|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 175 Records
-
1982 (1) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal from this point of view. In respect of question No. 2, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to several decisions of different High Courts, namely, in the case of Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 747 (Guj), CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 112 ITR 839 (Mad) and Universal Commercial Co. v. CIT 1981 130 ITR 775 (Mad). These are decisions under the I. T. Act, 1961. They were not placed before the Tribunal. Since the matter is going back before the Tribunal, it will be open for the parties or the Tribunal to look into these cases and decide the question afresh. Learned counsel for the assessee wanted to raise certain points not covered by the questions referred to us. The Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, permit them. We, therefore, return the reference unanswered and we direct the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal in accordance with the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 54 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Any Person, Income Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... objection to jurisdiction. The case was posted for hearing on March 9, 1978. On that day none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, it cannot be heard to contend that any principle of natural justice had been violated by reason of the transfer of the file for the year 1972-73. In regard to the year 1974-75, the assessee filed its returns on October 24, 1974, before the 1st respondent. Only when notice was issued to the assessee under S. 17 did it raise any objection to the jurisdiction. This objection which was raised belatedly was rejected by the assessing authority. In so far as the assessee had filed the returns before the 1st respondent, it cannot now be heard to contend that any principle of natural justice has been violated by reason of the -transfer of the file to the 1st respondent. None of the objections raised by the assessee-petitioner against the impugned notification is, in my view, sustainable. The O.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Limitation, Penalty, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... r the liability of a representative assessee. But s. 166 is equally material. It provides Nothing in the foregoing sections in this Chapter shall prevent either the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit income therein referred to is receivable, or the recovery from such person of the tax payable in respect of such income. Section 160 is in Chap. XV which is headed as Liability in special cases . Section 166 is a proviso or exception, inter alia, to s. 161. Though, under s. 161, assessment can be made on the representative assessee in respect of a minor, yet, in view of s. 166, a direct assessment can equally be made on the minor. In the present case, there is no whisper that both the minor as well as the representative assessee, namely, her guardian, had been assessed to tax. In the result, both the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Commissioner would be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1982 (1) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from claiming the same as a deduction either under s. 10(1) or under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. It is, therefore, established that as to whether the assessee was entitled to a particular deduction or not would depend upon the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of its liability, nor can the existence or absence of entries in its books of account be decisive or conclusive of the matter. Thus, the assessee, who followed the mercantile system of accounting was entitled to a deduction, from the profits and gains of its business, of the liability to purchase tax, which arose on the purchases made by it during the relevant previous years. We, therefore, answer question No. 1, as reframed by us, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department and question No. 2 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (1) TMI 51 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ce had been led by the assessee to establish its claim that the amount of commission was given up on account of business or commercial expediency. Having arrived at the aforesaid finding, which is based on a consideration of the evidence and other relevant facts, we find that there was no justification for the Tribunal to have referred the aforesaid question as no point of law is involved which may need determination by us. The question whether the commission was forgone by the assessee or not is a pure question of fact. It may be observed at this stage that no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee that the income arising from the commission from the sub-contractors could not be treated as the income of the assessee during these assessment years as the same had not actually been received. Thus, considering the whole matter, as observed earlier, no question of law arises for our decision. Consequently, the reference is declined and returned unanswered.
-
1982 (1) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Beneficiary, Estate Duty, Exemptions, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... hether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its view that the contention of the appellant in respect of exemption claim for residential property was misconceived as the value of the residential property was not liable to be included along with the value of other properties for the purpose of ascertaining the deceased s share having regard to the direction of the Zonal Appellate Controller of Estate Duty in that regard ? The first two questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The fourth and fifth questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 3 is left unanswered. The matter is sent back to the Appellate Tribunal with direction that it will re-hear the appeal on the matter relating to Madho Kunj property, in the light of the observations made above. In view of the divided success, the parties will bear their own costs. The fee of the learned counsel for the department is, however, at Rs. 200.
-
1982 (1) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... se, could not reasonably lead to the conclusion that the moneys belonged to the partnership firm. Now, the distinguishing feature to which Mr. Joshi wanted to draw attention is that in Daulat Ram s case 1973 87 ITR 349 (SC), one of the persons in whose name the fixed deposit was made was the son of a partner and that on maturity Of the deposit, the moneys were withdrawn by him and remained with him. This does not affect the ratio of the Supreme Court decision that some nexus has to be established between the fixed deposit and the person who is alleged by the department to be the owner of the fixed deposit, though the fixed deposit stands in a different person s name. Having regard to the decision in Daulat Ram s case and the view which we have taken above, the question referred to has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The question is accordingly answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee to get the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trustee, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the trust properties are held or the recovery from the beneficiary of the wealth-tax in respect of his interest in the trust properties which is assessed in the hands of the trustee . The case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, AIR 1965 SC 1923, does not advance the case any further. In that case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the expression belonging to has to be construed in the context in which it appeared. In the context of the provisions of the W.T. Act, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the trust properties in this case belonged to the official trustee within the meaning of s. 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act, and that the residence of one of the beneficiaries of the trust will not bring the case within the scope of s. 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act. We are of the opinion that in this case the question referred has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1982 (1) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Special Rate ... ... ... ... ..... ot necessary to touch upon any of these aspects for disposing of the reference which has been placed before us. So far as this reference is concerned, the statutory provisions are quite clear. The development rebate actually allowed to the assessee in the assessment year 1969-70 was nil and, therefore, the assessee was not under an obligation to create any reserve at all during this period. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed development rebate at 35 . This has to be carried forward and set off in the subsequent years. Whether and, if so, in what years the amount can be so set off would depend upon the future assessments of the assessee and no opinion can be expressed at this stage as to when and in what manner the development rebate so carried forward can be allowed to the assessee in future years. We answer the question referred to us as already indicated. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 46 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctness of the view of the Tribunal on the ground that the amendment being of procedural nature would have retrospective effect. The argument is wholly misconceived because the amendment was expressly made applicable with effect from April 1, 1971. That apart, the assessee could not visualize, before the enforcement of the Amendment Act, that he was required to submit the form, for obtaining a continuation of the registration, before the expiry of the period for filing the return under s. 139(1) of the Act. Soon after the amendment was enforced with effect from April 1, 1971, the assessee submitted the Form on April 19, 1971. In such circumstances, a continuation of the registration could not be denied to the assessee-firm on the basis of the amendment of s. 184(7) of the Act and the Tribunal rightly held that the said provision was not applicable in the present case. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1982 (1) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Apart from these two clauses in s. 48, there is no other provision in the Act which permits deductions of any kind in the computation of capital gains. It may be that there was an obligation for making a provision for the marriage of the assessees sister and the liability was created under the very terms of the partition deed, under which they were allotted the items of properties, which were subsequently sold, which sale led to realisation of capital gains. Even so, the mere liability or obligation cannot be regarded as an item of expenditure, let alone an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of the properties. The obligation was connected with the partition arrangements, and not with anything else. Our answer to the third question in the two groups of references is accordingly against the assessees and in favour of the department. The references are answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... over the business. It was held that the letting out of the plant and machinery by the assessee-firm to the company could not be held to fall within the definition of business . In the second case, the assessee-company discontinued the business of crushing Sugarcane and refining as advised by its managing agents and leased out the entire machinery of the factory and the premises with the obvious purpose of earning rental income and not to treat the factory and the machinery as a commercial asset during the subsistence of the lease. It was held that the rental income was not business income. On facts these cases are distinguishable, as the assessee in these cases let out the assets with the intention of closing the business or when his business had come to a close which is not the position in the instant case. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... der s. 153(l)(a)(ii) of the Act and that the case fell under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the limitation was eight years and not three years. Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that his grievance is only against the notice issued under s. 147 of the Act. This notice is annex. B which he has now produced. He further submitted that this notice could not be issued during the pendency of the proceedings and that this could be issued only after the completion of the assessment proceedings. This legal position seems to, be correct, but Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that this notice (annex. B) can be ignored as the case was being processed on the basis of the return filed by the petitioner-assessee on 6th of January, 1971. Accordingly, it is directed that the notice, annex. B, issued under s.147 of the Act will be ignored by the ITO and other proceedings will continue in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ed to pay to a company which was on the verge of liquidation on account of mismanagement and which was not functioning properly. The capital asset was protected by taking steps to see that the company is not required to invest its moneys in an unremunerative manner, and when expenditure is incurred for taking such steps, it must be treated as having been incurred for the protection of a capital asset, and consequently such expenditure would be permissible as revenue expenditure as will be clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 1964 53 ITR 140, where the Supreme Court has pointed out that the expenditure incurred for the purpose of business would include expenditure for the preservation of the business or for the protection of its assets. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is accordingly answered. Revenue to pay costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the Act while surveying the accounts of the petitioner under s. 133A on 11th April, 1978. It is obvious that the ITO issued notices (annexs.P-1 to P-4) under s. 131 of the Act to the petitioner in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. These notices are, consequently, liable to be quashed. The ITO impounded the account books of the petitioner, vide order dated 11th April, 1978 (annex. P-5), passed under s. 131(3) of the Act. This order is liable to be struck down being violative of sub-s. (4) of s. 133A and also for the added reason that the petitioner did not contravene the provisions contained in sub-s. (6) of s. 133A of the Act during the process of survey. In view of the discussion above, I accept the writ and quash the notices (annexs. P-1 to P-4) issued under s. 131 and the order (annex. P-5) passed under s. 131(3) of the Act. The respondent is directed to return records taken into possession in pursuance of order (annex p-5) to the petitioner. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... s to whether the case of the assessee that these amounts were actually paid by way of secret commissions, should be believed or not, in the absence of the names and addresses of the persons to whom secret commissions were alleged to have been paid. In the present case, the Tribunal has disbelieved this claim of the assessee and we do not see why we should interfere or how we can interfere with that conclusion. We may also refer to s. 133(4) of the said Act which clearly requires that the names and addresses of the persons to whom commissions are alleged to be paid, must be disclosed to the ITO on demand. Where such disclosure is not made and the ITO or the Tribunal disbelieves the case that such commissions were paid as claimed by the assessee, we fail to see how it can be said that the Tribunal has gone wrong. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee to pay to the Commissioner the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... on the assessee in the matter of disclosure of material facts necessary for his assessment. It is well settled that one of the conditions, which must be satisfied before invoking the provisions of s. 147(a), is that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under s. 139 of the Act for the assessment year or to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment of the year. This condition was not fulfilled in the present case and hence the AAC was right in holding that the orders of reassessment were liable to be quashed. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in its view that the ITO had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under the provisions of cl. (a) of s. 147 of the Act. Our answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the negative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 38 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... to file the return as required by law and if it is held that he has failed to do so then penalty has to be levied in accordance with the measure provided in the Act. When the default is the filing of a delayed return, the penalty may be correlated to the time lag between the last day for filing it without penalty and the day on which it is filed and the quantum of tax or wealth involved in the case for purposes of determining the quantum of penalty but the default, however, is only one which takes place on the expiry of the last day for filing the return without penalty and not a continuing one. The default in question does not, however, give rise to a fresh cause of action every day. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question that the penalty shall be imposed upon the assessee according to law which was in force on the date when the default was committed. Reference is disposed of as indicated above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assets, Contingent Interest, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... d sub-clause. The assessee, as pointed out by the Tribunal, had no right whatever to demand that the trustees should spend any particular amount out of the trust fund for any of the purposes set out in the said sub-clause. In view of this, it cannot be said that the absolute discretion granted to the trustees under the said sub-clause to expend amounts from the corpus of the trust fund for the benefit of the assessee and for the purposes set out in the said sub-clause constituted an asset of the assessee for the purposes of the said Act. As held by the Tribunal, the assessee had no interest other than the contingent interest referred to earlier in the corpus of the said trust fund on the relevant valuation dates. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question 1 as reframed In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question 2 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Profits Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... negative. The learned standing counsel relied upon Chittoor Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. ITO 1965 55 ITR 159 (AP), Chittoor Motor Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1966 59 ITR 238 (SC) and CIT v. B. M. Kharwar 1969 72 ITR 603 (SC), in support of his argument that we must hold that there was a sale as held by the ITO. In all the cases relied upon by the learned standing counsel, the property was transferred by a firm to company or by a company to a firm. A company being a legal entity distinct from its shareholders, it was held in these cases that the transfers amounted to sales. These cases are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the facts of the instant case. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) A new firm came into existence from 27th April, 1966. (2) There was no sale of the truck and the factory within the meaning of S.. 41(2) by the assessee-firm in favour of the new firm. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
....
|
