|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 218 of 218 Records
-
1983 (10) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof Of Ownership, Unexplained Asset ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body and ordinarily if after considering the matters in the proper perspective and after surveying all material which is available to it, the Tribunal arrives at some conclusion one way or the other that conclusion would have to be respected, unless it can be regarded as impossible or perverse. Our difficulty is that we find no clear conclusion one way or the other. The conclusion reached by the tribunal in paragraph 9 of its appellate order is not proper and does not address itself to the points to be properly considered by it as indicated by us above and in our earlier decision. Once the conclusion is reached, it is impossible for us to answer the question. Accordingly, making these observations which would require reconsideration by the Tribunal of the material available to it and arrival at a proper conclusion, we return the reference without answering the question referred to us. There will be no order as to costs of the reference.
-
1983 (10) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... also was that the gold had been validly acquired. It is clear that even before the Tribunal, the assessee adopted this stand, but it was contended, in the alternative, on its behalf that the source of the gold could easily be assumed to have come out of the intangible addition on account of the increased turnover. We see nothing whatsoever in the circumstances urged by him which may lead to the contrary conclusion, We are satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances that were before the Tribunal, that the source for the acquisition of the gold could well be assumed to be the addition of Rs. 10,702 to the assessee s income. This being, in our view, a reasonable conclusion, we would decline to substitute our own appreciation of the circumstances, even if we were inclined to view them differently. In the circumstances, the answer to the question is given in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1983 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uted under the deed of partnership dated October 30, 1963, stood dissolved. If the firm stood dissolved, then there was no mere change in the constitution of the firm, when two new partners were inducted. What was done in March, 1968, must legitimately be considered as succession of one firm by another. If that be so, it will have to be held that the view taken by the Tribunal was the correct view. It has been pointed out that there are a number of decisions dealing with changes in constitution of a firm. In our opinion, however, the correct legal position will have to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and the decision given must rest on the particular facts of each case. These decisions then may not have any general application and need not, therefore, be considered in detail. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1983 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... opinion, the last sentence of the above quoted would seem to govern the facts of the present case as stated to us though we must repeat that the factual statement is not as full or as satisfactory as required. To conclude, the question referred to us seems to imply that the assessee although it had sub-contracted part of its work, had done some work departmentally. If that be so, then merely because it had given sub-contracts for a part of the work would not be sufficient for it to lose its character of being an industrial company (which character was otherwise conceded by the Revenue). In the result, the assessee in the instant case would be entitled to the beneficial rate of 55 against 65 . Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered as follows. Bearing in mind the limited scope of the reference and the factual material brought on record by the Revenue, the assessee-company was chargeable to tax at the rate of 55 . Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1983 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... he matter as the statute determines the priorities. As already stated, s. 32(2) deems the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years as the depreciation of the current year which has to be taken note of in the computation of the total income of the current year. The deduction under s. 80J will come in only after the total income is determined under the other provisions of the Act as per s. 80B(2). If, as held by the Tribunal, the relief under s. 80J is to be granted before the allowance is granted for unabsorbed depreciation, then it will alter the priorities contemplated by the statute. We are of the view that s. 80J cannot override s. 32(2). Further, all the decisions referred to above clearly support the contention put forward by the Revenue before us. We cannot, therefore, agree with the order of the Tribunal in this regard. We answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will get costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1983 (10) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Reference, Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e, that the Tribunal could have gone into the method of accounting adopted by the assessee in regard to sales tax in some detail, without merely endorsing the finding of the appellate authority on the question of the method of accounting. However, as we find that the appellate authority has given germane reasons for disagreeing with the finding of the ITO that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee is cash basis, we are not in a position to differ from the finding rendered by the appellate authority which has been accepted by the Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that if the assessee maintained mercantile system of accounting so far as sales tax is concerned, then the entire sales tax accrued liability has to be deducted and not only the actual sales tax paid to the Sales Tax Department. In this view, we do not think that the case calls for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the abovesaid questions for our opinion. The tax case petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... er the donors are entitled to claim exemption will also have to be considered afresh by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessees, however, contends that even if s. 10(22) is not applicable to the donee, still the assessees who are donors can claim exemption under s. 11 as the gift has been made to a charitable institution as has been held by the ITO and the amount donated has been applied to charitable purposes. Since the Tribunal has not dealt with the question as to whether the assessees are entitled to claim the benefit of s. 11, that question may not arise out of the Tribunal s order. However, since we are directing the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh, all these questions can be considered by the Tribunal, including the question of applicability of s. 11. Therefore, this question also is returned unanswered with a direction to the Tribunal to consider it in the light of what has been stated above. There will be no order as to costs in these three cases.
-
1983 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... erial would be such as to constitute information . Earlier, we have pointed out that there is no information at all. The attempted reopening is, therefore, attributable only to the entertaining of second thoughts on the assessment already made on a mere change in the opinion on the part of the ITO. Besides, a note by the internal audit party not charged under the Act with the duty of laying down the law or arriving at decision binding on the ITO cannot be regarded as information and, as pointed out earlier, the note is totally vague and does not pinpoint or draw attention to any errors or mistakes committed legally or factually. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the ITO did not have any information in his possession and that the reopening of the completed assessment was done only on a mere change of opinion. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will get the costs of the reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (10) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... authority, validly form information for the purpose of clause (b) for reopening, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of reassessment of the ITO was not correct and justified. The judgment of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand and in view of that, the judgment of the AAC of Income-tax confirming the judgment of the ITO for reassessment should have been confirmed. Our answer to the questions referred are as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not legally justified in initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the Incometax Act, 1961. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the logical and legal answer without further discussion to question No. 2 is as under 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally not justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
-
1983 (10) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... artner who is deceased. There is no dispute in the law cited that if a firm desires to have the benefit under section 184, it must conform strictly to the requirements prescribed by law. We have no hesitation in holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dissolution occurred on the death of Mukat Behari Lal. It is not possible to treat the firm constituted under the instrument of partnership dated July 10, 1959, as continuing as there was no clause in the deed providing that in the event of the death of one of the partners, the firm was not to be dissolved. The right to the continuance of registration was claimed in accordance with the statutory provisions though erroneously without specifying the period up to March 3, 1965. The Tribunal was thus right in its conclusion. We answer the reference in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee has not put in appearance, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ose cases, which was the same as the first question in this case in the affirmative and against the Revenue, but answered question No. 2, which was also the same as in this case, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. On the question of applicability of section 47(iii), we are inclined to agree with the view taken in those cases having regard to the fact that the language employed therein will apply only to actual transfers and not to deemed transfers. If section 47(iii) was intended to apply to deemed transfers as well, the Legislature would have made the position clear by specifically including deemed transfers within its scope. Therefore, following the said decisions of this court rendered on October 10, 1979, in T.C. Nos. 122 and 668 of 1976, and in CIT v. Bharani Pictures 1981 129 ITR 244, we have to answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Revenue and question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Colloboration Agreement, Payment For Technical Know-how ... ... ... ... ..... quality product which would be accepted by the market would seem to make no difference. On the broad principles enunciated earlier and following our earlier decision in Telco s case 1980 123 ITR 538 with which principles we fully agree, we are of the opinion that the payments made by the assessee in the instant case were fully allowable as revenue expenditure and that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the same were capital expenditure and hence not allowable. In view of all these decisions, it would appear to us to be unnecessary to answer question No. 2, although we have indicated our views thereon earlier. Accordingly the questions referred to us are answered as under Question No. 1 .Both the amounts were deductible in the respective assessment years as revenue expenditure. Question No. 2 In the light of the answer given to question No. 1, it is unnecessary to answer this question. The Revenue must pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Order accordingly.
-
1983 (10) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction For Priority Industry U/S 80I, Developement Rebate, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... at in that case, the gross total income as computed under section 80B(5) was positive figure and, therefore, to that extent possible, relief could be granted and this was done in that case. That case did not deal with the situation where the gross total income as determined under section 80B(5) was nil . We do not, therefore, see any reason for reconsidering our decision in CIT v. Madras Motors (P.) Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 150 (Mad) (T.C. No. 44 of 1977). Following the said decision, question No. (2) is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue makes an oral application for grant of leave so far as our answer to the first question is concerned, on the ground that leave has already been granted by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4451 of 1980. Having regard to the fact that leave has already been granted by the Supreme Court, we grant leave to the Revenue for filing an appeal against the answer we have given to question No. (1). No costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... n law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 80J without restricting it on time basis ? The first question is completely covered by the decision of this court in CIT v International Instruments (P.) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 936 (ITR CS. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1979, dated 14-9-1983). In view of the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The second question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Mysore Petro Chemical Ltd. 1984 145 ITR 416 ITRC No. 6 of 1983, dated 3-8-1983 J . In view of the said decision, we answer the second question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1983 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
The amount of wealth-tax liability relating to the assessment years in respect of which the assessments had not been finalised on the valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the net wealth, should be the wealth-tax liability on the undisputed portion of the total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of the assessments for those years after the valuation date
-
1983 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether assessee is entitle to deduction of tax determined payable on the basis of assessment orders passed after valuation date and created as a result of rectification order passed after valuation date - questions set forth earlier must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
1983 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in computing the net wealth of the assessee, the amount deductible in respect of liability of tax for any year for which the assessment is completed after the valuation date is the liability as ascertainable on the valuation date or the actual amount of tax subsequently assessed - Held, yes - revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1983 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the liabilities claimed by the assessee, though existence of the very liability was questioned by the assessee, should be allowed as a `debt owed` in computing the net wealth of the assessee - Held, yes
....
|
