Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 236 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... unal came to a finding that in this case no penalty should be imposed. We are of the view that the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion. It has not been brought to our attention by Mr. Moitra, for the Revenue, what relevant materials had been ignored by the Tribunal or what irrelevant materials have been considered by the Tribunal in coming to its finding. The material as we have indicated is the letter dated 15/19th October, 1973. In that view of the matter, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. It is stated that General Insurance has merged with the National Insurance Company. Let the cause title of the paper book, statement of the case and the records be corrected or amended accordingly. Leave is given to file power within two weeks from date. All parties including the Department to act on the signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e right to enjoy the property and as such was a capital expenditure and in that view in holding that the payment of Rs. 2,67,000 by the assessee to Macneill and Barry Ltd. during the year, as the second instalment, was a capital expenditure and was, therefore, not an allowable deduction ? So far as the first question is concerned, the law is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT 1980 122 ITR 1 and also by the Division Bench of this court in the case of ITO v. Chandmull Batia 1978 115 ITR 388. The first question raised at the instance of the Revenue is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, in view of the findings of fact made by the Tribunal in the statement of the case, the answer to the question appears to us to be obvious and we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. B. L. JAIN J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n 37(l) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein in this reference is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decisions in the case of CIT v. Andhra Prabha P. Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 416 and in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585 and that following these decisions, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... m the annual value so determined. It may be noted that deduction for municipal taxes, where allowable, is given under section 23(1), first proviso, in the course of the computation of the annual value of the property. The annual value will be reduced by the amount of municipal taxes if the property is let out. The deductions under section 24(1) are to be made from and calculated on the basis of the annual value so determined. The deductions allowable are, inter alia, for repairs and collection charges. There is no specific item for deduction of the salary of a caretaker from the annual value of the property which is let out. It does not, in any way, affect the determination of the annual value. In our view, in determining the annual value, the salary paid to the caretaker cannot be taken into account. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. - I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... d by the Tribunal, it cannot be held that either 10 per cent. or 5 per cent., as the case may be, being the retention money, became legally due to the assessee on the completion of the work. Only after the assessee fulfils the obligation under the contract, that the retention money would be released and the assessee would acquire the right to receive such retention money. Therefore, on the date when the bills were submitted, having regard to the nature of the contract, no enforceable liability has accrued or arisen and, accordingly, it cannot be said that the assessee had any right to receive the entire amount on the completion of the work or on the submission of bills. The assessee had no right to claim any part of the retention money till the verification of satisfactory execution of the contract. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e Income-tax Officer making the original assessment. Nor is it open to the Income-tax Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion regarding the method of computing the income for that of the Income-tax Officer who made the original assessment, especially when the method of computation adopted at the time of original assessment was permissible in law. The fact that the adoption of a different method of computation would have resulted in higher yield of tax would not, in such a case, justify the reopening of the assessment. In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision would be equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to the assessee to file the vakalatnama within two weeks after the Christmas vacation. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
HUF, Income ... ... ... ... ..... sion by an overriding title of the share income from the firm of Saboo Industries to the hands of the individual family members ? The matter here is squarely covered by our decision in Income-tax Reference No. 159 of 1980 (CIT v. Varinder Kumar 1989 180 ITR 180)), decided on December 1, 1988. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1988 (12) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... 5 ITR 385 and in Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT 1981 127 ITR 579, sketching the scope and ambit of section 273A. I am not in agreement with the very wide observation contained in the latter. The principles will have to be understood in the factual background of each case. The factual matters referred to above, to my mind, would justify the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Counsel further relied on the decision of this court in CIT v. Saraf Trading Corporation 1987 167 ITR 909, in relation to the interpretation to be placed and the principles to be borne in mind, linked with section 271(1)(c). The decision certainly incorporates all that has been stated by the decisions which have been rendered earlier and summarises those principles correctly and cogently. The result may be that the petitioner has necessarily to face the consequences when he conducted his tax affairs in the manner he had done. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
HUF, Income, Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... n thereof came to the conclusion that after partial partition, the members of the Hindu undivided family constituted a sub-partnership and, for that reason, included the share income of the other members of the Hindu undivided family in the income of the erstwhile karta as he was the husband of one member and father of the other two minors. If the Income-tax Officer were not to accept the partial partition of the Hindu undivided family, he could not have assessed the income received from the partnership in the hands of the assessee. In that eventuality, it had to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. Under the circumstances, it has to be deemed that the Income-tax Officer accepted the partial partition and once that is so, the argument raised before us on behalf of the Revenue has to be rejected. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue with costs quantified at Rs. 500.
-
1988 (12) TMI 47 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appeal To Tribunal, Application For Reference, Interest, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... radictory decision. It was incumbent on the Revenue to draw the attention of the court regarding pendency of the present reference in this court when the earlier matter, at the instance of the assessee, was disposed of on March 6, 1978. Even if we were inclined to hold in favour of the Revenue so far as the question of remand is concerned, but after the passage of a decade from the date of the decision in the reference at the instance of the assessee, we shall not be justified in taking any contrary view and destroying the finality of that judgment. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the third question by saying that the Tribunal was right in holding that the levy of interest under section 216 is bad in law and in that view setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer charging interest under section 216 but the Tribunal was not right in sending back the matter to the Income-tax Officer for fresh consideration. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... ee. So far as the second question is concerned, it is now concluded by decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 1. It may be mentioned that in the original assessment, this expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure, but in the reassessment proceedings, the said expenditure was sought to be disallowed, on the ground that it is capital expenditure. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. s case 1980 124 ITR 1, holding that such expenditure is revenue expenditure, the Income-tax Officer was justified in allowing the expenditure as revenue expenditure in the original assessment. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee by saying that the expenditure incurred in purchase of loom-hours is revenue expenditure allowable as a deduction and such expenditure cannot be disallowed in the assessment reopened under section 147(a). There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... here was a Government order restricting the rate of profit was also not argued before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Income-tax Officer. We cannot allow this point to be taken before us for the first time as it is clearly an afterthought. The case of the assessee s relative can also not be looked into by us at this stage as the facts in that case are not available to us in detail nor do we know the nature of his business. It is possible that his machinery, administration and managerial skill might be inferior to that of the assessee. Apparently, there is no reason for such a steep fall in the rate of profit in view of the rising trend of the prices in the market throughout the period. We are, therefore, of the view that, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion and that it does not call for any interference. We answer this question in this reference in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ducted ? Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308. The first question is so answered. The answer to the first question being in the affirmative, the second question has to be considered. And it is agreed that the issue is concluded by the judgment of this court in CIT v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 56. Having regard to this judgment, the question is answered thus Only those liabilities which were due and pay able on the relevant date can be deducted. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deduction U/S 80T ... ... ... ... ..... ions of the Act before considering the special deduction under Chapter VI-A. Thereafter, for the purpose of deduction under section 80T, the computation of capital gains is to be made under section 45 read with section 48 and after the capital losses carried forward from the previous year have been set off against capital gains. If any balance of capital gains remains during the relevant accounting year which is to be added to the gross total income of the year, the question of effecting further deduction as contemplated by section 80T read with section 80B(5) will arise for consideration. If the net result of computation under the long-term capital gains is a profit or positive figure, deduction will be available under section 80T. If the net result is a loss, no deduction will be available. For the reasons aforesaid, both the questions in this reference must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J.-I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... llect such tax from the assessee. The, question arises whether it would mean that if the Income-tax Officer has in his possession excess amounts paid by the assessee, the provision obliges him to refund such excess. In our view, the object of the provision is that if income cannot be brought into India for reasons such as restriction or prohibition regarding remission in the country in which the income has accrued, no tax payable thereon should be recovered from the assessee as the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default The logical consequence of the provision is that if, in respect of the income other than income from that country, the amounts paid by the assessee are in excess of the tax due, the assessee should be entitled to refund. The cases relied upon by. Dr. Balasubramanian do not, in any, way, support his claim. Having regard to the above discussion, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... he income. It is necessary to decide, in the context and setting of the facts of a case, as to whether the disbursement in question amounts to diversion of income or not. The test is to find out whether the amount sought to be deducted did or did not reach the assessee as his own income. Obligations there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation which is the decisive test. In the instant case, there is a legal obligation in terms of the deed of retirement to pay in a particular manner to the erstwhile partners in respect of realisation of fees after their retirement. This is an instance of the source being subject to an obligation. The mere collection of income where obligation is attached to the source of such income cannot be taxed as it can never be income, far less a real income. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
HUF, Income, Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... me had arisen from assets transferred by the assessee otherwise than for adequate consideration ? Counsel are agreed that the issue is covered by the judgment of this court in the assessee s own case in K. M. Sheth v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 45, and that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Penalty, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... lty. If, on merits, the Tribunal found that it was a fit case for imposition of penalty, more opportunity than given to the assessee would not have improved the assessee s case. The assessee did not contend that the documents of which inspection was not given would have established the falsity of the Department s case or established its innocence. No rigid formula should be followed in deciding whether the assessee in penalty proceedings was given reasonable opportunity of hearing. On technical ground, the Tribunal set aside the order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it must be held that the assessee got more than reasonable opportunity of being heard and, accordingly, the second question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Be it recorded that Ajoy De of Khaitan and Co. stated that he has no instruction in the matter. He has asked for leave to retire. Such leave is granted. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 38 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ll No. 17, Bangalore, for similar relief. Inasmuch as the petitioner can pursue the remedy claimed in I. A. 1. in that suit, it is unnecessary to entertain this I. A. 1. It is dismissed. The petitioner has made several allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2. Inasmuch as I have quashed the impugned proceedings on another ground, it is unnecessary for me to consider the same, particularly, when the petitioner has filed a suit for damages and he can very well urge the allegations in relation to mala fides in that suit. However, the petition is allowed and the rule made absolute on the basis of the concession made by learned senior standing counsel for the Department.
-
1988 (12) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... reserve was created in the year of installation of the plant and machinery because of lack of profits in those years, is correct Counsel are agreed that the issue is covered by this court s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO 1973 92 ITR 241 and that the question should, therefore, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
....
|