|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 228 of 228 Records
-
1983 (12) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ined on the basis of the value of the contacts represented by the cash payments received by the assessee firms from the M. E.S. Department exclusive of the cost of the material/stores received for being used, fixed or incorporated in the works undertaken by them. Thus, following the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we hold that the value of the materials supplied by the State Government to the contractor for being exclusively used for the execution of the work is to be excluded while determining the turnover of the contractor-assessee. In our opinion, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the cost of materials supplied by the State Government should not be included in the gross receipts of the business of the assessee while calculating the net profits of the assessee s business. Thus the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner. It provides that interest will be payable on the following appellate, etc., refunds Where assessment was completed before April 1, 1962, and appeal, etc., order is passed after April 1, 1962. Mr. Joshi is right in his submission that the direction given under this circular under paragraph 5(a) is in accordance with the provisions of s. 297(2)(i) of the Act of 1961. The learned counsel urged that the interest cannot be claimed under this circular by the petitioner because fresh assessment is not pursuant to an appellate or revisional order. In my judgment, the submission of the learned counsel is correct, and reliance by Mr. Khatri on the circular to claim interest is not correct. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner on October 3, 1979, does not suffer from any infirmity and is not required to be disturbed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal because of the learned members giving the benefit of doubt lingering in their minds regarding the retrospective operation of amended s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. As such, the question of existence of reasonable cause for not filing the return in time still remain undetermined. Now that we have held that the operation of s. 18(1)(a) is retrospective so far as the procedure to be followed is concerned, but prospective regarding the computation of the rate and quantum of penalty to be imposed, the plea of the assessee that he had reasonable cause for not filing the return in time will have to be considered before proceeding to impose penalty for the four years in question. There being difference of opinion in this regard between the accountant member and the judicial member, the matter will have to be referred to the President of the Tribunal for final decision of that question in accordance with law. With these observations, the reference is answered as stated earlier.
-
1983 (12) TMI 5 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Income ... ... ... ... ..... be determined on the basis of the value of the contracts represented by the cash payments received by the assessee-firms from the M.E.S. department exclusive of the cost of the materials/stores received for being used, fixed or incorporated in the works undertaken by them. Thus, following the aforesaid principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we hold that the value of the material supplied by the Government departments to the contractor for being used for the execution of the works is to be excluded while determining the turnover of the contractor-assessee. After the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brij Bhusan Lal s case 1978 115 ITR 524, the legal position in respect of the question referred to us has been set at rest. Consequently, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (12) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business, Income From Business, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... edictable and so more or less ascertainable. A lawyer cannot always say with confidence exactly how a judge will decide a point of law. But he can put the decision between fairly narrow limits. In any matter of novelty he will know that the boldest judge will not move more than a small distance beyond that which has already been decided. We think it unwise to deviate from the earlier conclusion and would, therefore, answer the two questions referred to us against the assessee by saying We do not propose to discuss the authorities in Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 685 (SC) and CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 586 (SC), as they are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Department. In the result, question No. (2) is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee-company and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h Court in the above-cited decisions. They were rendered with reference to the facts and Circumstances of those cases. In those cases, the transactions were clearly and solely intended to make profit and hence the profits were assessable to income-tax. These two decisions, therefore, do not apply to the assessee s case. Hence, we find no substance in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Department. Sri A. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, contends that if the disputed amount is treated as income from business it should be assessed in the assessment year 1965-66 but not in the assessment year 1968-69. Since we took the view that the transaction is not an adventure in the nature of trade, the question of assessment does not arise. Having regard to the above discussion, the answer to the question is that the excess amount of Rs. 2,08,739 is not income from business. It is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Association Of Persons, Status ... ... ... ... ..... bad been specified by the court and the receiver is liable to pay the tax in respect of the shares which come to him on behalf of various persons of whose property he is the receiver. In respect of the income received from the theatre which is in the hands of the receiver, the assessment has to be made on the receiver on the individual shares of the quondam partners who own the theatre. Thus, the third question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative. On these facts, we answer the common question referred to us in TC Nos. 1653 to 1655 of 1977 in the affirmative and against the Revenue. We also answer the question referred to us in TC Nos. 506 to 509 of 1981 in the affirmative and against the Revenue as we have held that the receiver should be held to have represented the individual interest of various joint owners of the theatre and assessed on that basis. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only). One set.
-
1983 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the WTO was justified in making a reference of the question of valuation of those buildings to the valuation officers under section 16A and the notices issued to the assessee under section 38A(1)(b) by the valuation officers in pursuance of that reference were also valid- Held, yes
....
|
