|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 167 Records
-
1983 (5) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... m afraid that this contention is not tenable at all. Therefore, to my mind, the Supreme Court s decision in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad s case gives a complete answer to the problem before me in this case. This being so, there does not appear to me any scope for discussion on the question of specific charge, etc. 9. Section 171(9), as I have stated earlier, does not make material difference except for the fact that the statute debars the ITO from holding any enquiry and/or from passing any order with regard to partial partition after 31-12-1978. Therefore, I agree with the learned Accountant Member that the income from or attributable to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which was the subject-matter of partial partition in each case is assessable as the income of the HUF and similarly, the said amount and accretions thereto are assessable as the wealth of the respective HUFs. 10. The order will now be placed before the Bench for deciding the appeals according to majority view.
-
1983 (5) TMI 97
... ...
... ... ..... epresentatives. That is to say that it is not a liability inherited by the assessee as a legal representative of Higginbothams P. Ltd. Further it is not true to say that the shares have no value and that the liability exceeded the assets. The representative of the assessee states that the shares of Amalgamation Ltd. are very valuable assets and that they are valued at nil for wealth-tax purposes only because of some circulars issued by the Board, to that effect. So the reasoning of the WTO do not carry any force or conviction. It may be also noted that the department has no case that there is no attornment or novation and that, therefore, these are not debts of the assessees. Nor has the department any case that because of limitation and other like legal infirmities these have ceased to be live or enforceable debts. 11. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the AAC when he held that these are deductible debts. Therefore, these four departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... espect of specified assets will be available even in cases where such assets are owned though not held by the assessee for a specified period. This amendment applies to the present asst. yr. 1976-77 with which we are concerned and Parliament having clarified that it should be sufficient if the asset is owned by the assessee and not that it is held by the assessee, the fact that the cash in question was deposited in the bank during the period when the assessee owned it would be sufficient and such period of ownership being admittedly beyond the required period of six months, the assessee is definitely entitled to the exemption u/s 5(1) (xxiv) even if it is held that such asset is includible in the net wealth of the assessee. Looked at from either point of view we are convinced that the sum of Rs. 1,24,306 was not assessable as part of the net wealth of the assessee. We, therefore, direct the WTO to recompute the net wealth by deleting this amount. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 91
Dissolved Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ay not have been strictly in accordance with the terms of the deed. The judicial pronouncements set out by us earlier show that all arithmetical distribution of profits may, on occasions, vary from the shares as stipulated in the instrument of partnership either because of omission, inadvertence or because of even deduction of certain amounts which are not strictly deductible in arriving at the total income for income-tax purposes. In all such cases registration is admissible and the provisions of section 271(4) would take care of any loss of revenue by providing levy in the shape of penalty on the partners in whose cases there has been short allocation of sharing. We therefore, come to the conclusion having regard to the statutory provisions and review of the decisions which have a bearing on the point, that on the facts of the present case registration cannot be refused. We, accordingly, direct to grant registration. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 90
Capital Gains Tax ... ... ... ... ..... new company in lieu of shares in the old company and the High Court held that the transaction did not constitute either exchange or relinquishment of old shares and, therefore, no capital gains arose as a result of transaction. Obviously this decision is not applicable to the case of the assessee who has received cash in lieu of shares of the amalgamated company. In that case section 47(vii) constituted an exception in favour of the assessee. Thus both the case law relied upon by the AAC are not applicable to the case of the assessee at all. Therefore, the AAC misdirected himself by relying on the aforesaid decisions to hold that there was no transfer in terms of section 2(47), or in terms of Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, we hold that the order of the AAC is not justified in law and, therefore, we set aside his order and restore the order of the ITO. It is not necessary to go into the decisions cited on behalf of the revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 89
1961 Act, Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Valuation Date, Voluntary Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... d assets will be available even in cases where such assets are owned, though not held, by the assessee for a specified period. This amendment applies to the present assessment year 1976-77 with which we are concerned and Parliament having clarified that it should be sufficient if the asset is owned by the assessee and not that it is held by the assessee, the fact that the cash in question was deposited in the bank during the period when the assessee owned it would be sufficient and such period of ownership being admittedly beyond the required period of six months, the assessee is definitely entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi) even if it is held that such asset is includible in the net wealth of the assessee. Looked at from either point of view, we are convinced that the sum of Rs. 1,24,306 was not assessable as part of the net wealth of the assessee. We, therefore, direct the WTO to recompute the net wealth by deleting this amount. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 88
Application For Continuation Of Registration, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... not and if the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order is under different section than that shown in the order, then the appellate authority is within its power to treat such order under the section other than that shown in the order for the purpose of appeal as the authority below omitted the right section under which the impugned order is made. 23. Therefore, in view of our above discussions and reasons, we hold that the appeal under section 143(1) lies against the order under section 143(1) and that under section 184(7)(i) or (ii) on the facts and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and thereby direct the ITO to decide the case of the assessee afresh, in view of our aforesaid observations and on providing of proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. 24. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1983 (5) TMI 81
... ...
... ... ..... ders, no interest is payable to the assessee on refunds resulting from the cancellation of the assessment orders. Shri Gang, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the bench dated 27th January 1983 in the case of Keshrimal Pannalal being Income-tax Appeal Nos. 211 and 212 /Jp/1982 assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Exactly the same question arose in the case of Keshrimal Pannalal. The only difference is that whereas the said case was under the Income-tax Act, wherein section 244(1A) is relevant, in the instant cases the matter has come up under the Wealth-tax Act under section 34A(3A). Section 244(1A) and section 34A(3A) are in Pari Materia. We have already accepted the contention of the assessee in the case of Keshrimal Pannalal in which case also, the interest was claimed by the assessee under the application made under section 154. Following our detailed order dated 29th January 1983, we uphold the combained order of the AAC. . The appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 79
... ...
... ... ..... on partial partition was included by the ITO in the income of the assessee HUF. The AAC, on appeal allowed the claim of the assessee and held that such a partition was allowable under the Hindu Law. The Appellate Tribunal has sustained the order of the AAC. In other words the claim of partial partition has been accepted. As a consequence, the addition made by the ITO with reference to the partitioned assets was deleted. The revenue has moved the Reference Application against the above finding of the Tribunal. The issue whether the Karta in the exercise of his rights as a patria postestas could have carried out the partial partion has been settled by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court vide Apporva Shantilal Shah (HUF) vs. CIT (1983) 33 CTR (SC) 153 (1983) 141 ITR 557/558 (SC). Since the issue stands settled by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the issue remains only academic and no referable question of law, therefore, arises. 4. In the result the R.A. is rejected.
-
1983 (5) TMI 78
... ...
... ... ..... He, therefore, did not include any income under the head capital gains, as well. In ground No 3 the revenue has urged that the gain of Rs. 4375 should have been taxed as revenue receipt. In that case Shri N.M. Ranka argued that the assets have to be assumed as stock in trade of the assessee. If that is so, there was no transfer by introducing the emeralds in the books of accounts of the firm in which he was a partner in the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court (1972) 83 ITR 211(SC). He also urged that in the copy of the account filed with the ITO, the nature of these assets were declared as capital assets and not stock in trade. We agree with Shri Ranka that in the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra, there is no sale and therefore no profit will arise, if it is assumed that the goods transferred were stock-in-trade of the assessee. We, therefore do not find any merit in the 3rd ground of appeal as well. 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 77
... ...
... ... ..... roceedings are not initiated within a reasonable time, then the assessee may go with the impression that no penalty would be levied and he may delay the payment of tax unknowingly. This is what exactly happened in these cases. For considerable period, the penalty proceedings were not initiated and the assessee was not made aware that he would be penalised if the payment of tax was delayed by him. This is why, the assessee went on committing default successively. Had the ITO initiated penalty proceedings, within a reasonable time, then the recovery of the tax would have been expediated. The basic idea of recovering the tax expeditiously from the assessee on self assessment was frustrated due to considerable delay on the part of the ITO. Relying on the authorities, supra, we hold that there being considerable delay on the part of the ITO in these cases initiating the proceedings and passing the penalty orders, no penalty is exigible in these cases. 2. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 76
... ...
... ... ..... ial partition is not possible and only a complete partition could be made. Shri Mehta relies on (1979) 116 ITR 545 (Kar) (CWT vs. M.L. Ramachandra Setty and Sons). In this case also, a contention was raised by the revenue that in the absence of an order made u/s. 20 of the act the properties belonging to the assessee HUF should continue to be treated as the properties belonging to the HUF notwithstanding that some of them have been by agreement made the subject-matter of a partial partition and the coparceners have agreed to hold them as tenants-in-common. Then, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that s. 20 could not apply to a case of partial partition and the case of partial partition under the WT Act was to be decided without any regard to s. 20, but with due regard to Mitakshara law. For the reasons, we hold that the value of the asset in respect of which partial partition has taken place, will not be included in the hands of the assessee-HUF. 3. The appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 75
Computing Value, Reversionary Value ... ... ... ... ..... lcutta High Court and the aforesaid further consideration, the balance of reasoning is in favour of the view that the reversionary value should not be taken into account for the purpose of valuation in such a case. 11. Regarding the deductions for the expenses the learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Vimlaben and submitted that 40 per cent of the gross income should be allowed as deduction. The Valuation Officer has allowed 4 per cent on account of collection charges. In Smt. Vimlaben s case, the Court was concerned with the rough method as provided in Schedule II to the Urban Land Ceiling Act. That is not the case here. We are of the view that the deduction should be allowed on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the assessee by way of repairs, if any, taxes and other charges. This matter is, therefore, restored to the file of the WTO for making valuation as indicated above. 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1983 (5) TMI 74
Accumulated Loss, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of M.G. Bhatt by the Bombay High Court. Since I have held that section 67(3) does not put a prohibition on the allowance of the interest, the question whether a special provision made should prevail over the general provision, and the discussion relating thereto adopted by the learned Judicial Member, need not be gone into. 11. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Judicial Member does not accord with the principles. I, therefore, agree with the learned Accountant Member and hold that the interest paid by the partner on the debit balance arising on account of accumulated losses, is allowable as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee assessable under the head business . 12. In view of my above conclusion, I do not consider it necessary to refer to the various other decisions referred to before me. 13. Now the matter will go back before the regular Bench for passing the necessary order in accordance with the majority view.
-
1983 (5) TMI 73
... ...
... ... ..... t could not also be allowed since the business continued and there was no actual retrenchment, no statutory notice was issued to the employees in terms of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes and that no actual payment on account of retrenchment was made to any of the employees during the relevant accounting period. 12. For the reasons given by the CIT(A), which we fully endorse, the assessee rsquo s enhanced claim for deduction of gratuity and retrenchment on a result of the order of the Tribunal, relating to the asst. yr. 1973-74, in the case of M/s Madho Ram and Sons, was rightly disallowed. 13. We have also carefully considered the various decisions referred to by the ld. counsel of the assessee in his paper book as well as at the time of hearing but none of the authorities cited by him advance the assessee rsquo s case and, in fact, the said decisions are distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A). 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 72
... ...
... ... ..... before the first appellate authority. The appeal for asst. yr. 1962-63 has not been filed by the assessee as, according Mr. Jodh Singh, the ld. counsel for the assessee, the assessee has not been served of the notice of demand. Further the fact that an asset in the form of additional asset on account of the addition made in the income-tax assessment will continue to exist in the subsequent years also requires investigation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the AAC and the WTO for the years under consideration and restore the same to the file of the WTO for making the assessments afresh in accordance with law after the decision of the income-tax quantum appeals of the firm of M/s Jagat Ram and Sons, Delhi and others, if any, and after permitting the assessee to lead evidence, if any, regarding the continuance of a particular asset in particular year to be there in the subsequent year or years. 13. For statistical purposes, the appeals by the revenue are allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 71
... ...
... ... ..... g law and he has also treated the whole thing on revenue account, rule 2C would not apply as the WTO cannot make an adjustment in the balance sheet of the firm. We do not accept the plea on behalf of the revenue that clause (d) of rule 2C could be applicable in such a case. In view of the above position, we hold that the WTO was not justified in adding the value of the unexploited rights in the films in the net wealth of the firm and of its partners. The order of the AAC has, therefore, to be upheld. 22. To summarize, our conclusion is that even though the right to exploit a particular film for a particular period is property, it is not such an asset whose value can be added by making adjustment to the balance sheet while acting under the provisions of section 7(2)(a). As we have decided the appeals on the basic issue we do not consider it necessary to consider subsidiary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee. 23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 70
Amalgamating Company, Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... Explanation 2A has removed the lacuna. Whatever be the effect of Explanation 3, Explanation 2A makes the position very clear that the written down value would be the same as that of the amalgamating company. In this case the written down value in the hands of HEL would be Rs. 74.82 crores minus entire depreciation including the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 29.77 crores and not merely the depreciation actually absorbed. One has to assume that the amalgamating company is carrying on business and in finding out written down value of its assets one has to take into account the entire depreciation. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Dastur that only Rs. 11.81 crores has to be taken into account. The above discussion is in a way academic in view of our decision on the first issue but as already pointed out we thought fit to decide the matter on all points and we, accordingly, gave our decision. 8. to 10. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
1983 (5) TMI 69
Income Tax, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... IT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 176 has laid down the following dictum ...The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the amount distributed as dividends is judged by business considerations, such as the previous losses, the present profits, the availability of surplus money and the reasonable requirements of the future and similar others. . . . It is, therefore, clear that while considering the aspect based on smallness of profit, expenses for future development should also be taken into account. This view has been further reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in Jananamandal Ltd. s case. Thus, the assessee can legitimately plead that having regard to the admitted future development expenditure which the assessee had to incur, declaration of dividend of more than Rs. 75,000 would be unreasonable. In the above view of the matter, the orders of the authorities below are set aside. The assessee is not liable to pay additional tax. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (5) TMI 68
High Court, Question Of Law, Rule 1BB ... ... ... ... ..... w up statement of the cases and reject the reference applications made by the revenue, however, before parting, we like to mention that in the case of Biju Patnaik, the Special Bench of the Tribunal has referred certain questions but in that case there was, so to say, no resistance from the assessee s side and the Special Bench (Tribunal) was not seized of so much case law and the arguments did not proceed on the lines as have proceeded before us in the present reference applications. That apart the Special Bench of the Tribunal, did not have the benefit of the judgment order dated 25-1-1982 of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Bhagwant Singh (HUF). 14. In the end, we like to express our appreciation of the valuable and brilliant exposition of the issue involved in the reference applications and the able assistance rendered by Shri P. L. Juneja, the learned counsel for the assessee, and the learned departmental representative. 15. Reference applications rejected.
|
