Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 158 of 158 Records
-
1980 (12) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... was revenue derived from land and hence was exempt from taxation as it was agricultural income. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Nawabzadi Mehar Banu Khanum v. Secy. of State, AIR 1925 Cal 929 FB and Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga v. CIT, AIR 1928 Pat 468. Now, cl. (a) of s. 2(1) of the Act requires three conditions to be satisfied before the income can be called agricultural income. The three conditions are (i) the rent or revenue should be derived from land, (ii) the land should be situated in India, and (iii) the land should be used for agricultural purposes. By no stretch of imagination it could be held that the aforesaid conditions are satisfied in the case of income resulting from sale of land. Our answer to the third question referred to us is that the surplus in question was not in the nature of agricultural income exempt from taxation. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ew we have taken and in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Company s case 1959 37 ITR 1, we would answer the question by saying that the estimated value of the assessee s liability to the landlord and sub-lessees should be allowed after a consideration of the terms of the lease, if in the years relevant for our present purposes those obligations had actually accrued in those years and could be properly estimated and the Tribunal will reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made aforesaid. It is only to that extent that the same should be allowed. We have already held that the first item should not be allowed and so far as the other two items are concerned, as we have indicated, the revenue will consider only the third item mentioned in para. 6 of the order of the Tribunal that requires to be looked into by the Tribunal in the manner indicated above. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... fferent agreements with a view to find out minor differences therein as Mr. Kotwal would have us do. What we have to consider is the agreement generally and broadly, As we have already pointed out, the agreement in question is to be looked at from the point of view that it is for the acquisition of the technical know-how for a limited period. This know-how is bound to become obsolete with the technological developments and changes in techniques. The assessee was under the agreement bound not to disclose the know-how acquired by the assessee to a third party. In view of this, in our view, it cannot be said that under the said agreement, the assessee acquired any asset or benefit of an enduring nature and hence the payment made by the assessee, which is referred to in the question submitted to us, cannot be regarded as of a capital nature. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative. The department must pay to the assessee their costs of the reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... rectly but by other modes contemplated by s. 49, and if the Legislature has provided a special mode for computing depreciable assets and limited the operation of the definition of s. 55(2) or s. 55, then, in our opinion, it would be improper to extend that meaning of the definition in s. 55(2) so as to exclude the operation of the special mode of computation in s. 50 for depreciable assets which had been acquired by the assessee. There is another reason. This is an all India statute and while in the case of fundamental difference a High Court would be free to take different view provided an aspect was not considered, we find that this aspect was fully considered by the Division Bench of the two High Courts exhaustively and their reasonings appeal to us. In that view of the matter, we would adhere to these views. In the premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MORAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... In view of the fact that there was no agreement replacing the claim for the interest under which the interest accrued in the year of account and the fact that the interest was purported to be not realised or kept in the suspense account long after the expiry of the accounting year, though there was some trouble in the year of account of realisation, in correspondence the germ or root had been not transplanted under which there might be either a fresh agreement waiving interest or any clause for keeping it in the suspense account during the year of account, in our opinion, the aforesaid conduct could not prevent the accrual of income. As there was really no claim of the waiver of interest at all, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion which it had arrived at in this matter. Both the questions, therefore, must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... the interest was not argued before the Tribunal. As the contention or the controversy does not arise from the order of the Tribunal on the basis of the materials before the Tribunal which have been discussed in the order of the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal s decision or finding was a surmise, conjecture and suspicion and/or perverse. If that is so, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest from the said two debtors should be included in the income of the assessee. In that view of the matter question No. 1 must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as the additional question for the assessment year 1965-66 is concerned, the same is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Priority Industry, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... ctric Supply Industrial Co. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 84 and it is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the premises So far as question No. 1 of the assessee s application is concerned, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. 2 of the assessee s application is concerned, for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, this question is answered by saying that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 40,60,560 in computing its profit for the year in question. So far as question No. 3 of the assessee s application is concerned, it is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. So far as the revenue s application is concerned, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and so far as question No. 2 of the revenue s application is concerned, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... assessee that at least for one of the years the notice, was barred by limitation if the same was treated as one under s. 147(b). It was further contended that in any case the rent should be based on the municipal value and not on the figure and actual rent received by the assessee. It was also contended that the award could not be treated as an information for the purpose of s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As we have already observed above, all these contentions have not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has only held that it has no jurisdiction to convert or alter the assessments made by the ITO under s. 34(1)(a) to an assessment under s. 34(l)(b) and maintaining it as such. Subject to the consideration of all these contentions by the Tribunal, which the Tribunal will have to consider, we answer the second question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... decided on 12th September, 1980 since reported in 1982 134 ITR 234 (MP)). The Division Bench in Lakhmichand Muchhal s case took notice of the contrary view taken by the Allahabad and Kerala High Courts in Brij Raman Dass and Sons v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 541 (All) and CIT v. Veeriah Reddiar 1977 106 ITR 610 (Ker) FB and held that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court was preferable. It was also noticed that the Gujarat case has been followed by the Bombay, Karnataka and Madras High Courts. As this court has accepted the view taken by the Gujarat High Court, it has to be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the customary expenses in providing tea, pan, coffee, cool drinks, etc., to the customers was not entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2A) or s. 37(2B) of the Act. For the reasons given above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Payments Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... essee was the commission. Even if the assessee sold bidis to the sole selling agents at a price less than the market rate, the difference between the market rate and the price at which the bidis were sold cannot, in our opinion, be termed as expenditure incurred by the assessee. On the finding reached by the Tribunal, it has to be held that the ITO was not right in adding Rs. 6,81,987 under s. 40A(2)(a). As regards the purchase of tobacco from M/s. Mohanlal and Company, the finding of the Tribunal is that there is no adequate material to hold that the purchase was not made at the market rate. In view of this finding it cannot be held that the payment of price made by the assessee to this firm was either excessive or unreasonable. Section 40A(2)(a) is, therefore, clearly not attracted. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee, and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... C. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. If the assessee did supply food to these workers, the expenditure incurred on food would be treated as part of the wages as supply of food was a, perquisite, to which the workmen were entitled. There is no categorical finding either of the AAC or of the Tribunal to indicate that the expenditure was not actually incurred. The very fact that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was allowed by the AAC indicates that the case of the assessee that food was supplied to workmen was not disbelieved. If 15 workmen were supplied food for a year, the expenditure of Rs. 12,861 was not improbable. Indeed, in the succeeding year, the ITO allowed a sum of Rs. 16,192.89 under this head. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 12,861 is without any legal basis, nor is it based on a finding that the expenditure was not proved to have been incurred. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee who shall be entitled to Rs. 200 as costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... take advantage of their own laches. Shri Katju pointed out that, now, more than six years had passed and nothing had been paid by the petitioner and his brother towards the tax dues payable by them. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider Shri Katju s other contentions, including the one which he has based on 1956 29 ITR 792 (Punj) (CIT v. Lala Rajeshwar Parshad) for contending that the facility of instalment which was granted by annex. V to the petition, addressed to the petitioner and his brother and the partnership firm in question, was administrative in nature and as such was not amenable to the certiorari jurisdiction of this court. In our view, the petitioner was himself in default in complying with the terms and conditions laid down in annex. V to the petition and as such is not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.
-
1980 (12) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ubmission cannot be entertained at all. The ITO has disbelieved this balance-sheet and rejected it as untrue. This finding has been upheld by the AAC and the Tribunal. It is not for us to go into the correctness of that finding. Hence, we cannot proceed on the footing that in the balance-sheet of the previous accounting year there was a sum of Rs. 26,000 as the balance in the capital account at the end of the said accounting year. We may point out that the AAC has, in fact, given certain relief to the assessee taking into account the amount of closing stock on an estimate basis in the earlier years and the probable savings in the earlier years as aforesaid and has restricted the addition on account of the undisclosed income to Rs. 17,614. However, that aspect of the matter is not relevant for the determination of the question before us. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. The assessee to pay to the Department the costs of the reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... land was revenue derived from land and hence was exempt from taxation as it was agricultural income. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Nawabzadi Mehar Bano Khanum v. Secy. of State, AIR 1925 Cal 929 FB and Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga v. CIT, AIR 1928 Pat 468. Now, cl. (a) of s. 2(1) of the Act requires three conditions to be satisfied before an income can be called agricultural income. The three conditions are (i) the rent or revenue should be derived from land, (ii) the land should be situated in India, and (iii) the land should be used for agricultural purposes. By no stretch of imagination it could be held that the aforesaid conditions are satisfied in the case of income resulting from the sale of land. Our answer to the fourth question referred to us is that the surplus in question was not in the nature of agricultural income exempt from taxation. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (12) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Mullick 1963 50 ITR 313 (Cal) at 324, in the case of CIT v. Raghbir Singh 1965 57 ITR 408 (SC), in the case of CIT v. Rani Bhuvaneshwari Kuer 1964 53 ITR 195 (SC), in the case of CIT v. Brojendra Nath Kundu 1977 110 ITR 326 (Cal) and in the case of CIT v. Shyamlal Bhuwalka (1978 113 ITR 127 (Cal), as well as the observations of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi 1971 79 ITR 235 (All). In view of the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, as we have noted in the case of Hrishikesh Ganguly v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 160 (SC) referred to hereinbefore, it is not necessary, in our opinion, to discuss the aforesaid decisions in greater detail. In that view of the matter, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and in the view we have taken on the first question, the second question does not arise. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Reference, Religious Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... the same as the Tribunal had been privileged to bear. We have apparently been served with a fuller fare. Bat that does not mean that this court when considering the arguments so addressed before it enters upon a consideration of a question which had not been before the Tribunal and which had not arisen out of the Order of the Tribunal. A new argument open to either the one or the other party to a tax reference on the self-same question, although the argument has not been put forward before or considered by the Tribunal, cannot itself be regarded as a new question of law. We have heard all the arguments addressed by both sides of the Bar on the question of law before us on all its aspects only in the view that it deserves such a consideration and was not outside the scope of the reference by any means. For the reasons we have already set out we answer the reference in the negative and against the assessee. The Department is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1980 (12) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation For Completing Assessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... in this case is a partner. In those tax cases we have held that a return, although filed beyond the time limited by notice under s. 139(2) of the Act, must really be regarded as a return filed under that sub-section and would enable the assessee under s. 139(5) to file a revised return and such a return must be construed to be a revised return also for the purpose of s. 153(1)(c) of the Act. On that basis, it must be held that the assessment order passed in this case within one year from the date of the revised return must be upheld as being quite within time. The assessment can be supported as being within time also on the ground that the case being one falling under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, a time-limit of eight years from the end of the assessment year would really set the latest time limit for the completion of the assessment. For the above reasons, this reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... admitted facts that were available before it was clearly illegal and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be regarded as evidencing a proper and valid disposal of the appeal. As already indicated, the question referred in this case would arise for consideration by the Tribunal only after it enters a finding on the jurisdictional point as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the initiation of proceedings against the assessee-company under section 201 of the Act was legal and warranted. Inasmuch as the approach made by the Tribunal is found to be vitiated by a manifest illegality, we decline to answer the questions referred and remit the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded by the Tribunal as required by law.
....
|