|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 318 of 318 Records
-
1984 (3) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the present petitioners, there has been no division by metes and bounds of their properties after coming into force of the State Act. Although the joint tenancy has come to an end, each petitioner continues to hold the properties with the other members of his family as tenants-in-common. Such properties are, for the purpose of assessment under the I.T. Act, treated by s. 171 as if they were still held by a joint family. The petitioner's counsel seeks to rely upon the decision of this court in ITO v. Smt. N. K. Sarada Thampatty 1976 105 ITR 67. That decision stands impliedly overruled by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT 1982 133 ITR 690. This decision of the Supreme Court clearly supports the construction which I have placed on s. 171 of the I.T. Act. In the circumstances, the challenge against the impugned orders fails. The original petitions are accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Gift, Gift Tax, HUF, Partition, Unequal Partition ... ... ... ... ..... ler or branch joint families, and it may constitute an apex joint family. In the instant case, all these members, referred to hereinabove, constitute an apex HUF. It is also well settled that a wife cannot herself demand partition, but if a partition does take place between her husband and her sons, she is entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. In this view of the matter, all these members of the HUF were entitled to a share in the partition. It would not be out of place to mention here that this position is clear from the discussion in Parts 2 and 4 intituled respectively as Persons Entitled to a Share on Partition and Allotment of Shares of. Chapter XVI of Mulla s Hindu Law, fourteenth edition, particularly paragraphs 306, 307, 315 and 321 at pp. 397, 404 and 407, respectively, of this Chapter. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Determination Of Fair Market Value Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... ed by Mr. G. C. Sharma. It is that the Tribunal determined the fair market value of the property on the basis of rent capitalisation method. If two methods are available for determining the fair market value and one is adopted by the Tribunal, its finding cannot be upset on the ground that the other method should have been adopted by it. We find substance in this contention. Section 269H of the I.T. Act provides that an appeal against the order of the Tribunal can be filed in the High Court on question of law. The question that the Tribunal, in order to determine the fair market value, applied one recognized method and not the other, will not per se constitute a question of law. The High Court normally shall not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in applying the method for determining the fair market value of the property. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same with costs. MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI J.-I agree.
-
1984 (3) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... le is taken as Rs. 780 per mensem, the annual rental value comes to Rs. 7,800. Multiplying the amount by 12 will give the fair market price of the property. According to the said principle, the price comes to Rs. 93,600. The Tribunal while accepting the appeal has not given any findings as to what is the fair market value of the property. It appears from the tenor of the judgment that it accepted the valuation by the valuer of the respondent and rejected that worked out by the Executive Engineer (Valuation). However, it did not say so. Being a Court of Appeal, it was incumbent on it to record a firm finding in this regard. The valuation given by the valuer of the respondent is Rs.80,000 which is much less than the consideration paid. The valuation determined by us on the basis of rent capitalization method is also less than the said consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI J.-I agree.
-
1984 (3) TMI 15 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Department, in view of this authoritative decision, rightly did not challenge the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal, but he contended that in view of the importance of the question and a conflict in the views of different High Courts as well as their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Nath 1970 78 ITR 319 (SC) and CIT v. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 106 ITR 292, it is a fit case where this court should give a certificate to enable the Department to file an appeal to the Supreme Court as provided under s. 261 of the Income-tax Act. In my view, this prayer of the learned counsel for the Department is fit to be allowed. I would, accordingly, certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. In the result, all the cases are dismissed and the question of law referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances, however, I shall make no order as to costs. S. S. SANDHAWALIA C.J.-I agree.
-
1984 (3) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge, Income ... ... ... ... ..... e price of the property is ascertained. That was done in the assessment year 1966-67 only. There was scope for the argument as raised by Shri Bhatnagar if the case was to be decided under the provisions of s. 10(2)(vii) of the old Act of 1922, as that provision talked of the year of sale for inclusion of the balancing charge. However, it was to remove the doubt and the ambiguity as to the year in which balancing charge has to be included that the relevant words the previous year in which the sale took place were substituted by the words the previous year in which the moneys payable for the building, machinery, plant or furniture became due in the new Act of 1961. Thus, under the new Act of 1961, there is no scope for the said argument of Shri Bhatnagar. In conclusion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1984 (3) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ) of the Act. He, therefore, annulled the assessment made by the ITO. The Revenue went up in appeal against this order passed by the AAC, which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal , Amritsar Bench. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in maintaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that proceedings were not validly initiated by the Income-tax Officer under s. 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72 ? The answer to this question stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996 and Division Bench judgment of this court, CWT v. Smt. Savitri Devi 1983 144 ITR 345. We, therefore, answer the question accordingly and make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Failure To File Return In Time, Penalty, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... of a firm. Its business was continuing and the assessment was made. Apart from that, for the assessment year 1962-63, when the application was submitted to the ITO for extension of time, the facts relating to the disputes between the partners and it was because of the non co-operation of the partners of the assessee, the return could not be filed, were not stated. The letters which were duly considered by the AAC have no bearing for determining the question of reasonable cause under s. 271(1)(a) relating to the assessment year 1962-63. The cumulative effect of all this is that it cannot (sic) be said that the assessee had failed to furnish the return of income in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 without reasonable cause. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ecessary for deciding the case that arose before this court. Even assuming that Sri Ramabhadran is right in his submission, in that event also, the above conclusion accords with the view expressed by me. With respect, I am in complete agreement with the view expressed by their Lordships in New Jehangir Vakil Mills case 1979 117 ITR 849 (Guj). On the above discussion, it follows that the impugned notices have to be upheld as validly issued under section 147(b) and s. 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In the light of my above discussion, I hold that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 1, therefore, dismiss these writ petitions and discharge the rule issued in all these cases. Bat, in the circumstances of the cases, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. I grant 60 days time from this day to the petitioner to file his return before the ITO in pursuance of the impugned notices that are upheld. Let this order be communicated to the respondent within 15 days from this day.
-
1984 (3) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ed by the Tribunal and this is not a case in which the finding recorded by the Tribunal can be said to have been arrived at without considering the entire evidence on record or that the said finding is perverse or contrary to the weight on record. In the questions that have been raised in the applications, it has been suggested that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is based on mere conjectures and surmises and that no reasonable man would come to the conclusion to which the Tribunal has arrived. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on mere conjectures and surmises and that no reasonable man will come the conclusion which the Tribunal had arrived at. In our opinion, therefore, the questions suggested in these applications do not arise out of the order dated September 15, 1978, passed by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these applications and the same are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 9 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not earned by any detriment to the joint family assets and the amounts received by him were not assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal has also referred to some of those cases and has held that there was nothing on the record to indicate that the salaries paid to the partners, namely, the assessees, were in any way detrimental to the share income of the family from the firm. In other words, the Department has singularly failed to establish that the salary paid to the partners was, in disguise, in lieu of the profit payable to the smaller Hindu undivided families represented by the partners. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has taken a right view in the matter. I would accordingly answer the question in favour of the assessee that the salary income received by the partners could not be assessed in the hands of their Hindu undivided families. In the circumstances, however, I shall make no order as to costs. S. S. SANDHAWALIA C.J.-I agree.
-
1984 (3) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... R 227 (Cal) and of the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 732. After noticing the aforesaid decision, it has been held by this court that the interest payable under s. 11B of the Sales Tax Act, is not a penalty but a revenue expenditure which is deductible as interest under s. 37(1) of the Act. The present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this court in Rajasthan Central Stores (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 90. It is, therefore, held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,175 paid as interest under s. II B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, was not an expenditure laid out wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business and as such was not allowable as deduction. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... refore, the Income-tax Officer while imposing penalty ought to have considered that out of the two things necessary under section 212(3), the assessee had complied with one part, i.e., he had deposited advance tax to the tune of Rs. 50,000, and it was in this light that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to consider the case of penalty after considering the deposit by the assessee of advance tax in time, and so, in our opinion, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter, therefore, our answer to the second question is in favour of the assessee saying that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 6 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Complaint U/S 276B, Offences ... ... ... ... ..... or supply whether wholly or partly any labour which the contractor has undertaken to supply in terms of his contract with any of the aforesaid authorities. Now, in the instant cases, admittedly, the respondent firm had not entered into any contract for carrying out any work or for supply of labour for carrying out any work with any Government, local authority, corporation, company or co-operative society. The respondent thus not being a contractor, the payments made by this firm to any person cannot be treated as payments made by a contractor to a sub-contractor so as to attract the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was thus perfectly right in his view that the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof did not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents and was, therefore, justified in discharging them. All these revision petitions are thus without merit and are dismissed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... sferred to the partners. In this case, as already stated, originally the property belonged to the firm and before the partners claimed that property as belonging to them, there should be a document duly stamped and registered and by mere book entries, there cannot be a valid transfer of the property from the firm to the partners. In view of the said decision of this court in CIT v. Dadha and Company (Madras) 1983 142 ITR 792 and the decision of this court in T. C. Nos. 731 to 733 of 1979 (CIT v. Nataraja Nadar and Sons, Virudhunagar), which arose out of the assessments made under the Income-tax Act on the firm wherein the question of ownership of the property came up for consideration, question No. 1 has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, we are not inclined to answer the second question, because it is only academic. We, therefore, return the second question unanswered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... do arise. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, contends that the materials furnished by the audit report have automatically been applied by the Wealth-tax Officer without verification or investigation and, therefore, such reopening of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer without any relevant basic material cannot legally be sustained. But all these matters cannot be gone into at this stage. We are, therefore, inclined to direct a reference on the question as to whether there was enough material or information before the Wealth-tax Officer to initiate action under section 17 and whether the lands were agricultural lands during the relevant assessment year 1968-69. In this view of the matter, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the assessment year 1968-69 set out already. In the result, TCP No. 469 of 1983 is ordered as indicated above and TCP Nos. 466 to 468 of 1983 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Co-operative Bank, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... es held by a banking institution are exempt from income-tax under section 81(i)(a) of the Act if the said securities were held by the assessee as part of its stock-in-trade. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the Government securities that were held by the assessee were part of its stock-in-trade. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee from the Government securities held by it were exempt from tax under section 81(i)(a) of the Act and that the provisions of section 81(v) of the Act were not applicable. It must, therefore, be held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 81(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the interest received by the assessee on Government securities which were held by it as part of its stock-in-trade. The question referred is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... justified in holding that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the securities were held by the assessee as part of its stock-in-trade and not by way of investment of its surplus funds, is a finding of fact which is based on the various facts relating to the deposits, cash and bank balances and other fluid resources of the assessee and no question of law can be said to arise out of the said finding. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd 1971 82 ITR 586 wherein it has been held that the question as to whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of stock-in-trade of the assessee is a question of fact. In the circumstances, it must be held that the question as framed in the application cannot be regarded as a question of law which arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated May 6, 1972. The applications filed by the applicants are, therefore, dismissed.
....
|
