|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 111 of 111 Records
-
1976 (1) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mes into play only after the assessed income is recalculated for the purpose of the Explanation by reducing it by the expenditure incurred bona fide by the assessee for the purpose of earning any income included in the total income which has been disallowed as a deduction by the Income-tax Officer. Thus, before the resort to the Explanation can be had, data by way of the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the income has to be available on the record before the Explanation can be applied to any particular case. Such data is not available on the record of this reference nor has the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gone into this question. In view of these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the revenue. No other contention has been advanced. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1976 (1) TMI 10 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Premises, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he source of of income. In order to keep up the business, the expenditure became necessary. It is true, in a way, the benefit obtained by the assessee by the new construction was an enduring asset to last as long as the lease subsisted. But that cannot be the sole guideline for all types of cases. When an overall picture of the matter is taken, on the facts, in this case it would be appropriate to hold that the expenditure was incurred for keeping up the business, and, therefore, was revenue expenditure. The deduction, however, is admissible only in the year in question and there can be no spreadover of it. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, though the Tribunal was not justified in allowing depreciation at 1/ 11th of the expenditure reckoned with the year of construction as deferred revenue expenditure, the expenditure was of revenue nature. We make no order as to costs of the proceeding. N. K. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1976 (1) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Assessment Year, High Court, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... of which the Income-tax Officer could form the belief that it was due to omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the income for the period concerned that any taxable income had escaped assessment. No case has been made out before us justifying the stand of the department taken up before the learned single judge. If the Income-tax Officer had with him the requisite material for acting under sections 147 and 148 of the Act there should have been no hesitation in disclosing the material to the learned single judge. The conclusion in the judgment under appeal was inevitable that the department had not been able to show any material on the basis of which the impugned notice had been competently issued under section 148 of the Act. We do not find any justification for interfering with the judgment under appeal and dismiss the appeal without there being any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Money Lending Business, Textile Mill, Trading Loss ... ... ... ... ..... er be claimed as a business loss or a trading loss or a loss which occurred in the course of the assessee s money-lending business. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the assessee was not carrying out any money-lending business, and that the amounts in question were not given for the purpose of the assessee s business or on considerations of business expediency, not having been challenged by any appropriate question to this effect, an answer in favour of the assessee cannot be entered in this reference. Further, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the debt in question had not become bad or irrecoverable in the year of account. This completely demolishes the petitioner s claim to claim this amount as bad debt. In view of our conclusions above, we answer the question referred in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1976 (1) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ricultural income. In the premises, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to ask the Commissioner to use his revisional power in such a manner and I accordingly direct that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax will dispose of the pending applications before him by directing respondent No. 1 to recompute the agricultural income-tax payable by the petitioner for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for the aforesaid two years provided the petitioner produces the certified copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the consequential order of the Income-tax Officer and provided further the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax has not been modified by further order of any appellate authorities under the Income-tax Act. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (1) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Valuation Date, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e did raise the alternative question that if the amount could not be included in the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate, he is entitled to treat this amount as a revenue expenditure in the relevant assessment year. Since we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal, we are not going into these rival contentions. We may also point out that the revenue also contended that the entire amount of Rs. 1,00, 234 was not spent in the relevant year 1962-63, that a portion of it was in 1961-62, and that could not have been dealt with in the assessment year 1962-63. This question also was not specifically gone into by the Tribunal. We are not, therefore, expressing any view on that question. With these observations, we technically answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the revenue, but with a direction that the Tribunal will go into the matter afresh. In the circumstances of this case, parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1976 (1) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty, Penalty For Default ... ... ... ... ..... ecessary for me to dilate. It was then contended that section 186 would only apply to an existing firm. The registration of that firm which had been dissolved could not be cancelled under section 186 of the Act. I am unable to accept this contention. There is no warrant of such a contention to be accepted in the language of section 186 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to section 189. That section does not deal with this aspect of the matter at all. Lastly, this impugned order is an appealable order under clause (a) of section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No explanation was given in the petition as to why the order was not appealed. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that this application is devoid of any merit and accordingly is dismissed with costs. The rule is, therefore, discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Counsel for the petitioner asked for stay. As I find this application is devoid of any merit, stay as asked for is refused.
-
1976 (1) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e which is a consequence of his said satisfaction. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. V. Angidi Chettiar 1962 44 ITR 739 that the ITO was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed its income in view of the endorsement made by the ITO in the assessment order to the effect that action under s. 28 should be taken against the assessee for concealment of income. The endorsement made by the ITO in the instant case before us clearly indicates that the ITO was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed her income and the word appears used in the said notice, read in its context, also conclusively shows that the ITO was satisfied in the said assessment proceeding that the assessee had concealed her income. In the premises, we return our answer to the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1976 (1) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Purchase And Sale, Same Business, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... closed its previous business and thereafter started a new business and, therefore, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to set off the losses of the earlier years with the profits of the relevant year. Hence, this case has no bearing on the question involved before us in view of the above findings of the Tribunal. In our opinion, the tests laid down by the Supreme Court on one and the same business in the cases of Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 272 (SC), CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. 1967 63 ITR 632 (SC), Hooghly Trust (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1969 73 ITR 685 (SC), Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1970 77 ITR 739 (SC) and Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. v. CIT 1971 79 ITR 589 (SC) have been fulfilled in the instant case before us by the company in view of the above findings of the Tribunal, and, accordingly, we return our answer in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1976 (1) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... estion No. (7) As observed above, in view of the decision in the case of this very assessee as reported in 1975 100 ITR 188, the question is answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. So far as Income-tax Reference No. 98 of 1974 is concerned, we answer the questions as follows Question No. (1) In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. (2) In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. (3) In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue., Question No. (4) In the affirmative as to first part second part does not arise in view of our answer to the previous questions. Question No. (5) In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the fact that in each of these references, each side has partly succeeded, there will be no order as to costs in either of these two references.
-
1976 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the payment of profit to the agent is a business expenditure - agreements amount to a joint venture to divide the profit after they were ascertained and the payments made by the assessee were not deductible under s. 10(2)(xv)
....
|
