|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 236 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... n the capital computation base of the years concerned ? Counsel are agreed that the issue herein is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559 and that following the said judgment, the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 95 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... 7 (Bom) of 1973-74, counsel are agreed that this question does not survive for consideration in view of our answer to the first question in favour of the assessee. This takes us to the remaining one and the only question of law arising out of R. A. No. 1708 (Bom) of 1973-74. Shri Kolah, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had disposed of the appeal long back, which order had already been given effect to by the Income-tax Officer, Shri Jetley, for the Department, does not dispute this position. In the above view of the matter, this question has become of academic interest and, therefore, need not be answered. In the result, the first question arising out of R. A. No. 1707 (Bom) of 1973-74 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The second question arising out of R. A. No. 1707 (Bom) of. 1973-74 and the only question arising out of R. A. No. 1708 (Bom) of 1973-74 are returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and not as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ? Counsel are agreed that the issue herein is covered by the decision in the assessee s own case in CIT v. Bassein Electric Supply Co. Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 884, and in view thereof, the question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... out that following its said decision, the Supreme Court, in a recent decision in CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38, in terms, held that in the case of a company shares of which are not quoted at the stock exchange, shares need not be valued on the break-up method in terms of rule 1 D of the Wealth-tax Rules, if the company is a going concern. It was held that the profit-earning method was the only method which could properly be applied for arriving at the valuation of the shares in such a case. In the Instant case also, the assessee is a shareholder of company which is an investment company and a going concern as in the Supreme Court case. There is no suggestion that the company is being wound up or there is any possibility of its being wound up in the near future. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation, following the Supreme Court decision, in answering the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and we do so. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 92 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... up on the first issue, the assessee has a choice to claim or not to claim a deduction on account of depreciation. If he chooses not to claim it, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to allow a deduction on account of depreciation. Having regard to this view, it is not relevant that the assessee in ITR No. 111 of 1976 had in its original return claimed depreciation. It was entitled before the assessment was made to change its mind and choose not to claim depreciation. The choice having been exercised before assessment by filing the revised return and the letter accompanying it, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in granting a deduction for depreciation based upon information gathered from the original return. In this view of the matter, the question arising in ITR No. 111 of 1976 is answered thus The Income-tax Officer had no power or jurisdiction, in the circumstances of the case, to ascertain and impose depreciation allowance upon the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 91 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Insurance Business ... ... ... ... ..... 9,551, being the portion of the surplus statutorily payable to the Central Government under section 28 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and so paid is a permissible deduction from the surplus disclosed for the inter-valuation period ended March 31, 1967 ? The issues involved have been decided by this court in the case of the assessee itself. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee following the judgment reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 900 that the second question must be decided in the negative and in favour of the Revenue having regard to the judgment reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT 1978 115 ITR 45 and that the third question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue having regard to the judgment reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 900. The questions are so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 90 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... rpose of income-tax computation. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue submitted an application for making a reference, but that application was rejected. Hence, the Revenue has filed this application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law does arise 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 liability of the assessee for the amount of Rs. 61,642 was an ascertained liability under section 26 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and that the said amount was deductible in computing the income of the assessee ? The application is, therefore, 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 reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Closely Held Company, Deemed Dividend, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ment of Rs. 28,500 in the assessment year 1968-69 and other than Rs. 10,000 in the assessment year 1969-70 were made as advances towards the purchases to be made by the company from the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that only the sum of Rs. 28,500 in the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 10,000 in the assessment year 1969-70 represented payments or advances within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act and could be treated as deemed dividend income. Shri Bhatia, learned counsel for the Department has not disputed the finding of the Tribunal in this behalf. If the finding is not in dispute, the answer to the question is obvious because it is only the payments or advances to the extent of accumulated profits that can be treated as loans or advances within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) and this is what the Tribunal has done. In the above view of the matter, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Weighted Deduction
-
1988 (12) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... strial undertaking, even though the factory had worked for only the last 175 days of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 ? Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of this court s decision in CIT v. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. 1988 169 ITR 537. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... and after seeking a long time, moved an application making a ground, which did not at all exist. Therefore, this court on August 21, 1987, ordered the applicant to furnish particulars but the applicant failed to supply the particulars and insisted upon submitting that in the matters of the Government, a strict view should not be taken. We are not satisfied with this submission of learned counsel for the applicant. Government or an authority cannot be given preferential treatment than an ordinary litigant and the Government was bound to explain each day s delay. Moreover, if the Department acted on the advice of some senior official or counsel, the Department at least ought to have filed an affidavit to that effect but as no affidavit has been filed, it cannot be said that the Department acted bona fide or that sufficient cause to condone the delay has been made out. In the result, this petition under section 29 of the Act is dismissed as barred by time. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 85 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... opment and Regulation) Act has been expressly mentioned. Further, the argument on behalf of the Revenue proceeds upon a misconception in regard to the interpretation of the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. There is no warrant for the underlying assumption that an article can fall only under one or the other of the items therein set out. Thus, typewriters fall within sub-item (1) of item (13) thereof, which deals with commercial, office and household equipment. But typewriters, if of the electronic variety, would also fall within sub-item (8) (electronic equipment) of item (5) (electrical equipment). Equally, an item of telecommunication equipment covered by item (6), if of the electronic variety, also falls within sub-item (8) of item (5). In the result, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and has intimated to the Revenue that it does not desire to appear and contest. This would appear to be because the issue to be decided in the question that is referred is covered by the decision of this Court in the assessee s own case pertaining to the assessment year 1969-70, viz CIT v. Batliboi and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1984 149 ITR 604. Following that judgment, the question before us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the Act and the assessee is, therefore, not entitled to claim the same as a deduction. The upshot of the above discussion is that, in our considered opinion, the case of Brij Raman Dass and Sons v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 541 (All) has been rightly decided and with great respect to the learned judges of the Gujarat High Court and the High Courts which agree with the said view, we are of the definite opinion that the view taken by that court in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. 1977 106 ITR 424.(Guj) is incorrect in law. Since the operative portion of the referring order reads as follows Let the papers be laid before Hon ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to consider the question as to what meaning is to be given to the words entertainment expenditure for the purpose of section 37 (2A) and (2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, let the papers be now sent back to the Division Bench with our opinion indicated above for a decision of the reference in accordance with law.
-
1988 (12) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Property ... ... ... ... ..... ntext, it may be desirable to refer to the Calcutta High Court s decision in the case of CIT v. Prabhabati Bansali 1983 141 ITR 419. One of the questions involved in that case was whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to redetermine the annual value of the property under section 23(1) afresh with reference to its rateable value as determined by the municipal corporation. The question was answered in the affirmative and the court held that the income from house property had to be computed on the basis of the sum for which the property might reasonably be let from year to year and the annual municipal value. Following the Calcutta High Court decision 1983 141 ITR 419, which we think, has taken the right view, we answer the questions in the negative and against the Department with a direction that the annual value of different properties will now be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions set out above. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 81 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e conclusion that the amount of income concealed was more than Rs. 25,000. The reference would, therefore, be deemed to have been made and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner seized of the matter on March 1976, and not on December 1976, when the reference was actually sent. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner s jurisdiction was not thus divested by the amendment with effect from April 1, 1976. Mr. B. S. Gupta, appearing for the assessee, sought to contend that the view of the Full Bench in Mohinder Lal s case 1987 168 ITR 101 (P and H) deserved reconsideration in view of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Kerala in CIT v. P. I. Issac 1987 168 ITR 793, where somewhat contrary view appears to have been taken. We are, however, not inclined to agree to this view and prefer instead to follow the judgment of our own Full Bench. The reference is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Guest House, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... essed unequivocally his intention not to honour the liability after it has become barred by limitation. In a given set of facts, a finding either way may be possible. In the instant case, the departmental authorities have assumed that the assessee had no intention of honouring the liability on demand from the mere fact of the assessee s writing off the liability and crediting the amount to the profit and loss appropriation account. The Tribunal has held that the liability did not cease. We have to answer the question on the basis of the facts found. In the circumstances, so far as this case is concerned, it will not be possible for this court to interfere. The decisions of other High Courts cited before us do not carry the matter further, because they followed the earlier decisions of this court. Accordingly, the third question relating to the assessment year 1969-70 also is, on the facts, found answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Officer determined the loss. Thereafter, it is not open to the Income-tax Officer to say that he cannot carry forward and set off the business loss already determined by him in the subsequent assessment years. The Income-tax Officer is duty bound to rectify the assessments already completed by him after the Appellate Tribunal rendering its order on July 31, 1978. Thus, considering the facts appearing in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to carry forward and set off the business loss as prayed for in these writ petitions. In that view of the matter, the respondent herein is directed to carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 18,041 and set off the same against the business income of the petitioner in the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the two writ petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed with costs of Rs. 500. Counsel s fee one set.
-
1988 (12) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erest of the petitioner as the petitioner will have the chance to show cause against the concerned notice and the assessee has the right to go up within the scope of the Income-tax Act itself. This court has to consider as to whether there is jurisdiction to issue the notice and whether the proposed proceedings are absolutely void and an abuse of the process of law. With all anxieties, this court has examined the materials on record, the stand taken by the petitioner and the contentions of the respondents but it does not find that there is any merit in the writ petition. The writ petitions are absolutely premature and vexatious. Steps taken by the respondents to issue the notice are justified in view of the materials on record and there is nothing for the writ court to interfere in the matter of taking such steps according to law. In the result, the writ petitions fail and hence all the rules are discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be and not the area. His other submission that, factually, the source of the income received by the petitioners was within the specified scheduled areas as the Consolidated Fund of India from which the payments were made had a direct nexus with the said areas, cannot be examined as it would depend on facts and no particulars pertaining to this aspect have been asserted in the writ petition. Mr. B. Gupta, learned counsel for the Revenue, urged that source in income-tax parlance means a head of income and the question of the situs of the Consolidated Fund of India in the particular case is a factual one regarding which there are no pleadings. It is correct that no facts have been pleaded on this aspect and in any case, it appears to us, that a factual controversy would be outside the scope of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Rule discharged.
....
|
