|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 200 Records
-
1979 (7) TMI 80 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... allowed for the calendar year 1949 and not for the calendar year 1947. It will, therefore, appear that in the circumstances of that case it was held that the claim for profit bonus was not an incurred liability in 1947. This decision is also distinguishable. It was next contended on behalf of the revenue that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that it was an accrued liability is a finding based on extraneous consideration and is, therefore, perverse. The revenue cannot be permitted to raise this question at this stage before us, in view of the fact that it did not ask for a submission of case by the Tribunal on the question that its finding, that it was a case of proven or accrued liability, is perverse. In the result, the answer to the question referred is in the affirmative and against the revenue. In the circumstance of the case, I assess the costs of this application to be Rs. 150 payable by the revenue to the respondent. SHIVESHWAR PRASAD SINHA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (7) TMI 79 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Female Member, HUF Partner ... ... ... ... ..... in the partnership vests. A female is as good a member of the HUF as a male, of course, with certain limits, in the sense that she cannot become the karta of the family, nor can she be a coparcener. These limits, however, do not disable her from acting in the capacity of a member of the family and enter into a contract of partnership with the permission of the family, for the family. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasons assigned by the ITO for rejecting the claim for registration of the partnership deed was invalid. We may further observe that the AAC went into the question as to who were the real partners in the partnership firm and found it as a fact that the three persons, who had signed the partnership deed as partners, were the partners. That being the position, in fact as also in law, the question referred for the opinion of this court must be answered in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250.
-
1979 (7) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Deduction In Respect, Previous Year, Retrospective Effect
-
1979 (7) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Income When Accrues ... ... ... ... ..... e question reproduced above was raised and referred to this court. The applicability of the provisions of s. 273(e) is not in dispute, and the only point to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in computing Rs. 305 as the minimum penalty leviable. If the sum of Rs. 76,429 was not taken as assessable in the year of assessment under consideration, then it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs. 305 would be the minimum penalty leviable. As we have held Rs. 76,429 was not assessable in this year, we are satisfied that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law in computing the minimum penalty of Rs. 305. The position would have been different if we had accepted the contention of the revenue that the sum of Rs. 76,429 was also assessable in the year of assessment under consideration. Consequently, the question as regards the penalty is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1979 (7) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... in a profit to the assessee in its business, though the accretion might have been caused by an external factor like devaluation. Though the fund became frozen or immobilized, the nature and character of the fund had not changed and its mobility or immobility was considered to be irrelevant. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,52,710 was held to be assessable in the hands of the assessee. Except for the difference that in the above case the same amount that was deposited by the assessee was paid back to him, while in the present case, the loss of goods in transit by enemy seizure was compensated by the insurance company, there is no difference in the facts which would affect the principle applicable to the case. The principle applied by the Calcutta High Court would, in our opinion, apply here also. The result is that the questions referred to us have to be and are answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (7) TMI 75 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Income Tax Act, Purchase Price, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... fer seven questions to this court for its opinion which have been enumerated in para. 10 of the reference application submitted before this court. However, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce those questions, as in our view, questions Nos. 1 to 6, sought by the assessee to be referred, relate to the same matter in respect of which we have framed question No. 1 above, which we have redrafted for the purposes of clarity. Question No. 7 desired by the assessee to be referred has also been slightly modified by us in the form of question No. 2, in order to bring out clearly the dispute between the parties in this case. We, therefore, allow this application for making a reference and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the above mentioned two questions of law arising out of its order dated November 30, 1976, to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. 1973 90 ITR 348 and was rejected by the Bombay High Court. This decision of the Bombay High Court was rendered in the context of s. 99(1)(iv). This decision of the Bombay High Court has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders 1979 118 ITR 243 in the context of this group of provisions, We do not think it necessary to labour further on this point as the matter is directly covered by the latest decision of the Supreme Court. We would only add that, in the light of the latest decision of the Supreme Court, T. C. No. 408 of 1975 would have to be taken as not correctly decided. The consequence of the above reasoning is that the amount of capital gains in the present case is Rs. 1,02,740 subject to the deduction of Rs. 5,000, and that amount will be taken for applying s. 80T. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (7) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... is entitled to the development rebate. Counsel for the revenue objected to our placing reliance on the circular at this stage when it had not been relied upon before any of the authorities below, namely, the ITO, the AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. But we are satisfied that the circular constituted nothing more than the amplification of an aspect of the question of law that was being raised and argued before the Tribunal and the questions of law which have been sent up by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court. It answers the elaboration of the term question of law made by the Supreme Court in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. s case 1961 42 ITR 589. In that view, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1979 (7) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... refore, never approached the Tribunal for this purpose. The question of law that he wanted to be referred by the Tribunal is as under Whether, under the facts and circumstances, any penalty is leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act on a firm where there is no tax payable by the firm on account of the firm s finally determined income remaining well below the taxable limit ? If the answer is in the affirmative, whether under the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has exceeded its limit in enhancing the penalty imposed by the department at the minimum figure to a higher figure ? Admittedly, this was never raised before the Tribunal while deciding the appeal on 5th April, 1973. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that no question of law can be referred under s. 256(1) of the Act, unless it arises out of the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, this application is dismissed, with no order as to costs. BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON J.--I agree.
-
1979 (7) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Export Promotion, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... thus accrue to the assessee as soon as the necessary proof is tendered. The fact that there was some delay on the part of the authorities concerned in making the actual disbursement will not stand in the way of the assessee being assessed with reference to the said amount, which became due to the assessee at the time of the application. The right to the amount was established on the date of the application. In so far as the assessee had made the application and produced the proof in respect of exports prior to the commencement of the relevant accounting period (i.e., prior to April 14, 1966), the amount could not be said to have accrued in the year April 14, 1966, to April 13, 1967. In this view, the Tribunal acted rightly in sustaining the addition only to the extent of Rs. 18,340 and deleting the balance of the income. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (7) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Depreciation Reserve, Fixed Assets, General Reserve, Initial Depreciation, Written Down Value
-
1979 (7) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change In Constitution Of Firm, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Deed
-
1979 (7) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... eeds should be taken as an article which is obtained either by the process of manufacture or production for purposes of s. 80J. Mr. Gulati very studiously drew our attention to the decisions of this court in the Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. 1977 107 ITR 816, Singh Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 891, Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 895 and Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1961 12 STC 150 (SC) and G. R. Kulkarni v. State 1957 8 STC 294 (MP). These decisions lend strength to the view that we have taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them in detail as the context and the setting of s. 80J clearly indicate that processed seed should be treated as an article, which is obtained either by the process of manufacture or production. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... siting clients by allowing them to quench their thirst, as in this case, cannot be understood as expenditure in the nature of entertainment. Anybody having any idea of a wholesaler in a district headquarter would have come across cases where the clientele come for the purpose of purchase of goods from upcountry places and when they come to do business, they have necessarily to be offered soft drinks, coffee, tea, etc., to quench their thirst especially in a place like Madurai which cannot boast of a comfortable weather for most part of the year. We are in agreement with the decision of the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee s claim is fully justified and was rightly accepted by the Tribunal. It would be a misnomer to call coffee or tea as items of entertainment. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (7) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax, Fair Market Value, Valuation Of Land ... ... ... ... ..... law for determining the market value of land. This case is not at all helpful. Learned counsel stressed that in this view the proceedings themselves should be quashed. We are unable to agree. The proceedings were based not merely on the second report of the valuer, but also on other materials, viz., affidavits of the complainants, valuation reports furnished by them, the offer of purchase at Rs. 2 lakhs given by them, etc. Our conclusion is that the method adopted by the valuer in his second report was totally irrelevant to the determination of the fair market value of the land on the date of the sale. It could not validly be taken into consideration. We allow this writ petition in part and issue a writ of prohibition to the respondent- Competent Authority not to take into consideration and rely on the second report of the valuer while disposing of the proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Parties will bear their own costs. The interim stay order is discharged.
-
1979 (7) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Priority Industry, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... er years. With reference to the assessment year 1971-72, apart from the adjustment of the carried forward losses, there is also the question as to the admissibility of the relief under s. 80J before arriving at the quantum for application of s. 80-I. Section 80B(5) defines gross total income as meaning the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act before making any deduction under this Chapter or under s. 280-O. Section 80J falls within the Chapter and, therefore, the relief under s. 80J cannot be adjusted before arriving at the income on the basis of which s. 80-I has to be worked out. In this view, the question for the assessment year 1971-72 has to be answered as follows The assessee would be entitled for relief under s. 80-I on the gross total income after adjustment of carried forward losses of the earlier years but before the adjustment of the deficiencies under s. 80J carried forward from the earlier years. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 64 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Interest Income, Interest On Deposit, Voluntary Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... ant had really earned that amount before accepting the explanation. We are in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by the Gujarat High Court in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT 1974 95 ITR 624, though for abovementioned reasons. We are, however, unable to endorse the opinion expressed by the Delhi High Court in Rattan Lal v. ITO 1975 98 ITR 681. Their Lordships did not give appropriate importance to sub-s. (8) relating to finality of orders passed under sub-s. (6). In the present case, the Tribunal has gone into the earning capacity of the creditors. It did not feel itself bound by the declaration. The Tribunal took the correct view of law. On facts, it came to the conclusion that the explanation of the assessee with respect to the sum of Rs. 28,100 was not acceptable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Remuneration Paid To Directors ... ... ... ... ..... 68 ITR 102 (All). Nund s case 1970 78 ITR 268 (SC) has already been noticed earlier. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the case that the Tribunal decided the matter contrary to the principles laid down therein. The other case is hardly in point, for the Tribunal had found in that case that the directors did not work for the company, apart from attending some meetings. remuneration was paid to them because they were financiers. It was in these circumstances that the court found that the disallowance was justified. Here, on the facts, as are apparent, the directors were directly looking after the company s business and assisting in raising finances for the efficient conduct of the business. The case of Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) P. Ltd. v. CIT 1973 90 ITR 439 (Mad) is also of no avail, as the facts are dissimilar. The question referred is answered in the affimative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Assessment Year, Jurisdiction Of AAC ... ... ... ... ..... nd more so when such claim is raised before him by the assessee. It has to be borne in mind that in doing so, the AAC was not giving a finding or an observation directing an ITO to exclude or include a certain sum of money in the assessee s income or from the assessee s income in respect of a year of assessment other than that of which he was in seisin. The AAC was in seisin of all the assessments and what he was doing was only to reprocess and re-examine the assessment for all these years. There being no doubt about the genuineness of the claims, the AAC has only put it against the profit of the year to which it rightly pertained. Such an action on the part of the AAC is within his competence in terms of s. 251 of the Act. In our opinion, the question has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Hearing fee, Rs. 250.
-
1979 (7) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Fraud Or Gross Or Wilful Neglect ... ... ... ... ..... r wilful or gross neglect on his part. It is only in case this is established, that the fiction raised by the Explanation stands rebutted. In the present case, the Tribunal has not considered the explanation of the assessee and has not given a clear finding as to whether the explanation offered was acceptable. It has allowed the appeal solely on the consideration already adverted to earlier. These considerations do not satisfy the requirement of Explanation 1 to s. 271 (1)(c). The Tribunal should now re-examine the matter and decide as to whether the explanation given by the assessee was such as rebutted the presumption added by Explanation 1 to s. 271 of the Act. In view of this conclusion it is not possible to answer the question as framed, and we accordingly return the question unanswered. The Tribunal should rehear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by us above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
