Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 310 of 310 Records
-
1987 (2) TMI 10
Exemptions, Public Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so. As regards question No. 1, it has to be stated that on the facts stated by the assessee, it is clear that one-fourth of the income set apart for augmenting the trust properties did not attract the provisions of section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because that money was invested for acquisition and construction of properties and buildings and not for investment and deposit in specified securities as mentioned in the subsection. In the circumstances, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of our answer to question No. 1, we decline to answer question No. 2. That question is accordingly not answered. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (2) TMI 9
... ... ... ... ..... ence. Therefore, it must be held that the statements of M. Sriramulu, Shankaraiah, Sri L. Malakondaiah, District Collector, East Godavari, Diwakar Setty, etc., constitute clear, evidence and they can be relied upon. They were also examined and cross-examined. The findings in the assessment proceedings were also taken into consideration. The conduct of the assessee in concealing the income and the false explanation are also connecting links to the totality of circumstances. Therefore, the finding that the assessee had concealed the income is based on evidence on record. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal are well-supported by the reasoning given in support thereof. Therefore, we cannot hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on no evidence nor that no reasonable man can come to those conclusions. Accordingly, we find no justification to direct the Tribunal to state the case on the questions referred to above. The case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1987 (2) TMI 8
Deemed Gift, Gift Tax, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... pt as donees for the benefit of the princes and they acquired no legal ownership over the swords as donors. Therefore, it is not a gift made by the assessee to the settlees, viz., the princes, under the Act. Even otherwise, there is another legal impediment in the way of the Revenue. The assessees are only donees. They have no absolute right, title or interest in the property except in their capacity as trustees for the benefit of beneficiaries under the Act. They cannot make a gift de hors the terms of the trust in favour of the beneficiaries. Therefore, they cannot hold the property as absolute owners nor transfer the same to the princes without consideration. Under those circumstances, we hold that there is no gift as defined under section 2(xii) of the Act and section 4(1)(a) or 4(1)(c) does not apply to the facts in this case. Accordingly, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (2) TMI 7
Business Expenditure, Fluctuation In Rate ... ... ... ... ..... TR 405 by the Supreme Court and in CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. 1979 120 ITR 451 and CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. 1987 163 ITR 674 by the Madras High Court. We accordingly, hold that the amount expended by the assessee is capital in nature. It cannot, therefore, be deducted as revenue expenditure and allowance cannot be granted The reference is accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. On question No. (ii), in similar circumstances in T. T. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CIT, the Supreme Court granted special leave in S. L. P, (Civil) Nos. 2744-45 of 1984 and 2739 of 1984 to the assessee against the judgments dated October 25, 1983 of the Karnataka High Court in 1. T. R. C. No. 76 and 77 of 1982 (see below) and dated November 7, 1983 in 1. T. R. C. No. 51 of 1979 to appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, on the second question, we grant leave to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1987 (2) TMI 6
Business Loss, Depreciation, Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... ion and directed rectification of the assessment order for the assessment year 1972-73 on that basis. The only question is whether the Tribunal was justified in taking the above view. It has been stated as a fact that the decision for the assessment year 1973-74 taking the above view forms part of the record and the basis on which rectification of the assessment order for the year 1972-73 has been sought is an admitted fact. For reaching the conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. P. B. Desai, AAC 1975 99 ITR 135. On these facts relating to the contents of the record on which rectification under section 154 has been granted, the ultimate question raised by the Revenue does not give rise to any question of law, since the contents of the record is undoubtedly question of fact. Accordingly, in our opinion, no case is made out for a direction under section 256(2) to the Tribunal. The application is therefore, rejected.
-
1987 (2) TMI 5
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... see is entitled to depreciation on the written down value of roads and drains at the rates applicable to buildings ? The matter is covered by the pronouncement of this court in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 23. Following the said pronouncement, the question referred requires to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sri Sarangam is permitted to file his vakalat for the respondent-assessee.
-
1987 (2) TMI 4
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... e) for determining the value for the purpose of computation of capital gains ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income-tax on capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold ? In the light of our decision in I. T. R. Nos. 111 and 49 of 1981, we answer question No. 1(i) in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (2) does not require to be answered. We decline to answer that question. In the light of the decision of this court in CIT v. Alanickal Co. Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 630 1986 KLT 294, we answer question No. (3) in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (2) TMI 3
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the income from interest which had accrued to the respondent on the compensation payable to him in view of the acquisition of land belonging to him for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 should be spread over the respective years to the extent to which it could be deemed to have accrued in those years - mercantile system of account was the basis on which the interest income accrued, the HC was right in answering the question in assessee's favour
-
1987 (2) TMI 2
Having regard to the facts that the organisational set up under the distributorship agreement was to endure for seven years and upon the expiry of the period, the assessee had no relationship with the organisation and that the period of agreement between the assessee and distributors was contemporaneous with the agreement between the assessee and Charles Walker under which the assessee became entitled to use the registered trade marks, it must be considered to be a revenue expenditure
-
1987 (2) TMI 1
Gifts made of the funds with a company - neither company had funds on that day, nor did it have overdraft facility with any bank - entries in the books of account could not effectuate gifts - hence gift is not valid - revenue's appeal is allowed
....
|