Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 216 of 216 Records
-
1988 (9) TMI 16
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... he previous assessment years for which the assessee was entitled to in law. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the decision in Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1975 100 ITR 347 (All) and Sharda Prasad v. CIT 1975 100 ITR 373 (All). But those decisions are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the question for consideration was whether the assessee could claim rectification under section 154 when the assessee had failed to make any claim under section 80J. It is not necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had jurisdiction to entertain the claim made on behalf of the assessee and in upholding that claim, the Tribunal was justified. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred by the Tribunal to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1988 (9) TMI 15
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... to treat the factory and the machinery as a commercial asset during the subsistence of the lease. These two cases show the tests. We see that the intention of the assessee was not to let out the building. The intention was to run the theatre as the firm had invested Rs. 9,26,295 towards the construction of the theatre. Since the assessee had no licence, the assessee had to lease it out on rent. The facts do show that the theatre was ready for exhibition. When the licence was accorded, the assessee is running the theatre and is periodically getting the licence renewed. From the above, the Appellate Tribunal held that the rent from the Anjali Cinema was business income and that that conclusion suffered no vice whatever. We answer the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the answer to the first question, we answer the second question also in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 14
Assessment, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... assessment has been set aside, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case regarding the validity, of the order of imposition of penalty on the assessee. It may be mentioned that none appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal when the Tribunal disposed of the appeal against the penalty. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as aforesaid, the order of assessment having been set aside, to which our attention has been drawn by the Revenue, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits and to decide the validity of imposition of the penalty in this case. If, in the fresh assessment to be made in terms of the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Income-tax Officer detects any concealment of income or particulars thereof, he will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. For the reasons aforesaid, we decline to answer the question in this reference. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J. I agree.
-
1988 (9) TMI 13
Depreciation, Income, Power To Reframe Question, Reference, Sale ... ... ... ... ..... ary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs. It does not say that, having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. We have earlier stated that the first part of the question is not argued in this court, that is, that the sale deed is effective from January 1, 1969, is not disputed. Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Act is argued. That part we hold in favour of the assessee. In that view, we answer the second part of the reframed question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 12
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... es Payment of Compulsory Gratuity Act, 1971, which came into force with effect from June 14, 1971, was an allowable deduction in working out assessee s business income for the assessment year 1972-73 ? This question is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Eastern Spinning Mills Ltd. 1980 126 ITR 686. Following the said decision, we answer the question referred in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It may be mentioned that the statement of the case was submitted in May, 1979, but till now the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, has not filed the paper book. Having regard to the fact that the question is concluded by the decision of this court and we have not been told whether any appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of this court, the filing of the paper book in this case is dispensed with. However, a copy of the order shall be sent to the assessee within a fortnight from date. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1988 (9) TMI 11
Provision, Reserve, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... f the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this case will be relevant as he had found that the reserve was created in the profit and loss appropriation account and subsequently it was transferred to a general reserve. This finding only shows that this amount was not earmarked for purchase of any specific machinery in respect of which a liability has already accrued or any machinery even intended to be acquired. This is only created for contingency and hence it could not be classified as a provision. We are of the view that the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above would clearly apply to this case. In the circumstances, we are unable to follow with respect, the two decisions of this court in the case of Gordon Woodroffe (Mad) P. Ltd. which are not reported . Following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 741, we answer the question of law referred to this court in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 10
Loss, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... is name. It is common knowledge that now a days many persons do not write their surname beside their names. Such a voluntary omission would not make any commercial transaction sham or illegal. The Tribunal did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case which were noted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order which we have referred to earlier. The Income-tax Officer made all attempts to enforce the attendance of Shri Dhyawala. He also did not appear before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner inspite of the summons served. On the contrary, another person, Ramesh Kumar Miranka, on his behalf made a sworn statement. In our view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the transactions in question were genuine. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1988 (9) TMI 9
Firm, Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... erred to Jai Prakash Singh v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 507 (Gauhati) in which it was held that in case of assessment of a person a notice issued under section 143 after the death of the assessee on only one of the several legal representatives would not be valid. Learned counsel submits that the same principle would apply in the case of a dissolved firm. Whether the contention of Shri Bhattacharjee is correct or not, we do not propose to express any opinion at this stage. Presently, we would only say that the following question of law does arise in the present case Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid initiation of the proceeding under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the assessee-firm, namely, Supply Agency ? We, therefore, direct the learned Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for determination. The petition is allowed accordingly.
-
1988 (9) TMI 8
Double Taxation Relief ... ... ... ... ..... imilar to those in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1982 (CIT v. Dr. R. N. Jhanji 1990 185 ITR 586 (Raj)) on August 29, 1988. Following that decision and for the same reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 91 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the full amount of tax paid on the total foreign income in the foreign country and that the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 91(1) of the Act only of the amount of tax paid on fifty per cent. of the total foreign income. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 7
Appeal To Tribunal, Interest, Return ... ... ... ... ..... favour of the assessee. We now turn to the third question. In Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. s case 1986 160 ITR 961, the Supreme Court after holding that no appeal lay against an order under section 139(8) directed the assessee to make an application before the concerned authority for waiver of interest. Since we have held that the Tribunal is competent to deal with all the grounds pertaining to the assessment, the Tribunal could either direct the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to go into the question regarding charging of interest under section 139(1). In our view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate upon the issue regarding the correctness of the levy of interest under section 139(1). In that view of the matter, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (9) TMI 6
... ... ... ... ..... CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Sons Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 250 and CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Sons Ltd. 1987 166 ITR 636. The same view was taken by this court prior to the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1968 70 ITR 328. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court is relied on in Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 899. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal fell in error in holding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263 because the Commissioner had initiated an application under section 256(1) taking a contrary stand. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred to this court in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to Orr Dignam and Co. to file vakalatnama within two weeks from date. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1988 (9) TMI 5
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... puted that the Settlement Commission has entertained the petition under section 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the provision of law, as the matter is pending before the Settlement Commission, the criminal complaint becomes incompetent. In view of this, the criminal complaint is quashed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 4
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... h entertainment. The entire amount could have been disallowed if the Income-tax Officer had asked the assesseecompany to furnish the details and materials to satisfy him that it was expended for the alleged purpose and if the details had not been available, he could have disallowed the same on that basis. On the basis of disallowance adopted by the Income-tax Officer, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal appears to have adopted a rough and ready method of allowing part of such expenditure and disallowing a part. Such footing can never be perfect. Nevertheless, no question of law arises requiring us to exercise powers under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, the rule is discharged. We may express our unhappiness as to the manner in which the Income-tax Officer accepted this large amount as expenses incurred without the necessary enquiry and thereafter wholly disallowed it on an untenable footing. This has resulted in a possible loss to the Revenue.
-
1988 (9) TMI 3
Notice, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... besides being the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Circle I, is also the administrative head of the Income-tax Department in Tamil Nadu and the Income-tax Officers and other income-tax authorities are administratively subordinate to him. The Act does not require anything more. This contention is also rejected. Contention No. 6 It is stated that the complaint does not show under what provision of law it has been filed, and that, therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal. This point has already been taken in the earlier quash petition though in a slightly different form. This court has held that the complaint is one under section 200, Cr. P. C., and, it being a complaint given by a public servant, does not call for examination of the complainant and the witnesses, when the complaint clearly shows that it has been given by the public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties. This contention also is without merit. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 2
Cinema Theatre, Functional Text, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... the principles laid down in the above decisions, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that the screening wall and the ceiling of the auditorium having been constructed with requisite installations so as to have a proper control of the sound effect and for the efficient screening of the films may be treated as part of plant but no other part of the building can be included in the said term. The furniture, fittings and fixtures consisting of wooden walls including false ceiling and wooden panelling of the walls and the chairs would come within the purview of plant for development rebate. However, as held by the Tribunal, the case of the chairs outside the auditorium would be different and they cannot come within the definition of plant . In that view of them matter, our answer to the first question referred to above is in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and the answer to the second question is in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1988 (9) TMI 1
Whether both the conditions mentioned in clause (a) & clause (b) of section 79 must apply for disentitling the loss of a prior year being allowed as set-off in accordance with the substantive provisions of s. 79 - to avoid falling within the scope of s. 79, it is sufficient for the assessee to show that the case attracts either clause (a) or clause (b). If the assessee succeeds in doing so, he will be entitled to the benefit of the provisions entitling him to carry forward and set-off of losses
....
|