|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 110 Records
-
1981 (6) TMI 113 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or (iv) 50 per cent or more by weight of jute (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre). Unfortunately we have no material in this case to understand what exactly are lace cloth and woven lace which are the goods in controversy. Whether they are made out of cotton or of silk, or partly out of silk or partly out of cotton are matters about which there are no materials before us. If the revision petitioner seeks exemption on the ground that these items fall within the Third Schedule to the General Sales Tax Act the burden is on the petitioner to prove this by placing materials before the authorities and rightly the Tribunal held that in order to find a commodity to be cotton fabrics the assessee has to prove that the commodity is cotton fabrics within the definition of item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. In this view no interference is called for on this count also. In the result the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 112 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operty in the packing materials passes with the goods and the parties contemplate passing of such property under the terms of the agreement for sale. 7.. In the circumstances of the case we have no difficulty in holding that section 5A(1)(c) applies and consequently there is no liability to pay tax on the packing materials used for despatch of eggs in inter-State trade or commerce. 8.. We may notice that the party himself conceded that he is liable to pay tax on coir not because that stands differently from other goods used as packing materials but because he is liable to tax on coir not under section 5A but as a purchaser at the last point of purchase in the State. Therefore, irrespective of section 5A he is liable to pay tax on such purchases and that liability is not in any way affected by what has been said in this judgment. 9.. The tax liability will be recomputed in accordance with this judgment and the refund of amount, if any, will naturally follow. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Court – Jurisdiction of, Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... urt, and that right can be exercised only by the required number of shareholders joining together. The true question, it appears to me, is whether the scope of Chap. VI is only to provide a convenient remedy for the minority shareholders under certain conditions, or whether the provisions therein are intended to exclude all other remedies and in order to incline to the latter view, I would require much more than a bare reference to a rule of construction about the creation of new jurisdictions. Suits by minority shareholders against oppression and mismanagement have been, as noticed earlier, a time-honoured exception to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle 1843 2 Hare 461 and in the absence of words expressly or clearly barring them, it is not possible to hold that sections 397, 398 and 408 of the Companies Act exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. All the three points urged on behalf of the petitioners thus fail, and the C.R.P. is dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 104 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... ity and it was possible to have different methods of valuation of properties it is not a case where we could say that the assessee should have filed the returns immediately on receipt of approved values report. It is also not possible to hold that the lady should penalised because her husband who is an income tax assessee should have known that his wife should have filed wealth tax returns in time. In other words, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeals. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to go into the legal question as to whether the or wealth should be the basis for the penalty for any or all of the years though it would appear that in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in CWT vs. Suresh Seth (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 349 (1981) 129 ITR 328 (SC) the assessee rsquo s contention is right even in this regard in respect of the penalties for assessment years from upto asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1968-69. 4. In the result the departmental appeal are dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... assessee rsquo s case. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in WTO vs. C. K. Mammed Kayi 129-ITR 307 also lends support to the assessee rsquo s case in the sense that the HUF has to be treated only as a group of individuals and it is not an artificial juridical person like a company or a co-operative society. Hence, the WTO was in error in assuming that the HUF was not a natural person and that it could not have a residence. We are therefore of the view that the assessee satisfies the requirements of s. 5(1)(Iv) as it stood prior to its amendment by Finance No. 2) Act, 1971 and is therefore eligible for exemption granted by the first Appl. Authority, though he seems to have overlooked the condition that was in existence prior to 1st April, 1972 and had directed relief merely on the ground that the house belonged to the assessee, but was also used exclusively by the assessee for residential purposes . 4. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... e of advance tax in form No. 29 on 14th March, 1975, which is evidenced by the entry in the local delivery book maintained by the representative and a photostat copy thereof has been filed for record. The ld. Deptl. Rep. had an opportunity of inspecting the delivery book produced by the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an estimate of advance tax required under s. 212(3)(A) or not. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that the assessee had not actually filed such estimate and imposed penalty. In view of the evidence now produced before us, in the interest of the justice and fairplay we consider it fit to set aside the order of the AAC and to restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. At the time of hearing the ITO has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in this respect. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the AAC and the matter is restored to him for fresh adjudication. 4. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1981 (6) TMI 99 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... tion. Even in case the explanation offered is found to be false it would not justify levy of penalty for charge of concealment of income. In this case the explanation offered by the assessee has been accepted as satisfactory at last partly. There is no material on record to establish that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that an addition of Rs. 5,000 has been sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty imposed cannot be sustained in the absence of any material on record to hold that it constituted the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. There is also nothing on record to show that the assessee acted delierbately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. In view of these reasons the impugned penalty is cancelled. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 98 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... d Corporation of India and even where it is made to others, details have been furnished. Similarly, expenditure also bears detail. Under such circumstances, we should imagine that the question of estimate of a reasonable income from the land otherwise unreliable. There has been no such attempt. The yield characterised as abnormal has not been the feature of only this year. There has been variations of income ranging from Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 40,000 in the course of six consecutive years, including the year under consideration as per statement filed by the assessee. Hence, it is not as though that the income of about Rs. 38,000 is shown regularly for each year. The crop of one year may be sold in another and there are also seasonal factors, number of crops, the nature of the crops and the yield. There is no positive material to suggest that credits represent anything other than what they are claimed to be. There is no merit in the departmental appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 97 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... the question of capital gains in respect of a sale of a property in Malaysia, according to Art. 6 of the agreement provides for avoidance of double taxation. Such income from immovable property may be taxed in the contracting State only where such property is situated. As capital gains arises out of sale of immovable property, it springs out of the property income and is governed by Art. 6. The CIT (A) has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Seventhilal Meneklal Seth vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 503 (SC). He has extracted a passage from the decision of the Supreme Court, capital gains springs from the property and therefore Art. 6 clearly excludes taxation of such income except in the State in which the property is situated. Since in this case the property is situated in Malaysia, capital gains cannot be taxed in India. We agree with the CIT (A) on this point. Hence this point is also found against the Department. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 96 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... om for third parties the initial burden lies on the assessee to establish (a) the existence of third party, (b) the ability of the third party to advance moneys, and (c) that prima-facie the loan is of genuine one- vide the decision of the Calcutta High Court in IT Ref. No. 20 of 1967 in the case of Knitting Machineries Syndicate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT dt. 6th Sept., 1972 and the same view has been reiterated in the case of Shankar Industries, reported in (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) at page 698. In view of the aforesaid ratio decided and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no iota of evidence in favour of the assessee, and therefore, the assessee s explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash credits has not been satisfactorily explained. In this view of the matter, therefore, we hold that the authorities were justified in assessing the cash credits as the income of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 95 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 8,000. After adjusting Rs. 3,600 charged, the concession in rent is at Rs. 4,400 per annum. Taking approximately the present value as on the date of the agreement of the future monthly income, we are of the view that the concession in respect of the rent for the next three years could be adopted at Rs. 12,500. Since the amount taken in the assessment for this year is Rs. 17,040, the assessee is eligible for relief of Rs. 4,540. The assessment for asst. yr. 1975-76 will have to be annulled because there is no taxable event during the year as the only item considered is the alleged concession in respect of the renewal already made and considered during the immediately preceding year. 4. In the result, the appeals for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76 are dismissed. The departmental appeal is allowed and the order of the GTO is restored for asst. yr. 1971-72. The departmental appeal is partly allowed for asst. yr. 1974-75 and the relief due on the value of the gift is Rs. 4,540.
-
1981 (6) TMI 94 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... wealth returned for the year under consideration is more or less of the same magnitude and there were no special reasons for obtaining valuation reports, etc., which could delay the filing of return. The valuation made by the assessee in respect of the various immovable properties is based on rough and ready estimate and it would not have taken such a long time to compute the value thereof for the purpose of filing the return of wealth. Further there is no corroborative evidence or affidavit on the part of any representative for having applied for extension of time for having delayed the preparation of return. In the circumstances we are of the view that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of wealth and therefore, the penalty imposed by the authorities is warranted. In this view of the matter therefore, the order of the AAC is confirmed as it is quite justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 93 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... 1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC) which was concerned with question of allocation that of the managing agency commission based on annual net profit. For the foregoing reasons we uphold the assessee s claim for the appropriate DIT Relief or the deduction on the amounts of foreign income as computed before the deduction or adjustment of the extra allowance of one third of the expenditure under s. 35B of the IT Act. It follows from the acceptance of the assessee s claim that the Department s objections in the appeals have to be, and are hereby, rejected. 6. We respectfully agree with the above reasoning and conclusion of our ld. brothers of the B Bench and hold that the assessee is entitled to the appropriate double income-tax relief or the deduction on the amounts of foreign income as computed before the deduction of the extra allowance of weighted deduction of the expenditure allowed under s. 35B of the IT Act. Accordingly we allow the assessee s appeals and dismiss the Revenue s appeals.
-
1981 (6) TMI 92 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... f the compensation does not make it taxable in the year when there is no element of income in the receipt. It also does not relate to the year as it is for the loss or profits over many years. This is what makes it a capital receipt. It is unnecessary to go into any detailed discussion of law. We do not consider it necessary to cite any authorities for our conclusion. It is because our finding is that it is compensation for the loss suffered by the assessee in having its name and consequently its goodwill diluted by the competitor using the assessee s name. Since goodwill is too well established as a capital asset, we have no hesitation in holding that the compensation therefore is not a revenue receipt. On the full facts as now enumerated in this order, the decision that was taken in the short earlier order of the Tribunal is found to be correct and it is therefore repeated. 5. In the result, the earlier order of this Tribunal dt. 7th March, 1975 stands without modification.
-
1981 (6) TMI 91 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of the IT Act. Considering the total income assessed in the reassessment proceedings it is very difficult to accept the Revenue s contention that there could have been any intention on the part of the appellant to council this income in order to save a few rupees by way of tax. No man of ordinary prudence would ever think of concealing a small portion of his income and save tax if he is aware of the fact that he will be visited with a penalty equal to the amount of income alleged to have been concealed. The probabilities are in favour of the appellant being not guilty of any mens rea. We, therefore, accept the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and hold that there was no concealment of income by the appellant or furnishing of inaccurate particulars which justified the imposition of penalty. Accordingly we cancel the penalties in all the five years, which shall be refunded to the assessee if already collected. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 76 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t to speak of the application of the rate of 65 . Apart from the fact that such reason cannot avail for supporting the levy made by him it was specifically stated before us by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the case of the assessee is not for a total exemption from tax but that the income of the trust has to be assessed under the ordinary law in the hands of the trustee as the recipient of the income by the application of the normal rate of tax under the general provisions of the Act and not with reference to the special provisions contained in s. 164 r/w s. 160(1) cl. (iv) of the Act. We find considerable merit in the assessee rsquo s stand. We therefore uphold the claim of the assessee that the rate of tax applicable should not be held to be governed by the provisions of s. 164 r/w s. 160(1) cl. (iv) but under the other general provisions of the Act and we accordingly direct the ITO to recompute the tax payable in each case. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 74 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... we have noted that the assessee had not challenged the order passed by the CIT under s. 18(2B) of the Act and he has only assailed the penalties imposed by the WTO. We have also noted that the CWT has not decided the petitions filed by the assessee on merits rather on technical grounds only the assessee s petitions were dismissed by the CWT. Be that as it may, the provisions of law for filing appeals against the penalties imposed by the WTO are crystal clear and there is no fetter by the provisions of s. 18(2B) on the powers of the AAC to consider the appeals filed by the assessee on merits. Thus, the questions proposed are, no doubt, the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, but since the answer is quite obvious, the reference of the questions would be only academic as the appeals are to be decided on the directions of the Tribunal by the AAC on merits. 6. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we reject the applications filed by the Revenue.
-
1981 (6) TMI 73 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... cable, but the expenditure of Rs. 97,275 incurred by the assessee as service charges does not appear to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee firm, and hence, the said sum of Rs. 97,275 is allowable as business expenditure. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of Rs. 97,275 upheld by the CIT(A). 6. The only other ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is that on the disallowance of Rs. 26,224 as capital expenditure on the purchase of block, depreciation should have been allowed according to the rules. It was submitted that most of the items were below Rs. 750, and therefore, depreciation should be allowed 100 per cent. Since the question of allowance on depreciation has not been looked into by the ITO, we direct that this point may be examined and the correct amount of depreciation as admissible in accordance with the rules may be allowed to the assessee. 7. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 72 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... efined was shown at 12.6 per cent. It was also pleaded that without pointing out any specific defect in the books of accounts maintained, the book results cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the yield is low. We have gone through the assessee s explanation and find that there is substance in the same. Yield of oil from seeds depends upon a variety of factors including the quality of seeds, climatic conditions, efficiency of machinery, method of extraction and the efficiency of the management. The yield cannot remain constant from year to year. This apart, it appears that the assessee had maintained regular and proper books of accounts and the authorities below have not pointed out by specific defects in the system of accounting followed by the assessee. In these circumstances, the addition of Rs. 4,130 on account of low yield is without any basis and we are unable to sustain the same. Accordingly, the said addition is deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (6) TMI 71 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... oreign exchange contracts were only incidental to the assessee s regular course of business. The AAC had made a categorical finding to this effect which had been upheld by the Tribunal. The loss was not a speculative loss but was incidental to the assessee s business and allowable as such. In arriving at the above finding, their Lordships have referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases reported in (1975) 100 ITR 715 (SC), (1969) 74 ITR 26 (SC) and AIR 1968 SC 522. So far as the authorities cited on behalf of the Department are concerned, we may, with respect, observe that in the cases referred in (1975) 100 ITR 715 (SC) (1980) 121 ITR 54 (SC) and 56, their Lordships deal with the cases of only transactions of delivery-orders and not the delivery of goods. Hence, these cases are distinguishable and assessee is entitled to claim these expenses. 7. In the result, the addition sustained is deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
|
