Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 153 of 153 Records
-
1978 (9) TMI 13
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Payments In Cash ... ... ... ... ..... stions of law in respect of which the Tribunal is required to state the case and refer the same to this court. Consequently, the reference application is partly allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case on the following questions and refer the same to this court 1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had any material to arrive at its conclusion that diesel of Rs. 14,026 (18,000 litres) recorded on July 4, 1970, in the cash book and stock register of the applicant-firm represented the suppressed stock ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was, at any rate, justified in holding that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 14,026 was liable to be included in the total income of the applicant-firm as income from undisclosed sources ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the purchases of diesel worth Rs. 14,026 recorded on July 4, 1970, was an expenditure within the meaning of s. 40 A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?
-
1978 (9) TMI 12
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... t have gone to the wife and the minor son. It was hence probable that the wife and minor son had a source of income from the assets and properties received by them at the partition and from which these deposits may have come out. But unfortunately this explanation was in fact given up by the wife and in the certificate given by her she claimed the deposits to have come out of the gifts received from her parents from time to time. If it had been a fact that the money deposited in the bank were out of the income from the assets and properties received by them in the partition, the wife should have given a certificate to this effect. But no one ever whispered it even. We cannot hence say that there was no material on the record to sustain the finding of the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (9) TMI 11
Discretionary Trust, Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... al has committed an error of law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner as well as the ITO that because capital gains would also be an income, it would be an income receivable specifically on behalf of the present assessee by the trustees. The learned Govt. pleader invited our attention to the finding of fact made by the Tribunal as well as the authorities below it that in relevant assessment year, the trustees had permitted the beneficiary to draw more than what she was entitled to by way of income and consequently, therefore, from the corpus itself. We are of the opinion that this is a relevant consideration for the purpose of rate only and for no other purpose and, therefore, should not have weighed with the Tribunal or the authorities below. The result is that this reference is allowed and the question referred to us is answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1978 (9) TMI 10
Burden Of Proof, New Industrial Units, Public Interest, Sales Tax, Tax Concession, Tax Holiday
-
1978 (9) TMI 9
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... not evidence change in the constitution, the reconstituted firm was not entitled to renewal of registration on this basis for the period after reconstitution, and the first question is liable to be answered against the assessee. The second question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel for the revenue has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Vinayaka Cinema 1977 110 ITR 468 (AP) and a decision of the Madras High Court in Kaithari Lungi Stores v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 160 (Mad). We are, however, bound by previous decisions of this court. We are hence unable to accept the contrary view expressed, by the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee, and the second question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of the divided success we make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... finding was reached after a consideration of the rules in question and the resolutions of the District Board as well as of the committee. We have heard learned counsel and, in our opinion, the finding that the mela and exhibition were in fact being run by the District Board is on a question of fact and does not betray any erroneous approach in law. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(20) of the Act 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 (9) TMI 7
Jurisdiction, Penalty, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... under section 34 may kindly be accorded. The Commissioner issued sanction. Thereafter, on 9th January, 1957, the ITO issued a notice under s. 34(1)(a) to the various partners starting that he had reason to believe that income assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1950, had escaped assessment. In spite of service of the notice, the firm did not file any return or produce its account books, though they were regularly maintained. It was argued that the ITO had no material in his possession to believe that a sub-partnership existed. Murarilal has confessed and had produced the partnership deed. The statement of Murarilal, coupled with the partnership deed, was material relevant to the formation of the belief that a sub-partnership existed. In the result, all the questions referred to us in the three references are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200 in each case.
-
1978 (9) TMI 6
... ... ... ... ..... rror in placing this burden of proof on the department. The question whether the explanation is reasonable or is false in showing that the disputed amount was or was not the income of the assessee is entirely beside the point. In penalty proceedings, the fact which has to be established is entirely different. The assessee has to establish that he was not guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in submitting the return. The questions of law which have been referred to us are as follows 1. Whether the construction placed by the Tribunal on the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was in law justified ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty ? In the view that this court has taken, both the questions are answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 5
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... not be necessary for us to go into this point in this case. For, cl. (1) would apply if the mistake was discovered in consequence of assessment or reassessment of the firm. On facts stated above that is not so. The mistake was already there writ large on the assessment record. In our opinion, therefore, s. 155(1) has no application to this case. The mistake could no doubt be rectified under s. 154, provided the rectification order was passed within four years from the date of the order of assessment. That is clearly not so. The rectification order was passed on December 29, 1972, i.e., more than four years after the assessment order was passed on February 7, 1964. For the reasons stated above, we hold that action under s. 155(1) was incompetent and that under s. 154 was time-barred. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee shall be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (9) TMI 4
Company Under Liquidation ... ... ... ... ..... er that it would only be just and proper to allow the I.T. department an opportunity to file its claim before the official liquidator in respect of the amount of interest that is alleged to be payable by the company in liquidation under s. 220(2) of the Act and to have the said claim duly adjudicated upon by the liquidator. Accordingly we direct that the department may file before the liquidator a fresh claim for the amount said to be due by the company in liquidation by way of interest under s. 220(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, within one month from to day, and, if that is done, the liquidator should adjudicate upon the said claim in accordance with law, more particularly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Companies Act and the Companies (Court) Rules. The appeal is allowed only to the limited extent indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Carbon copies of this judgment will be furnished free of cost to the counsel appearing on both sides.
-
1978 (9) TMI 3
Deduction, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ase of CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara (1974) 93 ITR 288. Shri K. N. Jain, appearing for the assessee, brought to our attention decisions of several High Courts which take a view contrary to the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. But, as pointed out by my learned brother, the question decided in Ibrahim Sahigara s case does not arise for decision in this case. In the instant case, the finding of the Tribunal, which is a finding of fact, is that Rs. 15,20,000 was the secreted income of the assessee in the assessment year 1965-66 (See para. 14 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated December 23, 1971). This finding cannot be said to be perverse. In view of this finding, the income-tax payable on the said amount is a debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date, and is thus to be excluded in computing the net wealth of the assessee. As already indicated the reference must be answered in favour of the assessee, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 2
Tribunal have no jurisdiction and have no power to enhance assessment where no appeal or cross objections by Department against the AAC's order
-
1978 (9) TMI 1
Assesse, a limited company having a cotton mill situated in west Pakistan accrued some profits due to fluctuation in exchange rate of rupees in west Pakistan - assessee claim for the exchange loss in respect of remittance of profit from Pakistan for deduction - Tribunal had not enquired that amounts held by assessee were on capital account or on revenue account - case remanded
....
|