|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 233 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gift, Gift Tax, HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal was not right in giving a finding in the alternative, that the act of the assessee amounts to a deemed gift within the meaning of section 4(c) of the Act. Question No. 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift was liable to be assessed in the assessment year 1958-59 and not in 1959-60. Question No. 9 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice dated February 12, 1965, issued by the Gift-tax Officer under section 16(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was within time. Question No. 10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the provisions of the Hindu law and the Hindu Women s Rights to Property Act and the Hindu Succession Act, Smt. Vidyawati Devi Rathi did not make a gift of the property valued at Rs. 8,01,074 and the same is not liable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... of the Act by filing writ application before this court in which a direction could have been given to hear the same along with this reference. Apart from this, I find that this contention of learned counsel is squarely covered by a decision of this court in Rameshwar Lall Agarwal v. Union of India 1982 133 ITR 545. In that case, the constitutional validity of section 34(1)(c) of the Act was challenged before this court in a writ application and it was held that the said provision was not violative of article 14 of the Constitution and was a valid piece of legislation. Thus the reference is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. The reference is accordingly disposed of, but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Patna, in terms of section 64(6) of the Act. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Partner In Firm, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... pany in respect of any expenditure to which sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 40 applies. As is apparent from sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A, the words any person referred to in clause (a) include any member of the family or any relative of such member where the assessee is a Hindu undivided family. On the facts of the instant case and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the legatees came within this category, being relatives and members of the family of Ved Prakash, the assessee, a Hindu undivided family. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of royalty to the extent of Rs. 46,466 was rightly disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. In other words, the question is answered in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Partner In Firm, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ii) of the Act was clear and whatever might have been the object of introducing that clause, the said clause did not leave any room for doubt that it had been made obligatory that if the income arising to the minor child from partnership firm was referable to the fact of admission of that child to the benefits of the said partnership firm, then such income was includible in the total income of the assessee and the question of source of investment in the firm by the minor was not relevant or decisive for making the income of the minor includible in the total income of the assessee. In view of that decision, with which we see no reason to differ, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in remanding the case to the Income-tax Officer for ascertaining the source of investment. For all these reasons, our answer to the question reframed by us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (6) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... hat the admissions referred to above were either proved erroneous or successfully withdrawn by the persons who had made those admissions before the income-tax authorities. In this background, we are not inclined to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal committed an error of law in recording the finding aforesaid, viz., that after the death of Ishwardin, the money-lending business had to be assessed jointly in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to above is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income from money-lending business, after the death of Ishwardin, had to be assessed jointly in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In other words, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 28 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ness or profession is succeeded by another firm and the case is not one covered by section 187, separate assessments shall be made on the predecessor firm and the successor firm in accordance with the provisions of section 170. The Tribunal, in its appellate order, has held that in the instant case, two separate assessment orders should be made on the assessee firm-one for the period ending April 9, 1974, and the other ending November 13, 1974. In view of the legal position emerging after the addition of the proviso aforesaid to sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act, we are of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made-one for the period up to April 9, 1974, and another for the period from April 10, 1974, to November 13, 1974. In other words, the question referred to above is answered in the affirmative. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... erial at all to show that any of the declarants were the benamidars of the assessee. According to it, even though relationship was established, at best it would give rise to suspicion and could not constitute proof by itself of a benami arrangement. The Tribunal has further held that no attempt had been made even to suggest as to which declarant was a benamidar of the four partners of the assessee-firm and that indeed it was difficult to imagine that each of the four partners had 1/4th share in the cash said to have been held by each benamidar, These findings apparently are findings of fact and in view of these findings, our answer to the question referred to above is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whereby he deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000 from the net wealth of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e question of law was amended, the Tribunal made another reference, which has been registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 19 of 1985. At the time of hearing, Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee was not interested in the reference being answered. Learned counsel relied on a decision of this court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT 1970 76 ITR 615, followed in Smt. Indramanidevi Parasrampuria v. Asst. CED 1983 141 ITR 593. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that in view of these decisions, we should decline to answer the question referred to this court. Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the Revenue, has not urged that the Department is interested in the reference being answered. Under the circumstances, following the decision in 1970 76 ITR 615 we decline to answer the question referred to this court. References disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (6) TMI 25 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... r opinion, however, does not appear to be correlated to any of the activities which may fall within the definition of banking and, consequently, the view taken by the Tribunal, in its appellate order, in so far as the income from locker rent is concerned, seems to be correct, namely, that this income shall fall not under clause (a) of section 80P(2) of the Act but shall fall under clause (c) thereof. Our answer to the two questions referred to us, therefore, is that the income, which is the subject-matter of the two questions referred to us, except income from locker rent is attributable to the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and hence liable to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the income from locker rent would not be liable to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) but to this income the provisions of section 80P(2) of the. Act would apply. The parties shall bear their own costs in each of these cases.
-
1987 (6) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... tent of the demand raised on such assessment. The appellant is directed to keep the said bank guarantee renewed till the disposal of the rule. Such renewal is to be effected 14 days before the date of expiry and if the same is not renewed, respondents Nos. 3 and 6 will be entitled to invoke and encash the said bank guarantee. In any event, respondent No. 3 will be entitled to extend the period of the said bank guarantee for any period he may decide in consultation with respondent No. 6. At the instance of the parties, the following directions are given for the expeditious disposal of the rule issued by us. The respondents will file their affidavit in opposition within three weeks from date, the affidavit in reply to be filed within one week thereafter. Liberty is given to the parties to apply before the first court for early disposal of the rule. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. All parties to act on the operative part of this judgment. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... are not binding on the criminal court. But the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court. In the short judgment passed by the Supreme Court, their Lordships observed as follows In view of the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on the record that Shrimati Janak Rani was a partner of the assessee-firm and that the firm was a genuine firm, we do not see how the assessee can be prosecuted for filing false returns. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the prosecution. Strong reliance was placed on the above decision by learned counter for the respondent. In this case, even apart from exhibit D-1 order of the Appellate Tribunal, the evidence does not show that the respondent filed a return which was false and incorrect to his knowledge. Therefore, I agree with the learned Chief judicial Magistrate that the respondent is not liable to be convicted. In the result, I dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Remuneration ... ... ... ... ..... d also the earlier decisions of this court referred to hereinbefore are binding on us. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vanaz Engineering P. Ltd. 1986 162 ITR 876, in our view, does not advance the case of the Revenue as in that case the matter was remanded to the High Court on a concession. It was not held by the Supreme Court that the law laid down by its earlier decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 585 was being reconsidered nor was it laid down that section 40A(7)(b)(ii) which came into effect from April 1, 1973, would apply in the assessment years covering periods prior thereto. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue and we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered by Mr. R. N. Bajoria as amicus curiae. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or unreasonableness of the amount distributed as dividends has to be judged on business considerations including previous loans, present profits, availability of surplus money and reasonable requirements in future. An overall picture of the financial position of the business had to be taken and the Income-tax Officer had to consider the quantum of dividend required to be declared from the point of view of a prudent businessman. We have no reason to brush aside the contention of the assessee that in the relevant assessment year, the available surplus in its hands for the purpose of distribution of dividends was Rs. 2,17,528 and that it had declared dividends more than the said amount. For the reasons as above, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 2, question No. 1 does not call for any answer. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.- I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 20 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able property is very high and the tax due to the Department is very small, the defaulter can always pay the amount due and get the attachment released. Further, if, according to the petitioner, there was no necessity to attach two properties, the appropriate course open to the petitioner was to make an application before the Tax Recovery Officer praying for the raising of attachment in respect of one of the properties by satisfying the officer that attachment of one property would cover the tax due to the Department. In the circumstances, I find no substance in any of the contentions raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the arrest notice which was the main cause for presenting these petitions was unwarranted. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that the Department was not interested in executing the impugned arrest notice. The statement so made is placed on record. In the result, I make the following order The writ petitions are dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Cinema Film Production ... ... ... ... ..... the Act or in the circular issued by the Board of Revenue, the principle enunciated by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court and affirmed by a Bench of this court in the decision referred to above, ought to be followed. The relevance of the accounting year followed by the particular assessee cannot be taken as relevant. What is relevant is the assessment year, and if the circular was in force on the first day of the assessment year, it would apply to that assessment year. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the revised circular, i.e., Circular No. 92 dated September 18, 1972, applies and should be applied to the assessment year 1973-74 and that the Tribunal was not Tight in holding to the contrary. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders under section 260 of the Act in accordance with this answer. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... khs. In the instant case, the apparent consideration of the 1/5th share was only Rs. 90,000. Therefore, the apparent consideration for the entire premises on the said basis would be only Rs. 4,50,000. The apparent consideration for which the balance 4/5ths share of the said premises was being sought to be transferred has not been disclosed by the Revenue. There is no reason why the circular should not be implemented in the instant case. This point, however, was not agitated in the proceedings below and it is not necessary for us to deal with this aspect any further. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The learned advocate for the appellant prayed for a stay of operation of this judgment and order. The learned advocate for the respondent stated on instruction that he will not alienate the property in dispute before July 14, 1987. In that view, we do not pass any order as prayed for by the appellant. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Power To Issue Writ, Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... t the Income-tax Officer from seeking to support the validity of a notice by reference to the appropriate provision in the statute. The court said that the Revenue had, no doubt, purported to reopen the assessment under clause (a) of section 147, but, if the facts could sustain the reopening of the assessment under clause (b) thereof, it did not see why the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be supported. We are in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Delhi High Court in the context of the writ petition to strike down notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961, in exercise of powers under clause (a) of section 147 of the said Act. Where the facts may sustain the proposed reopening under clause b) of section 147 of the said Act but not under clause (a) thereof, the court may not strike down the notice under section 148 of the said Act. In the result, we dismiss the appeal, but with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (6) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... n view of the later decisions of courts. Our attention was not invited to any decision which has taken a different or has dissented from the decision of this court in Casino Ltd. s case 1973 91 ITR 289. On the other hand, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 12 has applied the dictum laid down by this court in Casino (Pvt.) Ltd. s case 1973 91 ITR 289 and held that a hotel is not an industrial company. The question posed for consideration is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Casino (Pvt.) Ltd. s case 1973 91 ITR 289 which was followed by another Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. s case 1983 144 ITR 12. We fully concur with the, said decisions. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law formulated by the petitioner (quoted above) for the decision of this court. This original petition is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Transport Operator ... ... ... ... ..... R 415 (Ker)), a Division Bench of this court held that arrears of tax, under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, paid during an accounting year, but which related to the prior years, cannot be allowed to be deducted in computing the income of the assessee for the accounting year. In rendering the said decision, the Division Bench followed the earlier decision in ITR No. 315 of 1980 (CIT v. St. George Motors 1986 161 ITR 444 (Ker)). We have gone through the aforesaid two judgments of this court. In the light of the above two decisions of this court, we are satisfied that the plea of the Revenue should succeed. On that basis, we answer the first question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the light of our answer to question No. 1, no decision is called for on question No. 2. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... land was purchased in the names of 4 persons and the building was constructed thereon with common funds. There was no indication as to the extent of contribution by each party. None of the materials available indicated the extent of the right of each person. In these circumstances, the conclusion is inevitable that the whole property is co-ownership property and the share of each co-owner is not definite or ascertainable. The plea of the assessee that the share income is to be computed in the case of each individual is plainly untenable. The assignment of the status as an association of persons was clearly justified. We are of the view that on the basis of the above findings reached on an appreciation of relevant materials, no referable question of law as formulated in, para 4 of the original petition arises for consideration. We decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions formulated in para 4 of the original petition. This original petition is dismissed.
....
|
