|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 160 Records
-
1982 (5) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... next two years they were entitled to be carried over. It appears to us that the Tribunal had borne in mind the relevant principles of law and the findings of fact being its basis, in our opinion, the conclusion of the Tribunal in this case cannot be assailed. In that view of the matter we answer question-No. 1 for the assessment year 1957-58 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. For the assessment year 1958-59 similarly the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. For the third assessment year 1959-60 the question will be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the findings made above, the questions for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. All the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Provisions, Reserve, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... zir Sullan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559 judged by that principle, it appears that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion on the nature of the amount to be considered as reserve bat whether the entirety of the amount should be considered as reserve or not, the Tribunal should, in the light of the observations made, look into the balancesheet and direct the ITO to compute the amount in the manner in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, with this observation that the Tribunal will direct the ITO to find out the correct amount in respect of the year 1967-68. We also answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with this observation that the Tribunal would direct the ITO to find out the correct amount in respect of the year 1967-68. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Return ... ... ... ... ..... o far as may be, apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub-section (1) . The first requirement for the applicability of sub-s. (5) was, therefore, satisfied in the present case. The relevant sub-section of s. 139 indicates that the return has to be furnished in the prescribed form and must also set forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. The law prescribes that when a return is filed under sub-s. (4A) it has to be accompanied by an auditor s report. Since the original return filed by the assessee was not accompanied by an auditor s report there was a clear omission in the return filed by the assessee. The second condition for the applicability of sub-s. (5) of s. 139 was also satisfied and the assessee was entitled to furnish a revised return. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to be justified. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... partner who had died. Prima facie, it must be said that this appears to be a question of fact and it also appears that there was succession of the old firm, a settlement of its accounts and then a new firm. The Tribunal also noted in its judgment that there was a unanimity amongst the High Courts, except the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that in such a case there was a succession and not a change in the constitution of the firm. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was not accepted was Nandlal Sohanlal v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 170 FB . It appears to us that though the question in this case seems to be question of fact, it also appears to have been the subject-matter of number of decisions. So, in the circumstances, we would take the course of calling upon the Income-tax Tribunal to state a case concerning the question set out earlier so that the view of this High Court on this point may also be expressed. No costs as there was no appearance for the respondent.
-
1982 (5) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... e ITO could not in the rectification proceedings under s. 154 change the status of the assessee to public limited company in which public was not substantially interested . The ITO could not rectify this status in an order under s. 154 because that needs enquiry and arguments as to whether the public was or was not substantially interested. Any such change of status on debatable point of fact, which remains to be investigated, cannot be corrected by way of an order under s. 154 which has a very limited application. The ITO was not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case in rectifying the mistake by describing the assessee as a public limited company in which the public was not substantially interested . The obvious effect of this is that the orders of the AAC directing the ITO to rectify the status of the assessee to that of a public limited company would stand. The reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ch return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since after the effect of the CIT s order, the net result is in conformity with and according to the intent and purpose of the Income-tax Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order. This ground, therefore, fails. Having regard to the provisions of s. 144B(4) it appears to us that the correct view would be that the enhancement of the assessment as result of the direction issued by the IAC under s. 144B(4) on the items not covered by the draft assessment order would be invalid to the extent it was not covered by the draft . In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that it was deleted on appeal by the Commissioner is quite irrelevant. We answer the question accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear its own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... bunal held that the business of tea-growing could not be carried on unless there were proper fencing. Therefore, incurring of the expenditure was in connection with the carrying on of the business by the assessee. If the predominant and main purpose of incurring the expenditure was carrying on of the business, the incidental advantage of that expenditure, in that the property is secured more and thereby the assessee gains advantage which is of some endurance, cannot affect its revenue character. None of these cases are helpful in determining the nature of the expenditure incurred in the case in hand. As observed earlier, this expenditure was incurred with a view to acquire a capital asset and must be treated as a capital expenditure. The view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be justified. Our answer to the question referred is that the expenditure of Rs. 13,254 on account of unsuccessful tube-well expenses was a capital expenditure. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... g the relevant assessment years. Mr. Ashok Bhan has not shown that the above judgment has been overruled by the Supreme Court. We are, therefore, bound by the observations of the learned Division Bench with which we also agree. Wealth-tax Reference No. 19 of 1976 relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The facts of that case are Similar to those of Wealth-tax Reference No. 20 of 1976. The question referred for opinion of this court is as follows Whether the right or interest of the assessee in the annuity policy has been rightly held by the Tribunal to be exempt from wealth-tax under the provisions of section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74 ? The observations in Yuvraj Amrinder Singh s case 1974 96 ITR 101 (P and H) fully apply to this case also. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the questions of law referred to in both the references are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accrual, Electric Supply Undertaking, Income ... ... ... ... ..... upport of his award. But in the present case he has done so. He has taken note of the fact that the assessee was entitled to interest under the statute. There can be no doubt about this right at least till 1960, when the Repealing Act was passed though what the arbitrator thought about the subsequent period is not known. Perhaps for this reason also, but in any event for the reason mentioned by him, he thought that the period of eligibility for interest should be curtailed. It cannot be inferred from the award that the arbitrator was of opinion that the assessee was not entitled to any interest under the statute but never the less proceeded to grant him some interest on his own initiative. We, therefore, think that it would not be correct to describe the entitlement of interest as emanating from the award and not from the statute. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative. The reference is disposed of as indicated above. We, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e are, therefore, of the view that a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal s order. There is another aspect of this case that also seems to require the decision of this court. The provisions of s. 3 of the Act show how the previous year of an assessee has to be settled. In the present case, the assessee set up the business in July, 1972, but in relation to the same had made expenses even before July, 1972. So, the court may have to consider whether the expenses incurred in an earlier period do not actually relate to the period I St July, 1972, to 30th June, 1973. Inasmuch as the Tribunal, has not dealt with the real controversy of a question which necessarily had to be decided by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the question as sought to be referred does arise out of the Tribunal s order, and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to submit a case referring the said question to this High Court for decision. In the circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... o be assessed as income from house property under s. 22 of the Act. However, subsequently, there was a composite letting by the assessee in partnership. Even if the assessee had let out this property as an individual, the income would be assessable under s. 56(2) of the Act either as income from other sources or as income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . In no case, could it be assessed under s. 22. Inasmuch as the composite letting of the building plus machinery, etc., is by a partnership firm, it seems a fortiori that the income cannot be assessed under s. 22 in the hands of the assessee, and so, the propose question does not arise at all on the facts of this case. On this ground, we would dismiss the application. The question proposed is common to all the years though framed in a slightly different form so this decision will also govern the other cases mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xamine this fresh material because it was not available on the record at the time when the assessment order was made. The position is that when a question of law is raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal fails to deal with it, it must be held to be dealt with by it and is, therefore, one arising out of its order vide CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. 1961 42 ITR 589 (SC). It cannot be said, therefore, that the question of law referred to this court does not arise out of the Tribunal s order. Accordingly, we answer the question by saying that the Appellate Tribunal was not right in its view that in dealing with an appeal against an ex parte assessment, it was not competent to take into account the material which was not before the ITO when he framed the ex parte assessment even though that material went to the root of the matter and disclosed that the disputed income had not been earned by the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (5) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Disclose Materials Necessary For Assessment, Reassessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... se decisions would have been relevant for our consideration. But that is not the question here. The position here is, the Tribunal has considered all the facts and has come to a definite finding of fact that at the time of reopening, there were no materials on record which could lead or which could be said to have a rational nexus with the formation of a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment or there had been under-assessment of the income of the assessee due to failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In this case such a finding of fact has not been challenged as being either bad in law or perverse. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, on the materials on record the corrected question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee is not appearing, there will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... 62-63. Similarly, we answer the second question by saying that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the cash credits in the books of the assessee for the previous year ending on 31st December, 1961, could not be brought to tax for the assessment year 1962-63. In our opinion, we must add that the moment a sum is found credited in the books for which no explanation is offered by the assessee or the explanation offered by the assessee is unsatisfactory whether the credits introduced in the assessee s books represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the earlier year could not be brought to tax is not relevant and germane to these questions. Thus, we answer the questions as indicated above and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Firm Assessment, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Person Who Can Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... how that he was guilty of any offence. In the case before us the Tribunal thought fit on the basis of the disclosure petition filed under s. 271(4A) to spread over the income over number of years. Whether income accrues or arises in a particular year or over a certain number of years is basically a question of fact. In the facts of the case before us it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion that it has done. The view of the Tribunal that in the facts of the case before it the disclosure petition should be taken as a whole cannot be said to be wrong in law. In our opinion the Tribunal s order was made on a proper basis and does not call for interference in reference. In that view of the matter, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, the second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Each party to bear and pay its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Assessment, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... in question. Section 40(c)(iii), as inserted by the Finance Act, 1963, no longer remained applicable as it was removed from the statute book and had the effect of an implied repeal. The statute has not stated or implied otherwise. Certain provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, have been brought to our notice such as s. 35(2)(i) and (ia), where two periods have been prescribed. Similarly, provisions have been made in s. 37(2A), prov. (a), where two periods have been prescribed. The Legislature could state if the amount as per the Finance Act, 1963, had not to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains from business or profession even by substitution of the provisions of s. 40(c)(iii) by the Finance Act, 1964. Not having said so, the law applicable to an assessment is the law which was in force on the 1st day of the assessment year in question. The reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Company Court, Penalty Proceedings, Recovery Proceedings, Sales Tax, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... fferent (Brutus v. Cozens 1972 3 WLR 521 at page 525 per Lord Reid). Words are the greatest tricksters. They play pranks with the human mind. We must discover the intention of the Legislature. So we must not be strict constructionists. We have to be intention seekers. It appears plain to us that it was never the intention of the Legislature to give the company court the power to stay the penalty proceedings before the STO. This is the only point which Mr. Chawla took up in his appeal against the impugned order. He said that he was aggrieved by that part of the order which stayed the imposition of penalty by the STO. He has not challenged the rest of the order before us. For these reasons the appeal is allowed. The penalty proceedings are allowed to go on before the Sales Tax Officer. The order of stay passed against him with regard to the levy of penalty is hereby discharged. The rest of tile order we do not upset. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC And Tribunal, Distinction Of Powers Of AAC And Tribunal, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... iled by the assessee or that his income had escaped assessment. The proceedings under s. 34 were, therefore, not valid. The present case stands on a much stronger footing because here there is no dispute in regard to the validity of the return originally filed for the year under consideration and further in regard to the pendency of the proceedings in pursuance of that very return. The assessment has not become final and, therefore, initiation of proceedings under s. 147 and issue of notice under s. 148 were not valid. No other matter was pressed before us. In the result, therefore, both these petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. In Writ Petition No. 134 of 1979, the respondent, ITO, is directed to confine himself to the directions issued by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated January 27, 1979. In Writ Petition No. 313 of 1979, the notice dated March 26, 1979, issued under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71, is quashed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 2 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction For Repairs, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... regarding responsibility of repairs are very much clear. It is abundantly clear from the terms of sub-cl. (e) of cl. 2 of the deed of lease that it was the responsibility of the lessee, the Calcutta firm which had undertaken to keep the premises under proper repairs and in good condition and to bear the cost of all seasonal repairs during the continuance of tenancy. In these circumstances, there was no question of any clarification by letters when the deed of lease itself, clearly and in quite unambiguous terms, speaks of the liability of the lessee as to the repairs of the demised premises. In view of these facts and circumstances, there was no question of any deduction being allowed to the assessee u/s. 24 of the Act and the Tribunal was clearly wrong in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 1 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Interest, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ncurred in office hours to provide tea, coffee, cool drinks and other refreshments to members of the office and customers during office hours. Keeping in view the fact that this expenditure has not been treated as entertainment expenditure in the past, we would refuse to call for reference concerning the same. Turning now to questions Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal refused to refer these two questions on the ground that interest under section 216 could, be claimed only if it was established that the underestimate was deliberate. As there was no material on record leading to the inference that the assessee deliberately underestimated the income for the purpose of paying advance tax, the Tribunal refused to refer the question on the ground that no question of law arose. We agree with the Tribunal that this was a pure question of fact and questions Nos. 2 and 3 cannot also be referred. In the circumstances, we would reject the application leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
....
|
