Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 177 of 177 Records
-
1978 (4) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Coparcenary Property ... ... ... ... ..... ndu undivided family. The declaration itself is sufficient evidence to show that the self-acquired property of the assessee had been transformed into coparcenary property. The assessee s attempt to pass on his liabilities to the joint family is of little relevance. Either the joint family will be burdened with the liabilities or they remain as mere declarations by the assessee. It is not that the assessee has sought to lay down any condition of transfer. We note that none of the points raised by Mr. Bagchi were urged before the Tribunal by the revenue and, strictly speaking, Mr. Bagchi is not entitled to agitate any of the said points at this stage which necessitate fresh investigation into facts. In any event, we find little merit in the contentions of the revenue which are not even supported by the decisions cited on their behalf. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Estate Duty Gift ... ... ... ... ..... also been challenged. The relevant portion of sub-r. (2) refers to the first day of the computation period. In support reliance was placed on Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO 1977 107 ITR 909 (Cal). In our opinion, this question does not arise. The assessee claimed the relief of Rs. 94,254 on the footing of the capital employed as on November 3, 1972, which was the first day of the accounting period. Since the assessee did not claim relief on any other basis, the question whether the capital employed should or should not be as on the first day of the accounting period, does not arise for consideration. We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to go into the validity of this part of sub-r. (2). In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner company would be entitled to relief under s. 80J to the extent of Rs. 94,254. We direct the authorities below to amend the orders accordingly. The petitioner would be entitled to costs.
-
1978 (4) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... usiness of the assessee in Indian Oil products was less than 20 , the assessee was not liable to penalty, by reference to that item of income. There is no denying the fact that the difference between the total income returned and the total income assessed was more than 20 and hence the assessee became liable to penalty. It was for the assessee to establish that the difference was not due to any fraud or gross or wilful negligence on his part. The fact that an assessee may be found to be grossly or wilfully negligent, in declaring the correct income from one or more out of the several sources of income, may have a bearing on the quantum of the penalty that the authority may think fit to impose. But it has no relevance so far as liability to penalty is concerned. In the result, we answer both the questions referred to us in the negative in favour of the department and against the assessee. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (4) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Applied To, Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... t. The Tribunal while noting that neither s. 52(1) nor s. 52(2) were in existence at the material time proceeded on the basis as if the unamended s. 52 was in the contemplation of the authorities below and that they did apply the same. In the earlier proceedings neither the ITO nor the AAC considered or applied s. 52. In that view of the matter the question as referred can be answered only in one way, that is, in favour of the assessee on the ground that the ITO did neither obtain the approval of the IAC for his proposed action under s. 52, nor did he have any reason to believe that the transfer was effected with the object of avoiding or reducing any liability under s. 45 of the Act. In any event, no such reasons were recorded. We dispose of this reference on this limited ground. We make it clear that we are expressing no opinion on the points canvassed by Mr. Bagchi. The question is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Change In Constitution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... that till the end of the year in question, there has been no change in the constitution of the firm as held in the CIT v. Mathura Prasad Annoolal 1978 115 ITR 372 (All). In this view, the firm was entitled to continuance of registration. The Tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a change in the constitution of the firm. The question of law whether there was a change in the constitution of the assessee-firm in the accounting year is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the second question becomes superfluous and the same is returned unanswered. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (4) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Income Tax Act, Income Tax, Manufacture And Sale, Marketing Of Commodities, Rental Income
-
1978 (4) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Same Business, Set Off Of Loss ... ... ... ... ..... 947 . The said observation does not seem to be correct. Everybody proceeded before the Tribunal on the basis that the loss occurred in 1957 and 1958 when the Governments of Pakistan and India refused to pay respectively. However,we pointed out to the learned counsel that he was not entitled to raise this point in this reference as this aspect was not raised before the Tribunal and cannot, therefore, be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the two businesses were distinctive, that the previous business was an extinct business, that the loss was a trading loss of an extinct business, and that no deduction could be claimed by the assessee in the assessment years under consideration. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the negative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... were of a revenue nature. In the instant case, the assessee s contention that the wooden panelling did not last long and as such were not an enduring asset has been accepted by the Tribunal. This finding of fact has not been challenged. In view of the aforesaid finding and the decision in Regal Theatre 1966 59 ITR 449 (Punj) we hold that the expenses incurred by the assessee in putting up the wooden panelling did not result in any enduring benefit to the assessee and, therefore, was deductible as a revenue expenditure. As to the balance amount of Rs. 1,221 spent on renovation, Mr. Sen did not make any particular argument or comment. They appear to be included in the item of sundry repairs and servicing charges. There is no reason why they should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. We, therefore, answer this question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... assessee purchased the shares far in excess of the market price. The loss incurred by the sale of those shares was hence a loss of capital nature. Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, it was held that the essential test which has to be applied to determine the deductibility of the expense is whether the expenses were incurred for the preservation or protection of the business from any such process or proceedings which might have resulted in the reduction of its income and profits and that such sums were actually and honestly incurred. These tests are fulfilled in the present case. The transaction is honest and was entered into with a view to keep the business going. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (4) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Income ... ... ... ... ..... y to receive any income from this property during those years. The assessee was justified in not showing in its books of account any income accruing from this source in those years. Further, the action of the ITO in making assessments for 1956-57 and 1957-58, in respect of portions of this income could only be justified on the basis that the mercantile system of accountancy had been accepted for this very source of income on the basis of accrual in each of the years 1950 to 1958, for which the amount was received by the assessee under the compromise. Having passed an assessment order in respect of this very income on that basis, it was not open to the ITO to give a contrary finding for the present assessment year. The second question is also liable to be answered in favour of the assessee. In the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... e of meeting a specific accrued liability. In the light of the above observations, we hold that the various amounts mentioned under the head Proposed dividends for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 are reserve and as such they are includible in the computation of capital of the company for the respective assessment years. In the result, we answer the three questions as follows The first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue, so far as the provision for taxation and the surplus in the profit and loss appropriation account is concerned, and it is answered in the negative, and in favour of the assessee, so far as the provision for the proposed dividend is concerned. The second and third questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances, we award no costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1978 (4) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... er, the counter-affidavit further shows that no document had been seized by the police on the October 9, 1974, from the custody of the petitioner. In these circumstances no question of return arises. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, however, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take possession of the ornaments and other articles, from the Treasury Officer, Ghazipur, till the provisional assessment contemplated by sub-s. (5) of s. 132 of the I.T. Act is made. If these articles are required by the respondents for any purpose connected with the inquiry, it will be open to them, to inspect it or get it valued in the presence of the petitioners. It is further directed that in case the provisional inquiry is not completed within the time provided by law, the articles and ornaments seized from the petitioner s possession would be liable to be returned to them. Subject to the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1978 (4) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Finality, Income, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... re not without substance. This court also has consistently taken the view that unless a fact is specifically challenged by the assessee and a question raised and referred incorporating such challenge, the court would not suo motu go into the validity of a finding of fact. It does not appear to us that, the observations of Lord Radcliffe in Bairstow s case 1955 28 ITR 579, were meant to lay down that the assessee would be entitled to challenge a finding of fact without raising a question recording such challenge. It also does not appear to us that the Supreme Court read or understood the observations of Lord Radcliffe as Mr. Bhabra has contended. Accordingly, without any challenge on the facts, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal was otherwise erroneous in law. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... as deliberately withheld the books to avoid its tax liability in utter defiance of a notice issued under s. 22(4) of the Act, the ITO will be wholly justified in refusing registration to it. Exactly the same thing has happened here and in spite thereof the Tribunal has taken into account the various irrelevant matters and factors in holding that the Revenue authorities were not justified in refusing to register the assessee firm. It also appears to us from the order of the Tribunal quoted earlier that it has applied certain principles of law which have no bearing whatsoever on the question involved before it. It has also invented wrong principles of law and applied them in the facts and circumstances of the case Having disposed of all the contentions of Mr. Roy, and after carefully considering the arguments made on behalf of both the parties, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Power To Allow Additional Ground, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... appeals filed by him before the AAC. These two documents also ex facie show that they were brought into existence with a view to get rid of the orders of the ITO and the AAC by making these two trusts as public and irrevocable trusts with retrospective operation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee was not entitled to change the facts and the circumstances as they existed in the relevant accounting years. That apart, it was not even argued on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that there was a substantial cause for admitting the subsequent documents, nor the Tribunal had expressed any opinion on it. Therefore, the aforesaid new plea cannot be mooted before us on behalf of the assessee, because it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and it is not even a facet of question No. 2. In the premises, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (4) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) - assessee had concealed the particulars of certain income - Whether the amendment to section 271(1)(c), which is effective from April 1, 1968, is applicable in this case for assessment year 1965-66 by virtue of the fact that the return of income was filed after April 1, 1968 - held that Law as on the date of satisfaction of assessing authority or as on the date of the order of penalty is not relevant.
-
1978 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Income from business of generation and distribution of electricity - assessee sold some of its old machinery and buildings resulting in balancing charges contemplated by section 41(2) which the Income-tax Officer worked out at ₹ 7,55,807 - both the Tribunal and the High Court were right in taking the view that the item of ₹ 7,55,807 was required to be taken into account while computing the deduction of 8% contemplated by section 80E(1)
....
|