|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 236 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reserves, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ing of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Supreme Court s judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Exemption For Personal Effects, Personal Effects ... ... ... ... ..... sessments under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was to be made and that rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was not to be applied for making any proportionate reduction on such account ? Counsel are agreed that in view of this court s decision in the case of CIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1978 111 ITR 6, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... arried forward to the subsequent year, even though the necessary reserve was not created in the account year 1972 which was a year of loss ? Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of this court s judgment in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO 1973 92 ITR 241. The question is, accordingly, so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Income ... ... ... ... ..... of this court dated November 29, 1988, in the assessee s case for the assessment year 1971-72 (Income-tax Reference No. 115 of 1976-CIT v. Gratuity Fund of the Employees of Eastern Bunkerers Ltd. (No.-1) 1990 185 ITR 478), the question, it is agreed, must be answered in favour of the Revenue thus The accretion content of Rs. 13,175 is assessable as income for, the assessment year 1972-73. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Exemption For Personal Effects, Personal Effects ... ... ... ... ..... on of fact. The answer to this question depends not only on the status of the assessee but mainly on the nature of the articles sold. From the finding of the Tribunal, it appears that the old utensils sold comprised thalis, spoons, plates, etc. Accordingly, these silver articles are not only capable of being used as personal effects but are, in their very nature, personal effects of the assessee. In this case also, the Tribunal found that the utensils consist of thalis, katoris, tumblers, etc., which are meant for personal use although they may not be used daily. We are of the view that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion on the facts of this case that the silver utensils would come, within the purview of section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and the second question is answered in the negative and also in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1) that if the conditions laid down in that section are satisfied, the competent authority may impose penalty. It is not mandatory that in every case penalty should be imposed as soon as a declaration is made of concealed income leading to its assessment. The entire facts and circumstance must be taken into account to find out whether the case warranted imposition of penalty. We may add that a similar view has been taken by this court in CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works 1987 165 ITR 249. We, therefore, reframe the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the disclosure petition filed under section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that no penalty was exigible under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act ? For the reasons aforesaid, the reframed question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J. -I agree.
-
1988 (12) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... urred by the Engineering Export Promotion Council and the amount of Rs. 43,000 was allocated for payment to the assessee, with the stipulation that Rs. 14,332 (1/3rd) would be treated as a subsidy or (b) whether the amount of Rs. 43,000 was expended by the assessee having first received the subsidy of Rs. 14,332 from the Engineering Export Promotion Council or (c) whether the subsidy was received after the expenditure of Rs. 43,000 had been incurred by the assessee. It seems to us, having regard to the relevant statutory provision, that different considerations would prevail in each of these contingencies. Unless, therefore, we could be certain as to the true state of affairs, we cannot answer the question. Had the papers in regard to the joint publicity scheme of the Engineering Export Promotion Council been included in the reference, we may say, we might have ascertained the position for ourselves. In the circumstances, we return the reference with the question unanswered.
-
1988 (12) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
City Compensatory Allowance, Deduction, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... s than what he ordinarily spends by reason of his posting to a particular place and on account of which he becomes entitled to such a compensatory (city) allowance. Thus, the effect of section 10(14) might have been nullified because of the insertion of Explanation by the Legislature. Section 16(v), as it was applicable to the relevant year, was admittedly neither modified nor amended. In this view of the matter, we have to hold that though the question as such was not answered, the observation of this court holds good in regard to the provisions of section 16(v) also. In our view, we are fortified by the Calcutta High Court s decision in the case of CIT v. R. R. Bajoria 1988 169 ITR 162, where, after discussing the entire case law then available on the issue, including this court s judgment in CIT v. D. R. Phatak 1975 99 ITR 14, the court came to the same conclusion. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... m). The position, thus, is that the principles relating to the question whether an expenditure is of revenue or capital nature are laid down by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. s case 1980 124 ITR 1 (SC). We have to see whether and to what extent these principles are applicable in this case one way or the other. The assessee admittedly incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20,246 on wire fencing of its factory boundaries. The wire fencing cannot certainly last for many years. As found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the expenditure facilitated smooth and efficient running of its business. Having regard to the nature of the expenditure and the purpose for which it was incurred, we hold that the expenditure was of revenue nature. Accordingly, the first question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, the second question does not survive and is returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... ed instructions, as plant within the meaning of sections 43(3) and 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, accordingly, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the price paid for it ? . Counsel are agreed that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 157 ITR 86, the second question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of this, Shri Inamdar does not want to press the first question which was referred to this court by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. Accordingly, the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and the first question is returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... submissions on behalf of the assessee are well-founded. It is common ground that the consignment was not being traced for a sufficiently long time and it was traced only as a result of the efforts made by the assessee s agents, Messrs. Insimax Corporation, Bombay, to whom the assessee had to pay fees of Rs. 3,500. It is not on record as to how much time the agents took to trace the consignment. However, the assessee-company carries on its business and it is for the assessee to decide whether it was in its interest to clear the consignment or not as it would have amounted to waste of good money after bad money. It was business decision which the departmental authorities could not have questioned without any cogent reasons. In the circumstances, insisting upon the inspection report was absolutely meaningless. In the result, we answer the aforesaid two questions raised in the supplementary statement of the case in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction
-
1988 (12) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... regarding the question pertaining to the dividend reserve. As regards the question pertaining to the gratuity reserve, counsel are agreed that in view of this court s decision in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT 1984 150 ITR 484, the question is required to be answered thus The Appellate Tribunal shall determine the excess, if any, over the known or determinate liability of the assessee in respect of the gratuity and such excess only will be treated as reserve for the purpose of capital computation. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deduction U/S 80T ... ... ... ... ..... fore, when such advances are lost to the assessee, the loss would be a business loss and not a capital loss. The decisions relied upon by Dr. Balasubramanian, according to us, have no bearing on the question involved herein. In the Supreme Court decision, the question was of a third party s liability to pay estate duty and the discharge by an assessee. It was obviously a purpose unconnected with the business of the assessee. The other two decisions, viz., Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. v. CIT 1965 55 ITR 550 (Punj) and Taj Mahal Hotel v. CIT 1967 66 ITR 303 (AP) refer to the expenditure incurred by an assessee on alterations and additions made by an assessee in leasehold premises. No doubt, such expenditure was held to be of capital nature. We fail to understand how those decisions have any bearing on the point in issue before us. Having regard to the above discussion, the question posed before us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... Income-tax Officer giving effect to the appellate orders ? The question has to be answered, it is agreed, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 452. Following that judgment, the question is answered thus The interest payable under section 214(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be calculated on the excess advance tax payment found with reference to the amount of tax determined on the first or the original assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... onstitution. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the firm had stood dissolved consequent upon the invocation by Vijaykumar of the power vested in him by clause 4 of the deed. It allowed the appeal. It was the submission of Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue before us, that the firm which had four partners had continued with three partners and that, therefore, there was a continuation of the old firm to which the provisions of section 187 were attracted. Upon the facts found it would appear that there was a dissolution. The Registrar of Firms was so informed. The old books of account were closed and new books were started. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in concluding that the new firm had succeeded the old firm and that, by virtue of the provisions of section 188, separate assessments for the broken periods had to be made. The questions are, accordingly, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... not call for a reduction of the capital as contemplated in rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proposed dividends to be paid out of the general reserve should not be deducted from the general reserve for the purpose of capital computation ? Counsel are agreed that the first question in both reference applications must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgments of this court in CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1978 111 ITR 16, and Commissioner of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 1979 116 ITR 528. Counsel are also agreed that the second question in both reference applications must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Supreme Court s judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559. The questions are so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Precedent From Other High Courts ... ... ... ... ..... ellate Tribunal acting anywhere in the country was obliged to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there was no contrary decision of any other High Court on the question. It is not disputed that at the time when the Tribunal delivered the judgment out of which this reference arises, there was no decision of any other High Court on the question of the validity of section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in following the Madras High Court s judgment in A. M. Sali Maricar s case 1973 90 ITR 116. The Tribunal did not decide the vires of section 140A(3) in the judgment out of which this reference arises, and it could not have done so. The question, therefore, does not arise out of its judgment. Nor is this court competent to decide the constitutional validity of a provision in the exercise of its reference jurisdiction. The first question is, accordingly, not answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... nd denatured spirit were new industrial undertakings to which section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied ? Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by this court s decision in CIT v. Simmonds Marshall Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 817 and that 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 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nt rebate under section 33 ? Counsel, are agreed that, following the Supreme Court decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 84, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
....
|
