|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 216 of 216 Records
-
1983 (7) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ppellate Tribunal for a fresh decision of the question as to whether penalty should be imposed upon the assessee for its failure to comply with the provisions of s. 140A(1) of the Act in these circumstances, I do not wish to make any further observation on the subject, but leave it to the discretion of the Tribunal to decide the question of imposition of penalty after taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dated March 31 , 1973, is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction that it should decide afresh the question of imposition of penalty upon the petitioner company under s. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made above. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.
-
1983 (7) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Company, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... the Revenue that till the shares are actually registered by the company in the name of the transferee, the transferee cannot be taken to have acquired certain equitable rights in relation to his shares and that he cannot be taken to have become the transferee of the shares. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the transfer forms duly signed by the transferor along with the share certificates have been handed over to the transferee and the transferee has sought registration of the transfer in the books of the company. The company has not refused to recognise the transfer, but it has stated that the registers are not immediately available to record the transfer of shares. In these circumstances, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Shelat v. Thakar 1975 45 Comp Cas 43, directly applies to the facts of this case and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. In this view, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction issue before the Tribunal either by filing an independent appeal or by filing a cross-objection in the appeal filed by the Revenue, in view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbai Lalbhai 1977 109 ITR 537, held the field and the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society s case 1979 119 ITR 996, was rendered long after the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on merits. Whatever be the reason for the assessee for not raising the question of jurisdiction before the Tribunal, the fact remains that the Tribunal has not given a decision on the question of jurisdiction in its order and, therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the assessee to invoke the power of the Tribunal to rectify its order. We are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal in this case is proper. We are not inclined to direct a reference in this case. Hence, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Document Whether Gift Deed, Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... will and not a gift deed, so far as such donees in whose favour such future vesting of the vested interest is created, since they have no opportunity to accept such gift and the donor has got every right to change or revoke the future vesting of such vested remainder interest, even though there may be a clause restricting the change or revocation of the gift of such future interest of the remainder, as the provision of s. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted. Accordingly, the document dated February 11, 1969, is treated only as a will so far as the daughters and grandchildren of the assessee are concerned and the life interest created in favour of the wife being less than the maximum prescribed under s. 5(1)(viii) of the G.T. Act, the assessee is held not liable to gift-tax. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee, which are fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1983 (7) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... lji Ram Bhagat 1984 147 ITR 645) decided by this very Bench on December 17, 1982, and Tax Case No. 59 of 1974 (CIT v. Monghyr Gun Manufacturing Co-operative Society Ltd. 1984 147 ITR 649) decided on March 16, 1983. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question referred must be answered in the negative and, accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the quantum of penalty should have been calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Act in force prior to April 1, 1968. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the assessee, urged a point that the Tribunal ought to have given a relief with regard to the expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the revenue. That, however, is not the subject-matter of a reference and we refrain from going into that question. The case is, accordingly, decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... Maintenance Act does not come into play. Further, the provisions of the said Act cannot be applied to persons who are civilly dead. It is no doubt true, becoming a sanyasi is renunciation of one s worldly life and possessions, and neither the ancient texts nor the judicial precedents refer to the concept of obligations. However, having regard to the fact that on becoming a sanyasi, the person suffers a civil death, it has to be taken that after attaining sanyasa, he must be taken to have a re-birth and as such all his earlier rights and obligations should be taken to have come to an end. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the settlement deed was not supported by consideration in money or moneys worth and, therefore, it should be taken as a gift. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person.The Revenue will have its costs from the accountable person. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (7) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... to be independent of the assessment proceedings, it cannot be said that the assessing authority should ignore all the materials collected at the assessment stage, including the admission made by the assessee. If the assessee has chosen to question the evidentiary value of the materials gathered at the stage of the assessment proceedings or the admission made by him at that stage, the Department is bound to make an independent enquiry to find out whether there is any wilful non-disclosure of the income. But where the assessee does not retract the admission made by him and call upon the Department to make an independent enquiry, the Department is entitled to act upon the materials gathered at the stage of the assessment proceedings. In this view, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. There is, therefore, no warrant for directing a reference to this court on the above questions. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure Under Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... d to deliver the ornaments belonging to the petitioner in pursuance of the order, annexure 1, dated November 16, 1979. The result is that S.B. Writ Petition No. 1492 of 1981 is allowed and the non-petitioners Union of India, the Collector (an authority appointed under the Act of 1968), Assistant Collector (an authority appointed under the Act of 1968), Central Excise and Customs, Jodhpur, and the Superintendent (Preventive) (an authority appointed under the Act of 1968), Central Excise and Customs jodhpur are restrained from effecting the seizure of 150 tolas of gold ornaments of the petitioner under section 66 of the Act of 1968. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 951 of 1981 is also allowed and the non-petitioners (Union of India and the Income-tax Officer, S.I. Circle-II, Jodhpur) are directed to deliver the gold ornaments weighing 150 tolas belonging to the petitioner, which were seized at the time of raid under section 132(1) of the Act. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... in the statement of the case, the Tribunal is expected to state these findings so far as the facts are concerned. It is clear that no such findings have been stated in the statement of the case on the basis of which the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) could be made applicable. Under these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, it will be proper for the Tribunal to examine the matter and send a supplementary statement of case after affording an opportunity to the parties and determining the questions as to from what source this commission was earned and in view of this, it would be proper that the other question is also answered when the supplementary statement is received. It is, therefore, directed that the Appellate Tribunal, Indore, after affording an opportunity to the parties, will arrive at its own findings and submit a supplementary statement of case within four months from today. The case be listed after the supplementary statement is received from the Tribunal.
-
1983 (7) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant, Special Deduction
-
1983 (7) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... was incurred. The appellate authorities also have not gone into the nature of the said liability, since on the facts available, unless the assessee shows that this liability has been incurred for augmenting the capital of the company, he cannot treat the liability as part of the capital employed. Thus, the matter requires farther investigation. The Tribunal has, therefore, necessarily to go into the question as to the nature of the liability and whether the incurring of that liability has resulted in the augmentation of the capital. The result is, on the materials on record, it is not possible to answer the said question unless there is a further investigation into the nature of the liabilities in respect of which the assessee claims relief in the computation of the capital employed. The result is, the Tribunal will have to rehear the appeal on this aspect of the case and after determining the factual position pass final orders. The question is returned unanswered. No costs.
-
1983 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal will examine the bills submitted by the firms of solicitors as to what were the expenses incurred in connection with the fictitious transactions and irregularities shown in the auditors reports and also noted by Mr. A. J. Peppercorn in the letter dated April 17, 1952. The expenses pertaining to these irregularities and fictitious transactions will not be allowable as deductions wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the companies business. The other expenses of the solicitors which were noted in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order, such as, expenses in connection with the appointment of the managing director or reconstruction of its board of directors, will have to be allowed. Therefore, these cases are disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to ascertain the facts relating to these matters. It would be open to the parties to adduce further evidence on these points, if necessary. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1983 (7) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemption For Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... , does not permit an assessee to accumulate more than 25 per cent. of its income or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher (for the purpose of charity). The wording of section 11 is clear and unambiguous. The relief is limited to the amount of income of a charitable trust actually applied for charitable purpose. Accumulation of income is permitted only to the extent and subject to the conditions laid down in that section. An assessee can accumulate or set apart only 25 per cent. of the income of the trust or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher, in a given year. The circular does not seek to and cannot enlarge the scope of the section. In our opinion, the Tribunal erred in holding that the gift of the shares valued at Rs. 30,000 to a charity amounted to application of the income of the trust for the purpose of charity in the year under consideration. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1983 (7) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to persons who at any time are, or have been members of the company. Therefore, the dominant activity of the company is advancement of public utility and carrying on of an activity for profit is not one of its objects. Having regard to the principles laid down in the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above as well as the decision of this court, we have to hold that the company is entitled to exemption under section II read with section 2(15) of the Act and that the income of the company is not liable to be taxed under section 28(iii) as has been held by this court in CIT v. South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce 1981 129 ITR 22. The first question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and the second question is also answered in the negative and against the Revenue. The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee-company. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1983 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Best judgment assessment - If for a frivolous reason, the chartered accountant declines to undertake the audit of the appellant`s accounts, obviously the appellant could not be held responsible - section 144(b) is not applicable - best judgment` assessment made by ITO was set aside
-
1983 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
A transaction cannot be described as a `speculative transaction` within the meaning of sub-s. (5) of s. 43, IT Act, 1961, where there is a breach of the contract and on a dispute between the parties damages are awarded as compensation by an arbitration award - hence, Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the AAC that the loss suffered by the assessee was not a loss incurred in a speculative transaction within the meaning of s. 43(5)
....
|
