|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 52 of 52 Records
-
1975 (5) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof, Income Tax, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Notice Of Reassessment, Previous Year, Works Contract
-
1975 (5) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash System, Mercantile System, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee may not remain in the firm on the date of realisation of these outstandings and in that event he will not get his share in these outstandings under this clause and, therefore, the tax officer was not justified in including these outstandings in the balance-sheet of the firm, because this is a circumstance which justifies their non-inclusion under section 7(2) of the Act. But the Act is concerned with net wealth of the assessee on the valuation date. These outstandings were assets and the wealth of the firm on that date. And the assessee was a partner of the firm on that date. Hence, there is no merit in this contention. No income-tax is payable by the firm on these outstandings on the valuation date in view of its cash system of accounting and section 2(m) of the Act does not allow any such deductions. Therefore, the last contention of Mr. Ginwalla must also fail. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (5) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Cost Of Acquisition, Import Entitlements ... ... ... ... ..... was not possible to separate the actual cost incurred for making any addition or alteration to such goodwill. On the basis of the above, it was held that goodwill was excluded from the concept and ambit of section 12B. After coming to this conclusion Mukharji J. was pleased to cite the passage from the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Rathnam Nadar 1969 71 ITR 433 (Mad) in support of the conclusion already arrived. It appears to me it was not necessary in the facts of Chunilal s case 1970 76 ITR 566 (Cal) to come to any general conclusion regarding the actual cost, if any, incurred in acquiring a capital asset. If it be contended that in quoting the said judgment of the Madras High Court this court intended to lay down generally that in all cases where there was no actual cost to acquire a capital asset then there would be no capital gain in any subsequent dealing with the said capital asset, then I would hold that this proposition, if so laid down, is obiter.
-
1975 (5) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Distributable Surplus, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... r lawful assessment orders which were no doubt under appeal, but had not at the relevant time been varied or set aside. In that view of the matter the money had gone out of the till of the company and was not available to be distributed by way of dividend and there could be no question of declaration of a dividend on the basis of a possibility of an assessment order being set aside on appeal in favour of the assessee. This is the only point which has been canvassed on behalf of the revenue in this reference. We hold that the Tribunal was right in the instant case in holding that it would have been unreasonable to require the company to distribute any dividend in respect of the previous year in question and in setting aside the order made under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, levying additional super-tax. We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (5) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Private Company ... ... ... ... ..... essees rendered some service to the company there is no finding that the assessees possessed any special qualifications and the services rendered by them were of a specialised nature and not of a normal or routine nature. The remuneration payable to them was determined by the board of directors consisting of themselves and their father. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the cases referred to above it must be held that the remuneration paid to the assessees was because of the shares held by the family and not on account of their personal qualifications even though they rendered some service of a general nature. The real nature of the remuneration paid to them was an increased share of the income of the company paid to them as representing the family and not what it apparently purported to be. We accordingly answer the question in the affimative, in favour of the department and against the assessees. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (5) TMI 7 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... but capital expenditure is not necessarily met from profit it may be met from the capital reserve or other sources. Capital expenditure adds to the soundness of the company and also adds to its profit earning capacity. It does not adversely affect profits or the financial condition of the company. The profit and loss accounts of the company for the years in question clearly show that the company is in a sound financial condition and is capable of declaring dividend at the statutorily prescribed rate. The consideration of capital expenditure, therefore, is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the smallness or otherwise of the profits made by a company. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay costs of the reference. Send a copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and with the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 100. B. N. SHARMA J.--I agree.
-
1975 (5) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... ruck off the register, he remains a shareholder in law. He retains his share scrips. By virtue of his holding, a shareholder is entitled to surplus assets on the liquidation of a company and such surplus assets, it appears to me, to be in the nature of an accretion to his shares. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal 1969 73 ITR 652 (SC) considered the case of bonus shares and observed as follows The bonus shares, by the mere fact that they were received by the assessees in respect of their stock-in-trade, and as accretion thereto, did not become part of their stock-in-trade the bonus shares were received as capital and they could be converted by the assessees into their stock-in-trade or retained as their capital asset. Surplus assets are undoubtedly capital in the hands of the liquidator and when such assets reach the shareholders as accretion to the shares already held they may be deemed to retain their character as capital.
-
1975 (5) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Burden Of Proof, Law Applicable, Penalty Proceedings, Revised Returns
-
1975 (5) TMI 4 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof, Income Tax, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Notice Of Reassessment, Previous Year, Works Contract
-
1975 (5) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... the accountable parties expeditiously. In that view of the matter, I hold that the application is not maintainable in the present form and is dismissed. This order is without prejudice to the petitioner s right to take appropriate steps for enforcement of the statutory charges against the said three properties under section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act, in due process of law and as such I have declared that the said mortgage of the said three properties and the consequential sale in execution of the mortgage decree in this suit being void as against the petitioner s claim in respect of the estate duty payable by the estate of Jiban Krishna Mitter to whom the said three properties admittedly belonged at the time of his death. The plaintiff, decree-holder and the auction purchasers would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in respect of their respective rights, if any, as they may be advised. The ad interim order to continue for two months from date. No order as to costs.
-
1975 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Religious Purpose, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... he account of the assessee was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Under s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was for the assessee to furnish satisfactory explanation in respect of the entry. It appears that the assessee has failed to prove the said entry to be a loan or to furnish sufficient evidence to explain the same. Learned counsel on behalf of the assessee relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts as follows Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 1965 57 ITR 532 (SC), Tolaram Daga v. CIT 1966 59 ITR 632 (Assam), Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1963 49 ITR 723 (Bom) and Banshidar Onkarmal v. CIT 1953 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). The above authorities cited do not materially advance the case of the assessee. The propositions laid down in the above cases do not apply in the facts of the case before us. In the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year in question by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose, fully and truly all material facts - we allow the appeal and quash the impugned notice dated March 31st, 1965, and the proceedings in consequence thereof
|
