Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 135 of 135 Records
-
1980 (11) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... oyees for the purpose of assessment of the employees under the head Income from salaries at Rs. 150 per month, the same value should be taken in the hands of the assessee-company which is the employer for the purpose of working out the ceiling under s. 40(c)(iii). Mr. Murarka, learned advocate for the assessee, refers our attention to a decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of CED v. I. Krishna Murthy 1974 96 ITR 87 and specially at p. 96 of the report. We do not think that the principle enunciated therein is of any assistance for the purpose of our present enquiry. However, as we are not in a position to uphold the argument of the learned advocate for the revenue, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their respective costs. In view of our findings, as aforesaid, the application filed by the revenue on 14th August, 1974, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is rejected. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (11) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... er s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the ITO had no jurisdiction to levy penalty against the assessee in the instant case and that he should have referred the case to the IAC under the provisions of s. 274(2) as they stood prior to the amendment of 1970 since the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000. Inasmuch as the amendment introduced in s. 274(2) by Act 42 of 1970 had come into force prior to the initiation of the penalty proceedings and the amount of income in respect of which concealment had taken place did not exceed Rs. 25,000, the ITO was fully competent to impose, the penalty on the assessee. In the result, we answer the question referred in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1980 (11) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... he interest on the long-term foreign loan was to be made by the Indian industrial undertaking in the revised pro forma which was enclosed and again when it fixed 6 per annum as the rate of interest in the two exemption orders dated September 3, 1965, and June 7, 1967. In Hiller s case 1977 108 ITR 493 (Bom), relied upon by the counsel, the question was not raised as to which Ministry under the rules of business was competent to grant the exemption under the Act. Both parties there proceeded that there was a valid order of exemption by the Central Govt. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The two impugned orders dated September 11, 1969, are quashed and are set aside. The Central Govt. in the Ministry of Finance will reconsider the application of the petitioner dated July 24, 1968, on merits for exemption under s. 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (11) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Power To Condone Delay In Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner would be entitled to entertain an application for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and to decide the same even though no specific power has been given to him under the I.T. Act, 1961 or the rules contained in Sch. II thereof. In the view which we take, therefore, we cannot sustain the order passed by respondent No. 3 on November 26, 1973, a copy of which is at annex. M in the application filed by Gopaldas Mohta for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. We would, therefore, quash that order and direct respondent No. 3 to dispose of the said application on its merits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by respondent No. 3 on November 26, 1973, annex. M) is hereby quashed and respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the application filed by Gopaldas Mohta on November 23, 1972 (annex. L) on its own merits. In the circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs.
-
1980 (11) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... .T. Act, corresponds to s. 220(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is now well settled law that the exercise of the discretion by the ITO under s. 220(6) is a quasi-judicial function and that he has to exercise his power fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The nature of the quasi-judicial function requires that the ITO should give reasons for dismissing an application made by an assessee for invoking his discretion and should also hear the assessee (Kanga and Palkhivala s Income-tax, Vol. 17th edition, p. 1075). The same principle must apply in the application of s. 31(6) of the W.T. Act. As the WTO passing the impugned orders did not hear the petitioner and did not give any reasons, the orders cannot be allowed to stand. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The WTO is directed to decide the petitioner s application under s. 31(6), judicially in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs of this petition.
-
1980 (11) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e assessee, had provisionally charged the price awaiting the final decision of the government. Hence, the amounts in question received by the assessee cannot be held to be trading receipts of the assessee. Learned counsel for the Department referred to our decision in Addl. CIT v Chandrakant D. Patel (MCC No. 311 of 1976 decided on 6-11-1979-since reported in 1983 139 ITR 233). But that decision is distinguishable on facts., In that case, the question for consideration was whether a refund of sales tax constituted income of the assessee. In the instant Case, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 3,00,604 and Rs. 64,757, received by the assessee in the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively, did not represent its taxable income. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (11) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ncern by the assessee in the assessment year in question, as alleged by the assessee. There was material before the Tribunal for holding that income was concealed by the assessee and, hence, answer to the first question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. As regards the third question, the Tribunal found that the concealment had taken place when the original return was filed. There is no material on record, to indicate that the penalty proceedings were commenced against the assessee for a concealment of income in the, revised return filed by the assessee on March 20, 1972. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as amended from April 1, 1968, were not attracted. Our answer to the third question is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (11) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... wed in respect of the salary paid in proportion to the mature area. The third contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of an inspection report prepared in 1974, the company is sought to be assessed in respect of the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. According to the petitioner, the trees had yielded more income as years went by and the income of 1974 was, therefore, not a guide to the income in relation to the previous years. This, again, would depend upon the nature of the growth of the trees and their condition. This fact has to be determined. In the circumstances, I quash exts. P-3, P-4 and P-6 in each of the petitions in so far as they hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the deductions aforesaid. These questions have to be redetermined in the light of what is stated above. The 3rd respondent is accordingly directed to pass appropriate orders as urgently as possible. The original petitions are thus disposed of. No costs.
-
1980 (11) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... esentative of the assessee was also not raised before the AAC and was not allowed to be raised before the Tribunal. The non-applicant has not sought any reference on that question. In these circumstances, the contention urged on behalf of the Department that a question of law does arise deserves to be upheld. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, 1957, was leviable in accordance with the provisions of s. 18(1)(a) of the Act, as they stood prior to the amendment of s. 18(1)(a) of the Act which came into force from April 1, 1969 ? The applications are, therefore, allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. Parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
-
1980 (11) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t and not in the nature of a reserve . We may note at this stage that it was contended by Mr. Dastur that there is no finding by the Tribunal that the said trade marks had depreciated in value. This contention is, however, totally unsustainable. We find that the Tribunal in para. 29 of its judgment has clearly stated that the said sum of Rs. 1,07,50,000 really represents a provision towards diminution in the value of the trade-marks. Moreover, the Tribunal has, in the said paragraph, gone on to state that there had been a corresponding diminution in the value of the asset, namely, the said trade marks. In view of this, we fail to see how it can be contended that there is no finding by the Tribunal that the said trade marks had diminished in value. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 In the negative. Question No. 2 In the negative. Question No. 3 In the negative. The assessee must pay to the Commissioner the costs of this reference.
-
1980 (11) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... tended that there was no material or evidence before the AAC or the Tribunal for holding that at least 70 to 75 per cent. of the value of the goods was covered by the loans advanced by the banks and hence the finding arrived at in this behalf was based on no evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the following question of law, does arise, in our opinion, out of the order passed by, the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to uphold the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that at least 70 to 75 per cent. of the value of the goods pledged by the assessee with the banks was covered by the loans advanced by the banks ? The applications are accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
-
1980 (11) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... , did not contravene s. 23. As the business carried on in Orissa by the partnership was distinct from the business in Madhya Pradesh, the partnership was entitled to registration on the principle applied in CIT v. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant 1974 93 ITR 271 (MP). Before concluding, we may state that the consistent view of this court with reference to r. 6 of the Rules relating to. General Conditions of Licence made under the M.P. Excise Act is that a partnership entered into without the permission of the Collector for working the business of licence for the sale of liquor granted under the Excise Act is illegal. This view, however, proceeds on the language of r. 6, which expressly prohibits entering into partnership without the permission of the Collector. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that the registration could be given to the business carried on in partnership in the Orissa State. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (11) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... tance of an expert witness on foreign law, I should think that the less law a witness knows the better it would be for the inquiry into facts, and the more it would advance the very ends of oral evidence. A contention of the kind now addressed before us on behalf of these writ petitioners does not seem to have been voiced in recorded case law except in a case decided by a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in Sarju Prosad Sharma v. ITO 1974 93 ITR 36. With respect, I agree with that learned judge in holding that a witness before an ITO cannot have assistance of counsel to see him through his cross-examination. I do not deem it necessary to deal with certain other minor aspects of argument which have been noticed by my learned brother. I may conclude the discussion by observing that I fully concur with the conclusions of my learned brother on these points. I agree with him that the writ petitions have to be dismissed. I agree also with his directions as to costs.
-
1980 (11) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Authority Competent To Impose Penalty, Effect Of Amendment Of S. 274(2), Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ter a review of the case law on the subject, this court has held that the competence of the authority to exercise the power under s. 271 (1)(c) is to be determined with reference to the law in force on the date of initiation of the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal was not, therefore, right in its view that the date of filing of the return is the material date with reference to which the law relating to the matter has to be gathered. The said error committed by the Tribunal has not, however, affected the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the present case, because on the date of initiation of the penalty proceedings, it was the IAC of Income-tax who was the authority competent under s. 274(2) of the Act as it then stood to exercise the power under s. 271(1)(c) in relation to the assessee in this case. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Department. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (11) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... tified on the basis of the law laid down by this court in Kanniah Pillai v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 520. We, therefore, reject this petition on the ground that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that in Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 49 (SC), the Supreme Court had left open the question whether any transfer is involved when a sole proprietor converts his business into a partnership business and thereby renders the assets of the sole proprietary concern as the assets of the partnership. But, so long as there is the decision of this court in Kanniah Pillai v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 520 which has clearly determined the nature of the process, we think that there would be no scope at all for asking for a reference on the ground that the question of law is a referable question properly calling for a decision by this court. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (one set).
....
|