Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 235 of 235 Records
-
1983 (8) TMI 15
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... those properties absolutely and on her death. To hold that the husband of the testatrix had a right of enjoying the income from B, C and D Schedule properties also during his lifetime without powers of alienation would be to ignore the subsequent clauses in the will providing specifically that the other legatees, Chembaka Lakshmi Ammal, Raghunathan and Subramania Iyer, will be entitled to those schedule of properties absolutely and on the death of the testatrix. We are satisfied, on a construction of the terms of the will as a whole, that the husband of the testatrix, Desika lyengar, did not acquire any right or interest in the B, C and D Schedule properties under the will of his wife, Lakshmi Ammal alias Thangammal. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was quite correct in its conclusion. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the Revenue. The accountable person Will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (8) TMI 14
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... ken as a part of the consideration received by the sons. Admittedly, the assessees received only Rs. 83,000 each and they did not have the benefit of Rs. 60,000 which in fact had been paid to, the mother as consideration for relinquishing her life interest in the property. When the interest of the mother in the property in question had been purchased by getting a relinquishment for a consideration of Rs 60,000, the said sum could not be taken to be consideration paid in respect of the interest on the assessee-sons. The payment made to the sons towards their interest in the property is only Rs. 83,000 each and that alone can be taken for the purpose of computation of the capital gains. Hence the Tribunal in this case appears to be right in its conclusion that the sum of Rs. 60,000 paid to the mother should be excluded. We, therefore, see no justification to direct a reference in these cases. The reference petitions are accordingly rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 13
Assets, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As regards question No. 4, that question, in our opinion, does not really arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not set aside the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the authorised representative of the assessee had not accepted the valuation of Durga Jyoti palace at Rs. 3,03,800. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the WTO for considering the applicability of the provisions of rule IBB of the W.T. Rules to the immovable property included in the net wealth of the assessee. The immovable property of the assessee will also include Durga Jyoti palace of the assessee. The question of applicability of the aforesaid rule was not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, question No. 4 framed by the Tribunal does not arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and we, therefore, decline to answer that question. Reference answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (8) TMI 12
Law Applicable To Assessment, Revocable Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... bsequent to the formation of the partnership firm there was nothing in the deed of settlement to be revoked and, therefore, ss. 60 to 63 would not operate in regard to the assessment of the partnership business since the revocation has taken effect immediately after one month of the date of settlement. There is no substance in this contention also. Suffice it to state that when the transfer became revocable, then the income from Cheluva and Co. shall be chargeable to income-tax as the income of the transferor notwithstanding the deed of settlement or the partnership formed thereafter. After a careful analysis of the clauses of the settlement deed executed by the assessee on August 12, 1960, in the light of the provisions of ss. 60 to 63 of the Act, we are firmly of the opinion that the deed of settlement is revocable and we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee in each of the references. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 11
Factors For Evaluating Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... is answered accordingly. Issues Nos. 1 and 3. These issues were not seriously argued before me. In the written statement, it was contended that two different claims are made by the two plaintiffs, and, therefore, a single suit is not maintainable. I am unable to agree. For one thing the claim itself arose out of a single partnership deed between the plaintiffs and the defendants and not independently. For another, the second defendant is not granted any relief in this suit since I have found that no amount is due to him. Therefore, I hold that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action and that the suit as framed is maintainable. Issue No. 4 The result is the first plaintiff is entitled, to a decree for Rs. 6,638 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. The first plaintiff would be entitled to proportionate costs of the suit from the defendants. The claim of the second plaintiff is dismissed without costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 10
Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s held by the assessee within the ceiling limit. Subsequently, the assessee wanted the WTO to adopt the compensation value for the excess lands which he did in his rectification order following the decision in K. S. Balakrishnan v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. 1972 86 ITR 263, without realising that the said decision has been overruled by a Division Bench in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Balakrishnan 1976 104 ITR 368, even before the actual order of rectification was passed. Having regard to the fact that the rectification order was passed on a decision which has been overruled by Division Bench, the Commissioner has initiated proceedings under s. 25, set aside the rectification order and restored the original order of assessment. This was upheld by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in this case and, on the facts and circumstances of the case, no reference is called for on the other four questions too. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 9
Business Expenditure, Gratuity Liability ... ... ... ... ..... t since the liability arose in the course of carrying on banking business and as the banking business having been completely transferred, the assessee cannot claim deduction of this amount as business expenditure, after it ceased to carry on the banking business either under s. 37 or under s. 36(1)(ii). In taking that view, this court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation 1967 65 ITR 643 and the decision of this court in Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. v. CIT 1975 100 ITR 341, which are also cases of closure of business and the payment being claimed as business expenditure after the closure of the business. Therefore, after a due consideration of the matter, we are answering the second question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The direction given by the Tribunal to verify the figures regarding the actual gratuity liability will stand. The assessees will get costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1983 (8) TMI 8
Agricultural Income Tax, Delay In Application, Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... tice within the time given in the section is a condition precedent for the validity of an assessment on a plantation escaping assessment. Similarly, if the notice does not give the assessee the minimum time insisted in s. 4(3), the notice is clearly illegal and that will also be a failure to comply with a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under s. 6A. It was also held that collection of tax assessed under orders which are illegal and void can be challenged even if the assessment orders are not challenged in appeal or revision in view of art. 265 of the Constitution. In this case, the learned judge has relied on the decisions in Narayana Chetty v. ITO 1959 35 ITR 388 (SC) and CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal 1955 27 ITR 54 (Bom). It may be noted that the provisions in s. 6A of the Plantation Tax Act, 1960 (Kerala), and the provisions in s. 35 of the Act are almost identical. For the foregoing reasons, this O.P. is allowed and Exs. P-4, P-7 and P-8 are hereby quashed.
-
1983 (8) TMI 7
Compensation On Acquisition, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... d to us is comprehensive enough to include the question as to whether the amounts of compensation awarded by the civil court could be taken as the value of the right to get additional compensation or not. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to answer the question as it is, and, therefore, we return the reference unanswered, with a direction to the Tribunal to deal with and re-hear the matter in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED 1980 122 ITR 21, and to give an opportunity to the Revenue to evaluate the right to get compensation as per the said decision. Now, coming to Tax Cases Nos, 411 to 416 of 1978, the question referred in these cases is covered by the decision of this court just now pronounced in Tax Cases Nos. 470 to 475 of 1978. Hence, there will be an order in these cases on the same lines as the decision in Tax Cases Nos. 470 to 475 of 1978. There will be no order as to costs in all the cases.
-
1983 (8) TMI 6
Capital Gains, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... d on those assets for earlier years and it is not open to the assessee now to contend that some of the assets which had been transferred belong to the partners individually. All these contentions have been urged before the Income-tax Officer, who has been directed by the Tribunal to investigate the question of ownership of the same. The learned counsel for the Revenue would say that in view of certain observations made by the Tribunal, the Revenue may be handicapped in putting forward their case at the stage of enquiry on the question of ownership of the assets. Therefore, we make it clear that since the question of ownership comes up for consideration for the first time, it is open to both the Revenue as well as the petitioner to put forth their contentions without being foreclosed by the observations of the Tribunal. In this view, we do not see any justification or necessity for directing a reference in this case. Therefore, these tax case petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1983 (8) TMI 5
... ... ... ... ..... orporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 1965 56 ITR 1 (SC), is not helpful to the assessee. On a due consideration of the matter, we are of the view that unless the assessee writes off the deficiency in stocks in the year of account, it cannot be treated as a loss in stocks and deduction claimed to the extent of the reserve created for that purpose. We are, therefore, in entire agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in this case. The questions referred are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now pronounced. Since our decision is based on the particular facts of the case and on the basis of the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal, we do not see that this is a fit case for the grant of leave to the Supreme Court. Hence, the request for leave is rejected.
-
1983 (8) TMI 4
... ... ... ... ..... on of the Full Bench is reported in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 443. We need not, however, advert to that decision in greater detail since we have decisions of our own High Court which fully support the view taken by the Tribunal. In this matter, it would appear to us unnecessary to enter into a fuller discussion or analyse the agreements in depth. They have been properly analysed by the Tribunal and we agree with the approach as well as the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, following our earlier decision, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 The payment of the two amounts for the respective assessment years to the Swiss company were revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. Question No. 2 The payment of Rs. 1,19,500 made by the assessee to the American company for the assessment year 1965-66 was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1983 (8) TMI 3
Income Tax Act, Law Applicable To Assessment, Mens Rea, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... he prosecution wants to bring home the charge only on the ground that the said firm did not send any confirmation letter and that on the basis of the letter from the Income-tax Officer, Gauhati, it tried to establish that there was evasion of tax. The letter from the Income-tax Officer was not produced. The accounts of the said firm, Malchand Matilal Kothari, filed before the Income-tax Officer, Gauhati, was also not produced and, therefore, merely on the statement of the Income-tax Officer in a criminal proceeding the above charges cannot be accepted to be proved. Regarding the sanction for the prosecution, exhibit-20, the learned trial court has rightly held that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority inasmuch as the relevant papers were not produced including the file in question and I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. For what has been stated above, I hold that the present appeal has no merit and, accordingly, it is dismiss.
-
1983 (8) TMI 2
Cash Credits - When material was placed before the ITO he desired the assessee to call the two ladies for examination but they were not produced by the assessee for giving evidence before the ITO - Tribunal & High Court were right in concluding that in the absence of any satisfactory proof in that behalf the taxing authorities were perfectly justified in holding that these amounts represented the assessee`s own income from undisclosed sources
-
1983 (8) TMI 1
Voluntary Disclosure Scheme - held that there is nothing in s. 24 of Finance Act which prevents the ITO, if he were not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of amounts found credited in his books, in spite of these having already been made the subject-matter of the declaration by the depositors/creditors, to include them as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources - held that provisions of Finance Act do not override I.T. Act -revenue's appeal allowed
....
|