|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 137 Records
-
1979 (12) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... t year by virtue of cl. (i) of s. 72(1) of the Act. If that is so, then it necessarily follows that the condition prescribed by the proviso to cl. (i) of s. 72(1) of the Act is required to be satisfied if the carried forward loss in an assessment year under cl. (ii) of s. 72(1) of the Act is sought to be set off against the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee and assessable for that assessment year. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to set off the loss sustained by her as partner in M/s. Alok Paper Industries in the assessment year 1970-71 as she ceased to be partner of that firm from December, 1966. For all these reasons, our answer to the first question is in the negative and against the assessee and to the second question is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (12) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Inaccurate Particulars, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... roach and total misconstruction of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that the inflation under one head is offset by the understatement of income under another set. This is not the criterion for the purpose of applying s. 271(1)(c). The question for consideration is had the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof ? Whether on ultimate analysis, the concealment under one head or one source of income had been offset by the inflation of another head or source, appears to us to be an irrelevant consideration. The Tribunal, we are afraid, has not approached the question keeping in mind the correct principle on the basis of which the section had to be applied. This being so, we should decline to answer the questions referred and would send back the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. We make no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 35 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to receive commission did not accrue to them and the entire income accrued at the end of the year and was assessable in the hands of the assignee. The contention of the assignee that part of the income accrued to the original agents and it was liable to be assessed in their hands was negatived. Similarly, in the present case, though the occasion for the award of interest was taking over possession of the land acquired, the right to receive the same arose only when the court in its discretion awarded interest on the enhanced compensation under s. 28 of the L. A. Act and was assessable only in the year of assessment and could not be spread over in the previous years because the right to receive interest did not arise prior to the passing of the decree by the court. As a result of the discussion aforesaid our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (12) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Contract Business, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... that part of the income. The only material, if at all that can be called a material, is a mere presumption that the assessee must be aware of the total volume of work done by him and of the payments that he was entitled to receive on that account. Presumption of fact cannot be equated to a finding of fact and more so when against the concrete assertion by the assessee the department has not been able to find any fact to contradict such assertion. Having regard to the discussions made above, it must be held that the finding of the Tribunal, that there was intention to conceal and/or there was gross negligence on the part of the assessee, is not based on any material and consequently the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the penalty under s. 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act was leviable. In the result, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250. NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH .-I agree.
-
1979 (12) TMI 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee at fourteen lakhs odd which was paid to him on April 2, 1970. As there is a prospect of the said amount being reduced and there is no prospect of the amount being paid in the near future in the circumstances, no further addition could be made to that amount. For the year 1971-72, when the claim of the assessee that he has invested the entire amount of Rs. 14,05,536 in acquiring the other assets is not in dispute, the fact that the claim for higher compensation is still pending, cannot be made a ground for assessing the value of the asset at any higher amount than Rs. 14,05,536. That higher amount has neither been received nor has it any market value for the assessment year 1971-72. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that no further amount could be added to the assessee s wealth for the assessment year 1971-72. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Civil Court, Reference Pending, Right To Receive Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... is actually now awarded on reference by the civil court, has to be taken into account and that has been ignored. There is no dispute that the land being in the possession of protected tenants they are entitled to 60 of the compensation that is awarded or that may be found awardable in future and only 40 thereof is payable to the accountable persons. That would undoubtedly have to be taken into account along with other factors referred to above. The determination of the right to receive compensation for the land put at Rs. 22,204, in the circumstances of the case, has to be revised having regard to the several factors referred to above. These factors have to be taken into consideration while determining the enhanced compensation payable to the accountable persons and on that basis the principal value of the property that has passed to the accountable persons determined. This question is answered accordingly in favour of the revenue and against the assessee as indicated above.
-
1979 (12) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Balancing Allowance, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... rows some doubt on the correctness of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. London Hotel 1968 68 ITR 62. We may point out that the learned author refers to two decisions, namely, Muthukaruppan Chettiar v. CIT 1939 7 ITR 76 (Mad) FB and Rao Bahadur S. Ramanatha Reddiar v. CIT 1928 3 ITC 10 (Rang) as if both of them were rendered by the Madras High Court and as if they were inconsistent with the decision of the Bombay High Court. In fact, there Was only one decision by the Madras High Court, the one reported in 7 ITR page 76 FB , the other one being of the Rangoon High Court. The decisions are not in point. The result is, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question does not appear to call for any answer in the present case, as the assessee has complied with the provisions, and, therefore, the question in that form does not arise for consideration. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (12) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... wife. It may be that Manickam Gupta is the karta of the HUF, but the fact remains that the shares of the HUF to the extent of the value of Rs. 40,000 was gifted by Manickam Gupta to his wife. There is nothing to show that the gift was not made by Manickam Gupta as Manickam Gupta, but as karta of HUF. In these circumstances, we agree that the assessee is entitled to the relief under s. 5(1)(viii). In view of the above finding that the gift has been made by Manickam Gupta in his capacity as husband to his wife, the conclusion of the Tribunal on the facts of the case cannot be taken exception to. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to go into the question whether karta or a member of an undivided or joint family can make a gift to the wife of any joint family property, and claim exemption under s. 5(1)(viii) of the G.T. Act. The question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (12) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bifurcation made in the books has no correlation with the clauses of the dissolution deed. The sum of Rs. 51,923 has not also been calculated in the accounts as payment for the use of the quota and licence rights or the car, telephone or other assets used by the firm. It has been paid to acquire the rights of the retiring partners in these and other assets and is a payment of a capital nature. We may also refer to the fact that even the retiring partners appear to have treated the entire sum as one integral receipt and claimed it as capital receipt in their hands as a payment received for their right, title and interest in the firm. Though that is not conclusive, that also shows that no separate payments were contemplated as contended for by Mr. Sharma. For the reasons mentioned above, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs in this reference.
-
1979 (12) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ed that this compensation money was paid by the insurance company in connection with the transfer. Mr. Roy, in making the submission, is ignoring para. 15 read as a whole. It is true that the Tribunal has used the expression in connection with with the above extinguishment or transfer. But in the subsequent sentences, the Tribunal has said The profit which has arisen to the assessee in the present case as already stated above is from the extinguishment of its rights in the capital asset and, therefore, has arisen from the transfer of such asset. Looked at from either of the reasonings we agree with the lower authorities that the sum of Rs. 4,95,044 has been properly brought to tax as capital gains. We are of opinion that this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be accepted. For all the reasons stated above, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1979 (12) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation And Development Rebat ... ... ... ... ..... een asserted that the store room too was an integral part of the cold storage room. We are afraid it is not possible to give any final adjudication on then matters unless the nature and details of these different items are available. We find that the Tribunal made no attempt to go into this aspect. We are, therefore, constrained to restore the matter back to the Tribunal. Let expenses incurred on cold storage room, platform for machines, observation tower and cooling tower be treated as allowable for the purpose of allowance of development rebate and also higher rate of depreciation as applicable to plant and machinery. The Tribunal should also next look into the other items and consider as to what extent they can be treated as an integral part of the plant, and the other items, therefore, are entitled to the benefit of development rebate and depreciation as aforesaid. The question referred shall stand answered accordingly. Looking at the circumstances, no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... d on two grounds. The first one is that the income from the asset which has ceased to belong to the HUF cannot be added to the income of the HUF. This aspect we have already decided in favour of the assessee. As regards the claim of partial partition, the Tribunal has held that there was such a claim and it was unnecessary to remand the matter. Sri Rama Rao, the learned standing counsel for the revenue, however, relying on the above two decisions, contends that the Appellate Tribunal should have remitted the matter to the ITO to give a finding with regard to the partial partition. This question has become purely academic now in view of our finding on the first point. However, the relinquishment deed is a registered one and the ITO has assessed Venkataratnam as an individual. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to remand the case to the ITO on the second aspect. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. No order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cross Transfer, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... gifts had been established from which it could be inferred that these formed part of the same transaction. From the dates and the amounts of gifts we find that the above observations cannot be assailed. The learned counsel for the department has argued that these gifts had been made on account of certain arrangement. According to him, therefore, these should be considered as cross-gifts. We are not convinced with this contention. In addition to the aforesaid facts, it is also worth mentioning that the gifts in favour of the wife of the assessee karta have not been made by the donees of the karta but by the other persons. The wife of the karta had also full control over the gifts made to her. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that these are cross-gifts. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 3 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative, i e., against the department. No order as to costs. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1979 (12) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... must apply the Mysore decision. We consider that to do so would run in the teeth of the construction placed by the Supreme Court on s. 80E. The first of the three steps referred to at p. 91 of 1978 113 ITR 84-the passage has already been extracted clearly shows that the computation of the total income has to be in accordance with the other provisions of the Act, i.e., in accordance with all the provisions, except s. 80E. This computation would take in adjustment of losses from other than priority industry also. Thus, there is no escape from adjustment of these losses. The assessee would be eligible for deduction of a percentage, of the profits and gains attributable to the priority industry, which remain after adjustment of the losses of the non-priority activity. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted and we, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... point on a misconception of law, the matter may not be open for consideration by this court. He could not dispute the fact that where there was any error in the contention of one of the parties then the matter could be gone into on reference. This court cannot look on helplessly with reference to an error which is manifested in the contention of both sides before the Tribunal. This court has jurisdiction to correct an error in the order of the Tribunal, so long as the point arose out of its order, whoever be the author of the mistake or error in taking up in a particular contention. Having regard to the nature of the issue that was before the Tribunal and having regard to what we have stated above, we think it proper to set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the case on all the points that require consideration of the question whether additional surcharge was attracted. The reference is returned unanswered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee. The Tribunal points out in its order that the departmental representative stated that there was no evidence to make any such plea, namely, that the firm was actually suffering losses. On the other hand, the argument that was addressed before the Tribunal would appear to be that because there was a potentiality for the incurring of losses, the shares in the partnership could not be impressed with the character of joint family property. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to draw our attention to any proposition of law in Hindu law or general law to the effect that simply because there was a possibility of incurring losses, a coparcener has no right to impress a property with the character of joint family property. In such a state of affairs, we do not consider that any question of law arises on the facts and circumstances of the case to be referred to this court for its opinion. Hence, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e same articles in jewellery by Explanation 1, which has been made effective prospectively. It would, therefore, not be correct that simply because Expln . 1 which gives a wider meaning to the term jewellery is made prospective in its application, it would not be available for the assessment year prior to 1972. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellate order made by the AAC in the appeals against the assessment orders on September 21, 1970, suffered from a mistake apparent on the record as a result of the legal fiction brought about by the restrospective operation given to the amendments made in s. 5(1)(viii) of the principal Act and the WTO was justified in moving the AAC to rectify that mistake and the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal, both, erred in not doing so. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (12) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... e-firm, the credit was not given for the purposes of the business of the assessee-firm, was repelled. We fail to understand as to how the assessee can derive any advantage from this decision. That case proceeded on an entirely different set of facts. In the present case, the capital had not been borrowed by the assessee and was not utilised by it in its own business. The capital was borrowed by the sister concern and was utilised by it in its business. The assessee merely took over the liability to pay that loan by making transfer entries. That would not make these loans capital borrowed by the assessee for its own business and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for deduction of interest was not allowable under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 200 and counsel s fee in like figure.
-
1979 (12) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
HUF, Income ... ... ... ... ..... 3. This, in my view, can never be in the nature of the payment of an interest. The provisions of this section are very similar to s. 50(2) of the Madras Act, referred to above. As was pointed out by the Supreme there was no difficulty on their part in saying so in clear words. In my view, it is compensation for recurring loss caused to the owner because of the taking away of the income producing assets without payment of compensation, which is to cease after the payment of the final compensation. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the department on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandroji Rao v. CIT 1970 77 ITR 743. It was a clear case of payment of interest over the compensation payable by the Government to the jagirdar. That case has no bearing on the point in issue. In my opinion, therefore, the answers to all the questions are in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs. SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1979 (12) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee consent of parties and a sale, in spite of certain statutory compulsions. In the present case we have transactions of sales and purchases between various companies. These contracts were agreed upon by the various companies. It may be that the agreement was arrived at because Dalmia had a say in the matter. But this does not mean that the transaction was a compulsory one or that the element of an agreement between the parties was absent in regard to these transactions. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the income from the sale of shares was liable to be treated as income from other sources. We answer the questions referred to us by saying that the income arising out of the share transactions were the result of sales and that the income was liable to be taxed as business income and not, as income from other sources. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will be entitled to his costs in the reference.
....
|
