|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ed earlier, we would respectfully dissent from all these judgments as well. We must, therefore, conclude on the larger principle, in the light of the broader scheme of the I.T. Act, 1961, the specific language of s. 271(1)(a) and the weight of precedent, that the doctrine of mens rea is not attracted to the penalty proceedings within the four corners of the aforesaid section. The only requirement of the statute thereunder is the presence or absence of reasonable cause for the tax delinquency and no other. Therefore, inducting the requirement of a deliberate defiance of law, or contumacious conduct, or dishonest intention, or acting in conscious disregard of the statutory obligations, is unwarranted under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Having answered the meaningful question referred to us in the above terms, we direct that the case be now placed before the Division Bench for answering the relevant questions in accordance therewith. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree. J. V. GUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ing out the repairs. The learned judges have also gone into the other parts of s. 9, which corresponds to s. 24 of the present Act and pointed out different conditions for allowance prescribed by the statute. It is perhaps because there was no condition requiring a levy or actual payment, that the Delhi High Court, following the decision of the Bombay High Court, held that the ground rent could only be related to the relevant previous years. As the language of the present provision is different, we do not think it necessary to go more into the point considered by the said two courts. In our opinion, having regard to the language of the proviso to s. 23(1), the assessee would be eligible for the allowance because there was a levy during the relevant year and the tax was also borne by the owner of the property in that year. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee would be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (7) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is reference must be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative. Certain other contentions were raised by the assessee at the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Some of those contentions were negatived by the Tribunal. With respect to some others, when the respondents in their application for a reference wanted a question referred to this High Court based upon them, the Tribunal held that that point was not considered by it because at no stage such a point had been taken by the assessee. Some other points canvassed by the assessee were not decided by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal comes to dispose of the matter finally in the light of the judgment given in this reference, the Tribunal will consider such of the questions as it has left unconsidered and have actually arisen for consideration in the appeal filed by the assessee before it. There will be no order as to the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (7) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... y Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 195, held that the relief under s. 80J could be obtained also when new plant and machinery were erected for producing the same commodity which the assessee was producing earlier. It cannot, therefore, be said that the ITO, in granting the relief under s. 80J for the assessment year 1973-74, proceeded upon a wrong interpretation of the section. On these facts and circumstances, it was not open to the ITO, in dealing with the assessment for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, to refuse to grant the relief under s. 80J to the assessee. We are informed that the relief under that section has already been granted to the assessee for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. For the reason given above, we answer the question as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Incometax Officer was not competent to disallow the relief under section 80J for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. There will be no order as to costs of this application.
-
1981 (7) TMI 61 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Income, New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry
-
1981 (7) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Indian Company, Royalty ... ... ... ... ..... f what was the law before. It was because the assessee normally would have no control over the delay in the discharge of the functions by the Government that the proviso was added. The assessee could not do anything more but to apply within the time and if in a case the conditions were fulfilled and sanction was accorded subsequent to the period with retrospective effect, then, in our opinion, the conditions should be fulfilled. In any event, having regard to the purpose of the section, both on a strict construction as well as on the well-settled principles of construction of a statute as we have mentioned hereinbefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion to give effect to the purpose of the legislation in this connection. In that view of the matter, both the questions are answered in the affirmative 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 (7) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... aken by the assessee in this case in anticipation of the transfer, the date of which was definite, can at the most be said to achieve these objects. The Industrial Disputes Act gives him this right in the wake of the transfer of his undertaking by operation of law. In determining the services of the workmen by issuing termination notices under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the assessee created a liability, which, in a legitimate way, is recognised by law. He can claim its exclusion from his taxable income as an outgoing and is covered by 37 of the Act. This question is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. The last item of Rs. 3,62,390 covered by Income-tax Case No. 21 of 1977 is covered by the judgment in Fazilka Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1962 46 ITR 127 (SC). It was rightly decided by the Tribunal and no reference was required to be made for this item. For the foregoing reasons, the references are accordingly answered. No order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iary as on the date of the creation of the trust. It is only when he is so satisfied that the satisfaction can be recorded. In the instant case, admittedly, the minor sons were not mainly dependent on the settlors for their support and maintenance at the time when the trust was created. They had their own income from which they could have maintained themselves. The major daughter, who was one of the beneficiaries, was also a married daughter who was not dependent on the settlors for her support and maintenance. In our opinion, therefore, the trust in question does not fall within the purview of cl. (iii) of the proviso to s. 164(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, fallen into an error of law in holding that the assessee-trust was liable to be taxed at the rate applicable to the association of persons and not at the rate of 65 . In the result, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... on 3rd April, 1929, and not on 8th May, 1929, and that it could not, therefore, be included-in the income of the year ending 12th April, 1930. On a reference, the Madras High Court took the view that the assessee received the money in the shape of house sites only on the 8th May, 1929, and so the amount was liable to be assessed to tax in the accounting year ending 12th April, 1930. In other words, it was held that the assessee could not be said to have received money, unless and until the sale was completed on May 8, 1929. Similar view was taken In re Kunjamal and Sons 1941 9 ITR 358(All). We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 5,000 received by the assessee as earnest money and Rs. 2,08,772 received by it as part payment of price constitute the assessee s income taxable for the assessment year 1971-72. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... interest income was concerned, it was held that the amount had been deposited in a bank, just as any other assessee might have, and that there was no vital link between the deposit and the priority industry. The interest income was, therefore, excluded from the relief available under s. 80-I. The learned standing counsel contended that the income arising from the sub-contracts will have to be treated in the same way as the interest income in the case discussed above. We are unable to accept this submission. From the narration of facts, it would be clear that the sub-contracts were only with reference to the items coming within the scope of a priority industry. Therefore, the link between the priority industry and the income of the sub-contracts has been established in the present case. The income would thus fall within s. 80-I. The result is, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 55 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... said that the view about an estimation would vary, and even if the assessee would have valued his share at Rs. 72,750 in the present cases, it could have been well said (as it has been) by the learned Commissioner that he (the assessee) underestimated the same, as the valuation has to be according to the market trends, opinions about which are most likely to differ. If the benefit contemplated by the section has to be denied on the score of underestimation, made even in good faith, it will render the provision a dead letter. It would have been a different matter if because of this, full benefit of the section would not have been made available to the assessee. But the total denial of the relief on the ground which prevailed with the learned Commissioner has to be regarded as an apparent error of law. The impugned orders are, therefore, quashed and the matters are remanded to the learned Commissioner for disposal of the same in accordance with law. The petitions are allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nk, however, that this distinction in the facts call for any difference in the principle on which the earlier decision is based, namely, that a refund of principal under the annuity deposit scheme is taxable as deemed income only in the hands of the depositor who made the initial deposit and not in the hands of any other person. The question referred by the Tribunal for our opinion is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share of annuity deposit received by the assessee of Rs. 2,650 in so far as it does not include any element of interest cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ? On the facts found by the Tribunal that the deposit was not made by the assessee but by his deceased mother the answer to this question must be in favour of the assessee. We answer the reference accordingly. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... e order of the AAC that he had not relied on the additional evidence to reach the conclusion that the addition made by the ITO was not justified. In his order, he, has observed In the absence of any proof against the assessee s version, the ITO should not have rejected the claim of the appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the AAC relying solely on the statement of the assessee had reached the conclusion that the addition made by the ITO was not justified. The Tribunal confirmed the finding of the AAC holding that his order did not suffer from any infirmity. Since the above addition has been deleted without taking into consideration the additional evidence, it is not necessary to remit the matter to the Tribunal. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the AAC deleting the addition. We, therefore, answer the above additional question in the affirmative and against the revenue. Reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... loss. It has generally been held that forfeiture of security deposited under a contract is a business loss and not a capital loss. The security amount deposited under a contract is not for obtaining the contract but for the due performance of its terms. Moreover, as earlier stated, here the contract with the Orissa Forest Corporation was not a new business started by the assessee but it was only a venture in the course of business which the assessee was already carrying on and, therefore, it could in no sense be held that the deposit of security was made for acquiring a business (See Narandas Mathuradas and Co. v. CIT 1959 35 ITR 461 (Bom) Jwala Prasad Radha Kishan v. CIT 1971 79 ITR 530 (All) and CIT v. Sugar Dealers 1975 100 ITR 424 (All) . For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred in favour of the assessee as follows On the facts and circumstances of the case the loss of Rs. 19,854 was revenue loss. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (7) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... on the facts on record, the requirement of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 17 is satisfied, the action of the WTO in reopening the assessment can be justified. If the facts on record constitute information, which call for a reassessment of the assessee s assets and wealth, the action of reopening the assessment can be justified under s. 17(1)(b) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in Avtar Singh Sandhu v. WTO 1981 129 ITR 531. The Tribunal, in our opinion, therefore, was not right in rejecting the contention of the revenue. Answer to question No. 2 must, therefore, be in the negative and against the assessee. Once this question is answered in the negative, it must follow as a necessary corollary that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the revenue s appeals for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. We, therefore, answer question No. 3 also in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ablished for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question, viz., the sum of Rs. 46,000 represented or emanated out of the receipts which were income of a revenue nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) are not attracted. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts found by the Tribunal. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 46,000, which was assessed as income from undisclosed sources, was not proved for the purpose of, penalty as receipts which were income of a revenue nature. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in cancelling the order of penalty imposed upon the assessee. Thus, in the facts, as found by the Tribunal, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"If Sold" In S. 36, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... ss the decisions relied on behalf of the parties concerning the aspect of mens rea. Some argument was sought to be advanced that the Tribunal had not decided on the question of mens rea. On this aspect, reliance was placed on certain observations in the case of V. L. Dull v., CIT 1976 103 ITR 634 (Mad). The Tribunal seems to have proceeded on the basis that even if the mental element was necessary whether, in a particular case, sufficient cause was made out or not is a question of fact and the Tribunal has taken Into consideration all the relevant facts, as have been mentioned hereinbefore, and was right in its conclusion. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error of law or erred in arriving at its conclusion which it did. In the premises, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... the purposes of his business and for which he had to pay interest. Thus, the possession and enjoyment of the, said sum of Rs. 1,20,000 from the time when the deposit was made until the date when it was returned to the trustees was that of the deceased who was the donor and it connot, therefore, be said that after the donees assumed possession and enjoyment of the property, which was the subject-matter of the gift, thenceforward the possession and enjoyment of such property was to the entire exclusion of the donor. For this reason, the condition of the said s. 10, which the Supreme Court described as the first limb of the second part of the said section, has not been complied with in the present case and, therefore, the application of s. 10 is not excluded. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the accountable persons. The respondents will pay to the applicant the costs of this reference.
-
1981 (7) TMI 47 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... e business. The assessee was not keeping the amount specially for any capital purpose when the assessee was free to remit the entire amount. The assessee was forced to the circumstances and as a matter of prudent business transaction the creditor company had to allow the assessee to pay in the manner that the assessee did. In these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion as it did. In our opinion, it could not be said that the Tribunal acted without evidence or the conclusion of the Tribunal was perverse in law. If that is the position, question No. 1 must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. If that again is the position, in view of the terms of the agreement, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has correctly summarised the agreement dated July 28, 1960. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the question No. 2 must also be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... 59,62,251 9,023 ----------------------- ------------------------- 3,41,38,681 73,32,054 ----------------------- ------------------------- In the background of these facts which will appear from the order of the ITO in the instant reference for the assessment year 1971-72, it appears to us that, in view of the principles enunciated by us in I.T. Ref. No. 438 of 1975 (Woolcombers India Ltd. v. CIT), judgment delivered on 12th February, 1981 (since reported in 1982 134 ITR 219 (Cal)), the question referred to this court, which is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proportionate interest paid by the applicant on the amount utilised for payment of taxes out of the overdraft account is not an allowable deduction ? must be 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.
....
|
