shall bear their costs. A copy of our decision will be forwarded in each reference to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1975 (3) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application By Commissioner, Civil Court, Civil Procedure, Tax Recovery Officer ... ... ... ... ..... lcha Marg, New Delhi, because of the issue of the notice by the Tax Recovery Officer under Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the judgment-debtors and the subsequent attachment of that property by that officer, and, therefore, this property can be sold for the purpose of recovering income-tax dues, etc., in accordance with that Schedule by the Tax Recovery Officer. However, an attachment order has been issued by this court under Order 21, rule 46 of the Code to attach any balance which may be payable to the two judgment-debtors aforementioned under the provision of rule 8 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the application of the Union of India stands accepted and the application of the decree-holder in E.A. No. 791 of 1975, for attachment of the amount which may remain due to the judgment-debtors in the hands of the Tax Recovery Officer after adjusting the income-tax dues, is also accepted. I make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
1975 (3) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... deals with deductions with respect to depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee. That being so, in the instant case, according to law no depreciation allowance was allowable to the assessee-firm and, consequently, the question of distributing the depreciation allowance equally as between the two partners did not arise. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the learned Tribunal was not justified in upholding the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the benefit of depreciation allowance should be given to Banwarilal Choukhani and Smt. Lachmi Devi Choukhani. In fact, the benefit of depreciation was not at all allowable to the assessee-firm. In the result, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the department. The reference is accordingly answered. We, however, make no order as to costs. D. M. SEN J.-I agree.
-
1975 (3) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... on the properties settled. Hence, the deceased cannot be said to have retained any interest in the properties settled. Therefore, it cannot be said that he retained any benefit either in the properties settled or in respect of their possession. The result of this decision of the Supreme Court is that there must be some kind of charge on the properties which would bring into operation the second limb of the second part of section 10. There is no such charge here. Farther, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the characteristic of a benefit is that it is real and not notional, concrete and not abstract, certain and not conjectural See Manickavasagam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax . In the present case, there is no proof of any real or concrete benefit accruing to the deceased-donor. For the above reasons, we answer the question as refrained by us in the affirmative and against the Controller. The respondent will have her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (3) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... stion can be properly answered by us on the materials on the record, we have no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Tribunal nor we have any power to call for supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal. He has, however, argued that this is a fit case for making an order of remand, but we are unable to accept his contention. Hence, it is not necessary for us to discuss the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1959 37 ITR 11 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. 1961 42 ITR 589 (SC), Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1963 48 ITR 92 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 1967 66 ITR 622 (SC) and Raghunath Prasad Poddar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 90 ITR 140 (SC) cited at the Bar in this behalf. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (3) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... presumed that the presumption raised by the Explanation stood rebutted. The presumption can be rebutted not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence. The result is that even though the Explanation was applicable the presumption raised by the Explanation stood rebutted by the circumstances of the case. This view finds full support from a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gem Palace 1975 98 ITR 640 (Raj). In the end we must hold that the second question is really concluded by a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and its finding is supported by ample material. In our opinion, the second question is not a question of law. However, since the question has been called for by this court, we might answer it by saying that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty. As the assessee succeeds substantially, he is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (3) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Application For Registration ... ... ... ... ..... to the extent of the share of each partner may be allowed as set-off in his assessment against the other income in accordance with section 182(2) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1. It has been pointed out by Dhillon J., in his judgment that even the remaining 15 per cent. of the losses had to be shared by five partners excluding Smt. Vimla Kapur in the proportion in which they were to share 85 per cent. of the losses. Whether that is so or not, is not necessary to determine because the Income-tax Officer will be entitled to disallow any loss claimed by a partner which is in excess of his share mentioned in the deed of partnership. To the creditors the liability of each partner is joint and several and to the full extent of the amount due. For the reasons given above, the question referred to this court for decision is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Since the matter was not free from difficulty, there is no order as to costs.
-
1975 (3) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Fixed Deposit, General Public Utility, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit
-
1975 (3) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Law Applicable, Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) were not applicable and that the penalties have to be levied with reference to the provisions which were in force on April 1, 1961, and April 1, 1962, notwithstanding the fact that the returns of income were filed after April 1, 1968. In CIT v. Ram Achal Ram Sewak 1977 106 1TR 144 (All), this court has held that the question whether the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) will apply to a case or not will depend on the date when the original returns were filed and not the date when the revised returns were filed, in response to the notice under s. 148. In the instant case, the original returns were filed long before the amendment came into force. As such the amended provisions were not applicable. We, accordingly, answer the question by saying that the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) were not applicable in the instant case. As the answer is in favour of the assessee, he is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (3) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeals, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. The Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the matter but merely relied upon cl. (n) of s. 33(1) in isolation without focussing its attention on the principal subs. (1) itself. Therefore, our answer to the aforesaid question is as follows The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the value of the entire residential house occupied by Shri Sunder Lal, deceased, karta of his HUF, was exempt from estate duty and the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased was not includible for rate purposes in view of the provisions of s. 33(1)(n) read with s. 34(1)(a) of the E.D. Act, 1953. The half share of the lineal descendants of the deceased was liable to be included for rate purposes in view of the provisions, of s. 34(1)(a) and (c) of the E. D. Act, 1953. There will be no order as to costs since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
-
1975 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
In the revised returns the total income shown was far greater than what was shown in the earlier returns - penalty was levied in respect of each return under section 271(1)(c)(iii) - complaints against the appellant alleging commission of offence by him under section 277 - whether institution of the prosecution against the appellant for the alleged commission of offences by him under either the 1961 or the 1922 Act was bad in law as being violative of section 28(4) - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1975 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in holding that the total income of the assessee from the firm which was to be included in the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was only. Rs. 75,000, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in basing its conclusion on some evidence ignoring other essential matters on record - Whether said conclusion of the Tribunal was perverse in the sense that no reasonable man could come to it on the materials on record - we direct HC to call for a reference from the Tribunal
-
1975 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Finding of the Tribunal as to the valuation of stock even though was recorded subsequent to the Appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could be taken as forming part of the appeal - it could be considered for correcting the mistakes under s. 35 - assessee's appeal is dismissed
|