|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 110 of 110 Records
-
1981 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ce it could not be regarded as an expenditure not incurred in India. It seems to us that, if the commission can at all brought under any one of the provisions under s. 35B, it can be brought only under sub-cl. (iii) of s. 35B(1)(b). It is here that the assessee faces the chief difficulty in applying sub-cl. (iii), namely, that the commission was paid in India and not outside India. It is clear that the expenditure thus fails to fulfil one of the important conditions under sub-cl. (iii). The question of law for our decision has been formulated thus by the Tribunal in the case stated Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the commission paid of Rs. 14,737 ? Having regard to the reasons stated above, we answer the question of law in the negative and against the assessee. The Department will have its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (6) TMI 9 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly (i) to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner. It is very clear that s. 64 of the I.T. Act speaks about the individual and there appears no scope for further interpretation. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the above question was self-evident and need not be referred for the opinion of the High Court in view of the decisions in the appeal on the findings of fact and law as referred to above. Accordingly, we hold that no question of law arises to be referred for the opinion of the High Court and we, therefore, are not inclined to call for statement of the case on the question of law sought to be raised by the petitioner in these applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act. In the result, both the petitions stand rejected. We make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... view we have expressed in the case of Oil India Co. Ltd. v. CIT (Income-tax Reference No. 71 of 1977, judgment delivered on 17th and 18th December, 1980) 1982 137 ITR 156 and in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. v. CIT (Income-tax Reference No. 127 of 1977, judgment delivered on 28th April 1980 , reported in 1981 130 ITR 351. In those two decisions we have reviewed most of the decisions that were cited before us and we have indicated that when a sum is held, even if a loan is taken originally, as loan but is utilised as a circulating capital or as trading asset, then any accretion or depreciation must be treated on the revenue account either as profit or loss as a result of devaluation. In the instant case, as loss has resulted, it is deductible as revenue loss. In the premises, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (6) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal that it was because the ITO came to know about the Board s circular after filing of the appeal that the additional grounds were raised belatedly as stated above. The Tribunal was expected to decide the question whether or not to condone the delay on the basis of the material placed before it. It is not open to the Revenue to make out a new case on the basis of facts and materials which were not before the Tribunal. Whether or not to condone delay was a matter within the discretion of the Tribunal and we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the additional grounds raised by the Revenue. We also hold that no adequate grounds were made out to condone the delay. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the result, all the questions are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... entries lend support to the view which we are inclined to take rather than to the view which has found favour with the AAC. Entry at Sr. No. A-48, in terms, provides for exemption in respect of export of steel wire Products made of special steel . What we wish to emphasize is that the entry in terms provides for exemption in respect of steel wire products of special steel. It does not refer to special steel simpliciter. This would go to show that where there was an intention to grant exemption in respect of products manufactured from special steel, the entry was so worded as to bring within its circumstance an article manufactured from special steel. In the present case the entry adverts to special steel and not to articles made out of special steel . We are, therefore, unable to accede to the argument advanced by counsel for the assessee. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order regarding costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... or as contribution towards research and development expenditure could be disallowed as capital expenditure ? In the other, the question of law has been framed in the following manner, viz. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the various clauses of the collaboration agreement dated May 20, 1965, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the Incometax Officer s disallowance of 1/4th of the amount paid to the foreign collaborator as contribution towards research and development as capital expenditure ? Our common answer to both the questions of law is that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that no part of the amount paid by the assessee to the foreign collaborator as contribution towards research and development can be regarded as capital expenditure. Since the assessee has succeeded and the Department has failed in these group of cases, the Department has got to pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1981 (6) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ld have had to pay the market value as on the date of the purchase from the karta. If the karta of the HUF had instead of throwing the shares into the common hotchpot, thrown cash amount say Rs. 5,000 into the family hotchpot, the value of the property thrown into the family hotchpot would be Rs. 5,000. Whether the karta or a member of the HUF throws into the common hotchpot, cash amount or property, would not make any difference in principle. In case property is thrown into the common hotchpot, what is material is its market value on the date on which it is thrown into the common hotchpot. Therefore, it is that value which must be taken to be the cost of acquisition so far as the HUF is concerned. In the result, questions Nos. (1) and (2), set out above are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the view which we are taking, the third question does not survive, and, therefore, it need not be answered. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... e determined by us. The stand taken by the Central Board of Revenue in their circular is a matter of no moment, when it comes to a question of statutory interpretation. We only refer to the later circular of the Board, just to show that recently, at any rate, the Board seems to have come to accept the position in law as laid down in the various judgments of the High Courts. For the reasons we have earlier expressed and following with respect the consensus of judicial opinion amongst the other High Courts in India, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee was exempt in its entirety on a combined application of ss. 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the I.T. Act, for all the three assessment years in question, 1968-69 to 1970-71. The question of law referred to us is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and against the Department. Since the Department has failed in this reference, it has got to bear the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal, for reasons stated by them, held that the rectification order cannot be sustained since the original order under s. 155 was itself found to be not in accordance with law. Against this decision of the Tribunal, the Department sought a reference. The Tribunal declined to state a case. The Department have now come before this court with a request that the Tribunal may be directed to state case. We think this request must be rejected. As already stated, T.C.Ps. Nos. 404 to 411 of 1980 relating to the parent order under s. 155 were dismissed on the ground that no question of law arose out of the Tribunal s decision. The proceedings under s. 154 for rectification can have legs to stand upon only if the order under s. 155 itself is in existence. Since that order has been set aside and that had become final, these T.C.Ps. concerning the applicability of s. 154 are to no purpose. Hence, they are dismissed on the ground that no referable question of law arises in these cases.
-
1981 (6) TMI 1 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... of capital asset . The following questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in the manner indicated hereunder Questions Answer 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances In the affirmative of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and against the was right in law in holding that the land was not Revenue a capital asset or that the land could not be treated as non-agricultural land only because it was within eight kilometres of the Ahmedabad municipal limits as the land was sold on July 30, 1971, i.e., before the notification dated February 6, 1973, covering the land in question? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances In the negative of the case, the surplus realised out of the sale of and against the could be charged to capital gains in view of the Revenue provisions of sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Notification No. 8.0.77(B) dated February 6, 1973? Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
