|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 189 Records
-
1986 (10) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benami, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... property is held by respondent No. 6 as a benamidar is that she did not choose to appear or requested that she may be given time to consult her husband, i.e., respondent No. 5. There is nothing on record to indicate that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were in possession of any other evidence to show that respondent No. 6 was the benamidar of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, I find that this finding of the Tax Recovery Officer cannot be sustained. That being the position, it has to be held that the property in question in fact belonged to respondent No. 6 and not to respondent No. 5 and respondents No. 3 and 4 could not attach the same for recovery of income-tax dues of respondent No. 5. Since the petitioner bank had obtained a decree against respondent No. 6, the bank could of course recover this amount by the sale of the property of respondent No. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated December 11, 1973, is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 29 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 54(1) and 256, it appears obvious that an application for reference can be filed only against the order which comes within the ambit of section 254 and no other orders. The order in question before us was passed on a miscellaneous petition for rehearing of the appeals by the Appellate Tribunal. The order passed on such a petition does not come within the periphery of section 253. In my view, therefore, no reference could have been made to this court. The views that I have taken receive support from the case of CIT v. MTT. AR. S. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar 1953 23 ITR 180 (SC). In my view, therefore, no reference could be made to this court. The reference is thus obviously incompetent. Since the reference is incompetent, we refuse to answer the question of of law referred to us for our opinion. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1986 (10) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me-barred, whereas in this case it had not. This alone is sufficient to indicate that this decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be construed as a contrary decision. There is no other decision taking the view cited at the bar. We find no reason to take the contrary view suggested by the learned counsel for the Revenue in the face of a catena of decisions cited earlier, taking the view in the assessee s favour. Following those cases, it is to be held that the Tribunal was justified in the view it has taken. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no cessation of the liability of the assessee in respect of the amounts of Rs. 16,336 and Rs. 98,091, being unclaimed wages and unclaimed bonus, respectively, and in deleting these amounts from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... egative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of this case, the provisions of section 185(2) were not applicable. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Income-tax Officer s order dated October 28, 1976, passed under section 185(1)(a) was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Question No. 4 is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee in the way that the Commissioner s order dated October 5, 1978, was valid as it was passed under section 263 of the Act and not under section 186(1) of the Act. Question No. 5 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The registration could not be allowed to the assessee-firm even for the period up to September 16, 1973, despite all the formalities for grant of registration having been complied with. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order for costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Substantially Interested, Widely Held Company ... ... ... ... ..... thout emerging as a binding document upon the company, equities exist between them, but not between the transferee and the company. The transferee can call upon the transferor to attend the meeting, vote according to his directions, sign documents in relation to the issuance of fresh capital, call for emergent meetings, and, inter alia, also compel the transferor to pay such dividend as he may have received. See E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. Patch 1922 45 Bom LR 46 approved in Mathalone v. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd. 1954 24 Comp Case 1 (SC). In the result, we hold that the respondent-company clearly fell within the mischief of section 23A of the Act and was liable to the consequence flowing from it being a company governed by section 23A of the Act. Accordingly, we answer both the questions referred to this court in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1986 (10) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mens Rea, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... come of the assessee and that the assessee had consciously concealed the same. This case also, in our opinion, is of no avail to the Department in the present case. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 543, the Supreme Court has held that on the facts, whether or not the assessee had concealed his income was a question to be decided on the facts of the case, and that since in that case the Tribunal had, after accepting the agreement as true, deleted the penalty, no question of law really arose from the order of the Tribunal. This case also, in our opinion, does not advance the case of the Department and is of no assistance to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Thus, the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue have no force and are rejected. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... n of the proceedings by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur, and was admitted and stay was granted by this court. It was further argued that the Wealth-tax Officer had no power to issue notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the proceedings under section 17 are distinct and separate from those of section 2.5(2). One is for reassessment whereas the other is for rectification. Merely because proceedings under section 25(2) were taken by issuing notice, the Wealth-tax Officer was not debarred from initiating proceedings under section 17 as it appears on the facts and circumstances of the case.. We are also not satisfied with the argument that the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 17. We are of the opinion that he had ample jurisdiction. We, therefore, at this stage cannot issue the writ of mandamus prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.
-
1986 (10) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on was rejected and the above-quoted question does not relate to clause (a) of section 147. Before the Tribunal, an alternative argument was advanced by the Revenue, for the first time, based on clause (b) of section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal pointed out that such contention could not be permitted for the first time at that stage. However, even on merits, this contention was rejected by the Tribunal. In our opinion, this application has to be dismissed. It is not a case where the facts on which notice for reassessment was given attracted not only clause (a) but also clause (b) of section 147 of the Act. The basis on which clause (b) is attempted to be relied on by the Revenue at this belated stage was not even communicated to the assessee while reopening the assessment. This alone is sufficient to indicate that this question based on clause (b) of section 147 of the Act does not really arise for decision, out of the Tribunal s order. The application is rejected. No costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... nd lays down the whole of the law of succession, transfer, bequest, etc. Therefore, in cases governed by the Act, reference to the previous rule of Hindu law or Mohammadan law cannot be made as it is not permissible, but the Hindu law can certainly be resorted to in respect of matters for which no provision is made in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Matters saved from the operation of the Act, of course, continue to be governed by the personal law to the extent the same is applicable. The Act does not touch or affect the law of joint family, hence the Hindu law continues to operate in this matter. For what we have said above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person, whereas the finding given on question No. 2 is reversed and it is held that a sum of Rs. 40,000 was includible in the estate duty assessment of the deceased as his individual estate and a sum of Rs. 80,000 was includible for rate purposes as the share of the lineal descendants.
-
1986 (10) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Precedents, Ratio Decidendi Versus Observation ... ... ... ... ..... se when the assessee retired from Ashni Construction Company on August 31, 1970. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,14,192 received by the assessee on retirement from the firm styled as M/s. Ashni Construction Company was not chargeable to tax as business profits. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 4 The question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kartikeya Sarabhai 1985 156 ITR 509. As held in that case, the capital contribution by a partner in the firm, would amount to transfer. Following the said decision, we answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Taxable Gift ... ... ... ... ..... . In these circumstances, it could not be held that the admission of Shri Siddharth Kumar Patel as a partner in the business was gratuitous or without any consideration. The Gift-tax Officer, however, picked up certain assets of the assessee s proprietary business and regarded them as the subject matter of gift. As observed by the Supreme Court in CGT v. Gheevarghese, Travancore Timbers and Products 1972 83 ITR 403 (SC), this approach is wholly incomprehensible. As found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and which finding was not reversed by the Tribunal, there, was adequate consideration for The conversion of the business into a partnership and thus there could be no question of any gift of goodwill or development rebate reserve by the assessee to the other partner. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1986 (10) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have come to the conclusion that the application deserves to be allowed. The question as to whether the failure on the part of an assessee to substantiate the claim for deductions would, on the facts and in the circumstances of a case, amount to concealment of the particulars of its income as contemplated by the provisions of section 27 (1)(c) of the Act, arises in this case. Therefore, in our opinion, the following question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was guilty of concealing the particulars of his income and was liable to pay penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For all these reasons, this application is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this case.
-
1986 (10) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , it is a fair inference from the facts proved on record that the appellants must have received an amount of consideration larger than that stated in the document. That again is a finding of fact. For the reasons discussed above, we think that no questions of law are involved in the decision arrived at by the Tribunal and that these appeals have to be dismissed. We may mention that there are two appeals because the company, Himland Exports P. Ltd., which originally purchased the property from the original owners on July 30, 1982, had subsequently sold the property to the appellants in ITSA 2/86 for an apparent consideration of Rs. 7,75,000 by a sale deed in September, 1984. The principal point for consideration in both the appeals is, however, common, namely, the validity of the acquisition of the property in view of the sale deed dated July 30, 1982, and hence both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... y the assessee-companies during periods prior to September 1, 1948, and had also permitted payment of the tax in instalments, the assessee-companies balance-sheets did not reflect either those secret profits or assets representing those profits, and the net wealth of the companies was determined on the basis of their balance-sheets for the assessment year 1957-58. Held, accordingly, (i) that the instalments of the tax whose payment had not yet fallen due on the valuation date were deductible as debts owed and (ii) that their deduction was not excluded by clause (a) or clause (b) of section 2(m)(iii) as they had not become due for payment before the valuation date and could not be said to be outstanding on the valuation date. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... d not treat the assessee to be a defaulter for non-payment of this amount of advance tax within the relevant financial year for this very reason. There is no doubt that the nature of the amount in deposit must be the same for all purposes and not merely for the purpose of not treating the assessee to be a defaulter. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs paid towards advance tax by the assessee in these circumstances cannot be treated to be payment towards advance tax for the purpose of interest under section 214 of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, justified. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the payment of Rs.11 lakhs as a payment towards the advance tax. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... nse, what is paid is merely a subsidy-a recompense for the trouble and jeopardy suffered by the entrepreneur in setting up the industry in a backward area. In the latter sense, the formula contained in the said G.O. is merely a measure for determining the amount of subsidy. After all, some measure has to be adopted for determining the amount of investment subsidy and the fixed capital cost is taken only for the purpose of determining the amount of investment subsidy at a particular percentage thereof. It is for this reason that I said that both the views, canvassed respectively by the Revenue and the assessees, are plausible. It cannot be said that the interpretation placed by the Revenue is the only plausible interpretation and that the other interpretation is not plausible or reasonable. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that the interpretation favourable to the assessees must be adopted. For the above reasons, I agree with the answer proposed by my learned brother.
-
1986 (10) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een the parties by the highest authority under the Income-tax Act. The finding of the trial court on issue No. 2 is accordingly reversed. For challenging the judgment of the trial court on merits, the sole ground urged was that the Laxmi Narain Public Charity Trust was not a genuine trust. It is, however, not disputed that in the assessment proceedings between the parties, the Tribunal, vide order dated November 10/11, 1970, exhibit D.W. 16/241, upheld the existence and the validity of the said trust.The Revenue never got any reference made to the High Court against that order for challenging the finding of the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is thus final between the parties and binding on the Tax Recovery Officer. If that is so, then no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tax Recovery Officer whereby the attached properties were ordered to be released. Consequently, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ainable, his share in the losses is not. Indeed, he had no share in the losses and this is certainly a strong indication against the assessee s case. Be that as it may, it is not any single aspect or factor that should be taken as conclusive one way or the other, as observed by us hereinbefore, but all the relevant facts and circumstances should be taken together and the real intention of the parties and the real nature of the relationship between them determined, as directed in section 6 of the Partnership Act. We have pointed out hereinbefore that the approach of the appellate authorities in this case has been totally different, which has vitiated their findings and conclusion, and that the conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is unsustainable in law and the facts of this case. For the above reasons, the questions referred to us are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... on behalf of the respondents to contend that the valid and the invalid provisions of rule 5(2) of the Rules are not inextricably mixed up and are separable. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with that aspect of the matter. Under the circumstances, sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Rules cannot but be held to be ultra vires. It follows that the impugned order dated December 12, 1980, passed by the Central Board in pursuance of rule 5(2) of the Rules and the notices of demand issued by the Wealth-tax Officer in compliance with that order deserve to be quashed. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order dated December 12, 1980, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under rule 5(2) of the Rules and the demand notices, annexure G , issued by the Wealth-tax Officer in compliance with the aforesaid order are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1986 (10) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Assessment Records ... ... ... ... ..... jointly assessed. The petitioner has no case that he applied under section 138(1)(b). He files an application to the court without exhausting his remedies available under the income-tax law. He seems to fish for evidence in support of his claim, by attempting to summon the entire assessment orders of the plaintiff for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, without even restricting it to the partnership business they jointly conducted. The lower court was wrong in its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to summon the documents and was right in its reasoning that, in any case, this was not a fit case for the exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to claim relief under section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the appropriate authority and to obtain the certified copy of the assessment order or any portion of the same.
....
|
