|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 236 of 236 Records
-
1981 (1) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th the aforesaid observations. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in J. K. Synthetics Lid, v. Addl. CIT 1976 105 ITR 344, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee, no doubt lays down that once an appeal is taken and decided, the original order merges in the appellate order which is operative and enforceable. That decision, with respect, does not take into account the fact that if the AAC had no occasion at all to consider a particular point as it was not raised before him, the AAC could not be held to have decided that point either expressly or impliedly and no question of merger would arise in such a case. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we see no reason to take a view different from that taken by us in M.P. No. 55 of 1978. For all these reasons, the answer to the question framed by us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee. The failure to include the income by way of capital gains in the return has been attributed by the Tribunal to some omission on the part of the assessee or his agent. Now, the correctness of this finding has not been put in issue in any of the two questions. Because no question arising out of that finding has been referred, and probably rightly so because the finding will become one of fact, the answer to both the questions would straightaway flow from the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no deliberate concealment or omission. Consequently, there is no scope for the argument on behalf of the Revenue in this case that the two questions must be answered in their favour. The answers to both the questions will, therefore, have to be against the Revenue. The questions are thus answered as follows Question No. (1) In the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. (2) In the negative and against the Revenue. The assessee to get the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... older thereof. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of the Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the matter of Thakur Hari Singh v. CIT 1967 65 ITR 267 (Raj) and Gundlapalli Mohan Rao v. Gundlapalli Satyanarayana 1972 84 ITR 685 (AP), respectively, where it has been held that if a property is not an impartible estate and is a separate or self-acquired property of the holder, it can be blended with other property and a statement in the return claiming the status of a HUF is sufficient to blend the self-acquired property with the characteristic of joint family property. We do not think that we must refer to these decisions in detail in the view which we are taking on the matter on the first contention. The result is that this reference is accepted and we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and, in view of that answer, the second question need not be answered at all. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (1) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Change Of Method Of Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... no power is conferred on the ITO to relate back an income that accrued or arose in a subsequent year to another earlier year on the ground that the said income arose out of an earlier transaction. Naturally the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the prayer for claim of Rs. 1,00,004 which related to the year 1970-71. The claim for Rs. 1,00,004 was refused only on the ground that the assessee did not follow the cash system in the year under consideration. The system of accountancy was thus so interlinked that while allowing the claim for Rs. 1,19,944 in the year under consideration the Tribunal had no other alternative but to reject the prayer for deduction of Rs. 1,00,004. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal appears to be amply justified in allowing a further deduction of Rs. 19,940 in addition to the deduction allowed by the AAC. Thus we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (1) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Jewellery, Mistake Apparent From Record, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... annex. A to the statement of case, also shows that the ornaments included diamonds and pearls, etc. It cannot, therefore, be said that from the record of the case it was not possible to find out whether the exemption of the value of Rs. 57,500 granted by the AAC by his order dated 22nd March, 1971, was in respect of precious stones and ornaments containing precious stones or in respect of other ornaments. The matter, however, will have to be examined by the Tribunal afresh from this angle. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions referred as follows 1. The Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the AAC was not justified in taking up rectification proceedings under s. 35. 2. The Tribunal was not right in law in cancelling the order of rectification passed by the AAC without examining whether and to what extent the order of rectification related to precious stones and ornaments containing precious stones. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... requiring a duly stamped document and registration of the said document. With consent, the question is, therefore, reframed as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to annexure A , throwing of the plot of land into the common hotchpot of the property of the joint family amounted to a gift in favour of the sons to whom the plots were allotted at a partition, so as to require a stamped document and registration of the said document ? The Supreme Court in Goli Eswariah v. CGT 1970 76 ITR 675, has held that the unilateral declaration of a Hindu coparcener, whereby he throws his self-acquired property into the common stock of joint family property, does not amount to a transfer. In view of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the question as reframed has to be answered in the negative and against the Revenue. The question is accordingly answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Revenue to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... etermination. Question No. 2 Does not arise for determination. Question No. 3 In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. So far as the costs of this reference are concerned, when this reference reached hearing, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents, informed us that it would be very difficult for him to support the Tribunal s observations with respect to the question of depreciation and that he was not going to make an attempt to do so. So far as question. No. 2 was concerned, M. Jetly also informed us at the outset that in view of the judgment of this court in Commr. of Agri. I.T. v. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. 1980 121 ITR 920, it will have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The entire time taken up in the hearing of this reference has thus been reason of the arguments advanced on question No. 3, and accordingly the applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300.
-
1981 (1) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... the trust funds were applied to a charitable purpose. It is, therefore, clear that the so-called power of revocation is wholly redundant and ineffective. If the power of revocation was redundant and ineffective and indeed wholly invalid the mere reservation of a power by a clause in the trust deed could not attract the applicability of the provisions of s. 12(1) of the Act. It is, therefore, wholly unnecessary for us to decide Whether the Department was entitled to challenge the correctness of the order of the Asst. Charity Commissioner by which he declined to give effect to the resolution passed by the trustees, the controversy relating to which has been made the subject-matter of question No. 2. In the view we have taken, we answer the questions referred to the court as follows Question No. 1 -In the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 -Need not be answered. Question No. 3 -In the negative and against the Revenue. Revenue to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... es of this trust . That business is property is no more in dispute. On a plain reading of the trust deed it is clear that the business itself was held in trust. The existence of the business before the execution of the trust deed has also been held to be not a prerequisite condition for attracting the provisions of s. 4(3)(i). Under the circumstances, we see no difficulty in recording finding that not only for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 in which income is of interest directly from trust fund but also for the assessment year 1954-55 in which the income is also from the business, s. 4(3)(i) was attracted. As a result, the consideration of proviso (b) to sub-s. (3) which takes away the exemption under certain circumstances does not arise. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, and against the Revenue and question No. 2 in the negative and against the Revenue inasmuch as the proviso does not apply. The assessee to get costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... order of registration as one of procedural nature. The question will, therefore, have to be slightly reframed having regard to the contention which was raised before the Tribunal and before us. We reframe the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the registration granted to the firm under s. 185 will preclude the application of s. 60 or s. 61 for the purpose of making an assessment under s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? We may also point out that if the income earned from the construction work carried out by the partnership is the income of the partnership firm, there was no question of diversion of any income by overriding title. In the view which we have taken, the questions in this reference are answered as follows Question No. 1-In the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2-In the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 3-In the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue to pay the costs of this Reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the penalty gets crystallised as on the expiry of the last date of the period within which the return was due to be filed and the default occurred. A similar view is also taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CWT. v. Smt. Manjuladevi Muchhal 1979 119 ITR 43 (MP). The defaults in that case were in not filing the returns due on June 30, 1961, June 30, 1962, and June 30, 1963. The returns were filed on November 18, 1969, and the Division Bench held that the law for the purpose of penalty that would be applicable would be the law in force in those dates and not the law which had been brought into force on April 1, 1969. In the view which we have taken, the questions referred are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 Not necessary to be answered. Question No. 4 Not pressed by the assessee and hence not answered. The assessee to get the costs of this Reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e IAC to initiate penalty proceedings was confined to cases where the amount of concealed income, was in excess of Rs. 25,000 and in a case where the concealed income was Rs. 10,000 but the case was referred to the IAC, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the order of penalty was, therefore, invalid. In that case, the ITO referred the case to the IAC on January 19, 1973, when the concealed income was Rs. 10,000 and the IAC passed the order of penalty on February 24, 1973. In view of our answer to question No. 1, question No. 3 does not arise. In view of our answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2, it is not necessary to deal with or answer the question raised at the instance of he assessee, The answers to the questions referred at the instance of the Revenue are as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 Need not be answered. Revenue to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Developement Rebate, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... unit. The questions which we return to the Tribunal for further consideration are the following 1962-63 and 1963-64 Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of expenditure incurred in connection with the pipe-casting plant taken over from Ramakrishna Basic Industries Corporation Limited? 1962-63 Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the allowance of the loss of Rs. 82,677 relating to the pipe-casting plant ? 1963-64 Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the allowance of the loss of Rs. 71,634 relating to the pipe-casting plant ? 1964-65 and 1971-72 Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that remuneration and interest paid to the selling agents on the spun-pipe department were not allowable deductions in computing the total income? The tax references are disposed of accordingly with the costs of the assessees. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1981 (1) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Estate Duty, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... evenue. It was a case of a gift by the head of a family. Even after the gift, he lived there as the head and managed the property in that capacity as before. . Mere filial affection without anything more was considered insufficient to take out the case from the clutches of s. 10. In view of crystal clear distinguishing features existing in the present matter which need not be repeated and the ratio of subsequent decisions referred to above, we do not feel that the said decision assists the Revenue in this matter. After all, we are interpreting a taxing statute whose only object is and could be to plug the holes and prevent the persons liable to pay duty putting forth gifts as a facade and not intended to be acted upon. In our judgment, therefore, s. IO does not take within its sweep even the residential house. In the view that we have taken, we answer all the three parts of the question in the negative and against the Revenue. The Revenue to bear the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mean that the section is operating retrospectively. The provision is analogous to the provisions for trial of offences and it, therefore, governs any action to be taken in respect of a default which may have taken place prior to the amendment on April 1, 1971. As on the date on which Action was taken by the Income-tax Officer, as already pointed out, he could not have looked to any other provision except section 274(2) as amended with effect from April 1, 1971, and, is the provision then stood, there was no scope for referring the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In the view which we have taken, question No. 1 has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the assessee, has conceded before us that in view of the smallness of the amount involved, the question may be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (1) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 1972. A grievance was made that the proceedings are not being brought to an end early. We do not think that there is much force in this contention for the simple reason that the petitioner himself in the year 1974 obtained stay order from this court relating to further proceedings. Nevertheless, we do feel that the proceedings are already inordinately delayed and we direct that the Income-tax Officer concerned shall dispose of those proceedings with speed and within as short a time as possible. As we have indicated, it does not appear that, after the attachment, the properties are being put to sale as rule 11, sub-rule (1) permits. The petitioners other than petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to make their claims and objections before the Income-tax Officer who shall, if such claims are made, decide them in accordance with law. We direct the Income-tax Officer concerned to do so within three months of the receipt of objections, if any. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
....
|
