Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 233 of 233 Records
-
1982 (2) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to be assessed in the status of an HUF. Although the assessee had no son and the wife had no interest in the properties of the family, yet, for purposes of status, the assessee with his wife constituted an HUF. In Gowli Buddanna v. CIT 1966 60 ITR 293, the Supreme Court held that under the Hindu law it is not necessary for constituting an HUF that there must be more than one male member and that such family may consist of a male member and his wife and daughters. Similar is the case of N. V. Narendranath v. CWT 1969 74 ITR 190 (SC). These cases were referred to by us in CED v. Rani Bahu 1983 142 ITR 843 FB and Ramratan v. CED (Misc. Civil Case No. 463 of 1976, decided on 16th December, 1981) 1983 142 ITR 863 FB . For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that the Tribunal was a right in law in, accept the status of the assessee as an HUF. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ch of this court in CIT v. City Palayacot Co. 1980 122 ITR 430. It was pointed out in that judgment that waiver was not matter of course, but it was subject to a finding by the ITO that special circumstances existed in the case which justified either the waiver or, in the alternative, the reduction of the interest chargeable under s. 217(1A) of the Act. In this view it was held that a mere omission of the ITO to charge penal interest cannot ipso jure be regarded as a conscious waiver on his part. Following the above decision, we answer the question of law in the negative and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. It may, however, observe that our answering the question against the assessee in the manner aforesaid does not detract from the observation in the order of the Commissioner to the effect that The Income-tax Officer is not barred from considering any relief that could be extended to the assessee under rule 40. This rider still holds good.
-
1982 (2) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ercial Code dealing with the incidence of debts, and Portuguese Civil Code, art. 1118, dealing with the disposal of the movable property as well as arts. 1120, 1123, 1220, 1463 and 1471). In view of the aforesaid decision, it must be held that when the husband and wife, who have been assessed as a body of individuals in this case, made the aforesaid gifts, each of them gifted only his and her respective half share in the said properties, and hence no assessment could be made on them on the footing of their having made the gifts as a body of individuals. It must further be held that the gifts will have to be assessed separately and in equal shares in the hands of the said two spouses. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative. Question No. 2 In the affirmative. It is clarified that both the aforesaid questions are answered in favour of the assessees. The Commissioner to pay to the assessees the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... es not become liable to penalty because the assessee cannot be said to have concealed the particulars of his income and that he cannot be said to have failed to return the correct income on account of any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect oil his part. The same principle must apply in the instant case also and accordingly the Tribunal must be held to have correctly taken the view that the order of penalty was not justified. We have already pointed out in that case that the first question therein which is identical to question No. (1) in the instant reference does not really arise because the order of the Tribunal did not have the effect of casting any burden on the Revenue as sought to be suggested by question No. (1). Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to answer question No. (1), as it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Question No. (2) has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the cost, of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Account Books, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... th the weighment made at the railway weigh-bridge. The finding reached by the Tribunal in sustaining the rejection of books under s. 145(2) is thus vitiated by non-consideration of relevant facts and by taking into account irrelevant and non-existent facts. The finding is, therefore, erroneous in law. The Tribunal will have to reconsider the question and to give a fresh finding by considering all the relevant facts. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) The Tribunal was not right in law in rejecting the assessee s accounts. The Tribunal will reconsider this question after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. (2) In view of the answer given to question No. 1, the additions made by the Tribunal have to be held to be not sustainable. The Tribunal will re-examine that question in the light of the findings that it may record on the question relating to the assessee s accounts. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... s of the Tribunal from taking a different view. The Calcutta High Court in Jiyajeerao Colton Mills Ltd. v. ITO 1981 130 ITR 710, has observed that merely because the Supreme Court had resolved the conflict of opinion it did not obliterate the existence of such a conflict prior to such decision and, therefore, the ITO had no jurisdiction to rectify an order under s. 154 of the Act. We, are, therefore, of the view that the ITO was not competent to rectify his order acting under s. 154 of the I.T. Act because the issue about the right of the assessee to claim interest under s. 214 of the Act was a debatable issue. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative and hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue about the assessee s entitlement to interest under s. 214 of the I.T. Act was a controversial issue and could not be rectified by the ITO exercising his powers under s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Delay In Filing Wealth Tax Return, Penalty, Period Of Limitation For Imposition Of Penalty, Wealth Tax
-
1982 (2) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... return the correct income was not due to any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on its part. As against this, the Revenue has not established by any positive evidence that the assessee had deliberately and consciously concealed the profits derived by it by the sale of the looms. We are not satisfied that the Tribunal s finding is based on no material or that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is such that no reasonable person would have arrived at such conclusion on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, answer all the three questions which relate to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-69, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 one set.
-
1982 (2) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ax on capital gains of Rs. 35,000. The transferor did not file any return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 for over two years after the initiation of acquisition proceedings. This showed that the object was clearly to facilitate the transferor to evade payment of income-tax on the capital gains. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the appellant came with the admission that Rs. 90,000 was paid at a much later stage in the proceedings and to begin with an affidavit was filed by one of the partners that only Rs. 49,000 was paid. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the IAC (Acquisition) was right in holding that the appellant was unable to wholly explain as to the source from where the money was obtained for the purchase. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus arising out of the presumption under s. 269C(2)(b). The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200.
-
1982 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... bunal has only sent the case back to the ITO for detailed examination of the claim. We do not think the Tribunal erred in law in doing so, or that the remand was an irregular exercise of its power in that regard. We would accordingly answer the question of law against the Department. We would only add, by way of information, that the law on the subject of provision for gratuity has been recently re-stated by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559. In that decision, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down when, under what conditions, and to what extent a provision for gratuity can be regarded as a charge against profits. We would observe that the guide lines stated by the Supreme Court might also be kept in view by the ITO while considering the assessee s claim on remand. We dispose of the references on the three points in the manner we have indicated against each. In view of the mixed results of the reference, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Capital Gains, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... year and the value of the assets which the assessee had received from the liquidator of the South India Corporation in the subsequent year. We have also indicated that s. 46(2) cannot be fitted in with the protective assessment made by the ITO of the amount of Rs. 1,97,479. We have pointed out that whereas s. 46(2) enables the ITO to regard the market value of any asset distributed in specie by a liquidator or any difference in money received from a liquidator as the full value of the consideration for the purpose of s. 48 of the I.T. Act, the provision does not provide for an assessment which has been made by the ITO for 1967-68 on a protective basis. Our answer to this question, therefore is that the Tribunal had rightly confirmed the order of the AAC setting aside the assessment on Rs. 4,97,479 as capital gains in the assessment year 1967-68. In view of our answer to the questions of law referred to us by the Tribunal in this reference, each party will bear its own costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... chedule. It might well be that staple fibre yarn is proximate to one entry here or one entry there. But there are glaring interstices in between the entries everywhere in the Schedule. And it is not for us either to fill up the gaps or to move the entries closer with a view to accommodate staple fibre yarn somewhere in the Schedule, when the thing remains unspecified in any entry therein. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision rendered by us in these tax cases in regard to the first question relating to the assessee s claim for a higher development rebate. We think that having regard to the importance of the subject-matter and the point of statutory construction which has arisen in these cases, this is a fit case for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We accordingly certify this to be a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court in regard to the first question of law dealt with by us.
-
1982 (2) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal that the assessee was prevented from paying the advance tax because of financial inability, the question referred is purely a question of fact. The finding recorded by the Tribunal really is a finding fact that there was good and sufficient cause for not paying the advance tax. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|