|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 254 of 254 Records
-
1983 (9) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons ... ... ... ... ..... mmon similarities, that an association of persons may consist of non individuals also but a body of individuals has to consist only of individuals or human beings and that the word body would require an association for some common purpose or for common cause or there must be unity under some common tie or occupation and in the absence of such a common purpose or common cause, mere collection of individuals without a common tie or common aim cannot be taken to be a body of individuals falling within s. 2(31) of the Act. This decision also cannot help the assessee for the decision mainly deals with the concept of body of individuals as against an association of persons and merely restates the well-known test that to determine whether there is an association of persons or not is to see whether there is a joining together in a common purpose of producing income, profits and gains. In this view of the matter, we have to answer the question in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1983 (9) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... Court to hold that the income from the securities, which formed part of the assessee s trading assets was part of its income in the business and, therefore, the loss incurred in the business in the earlier year or the unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against that in the succeeding years. Such is not the factual situation in this case and, therefore, that decision has no application to the instant case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assets, namely, the compensation bonds as well as the interest income thereon, did not form part of the business assets or business income of the assessee and that, therefore, there is no question of carry forward or set off of a loss in business or unabsorbed depreciation against the business income. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (9) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any had been incorporated and, therefore, it could never be considered as revenue. Section 78 of the said Act statutorily provides for the application of premium received on issue of shares and it has to be transferred to an account to be called the share premium account. The learned counsel for the Revenue at the Bar tried to make out new case for the Revenue that the amount of premium received by the assessee was a revenue receipt of the assessee s business. We are not inclined to deal with those arguments as the amounts had not been treated even by the ITO as revenue receipts of the company s business. The ITO said that it is a revenue receipt assessable under the head Income from other sources in the hands of the assessee-company. Such income from other sources was not established before the Tribunal. For the above reasons, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (9) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the bad debt having been properly made in the earlier assessment. The only consideration under s. 41(4) of the Act appears to be the recovery of a debt in the relevant previous year allowed in an earlier assessment as bad debt in the hands of the assessee. The provisions of the Act granting allowances and deductions are independent and operate in their own spheres, even though some of the provisions in the same Act operate by way of counterbalancing provisions. We find substantial support for this reasoning in Krishnamurthy and Son v. CIT (Tax Case No. 658 of 1976, dated March 25, 1981 since reported in 1985 152 ITR 640 (Mad), with which we respectfully agree. We hold that the decision in CIT v. Kaimal 1980 123 ITR 755, cannot be pressed into service by the Revenue to negative the claim of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1983 (9) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Extent Of Exemption Of Intercorporate Dividend, Intercorporate Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... nt of the fair market value of the shares in question on January II 1954, any issue of bonus shares or right shares subsequent to that date was wholly extraneous and irrelevant and could not be taken into consideration. Question No. 5 is answered against the Department. As regards the question at the instance of the assessee in I.T.Rs. Nos. 96 and 97 of 1975, in view of our answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2 in I.T.Rs. Nos. 84 to 89 of 1975, the answering of the reference at the instance of the assessee would be purely academic as the reassessment proceedings could only be an exercise in futility. If the reassessment proceedings, assuming that they were validly initiated, are pursued further by the income-tax authorities, they would be liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. s case 1979 118 ITR 243. We, therefore, decline to answer that reference. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (9) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... njoyment of the income from the property contrary to and in breach of the terms of the deed, the case was taken as attracting s. 10. The decisions referred to above clearly support the stand taken by the Revenue that in whatever capacity the deceased has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties donated, such possession and enjoyment by the donor is sufficient to attract s. 10. The learned counsel for the Revenue appears to be right when he says that as the donor, is factually found to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties gifted, that is sufficient to attract s. 10 and it is unnecessary to go into the question in what capacity or under what right the donor was in possession and enjoyment of the gifted property. We have to, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in this case is correct. The question is, therefore,, answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. The accountable person will pay the costs of the Revenue Rs. 500.
-
1983 (9) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hird member has not given his decision or opinion but he has merely remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. That order cannot be said to be an opinion or decision as contemplated by s. 255(4) of the Act. Only if the third member expressed his opinion one way or the other and that opinion does not fit in with the opinion of either of the members of the Tribunal, then a deadlock should be taken to have occurred, but, at this stage, we cannot say that there is any deadlock when the third member has merely passed an order remitting the order back to the Tribunal without giving his decision or opinion in the matter. We, therefore, do not see any justification for quashing the opinion expressed by the two members of the Tribunal or for giving a direction to hear the assessee s appeal de novo by a different Tribunal as prayed for by the petitioners. The writ petitions filed by the assessee are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.
-
1983 (9) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... 1979 117 ITR 849 (Guj) and Jetmull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 1363). In that view of the matter, capital gains could have been brought to tax in the year 1972-73, since the award was made on February 3, 1971, and the possession, which though taken earlier in December, 1970, would not vest the title to the property in the Government till the award is made. We may remind ourselves that it was common ground that for taking over the possession of the land, no urgency powers were exercised by the Collector. We have, therefore, to answer the questions in both the references as under ITR No. 210 of 1976 The question is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ITR No. 51 of 1982 The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that it is liable to tax in the assessment year 1972-73. Having regard to the facts of these two cases, there should be no order as to costs in these two references.
-
1983 (9) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Income, Interest On Loans And Advances, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... t question, viz., whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 147(a) of the Act are not attracted, the Tribunal has found that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars about this sum as not recoverable for the relevant accounting year. The Tribunal has observed in para. 12 of its order that the statements filed along with the original returns disclosed the full details of the aforesaid account. There was, therefore, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for its assessment for the respective years. The view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. From the balance-sheet, it is clear that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the said amount. The provisions of section 147(a) of the Act are, therefore, not attracted to the case. In the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1983 (9) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (1)(c). The Income-tax Officer did not agree with the plea put forward by the assessee and he levied the penalty. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the levy of penalty and so too the Tribunal. In these references, Mr. Sarangan, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was no intention at all on the part of the assessee to conceal any part of his income, since he himself voluntarily disclosed the true income before proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Act. We have perused the material papers. The voluntary disclosure of the real income by the assessee has been referred to in the penalty order made by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal unfortunately has not at all looked into it Since the assessee himself has disclosed the receipts which became the basis for reopening the assessment, there was no concealment of income calling for the levy of penalty. In the result, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1983 (9) TMI 4 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... efusing to entertain the alternative ground of the Revenue that capital gains on the transfer of the leasehold rights in respect of Rs. 2,50,000 should be brought to tax in these proceedings. This ground was not raised in the memorandum of appeal, much less was it pleaded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was only at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal that a faint attempt appears to have been made with an oral request to raise that contention. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in refusing leave to allow that contention at that belated stage. This court has upheld such an action of the Tribunal in Consolidated Coffee Estate Ltd. v. CIT (ITRC No. 64 of 1972-dated 26-5-1974) (See also the decisions of the Supreme Court in. Manji Dana v. CIT 1966 60 ITR 582 and Moti Rain v. CIT 1958 34 ITR 646). In the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1983 (9) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company, Reserve, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... bserved that if the retirement gratuity reserve exceeds the amount determined on the basis of the actuarial valuation, it should be taken to be an excess provision and, therefore, only the excess provision should be treated as a reserve. Therefore, the amount set apart in excess of the actual liability for gratuity will alone be included as part of the capital. In this view, the question referred in T. C. No. 375 of 1978 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and the question in T. C. Nos. 320 and 321 of 1978 is partly answered in favour of the assessee as regards the excess amount set apart in the staff retirement gratuity reserve over and above the actual liability determined in accordance with the actuarial method and partly in favour of the Revenue as regards the asset replacement reserve and debenture redemption fund which we have held to be not includible in the capital. The Revenue will get the costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1983 (9) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Remuneration Paid To Directors ... ... ... ... ..... lowable as a deduction ? As far as question No. 1 is concerned, that question is covered by the decision in this court in International Instruments P. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 130 ITR 315, wherein a similar question has been answered in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer this question also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, that question is covered by the decision of this court in the case of the same assessee in I. T. R. C. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1979 disposed of on September 14, 1983 (CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 936). Accordingly, this question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Department.
-
1983 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Application u/s 72A for the grant of relief of requisite declaration - whether recommendation of a statutory body and Central Government's decision based on it a matter of subjective satisfaction were open to judicial review & whether HC was justified in interfering - HC was right in holding that the impugned conclusion of the specified authority and the Central Govt. on the aspect of non-fulfillment of the condition specified in s. 72A (1) (a) being vitiated was liable to be set aside
....
|
