Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 119 of 119 Records
-
1977 (11) TMI 19
Capital Of Company, Chargeable Profits, Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... 2 of the Second Schedule will not be attracted at all. This view is in consonance with column 8(2)(a) in Form No. 1 which has already been referred to. This would be the reasonable view that we can give to the Schedules which would be in consonance with the general object and purpose of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the assessee having had no income whatsoever which would fall under cl. (viii) of r. 1 of the First Schedule, the value of the assets which would have given rise to such income cannot be deducted from the statutory deduction. The Tribunal was right in coming to that conclusion. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The matter has been a complicated one and has given rise to elaborate arguments, and as far as the research of the counsel goes, the question raised is one of first impression. We, therefore, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this case.
-
1977 (11) TMI 18
Individual Income, Revised Return, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... it of his branch of the family. Even assuming that the property bequeathed to the assessee under the will became the self-acquired property of the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee was that of HUF in regard to the share income from M/s. Central India Motors as it has been found in the instant case that the said property was impressed with the character of joint family property by clear expression of intention by the assessee in that behalf. For all these reasons, our conclusion is that on the view taken by the Tribunal about the intention of the assessee to impress the income received from M/s. Central India Motors with the character of joint family property, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the status of the assessee is that of a HUF in regard to the share income from M/s. Central India Motors. We answer accordingly the question referred to us for our opinion. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1977 (11) TMI 17
Advance Tax, Default In Payment, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... onstruction of the statutory provision undoubtedly supported the contention of the department, but in considering the claim for such a deduction the court must look to the substance of the transaction and the purpose underlying s. 88(1) (now sec. 80G). For these observations the Mysore High Court relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Associated Cement Company s case 1968 68 ITR 478 (Bom). In the course of the judgment, it was observed that the decision in Associated Cement Company s case has held the field all these years and the department did not take up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, as far as this court is concerned, the matter is concluded by the aforesaid decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 1968 68 ITR 478 (Bom) and, accordingly, the question No. 1 need not be called for by way of a reference from the Tribunal. In the result, the rule will stand discharged but with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (11) TMI 16
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Diversion By Overriding Title, Enduring Nature, Insurance Business, Life Insurance Corporation, Real Income
-
1977 (11) TMI 15
Family Property, Individual Income ... ... ... ... ..... at he was a member of the family which had invested funds in that business or that he had obtained the qualification shares from out of the family funds would not make the receipt, the income of the Hindu undivided family. Now, even in the instant case, there is no evidence to show that Champaklal was appointed as a director on behalf of the family or to the detriment of the family property. There is also no material to show that there was any direct link between the shareholdings of the HUF and, the appointment of Champaklal as a director. In view of the test laid down by the Supreme Court, it is, therefore, difficult to find any error in the order of the Tribunal holding that the income of Champaklal received in the form of remuneration and director s fees was liable to be taxed as his individual income. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will get the costs from the revenue.
-
1977 (11) TMI 14
Charitable Purpose, Life Insurance Business ... ... ... ... ..... ten lakhs, but after it exceeds rupees five lakhs, he would be entitled to deduction of entertainment expenditure which may be in excess of Rs. 5,000 but which will equal 1 of such profits and gains, since the expression used is whichever is higher and not whichever is lower . We do not say anything more on this aspect of the matter, since the question is not pressed. Accordingly, the questions referred to us as renumbered by us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 4 The assessee-company is entitled to such rebate on gross dividends and not on net dividends after deduction of costs relating thereto. Question No. 5 (At the instance of the assessee for both the assessment years in question) Not pressed and, therefore, not answered. The parties will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1977 (11) TMI 13
Application For Extension, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... hat Act in order to ascertain what the section meant, though those other sections are not incorporated in the new Act. I do not mean that if there was in the original Act a section not incorporated, which came by way of a proviso or exception on that which is incorporated, that should be referred to. But all others, including the interpretation clause, if there be one, may be referred to. On the principle of law above, where only cl. (iii), and no other portions of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 139 of the Act, has been transposed to sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that the interest as provided in cl. (iii) is imposable on the assessee in the case of belated filing of return, even though no application is made by the assessee for extension of time to the ITO. I, however, agree with the reasoning of my Lord the Chief Justice on the other question. In the result, I would dismiss the three writ petitions, and I make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (11) TMI 12
Appeal Before AAC ... ... ... ... ..... at all, inasmuch as, that was not one of the points before him in appeal. The order of the AAC setting aside the assessment was only partial and to the extent as to the question of treatment of a loss in speculative transaction, as clearly indicated in the order itself. The order of the AAC, if read as a whole, in its proper context would clearly show that it was neither the intent nor the purpose nor the import of the order that the whole assessment was set aside and everything is kept at large so as to allow the ITO to make a fresh assessment on all the aspects of the matter and give a free hand to the assessee to make all claims and all arguments in that assessment. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. J. C. Paul. The hands of the ITO and in appeal against his order, of the AAC were tied. We, therefore, answer 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.
-
1977 (11) TMI 11
Bad Debt, High Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... sumption from past use either as regards actual or effective use and such claim of actual use would have to be decided upon the material placed before the revenue authorities by the assessee in the accounting year. In this view of the matter, as far as the claim of the assessee regarding loss from the Pagalkhana property is concerned, we feel that the Tribunal could not be said to be in error in rejecting the assessee s claim for such allowance. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 -In the negative and in favour of the assessee but subject to what has been stated about the quantum of claim, i.e., Rs. 94,513, and, in particular, about the payment of legal expenses of Rs. 2,700. Question No. 2 -In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 3 -In the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee has partly succeeded and partly failed, and accordingly the parties are directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1977 (11) TMI 10
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Diversion By Overriding Title, Enduring Nature, Insurance Business, Life Insurance Corporation, Real Income
-
1977 (11) TMI 9
Attachment And Sale, Civil Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... filed by the bank. Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that r. 49(6)(c) and r. 49(8) of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, are ultra vires the powers of the rule-making authority, as under the provisions of s. 70 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, only the Registrar can execute an award passed under ss. 61 and 62 of the said Act. Section 70 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act says that the award can be executed by the Registrar notwithstanding any other mode of recovery under the Act and, under s. 130, rules can be made for giving effect to the provisions of the Act, and, in exercise of the said power, r. 49(6)(c) and r. 49(8) have been made. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the said rules are ultra vires the powers of the rule-making authority. In the result all the contentions raised by the appellant fail and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1977 (11) TMI 8
Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... proviso must, therefore, be given their literal meaning and if the surplus contemplated by the second proviso to r. 3(a) is not the annual average of the surplus but the total surplus for the intervaluation period, then it is difficult to uphold the view of the Tribunal that only one-fifth of one-half of the amount reserved for the policyholders was alone liable to be added to the surplus under the second proviso. In this view of the matter, we must hold that the Tribunal was in error in taking the view that in respect of the assessment year 1951-52, only one-fifth of one-half of the amount which was originally allowed as a deduction was liable to be added under r. 3(b), second proviso. The question must, therefore, be answered in the negative and the further answer is that the entire deduction made under r. 3(a) in the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1950-51 was liable to be added under the second proviso to r. 3(a). Assessee to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1977 (11) TMI 7
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee-company to have undertaken any money-lending activity. If the object of the advancing of money was to provide finance for a company in which the assessee was substantially interested, the debt must be regarded as directly springing from its business activity and the connection cannot be considered to be too remote for the purpose of the allowance as a trading debt. The test and the approach to be applied in this case must be that of a businessman and on that approach we are of opinion that the answer given by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the amount will have to be allowed to the assessee as a trading debt for the year in question. In the result, the two questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1-In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2-In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee has partly succeeded and partly failed, and accordingly the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1977 (11) TMI 6
Accumulated Profits, Balancing Charge, Business Expenditure, Business Income, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ompany immediately before its liquidation and on distribution it will be deemed to be dividend under the statutory provision which is being considered. In this view of the matter, this last question will be required to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the result, the questions of law which are referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1-In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2-In the negative both as regards the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) and s. 10(2A) and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3-In the affirmative as regards both the amounts and against the assessee. Question No. 4-In the negative as regards both the amounts and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 5-In the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner and the assessee have partly succeeded and partly failed and a fair order as to costs must be that both the parties will bear their own costs of this reference. Order accordingly.
-
1977 (11) TMI 5
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... and exempting it from the provisions of the Act, though the wording of s. 85 indicates that it is only the owners of the shares who will be entitled to that exemption. We have already pointed out that the partners are the owners of the shares. The income being of that particular type, namely, income by way of dividend from the shares of a concern, which is an industrial undertaking falling under s. 84, we have no doubt whatever that the income in the hands of the partners, to the extent to which they have received the income because of the distribution according to the shares of the partners, will also have to be exempted under s. 85. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee in T.C. No. 385 of 1974 will have his costs of the reference from the revenue. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. There will be no order as to costs in T.C. No. 343 of 1974, as nobody appeared for the assessee.
-
1977 (11) TMI 4
Apparatus And Appliances, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... m 50 was rejected. It is true that that decision was dealing with the liability to octroi, but all that we are trying to point out is that having regard to the nature of the machines, even for that purpose, the machines were not treated as appliances, the meaning of which was restricted to articles which were meant for domestic use and personal convenience. In the instant case, the word appliances was qualified by the word office . That, however, will not affect the question that essentially what is contemplated by the term office appliances would be something which would normally be used by way of a facility or aid for the proper functioning of the office. In this view of the matter, we see no error in the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the answer to the question must be that the EA Machines were not office appliances and were eligible for allowance of development rebate under s. 33(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The revenue to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (11) TMI 3
Interest On Borrowed Capital, Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... ounts of the wife and minor daughters. Those accounts also indicated that the credits have been given for the amounts mentioned in the partition deed in the capital account. In these circumstances, we have to come to the conclusion that the jural relationship between the karta of the family and the wife and the five minor daughters in relation to the amounts of Rs. 15,000 as far as the wife is concerned and Rs. 7,500 each as regards each of the five minor daughters is that of a debtor and creditor. The payment of interest by crediting their accounts with the interest amounts is, therefore, perfectly justified and such interest is an allowable deduction in computing the profits and gains of the business under s. 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will have his costs from the Revenue including advocate s fee of Rs. 250.
-
1977 (11) TMI 2
Loss on account of theft by some strangers - loss was, directly connected with the business operation and was incidental to the carrying on of the business of purchase of Government securities to earn profit - claim for deduction is justified - assessee's appeal allowed
-
1977 (11) TMI 1
Assessee preferred an appeal before Tribunal on the ground that he was denied benefit u/s 84 by the Income-tax Officer - Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that no claim for such exemption was made before the Income-tax Officer. decision of the Tribunal is not correct - revenue's appeal allowed
....
|