|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 236 Records
-
1985 (8) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Intercorporate Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... was levied on gross premiums. Under the Treaty Agreement, the assessee was liable to reimburse to the Group the share of the federal tax to be levied in respect of such ceded reinsurance. At no stage, it was the case of the Revenue that the amount reimbursed by the assessee was income accruing to the Group in this country and the assessee was never called upon to pay the tax on the said amount. In view of the aforesaid facts, the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the Revenue appears to us to be almost one of desperation and none of the decisions cited on behalf of the Revenue has any application to the facts before us. The points involved in the said decisions were at no time mooted, considered or even referred to earlier in the proceedings below. For the reasons given above, we are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue and we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1985 (8) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... in a different category. The earlier Madras decision was based on the ground that the payment was made not for conduct of the business in a negligent manner but for conducting the business in a dishonest manner. Obviously, conducting of business in a dishonest manner was not treated as incidental to the business, whereas negligent conducting of business could be treated as incidental. That apart, the subsequent decisions of the Madras High Court particularly, Hind Mercantile Corporation Ltd, v. CIT 1963 49 ITR 23 and South India Viscose Ltd. v CIT 1982 135 ITR 206, support the conclusion reached by us. It would, therefore, be proper to say that no decision taking a contrary view has been cited before us. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue that the Tribunal was not right in law in disallowing the payment of Rs. 7,364 made by the assessee to the G.C.F. and claimed as business expenditure. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... on that in that case, on similar facts, the Department filed an application under section 256(2) of the Act and this court declined to issue mandamus after observing that the questions sought to be referred were essentially questions of fact whereas in this case, this court issued mandamus and sought reference of the two questions of law along with the statement of the case, and that is how the matter is before us. We have to answer the questions of law on the facts and circumstances of this case keeping in view the Full Bench decision. Hence, the learned counsel cannot seek any assistance from that case. In view of the above, the answer to question No. 2 has to be that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that no penalty was exigible. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions referred to us in favour of the Department and against the assessee, i.e., in the negative. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould levy a penalty for that reason and in spite of this did not choose to levy a penalty. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the Income-tax Officer had realised that the return was not filed in time or that the question of penalty was at all present in his mind. In such a case, no question of waiver can possibly arise. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative. Question No. 2 This question is unnecessary, and we decline to answer the same, as, even on the assumption that the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is applicable as contended by Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee cannot succeed. Question No. 3 As we have pointed out, we must proceed on the assumption that the Hindu undivided family continued to be joint and hence the question does not arise. Question No. 4 In the negative. Question No. 5 In the negative. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner.
-
1985 (8) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... e to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 90,000 stood discharged merely because of the orders passed under section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, when, under the disclosure scheme, the amount of Rs. 90,000 was accepted in the names of the three minors and for that reason no other evidence was led to offer the explanation in regard to that amount and since a different view is being taken, it is a fit case in which the assessee should be given opportunity to furnish explanation. This matter is not covered by question No. 2. The matter has to go to the Tribunal to frame fresh assessment in view of the answers given by us to the two questions referred to us and it will be for the assessee to raise the matter there. We have a limited jurisdiction and nothing more we say in this behalf. Both the questions are answered accordingly and since the matter is covered by the judgments which came into being during the pendency of reference, we do not burden the assessee with costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ors were kept in view. It has been held by this court in Auto Piston Manufacturing Company Private Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 12, that these are pure questions of fact and once that is so, on the facts found, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was in error in deleting that part of the remuneration which was found to be unreasonable within the meaning of section 40(c) of the Act because the finding is based on the material available on the record. Both the questions are interconnected. We find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal about the unreasonableness of the amounts paid to them beyond Rs. 750 per month is based on material available on the record. Accordingly, both these questions are also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. For the reasons recorded above, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... year. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee had mainly argued that there was no material to justify the finding that the assessee had invested Rs. 73,075 in secret sale transactions. According to the learned counsel, the circulating capital was not more than Rs. 7,000 although the total secret sale transactions were found to be to the tune of Rs. 73,075. This is a separate point and for that matter, the assessee should have applied for a reference under section 256(1) and in case the Tribunal had refused to refer, a mandamus should have been sought. We have only to answer the question referred to us wherein this point does not arise. Hence, on the facts found, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 73,075 under section 69 of the Act. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... x dated May 9, 1979, and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 4, 1980, which have been produced before us by learned counsel for the assessee. We find no reason to hold that a question of law arises in the present case. The finding arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee was not the owner of the ten shops in question on the relevant date was essentially a finding of fact. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the assessee, Rao Raja Kalyan Singh, had gifted the ten shops in question to his daughter, Smt. Phool Kanwar, at the time of her marriage and that she was receiving the rents and profits in respect of said shops ever since her marriage. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal being one essentially of fact, no question of law arises in our view. The application for calling for reference is, therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncome-tax Officer has rectified the so-called mistake in respect of the capital gain on the basis of the principles laid down in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. 1964 52 ITR 567. It was observed that no substantial question of law arose after the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act, as there was no obvious and patent mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer in the original order. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and in view of the other decisions referred to above, in our opinion, no case for initiating proceedings under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act has arisen as the original assessment does not disclose any mistake apparent from the record and we decline to direct the Tribunal to state the case on the question stated by the petitioner calling upon the Tribunal to make a reference on the said question. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Costs will be borne by the parties.
-
1985 (8) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... disturb that finding. If the Revenue intended to challenge that finding, a more pointed reference was called for. I may state that if the Revenue intended to challenge the basis for the finding of fact, the question suggested by the Commissioner of Income-tax and which was referred to this court was absolutely vague. In my view, a more pointed reference was called for. As things are, upon the finding that the amounts shown as deposits with the assessee were theirs, there is no escape from the position that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. NAZIR AHMAD J.-I agree.
-
1985 (8) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of the assessee itself, relating to the earlier year, in G G. Sanghi v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 95. It was held by this court that the interest payable under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was not a penalty but a revenue expenditure, which was deductible under section 37(1) of the. Income-tax Act. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in respect of the earlier year, in the case of the same assessee and we hold that the interest paid by the assessee under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, being laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ld that the said amounts did not represent the revenue receipts of the assessee during the two assessment years referred to above, directed the deduction of the said amounts from the total income of the assessee, which have the effect of nullifying the additions which had been made by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal appears to be justified in holding that there was no question of granting any double relief. Moreover, in case the Income-tax Officer subsequently finds that the sales tax has not been paid and was not payable and the amount has not been refunded by the assessee to the customers, then under section 41 of the Income-tax. Act, it would be open to him to make the addition of the said amounts in the receipts from business in the very assessment year. We are, therefore, of the view that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 31, 1978. Both the applications for making a reference are dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 25 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cross Question ... ... ... ... ..... of rule 6DD and the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 40A may be made in this connection. The explanation given by the assessee satisfies this requirement and the Tribunal accepted that explanation, which enabled it to grant the relief, which it has done. On the facts found proved by the Tribunal, it is obvious that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was the only possible conclusion. There is thus no occasion to direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions Nos. 1 and 2, which it has rightly refused to refer. Consequently, this reference (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 246 of 1981) is answered against the Department and in favour of the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,000 made by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on account of entertainment expenses. The other case, Miscellaneous Case No. 33 of 1982, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t penalty is imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the date on which the original return was filed, i.e., when the act of concealment took place. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that penalty was imposable in accordance with law prevailing on the late of initiation of penalty proceedings. But as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the relevant date for imposition of penalty is the date of filing of the original return by the assessee, as that was the date of commission of the offence within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, as the penalty is imposable in accordance with the law which was in force on the date of filing of the return. In view of our finding in respect of question No. 1, question No. 2 does not arise and has become redundant. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1985 (8) TMI 23 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Provisional Assessment, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... is alleged to have advanced the loan of Rs. 20,000 to the assessee, was considered by the Tribunal and the finding mentioned above was arrived at. We can neither say that the finding of the Tribunal was absurd or that no reasonable man can come to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record. In Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohd. and Co. 1974 97 ITR 705 (Raj), it was observed by us that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse. We are unable to hold that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse or that the material on record has been ignored. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is essentially one of fact and no question of law arises. The Tribunal was justified in refusing to make a reference to this court. The application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is dismissed as no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
-
1985 (8) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... we close, there seems to be some clerical mistake in the figure regarding imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed was Rs. 94,560. That was the figure mentioned in the application filed by the Revenue in this court in their application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that, in the order of this court dated February 16, 1981, by some slip, the sum of Rs. 13,006 has been mentioned. This seems to be a clerical mistake which was clarified by the Tribunal in the statement of facts. Thus, the penalty imposed was Rs. 94,560 and not Rs. 13,006. The sum mentioned in the order of this court dated February 16, 1981, be read accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As the assessee has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act as soon as possible.
-
1985 (8) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rule 1BB, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... a reference regarding the same. Mr. Sharma has, at this stage, made an important suggestion regarding the retroactive operation of rule I BB. He submits that a very large number of persons own property to which rule 1 BB applies and we would be merely multiplying proceedings in this court, if we failed to answer this question in a very short time. He also submits that the answer is in reality self-evident We would, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to state this case within a month. For this purpose, it is enough if the paper book is cyclostyled by the parties and the case is listed within three months for final disposal, as several hundreds of cases of similar type are pending in this court, and all other cases in which a similar reference has been ordered, may be listed by the Registry along with this case, so that the whole set of cases can be decided together. The parties may seek directions if they find any difficulty in compliance. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... t the expenditure or allowance is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate needs of the business carried, on by the company and the benefit derived by or accruing to the company from this expenditure. We must, therefore, without answering the questions raised in the reference, remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider and decide the questions in the light of section 40(c)(ii) of the Act and in the light of the observations made by this court in the judgment referred to with a view to finding out whether the expenditure on motorcars sought by way of deduction/allowance was not unreasonable or excessive having regard to the business needs of the company and the benefit derived/accruing. therefrom to the company. It will be open to both sides to lead evidence after the appeal goes back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will permit both sides to lead additional evidence on this limited question. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Annual Rateable Value, House Property, Punjab Municipal Corporation Act ... ... ... ... ..... this observation was made in this judgment before the pronouncement of the above-noted judgment of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor s case 1980 122 ITR 700. Secondly, Division Bench of this court in a later judgment in Punjab Contrast Steels Limited v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana 1984 LLR 584 has pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor s case 1980 122 ITR 700, the view expressed by this court in Hukam Chand s case 1979 LLR 124 stands impliedly overruled and thus no longer holds the field . In the light of all this, it is patent that the orders under attack cannot be legally sustained. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and while setting aside the impugned order, send the case back to the Commissioner for reassessment of the house-tax in accordance with law and the observations made above. The petitioners are also held entitled to the costs of the litigation which would be Rs. 250 in each case.
-
1985 (8) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... tely furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the original assessment proceedings for computing the tax may be a good item of evidence in the penalty proceedings but penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. If the order of the Tribunal is viewed in the light of what has been observed in the cases referred to above, it would appear that the finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the material on record and it cannot be said that the assessee has failed to prove that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part in not returning the value of the plot and such a finding being a finding of fact will not give rise to any question of law as discussed above. In the result, in our opinion the applications have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
....
|
