|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 109 Records
-
1977 (10) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash Payments ... ... ... ... ..... t section 64 applies to a karta or a trustee, then it would lead to certain absurd situations. Take for instance the case of a trustee as a partner in a firm. If the trustee s spouse or a minor child are to be a partner of that firm, the income realised by the spouse or the minor child in that firm will have to be added to the income of the trustee earned from sources other than partnership in his individual capacity. Certainly, that could not have been the intention of the legislature. We are unable to share the view of the Allahabad High Court that the words in which such individual is a partner take in a karta or trustee or representative of a group of persons. The expression individual only takes in a person in his individual capacity and does not take in the karta of a Hindu joint family or a trustee or one who acts as a representative of others. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the revenue with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (10) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Residential House Property ... ... ... ... ..... that passed will apply. These are matters of detail which will have to be taken into consideration by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when it re-hears the case under section 64(5) of the Estate Duty Act which is similar to the provision contained in section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which has been relied on by the Supreme Court in the two decisions we have referred to in the beginning of this judgment. In the light of the above, we decline to answer the question in the absence of clear finding on the basis of the provisions of the Act regarding the total value of the property of the joint family and in regard to the aggregate value which is applicable to the share of the deceased as well as the lineal descendants and also a clear finding regarding the rate applicable to the appropriate amount. The Tribunal may deal with the matter afresh in re-hearing the appeal under section 64(5) of the Estate Duty Act. There will be no order as to costs in this reference.
-
1977 (10) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Annual Value, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ignore the rent actually received by the assessee who could not claim more than that by reason of the lease under the deed dated December 20, 1935, subject to which alone he had purchased the property in 1961, and contend that the income should be computed on the basis of the annual value of the property which appears to have been arrived at by the local authority, probably on the basis of the rent for which the lessees, Messrs. Raval and Company, had sublet the properties to others. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the contention of the revenue that the income from the properties should be computed on the basis of the annual municipal value ignoring the actual rent received by the assessee was not acceptable. We accordingly answer the questions referred to us in both the cases against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have the costs of both the references. Advocate s fee Rs. 350 one set.
-
1977 (10) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Legal Representative, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... nge as to the form of the notice. The only contention has been that the assessee as an administrator should not have been served with a notice under section 34 in respect of income accruing during the lifetime of the owner of the estate. The decision in James Anderson s case 1963 47 ITR 229 (Bom) supports the case of the revenue inasmuch as it was accepted by the Bombay High Court that the deemed dividend which was stated to have escaped assessment could have been made the subject-matter of proceedings under section 34 with the aid of section 24B, the estate being in the hands of the administrator. We find that the notice is valid and lawful and not in any way defective in form. We make it clear that there is no question of any personal liability of the administrator beyond the estate which has devolved. We answer the question referred in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There being no contest by the assessee, we make no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1977 (10) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Applied To, Flat Rate ... ... ... ... ..... ion too was dismissed. This shows that the Tribunal was not at all satisfied that there was any just cause for the assessee not appearing on the date fixed in the appeal. In our opinion, no question of law in respect of the exercise of the discretion of the Tribunal arises. So far as the second submission of the assessee is concerned, we find that the assessee had not produced the appropriate books of accounts and, accordingly, the income-tax authorities had to make best judgment assessment of the assessee s income. The total receipts by the assessee were accepted and for working out the profits a rate of 10 to 12 1/2 per cent, which is generally applied to the contracts of the nature entered into by the assessee, has been applied by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the rate applied by the Tribunal was either arbitrary or that any question of law in that regard arises. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, rejected with costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... low, a return of loss in the, prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1). In this case, notice was served under sub-section (2), On the other hand, the assessee himself voluntarily filed a loss return on February 17, 1966, in the prescribed manner. The Income-tax Officer, in exercise of his discretion, allowed the assessee to file his return. Thus, all the requirements of the sub-section have been complied with by the assessee and so the return should be deemed to be one filed under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore. it is a valid return. In the upshot, we hold that the return filed by the assessee on February 17, 1966, was a valid loss return and the Appellate Tribunal was right in so holding. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (10) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e, the expenditure can be incurred by the assessee either outside India or in India, but it must pertain to the purposes mentioned in the various sub-sections, which purposes are indicated as pertaining to various activities outside India. If then an assessee under this clause claims the benefit of weighted deduction, he will have to satisfy the revenue authorities that the purpose is one which is satisfied by reference to the language of the section and in such a case where the assessee is able, to discharge this burden, he would be entitled to a weighted deduction irrespective of whether the expenditure is incurred within or without India. It is true that in respect of export duty it may follow that benefit has been allowed o the assessee without proper application of mind. But as a very small amount is involved, it appears to us to be unnecessary to make the rule absolute and invite a reference In the circumstances, the rule stand discharged but with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 22 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... bligation for any public purpose of a charitable nature which could be gathered from the deed. Moreover, it does not appear that all the aims and objects enumerated above were specifically brought to the notice of the court some of which undoubtedly refer to non-charitable purpose and also purposes which are not public purposes within the meaning of the said Act. The court did not consider and hold that even on the footing that some of the objects were of a non-charitable nature it was entitled to claim exemption. In any event, merely because an exemption from payment of general tax was granted under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, the assessee-club cannot be deemed to be entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under s. 5(1)(i) of the W.T. Act, 1957. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the net wealth of the Hyderabad Race Club is not exempt from wealth-tax under s. 5(1)(i) of the W.T. Act, 1957, and we, accordingly, answer the reference in the negative.
-
1977 (10) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Capital Receipt, Income Tax Act, Mercantile System
-
1977 (10) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assets To Minor Child, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ble portion of the joint family properties belonging to the family of the assessee and could not be stated to be void, notwithstanding the fact that they have been made to his minor daughters before their marriage and not at the time of their marriage or thereafter. It would follow that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gifts made by the karta to his minor daughters are not invalid and the income from those properties should not be included in the assessment of the assessee-family and that the value of the properties gifted to the minor daughters should not be included in the value of the properties attracting liability to wealth-tax. Accordingly, we answer the questions against the revenue and direct the revenue to pay the costs of these references to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 500 one set. A copy of the judgment in these cases, duly certified by the Registrar and affixed with the seal of the court, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Tribunal, Madras.
-
1977 (10) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Assessment Year, Assets To Spouse, Gift Tax Assessment, Minor Child, Net Wealth, Taxing Statutes, Wealth Tax Act
-
1977 (10) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital For Purposes, Computation Of Capital, New Industrial Undertaking, Question Of Law, Reference To High Court, Special Deduction, Supreme Court
-
1977 (10) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... s valid under s. 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The ante-adoption agreement is not valid and is hit by s. 17(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The settlement of the properties made by the deceased in favour of his adopted son on July 20, 1963, is not a gift so as to attract liability under the G.T. Act. We, therefore, hold, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the properties covered by the settlement deed dated July 20, 1963, are to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. On the other question in R.C. No. 34 of 1976, we hold that the properties under the settlement deed are not liable to gift-tax under the provisions of the G.T. Act. In the result, the question referred to us in E.D.C. No. 5 of 1975 is answered in favour of the revenue and the question referred in R.C. No. 34 of 1976 is answered against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs in both the references. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each.
-
1977 (10) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... s. 33(1)(n) to the extent of the share of the deceased and having held that, after deducting the one-third share of the deceased, the balance cannot be accounted in the estate of the deceased as that two-thirds share belongs to the coparceners, we find that the entire amount of Rs. 74,880 cannot be included in the estate of the deceased for the reasons mentioned above. To our mind, in the instant case also, as pointed out already, the family was the joint family of which the deceased was the karta. Therefore, after giving exemption to the share of the deceased under s. 33(1)(n), the balance of the property cannot be taken into consideration because that belongs to the other coparceners in the property. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for reasons mentioned above the entire value of the property cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of estate duty of the deceased. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (10) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Firm, A Partner, HUF Partner In Firm, Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... luation Officer to require any person in charge of, or in occupation or possession of, the buildings referred for valuation, to afford him (the Valuation Officer) necessary facility to inspect such buildings and to produce for inspection any books of accounts, document or record which may be relevant for such valuation. As the aforesaid buildings belonged to petitioner-1 firm, it (petitioner-1 firm) could be regarded as being in charge thereof. As petitioner-2 was a partner of petitioner-1 firm, under s. 18 of the Indian Partnership Act he could be regarded as an agent of petitioner-1 firm and the Valuation Officer could issue notices to him requiring him to afford facility for inspection of those buildings and to produce books, documents and records relevant for the valuation of those buildings. Thus, all the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners fail. In the result, we dismiss this petition with costs. The interim order made on January 10, 1975, is hereby vacated.
-
1977 (10) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... could not invoke the provisions of the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii). It is clear that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the machinery was discarded in the year 1958 was a finding of fact. As already pointed out, there was evidence before the Tribunal which the Tribunal was entitled to accept and rely upon in order to arrive at the finding with regard to the point of time when the machinery was discarded by the assessee. Thus, we find that there was evidence before the Tribunal for finding that the machinery in question was not used for the purpose of the business of the assessee in the year 1959. The natural corollary of that finding is that the provisions of the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) could not be attracted. In this view of the matter, both parts of the first question are answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and the second question is answered in the affirmative, also in favour of the assessee. The revenue to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (10) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Firm Consisting ... ... ... ... ..... f the firm, and includes also the goodwill of the business. Unless the contrary intention appears, property and rights and interests in property acquired with money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired for the firm. In view of the fact that there is no relationship between the creditors, who are the partners of the firm, and the properties of the firm, s. 46 has no application. The wording of s. 46(2) makes it clear that only in such cases s. 46 could be applicable. In the light of the above, we have to answer the two questions by giving a combined answer by saying that no abatement whatever can be made by applying s. 46 to the total amount of the debts of the deceased amounting to Rs. 1,80,000. The accountable persons are entitled to have this amount of Rs. 1,80,000 deducted from the total value of the estate of the deceased at the time of his death on April 6, 1963. We answer the two questions in the above terms. We make no order as to costs in this case.
-
1977 (10) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... for the reason that the erstwhile karta himself had divided the repayment of the annuity among the three coparceners and the joint family was not at all in existence. Any such assessment by the ITO in the hands of the karta on the basis that the members are tenants-in-common would have been without jurisdiction as the I.T. Act is completely silent about such assessment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in its conclusion that since the three members of the joint family had partitioned, it should be taken that the annuity deposit, notwithstanding the fact that it is an income under s. 2(24)(viii) of the Act, is nevertheless capital in the hands of the assessees. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each (Rupees two hundred and fifty).
-
1977 (10) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... an essential condition of his business, if not express, in any event necessarily implied, to provide messing and lodging to the constituents who come from outside only for a duration of one or two days for the purposes of business. Any expenditure incurred for providing messing to such customers or constituents or offering tea and pan to them is actually an essential part of business and does not partake the nature of hospitality or entertainment. We feel that the test that has been laid down by the Gujarat High Court is consistent with the commercial practice and the custom of the trade and the view taken by the Gujarat High Court lends itself to us in preference to the one taken by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in permitting the deduction of both the items under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional Depreciation, Commercial Profit, Substantially Interested, Tax On Undistributed Income
|
