|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 135 Records
-
1976 (8) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Individual Partner ... ... ... ... ..... TR 485 was based on the provisions of section 13 of the Partnership Act. While discussing the facts of that case we have pointed out earlier that though reference was made to the provisions of section 13 the decision was not based upon the said provisions but upon the relevant circumstances that were existing in that case and the decision was based upon the partnership deed read with the relevant circumstances. The observation of the Madras High Court in A. Asha and Co. s case 1973 87 ITR 57, that in Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai s case 1967 63 ITR 485 (SC), registration was granted to the firm relying upon the provisions of section 13 of the Partnership Act does not appear to be borne out. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration for any of the three years. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative for all the three years. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1976 (8) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... d not been referred to by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? again in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As regards the third question, namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to support the finding of the Tribunal that the development rebate disallowed in the supplementary assessment proceedings was in respect of casablanca conversion materials ? , we answer the same again in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Our answer to question No. 3 will govern question No. 4 also and, therefore, we answer the fourth question also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answers to questions Nos. 1 to 4, it is unnecessary to answer the fifth question which has arisen only on the basis of an alternative argument. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel s fee fixed at Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred only).
-
1976 (8) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Life Interest In Property ... ... ... ... ..... at point has been decided by the Tribunal, in our view, rightly against the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the language of the terms in which the question referred to this court has been framed and contended that the question is comprehensive enough to include the question of valuation also. However, if the question is construed as dealing only with exigibility to tax, for the reasons we have already indicated, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. On the other hand, if the question is construed to include the point regarding the valuation also, we hold that such a question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, such a question cannot be answered by this court. In these circumstances, on the basis that the question referred to us involves the question regarding the exigibility to duty alone we answer the same against the assessee and in favour of the department, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (8) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Accumulated Profits, Income Tax, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... actually pointed out that accumulated profits will mean only the profits which have been gathered or heaped up or stored up to the end of the previous year and it will not take in the current profits of the year during which the distribution or payment has been made. This view of this court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. V. Murugappan 1970 77 ITR 818. Consequently, the expression accumulated profits certainly cannot take in the current profits even assuming that the income-tax refund of Rs. 52,506 can be taken to be profits of the company when it received them. Under them circumstances, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, affirmed as it is by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, is correct in law and, therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500.
-
1976 (8) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, In The Nature, Income From Property, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... nd gains of a business, it is not even necessary to decide whether the income actually received by the co-operative society in the present case is income from business or not. All that is necessary for the purpose of deciding the eligibility for exemption in the present case under the terms of the notification is whether the income derived by the co-operative society can be said to be income from investments in property of the nature referred to in section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. As we have already held that the income of the society is not income from investments in property of the nature referred to in section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee was rightly held to be entitled to the exemption provided for in the notification. Under these circumstances, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1976 (8) TMI 30 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... does not pay land revenue. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Cuttack is Khasmahal and some areas which were previously part of an estate have now become Khasmahal after the vesting of the estates and all lands are subjected to tax payable to the State Government apart from municipal rates and taxes. The lands in question, therefore, come within the first category referred to in clause (ii) of the proviso and, therefore, the exemption granted by the Tribunal is justified and learned standing counsel s submission that if it is located within a municipal area the income arising from the building would not be agricultural income has no force. Our answer to the first question, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee s building at Cuttack is an agricultural house property and income therefrom is not assessable as income under the Act. As success is divided, we direct both parties to bear their respective costs. MOHANTI J.--I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Activity For Profit, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... on will qualify for charitable purpose and legitimately get round the fiscal hook. Short of it, the tax tackle holds you fast. (Underlining is ours). Thus, the sentence underlined in the above extract will clearly negative the indispensability of a written condition and all that the judgment requires is a condition which may be written or unwritten, and if it is unwritten, to be gathered from long years of invariable practice or spelt from strong surrounding circumstances. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not correct to contend that the Supreme Court has laid down as an indispensable requirement that such a condition must be written in the constitution of a body like the assessee itself. It is in view of this feature alone, we think it proper that we should return the reference unanswered, leaving the Tribunal to record its finding on this important question as to whether the assessee is involving in activities for profit or not. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (8) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, General Reserve, Income Tax Act, Total Income
-
1976 (8) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lly considered the respective submissions of the parties. It appears to us that in the instant case the authorities below proceeded under a misconception that there was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against calculation of interest under section 18A(5). This is not borne out by the records and proceedings. It is clear from the records that the appeal which was preferred from the order of the Income-tax Officer was an appeal from the order of assessment and the calculation of interest was one of the grounds in that appeal. The question which the revenue seeks to urge in this reference is not before us and the law is well settled that the court will not spell out a new question or an additional question. In this view of the matter, we hold that the question which has been referred is academic and calls for no answer. Accordingly, we decline to answer the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Proceedings, Proof On Revenue, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... ion implicit in the office of the functionary whose conduct is challenged, the balance of hurt complained of and good accomplished, these are some of the considerations that must enter into the judicial judgment. Sheopujan Choudhury s case, AIR 1956 Pat 212, fully applies to the facts of the present case. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard must, therefore, be rejected as totally untenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Fertiliser Corporation of India v. State of Bihar 1975 Bihar Bar Council Journal 775. In my view, that case was decided upon its own special facts which have no relevance to the case before us. Having given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised oh behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. M.P. SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
HUF Partner ... ... ... ... ..... vidual occurring in section 64 merely refers to the father of the minor and indicates that such share income of the minor will be treated as the individual income of his father not as the income of the joint family of which the father is karta. In the present case, both the assessees were partners of the firm in which their minor sons had been admitted to the benefits of partnership. Hence, the share of each of the minors in the income of the firm was liable to be included in the individual assessment of his father. As a result of the foregoing discussion we answer the above question in favour of the revenue and against the assessees and our answer is as follows In the facts and circumstances of the case, the share of the minor son of each of the assessees in-the income of the firm of M/s. Arvind Cold Storage, was rightly included in the individual assessments of the respective assessee. The assessees will pay the costs of the revenue, but in one set. Advocate s fee Rs. 200.
-
1976 (8) TMI 24 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... judgment of this court. That being so, the Tribunal itself having come to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order was not sustainable, it could not pass the remand order on the terms it has been passed in the instant case. In the circumstances, we find that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the consolidated order dated March 31, 1970, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong Range, Shillong, relating to the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 but it was not justified in remanding the case with a direction to give a finding on the point as to what amount out of the securities is the stock-in-trade or circulating capital of the assessee and which amount is the capital investment of the assessee-bank. In the result we answer the question of law referred in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. We make no order as to costs. D. PATHAK J.---I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... further point out that the question that has been referred to this court has not even been properly framed. The question reads as if there was any restoration of the appeal to the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. All that has happened is that the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and remanded the appeal itself to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. Under these circumstances, we reframe the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remanding the entire matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal without limiting the scope of enquiry before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the grounds of appeal preferred before it ? and answer that question in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (five hundred only).
-
1976 (8) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ects taken with the aspect which emerges from the recitals of the deed, viz., that actually the lump sum was exchanged for grant of annuity clearly go to show that there was an implied preclusion from commuting the annuity into a lump sum grant. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the contract was one of simple grant of annuity, that it was a case where a lump sum due has actually been exchanged for an annuity and the intention clearly was that commutation of any part of payment into a lump sum was clearly ruled out altogether unless, of course, the parties by subsequent deed chose to alter the contract, about which there was no evidence whatsoever. In the circumstances, we feel that the provisions of section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are clearly attracted and the question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (8) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... tax credit has not been granted to the individual manufacturing units but to the manufacturer so that the respondent cannot lawfully claim any such credit factory-wise. When it had been manufacturing the same class of goods in these manufacturing units, the total quantity of goods manufactured is to be taken into account for finding out the excess clearance and calculating the tax credit. We agree with the learned judge in the trial court that the Scheme framed under the Act clearly lends support to the above conclusion. The respondent, therefore, cannot claim the tax credit on the basis of the quantity of goods manufactured by it at one of its factories alone. The cross-objections, therefore, have no merit and they are liable to be dismissed. On the conclusions as above, both the appeals and the cross-objections fail and they are dismissed. The judgments and orders of the learned judges in the trial court are affirmed. There will be no order for costs. M. N Roy J.--I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... d is admissible deduction is the amount is payable by the assessee to the sales tax authorities. Sri Rama Rao brought to our notice the opinion of this court in R.C. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 49 of 1975 dated June 18, 1976 P. Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1978 112 ITR 26 (AP) wherein on identical question different view was taken by this court. We are unable to follow the decision for the reason that the earlier opinion in R.C. No. 35/74, decided on 15th December, 1975 (Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. T. Nagireddy and Co. 1976 105 ITR 669 (AP)) on identical questions, was not referred to in R.C. No. 1/75 and batch, and also because we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in R.C. No. 35/74. The facts and the questions referred in R.C. Nos. 10 and 44 of 1975 are identical. Therefore, our answers are the same as in R.C. No. 4/75. The references are answered accordingly. The costs to be paid by the Commissioner of Income-tax in each. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1976 (8) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Recovery Proceedings, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ry 31, 1953, nor the initiation of proceedings made pursuant thereto. The very fact that the attachment was continued shows that the assessee was prevented from dealing with his properties even though the revised assessment orders were in fact illegal and unenforceable. Thus, on March 28, 1956, it was impossible for the Income-tax Officer to entertain a reasonable belief that any income for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment when in fact the recovery proceedings for the same years pursuant to the revised assessment orders were being continued. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments because he could not have entertained a reasonable belief that any income for the relevant years had escaped assessment. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the heirs of the deceased assessee.
-
1976 (8) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings. A contrary view has been taken in the case of Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1972 85 ITR 67 (Punj). It is, however, unnecessary for us to go into these cases in the view we have taken in this matter. The Tribunal has held that the entire onus is on the department to prove that the cash credits represented the concealed income of the assessee. In the statement of the case it has been stated that the assessee was willing to have Rs. 70,388 treated as its undisclosed income. Therefore, it cannot be said that the department had any further duty to show that Rs. 70,388 was the assessee s concealed income as contended on behalf of the revenue. This aspect of the matter was not properly considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, without answering question No. 2, we sent it back to the Tribunal for its determination as to whether the penalty can be retained with regard to Rs. 70,388 only. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ans to the assessee were genuine. On the submissions of Mr. Bajoria we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the finding of the Tribunal in the instant case is perverse in the sense that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the disputed loans were not genuine on the materials on record. It is a part of the evidence of Tarachand Surana that he was earning only Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per year and that he was in the habit of lending his name to fictitious loans. On this part of the evidence it was possible for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the loans in the instant case were not genuine. No doubt on the same materials it is possible to come to a different conclusion but in the reference jurisdiction the court is not competent to find facts for itself. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, High Court, IAC To Impose Penalty, Law Applicable, Penalty Proceedings, Reference Proceedings
....
|
