Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 199 of 199 Records
-
1981 (4) TMI 19
Business Expenditure, Income ... ... ... ... ..... rse the entry at any time, retrospectively, before the completion of the assessment for the relevant year. In Ferozepur Finance (P.) Ltd. s case 1980 124 ITR 619 (P and H), this court has taken the view that income-tax is levied on income, whether the accounts are maintained on mercantile system or on cash basis. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a levy of tax. Even if an entry of hypothetical income be made in the books of account, where the income does not result at all, as there is neither accrual nor receipt of income, no tax can be levied. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,044 was a notional receipt and hence was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee during the assessment year 1970-71. Therefore, the answer to this question is also in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue. The reference stands answered accordingly with costs. S. P. GOYAL J.-I agree.
-
1981 (4) TMI 18
... ... ... ... ..... e question of law in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The result is that the assessee must be assessed only in the status of an HUF. We must, however, utter a note of caution that our answer to the question of law would not have the effect of burking further investigation into the real character of the properties and businesses held by the assessee, item by item, with a view to see what they really are, whether they are joint family properties or separate properties. But so far as the question in this reference is concerned, addressing ourselves only to those properties which were allotted to the assessee under the arbitration award and to those acquired with the aid of, or to the detriment of, those properties, the assessee can be assessed to income-tax only in the status of an HUF. The result is that this reference is answered in the assessee s favour. The assessee in these tax cases will be entitled to his costs. Counsel fee, Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1981 (4) TMI 17
Deemed Income, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ve the effect of showing the amount as income and, thus, there would be a remission or cessation of the liability. We are unable, with due respect, to accept the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the cases referred to above. In view of the discussions made above we are of the opinion that there can be a cessation only on the bilateral acts by both the creditor and the debtor or by a refusal of the debtor to honour his liability when pressed for the dues or by a discharge of the debt by making payment of dues. In no case a debtor can bring the liability to an end on his own volition. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was neither a remission nor cessation of the trading liabilities in this case and, thus, the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act would not be attracted. In the premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (4) TMI 16
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n there was a default, but the default could not be discovered by the assessee in view of the fact that the terms of compromise stipulated payment of instalments in cash as also by adjustment out of supplies to be made in future of motor vehicles at the stipulated rate of 10 per cent. It is the assessee s case that certain supplies were made, but the adjustment had not been made for years and only when the Board started levying execution, that it was found out that there has been default and, therefore, the interest became payable. Non-provision for the liability of interest in the previous years in the circumstances has rightly been excused by the Tribunal on the basis of factual determination and we do not think, any question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer to state a case and we, therefore, do not propose to allow the application of the Revenue. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 15
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e was not entitled I to any deduction in excess of Rs. 1,50,000. It further held that the effect of the proviso was that only if the value of the assets described in cls. (xv) and (xvi) exceeded Rs. 1,50,000 the total deduction available would equal the value of the assets under cls. (xv) and (xvi). It appears to us that the view taken by the Tribunal is, correct. Under the main provision in sub-cl. (1A), the maximum deduction permissible is Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The proviso specifies that in the event the assets included in the computation of the net wealth consist of assets coming within the ambit of cls. (xv) and (xvi) and the value of such assets exceeds Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the limit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs shall be raised to the said value. That is, in a case where the value of the assets falling under cls. (xv) and (xvi) exceed Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the maximum amount of deduction permissible Would be the value of those two items. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative.
-
1981 (4) TMI 14
False Statement In Verification, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... sing of the court for the offence under s. 277 of the I.T. Act need not be interfered with. However, am of the opinion that the sentence of Rs. 1,000 only awarded to the second accused for the offence under S. 193, IPC, is not sufficient and, therefore, I enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000, viz., by an additional sum of Rs. 1,000, and maintain the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, the sentence of fine of Rs. 500 awarded to the third accused for the offence punishable under s. 193, IPC, is enhanced to Rs. 1,000, namely, by a fine of Rs. 500 in addition to the fine already imposed. In default of payment of the fine of Rs. 1,000 in all, the third accused will suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Time for payment of the fines imposed, two months. No enhancement of the sentence awarded to A-1 is called for, because A-2 and A-3 are the partners who constitute the A-1 firm. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 13
Company, Other Statutes, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... imilar would be the situation in case the proceedings are sought to be initiated before the Rent Controller under the Rent Control legislation. We would, therefore, answer the reference accordingly and hold that leave has to be obtained from the winding up court by the LIC before it can initiate or continue proceedings before the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971. We are saying nothing on the merits because the question whether the leave should be given, and, if so, on what terms, or refused are matters which necessarily have to be decided by the learned single judge who is seized of the application filed by the LIC under s. 446 of the Companies Act. Before parting with the case we must express our thanks to the counsel for the parties and especially to Mr. A. B. Saharya and Mr. D. P. Wadhwa (who were asked by the Bench to appear as amicus curiae) for the assistance rendered by them. The matter will now be listed before the learned single judge for appropriate proceedings.
-
1981 (4) TMI 12
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... aimed, it is now well established that the question whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will have to be decided on the basis of the provisions of law that apply to the case and not merely that mentioned by the assessee (vide CIT v. C Parakh and Co. (India) Ltd. 1956 29 ITR 661 (SC) at page 665). The mere fact, therefore, that the assessee might have thought that this should be entered in the books in the form of a debt due from Nand Lal will not affect or take away the real character of transaction or deprive the assessee of the benefit of the deduction. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the loss in question was incidental to the business and that it was properly claimed and allowed in the assessment year 1965-66. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee has succeeded, the Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (4) TMI 11
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... lity into a contingent liability. The Tribunal has observed that the amount payable to the workers as wages for the excess rejection of bidis has not been paid even though two years have passed after the relevant accounting year. This is justified by the assessee on the ground that his case is pending before the Supreme Court and payment of the amount to the workers would render the petition infructuous. The amount has been set apart for payment to the workers. Therefore, if it is eventually not paid, it would be open to the authorities to treat it as revenue. But from this fact alone it was not possible to declare that the liability to pay wages was contingent. We would, therefore, answer the Department by saying that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the amount payable to workers under rule 29(2) of the M.P. Beedi and Cigar (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968, in the assessment year 1970-71. Such a liability was not contingent There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 10
Claim for exemption u/s 11 - held that the income of the assessee-trust is exempt u/s. 4(3)(I) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, and s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961 - no reason for interfering with the judgment of the High Court
-
1981 (4) TMI 9
Assessee (chamber of commerce) is engaged in activities in regard to holding of the Indian Trade Fair and sponsoring the Conference of the Afro-Asian Organisation - object and purpose of the trust are promotion, protection and development of trade, commerce and industry in India - held that income derived by the assessee from such activities was exempt under s. 11(1)(a) r/w s. 2(15)
-
1981 (4) TMI 8
Assessee-Bar Council of Maharashtra-is a body corporate established under the Advocates Act, 1961 -Whether the assessee-council could be taken to be a body intended to advance any object of general public utility falling within s. 2(15) for purposes of S. 11 - held,yes
-
1981 (4) TMI 7
Priority Industry - development rebate - In the view taken by us, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that Nylon-6 is a " petrochemical " acquires finality, and, therefore, the question whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to interfere under S. 263 of the Act is academic and does not call for a reference.
-
1981 (4) TMI 6
Priority Industry - Development Rebate - held that Nylon-6 manufactured from imported caprolactum was not a "petrochemical" - revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1981 (4) TMI 5
Reassessment - validity of notice issued under s. 148 - hold that neither of the two conditions necessary for attracting the applicability of S. 147(a) was satisfied in the present case and the notice issued by the ITO must be held to be without jurisdiction.
-
1981 (4) TMI 4
Tribunal hold that the offence relating to the omission to file the wealth-tax returns was a continuing offence - default complained of is one falling under s. 18(1)(a) - penalty will be imposed according to law applicable on force on last date on which return had to be filed - Neither the amendment made in 1964 nor the amendment made in 1,969 has retrospective effect, hence not applicable
-
1981 (4) TMI 3
Voluntary Disclosure Scheme - Liability to Income-Tax - deductible as " debt owed " on valuation date
-
1981 (4) TMI 2
Whether Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads of North Malabar-Muslim undivided families governed by the Marumakkathayam Act (Madras Act 17 of 1939)-fall within the expression " individual " and are assessable to tax under s. 3 - we hold that the term " individual " in s. 3 of the Act includes within its ambit Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads and they are well within the purview of the taxing provisions of the enactment
-
1981 (4) TMI 1
Non-resident - Indian solicitors and non-resident barrister - Income earned by U.K. barrister - ITO made an order on March 23, 1977, treating the appellants' firm as the agent of non-resident - held that " business connection " includes professional connection-assessee's appeal is dismissed
....
|