|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 318 of 318 Records
-
1990 (7) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Return ... ... ... ... ..... This is one aspect which arises in the present case. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in quashing the reassessment by holding that it was barred by time ? No order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... ssment order. It is admitted by the applicant that the impugned- assessment was not only labelled and expressed to be made as a provisional assessment under section 57 of the said Act, but also a regular assessment subsequently made, examining all claims put forward on behalf of the applicant . The question whether the present assessment was only a provisional assessment or final assessment is wholly academic. The applicant s own case Was that the provisional assessment was without jurisdiction. We do not agree with learned counsel for the applicant that, since the assessing authority had no power to frame the provisional assessment, it is well settled that no reference can be granted for an academic question. In view of the above discussion, we see no good ground to recall our order dated July 5, 1989, and it is also not necessary to decide the other question, namely, the sufficiency of cause for non-appearance at the earlier stage. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1990 (7) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... way in deciding the reference by holding that if the reference had been made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before April 1, 1976, he would have jurisdiction to decide it. The order imposing penalty could be valid, but if no reference was made before that date, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would have no power to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c). Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not in itself decide the validity of the penalty order. It is the date of reference which is material. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us by holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would have jurisdiction to levy penalty if the reference had been made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before April 1, 1976. But if that was not so done, the penalty orders would be void. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reversed. The Tribunal held that the interest paid to the Hindu undivided family was allowable. Thereupon, the Department filed an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for making a reference to the High Court. The present reference has come on the basis of the aforesaid reference application. The controversy raised before us is since covered by a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Kishanlal and Bros. 1988 174 ITR 728(Raj). We need not deal with the various aspects of the arguments raised by the two sides. The Division Bench held that the payment of interest to the Hindu undivided family was not payment to a partner of the firm and as such was allowable. A distinction was made by the Bench between the position of a partner in his individual capacity and that of the firm. We, respectfully, agree with the aforesaid view and answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief ... ... ... ... ..... ld be entitled to the relief under section 91(1) of the Act only on the amount of tax paid on fifty per cent. of the total foreign income. On a construction of section 91 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken in CIT v. Dr. R. N. Jhanji 1990 185 ITR 586 (Raj). Section 91(1) has to be construed along with section 80 RRA being a part of the same scheme. If that is so done, the irresistible conclusion would be that no amount of tax paid on the total foreign income in the foreign country is entitled to relief under section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act. Only fifty per cent. of the total foreign income is liable to be excluded. For the reasons given above, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, by holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduct the full amount of tax deducted at source by the Government of Iran on its foreign currency earned in Iran from the tax payable on the said income in India.
-
1990 (7) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... led. In view of the fact that this Court has already directed reference to be made with regard to the Tribunal entertaining the additional ground, it is necessary that the present case be kept alive, because if reference in that case is answered in favour of the Revenue, then the present reference will have to be allowed. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in holding that not only the plant used in manufacturing cement but also those used in packaging of the same are entitled to depreciation at higher rate of 15 when the element of corrosion could not be proved by the assessee either by way of producing any weight ratio analysis and evidence regarding volume of formation of acid producing gases or by way of producing evidence of additional expenses incurred on repairs, etc., owing to corrosion ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... nion, important issues arise in the present case and a question of law, as proposed, does arise, specially in view of the judgment of this court in the case reported as CIT v. K. L. Bhatia 1990 182 ITR 361. We are unable to agree with Mr. Bishamber Lal that the question involved is a pure question of fact. In our opinion, as already stated, the question involves the interpretation and scope of section 254 of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake apparent on the record which required rectification in terms of section 254 of the Act and whether it was correct in holding that the order in the miscellaneous application in favour of the assessee did not amount to a review of the earlier order in I.T.A. No. 2065/Delhi of 1976-77, dated November 29,1980 ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Company, Exclusion From Total Income, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ed as income at all. The rest of the clauses including clause (x) should be construed as dealing with gross income. In our view, this is not a correct way of interpreting clause (x) of rule 1. As stated earlier, rule 1 specifies such items as are to be excluded from the computation of the total income under the Income-tax Act for the purpose of arriving at the income chargeable to surtax. Rule 1(x), in our view, refers to the exclusion of only the net interest from the total income for arriving at the chargeable profits, that is to say, such interest covered by rule 1 (x) as would form a part of the total income computed under the Income-tax Act. In the premises, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. (1) is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (2) is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. (3) is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ithout even scoring out the irrelevant printed matters, and that shows that there is no application of mind at all before the search warrants were issued. These allegations, it is stated, have not been specifically rebutted in the counter-affidavit. Despite the lack of a counter-affidavit on this aspect, the records produced before us show that only the relevant portions applicable to the facts of the cases have been maintained in the search warrants and we cannot act upon the bare assertion of the petitioners that the search warrants were filled up only at the places of searches. We are not prepared to count this factor, assuming that it was there, as militating against the very process of search under the provisions. The above being our opinion, formed on the perusal of the records, and having repelled the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are obliged to dismiss the writ petitions and accordingly we dismiss them. We make no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e that if the word closure is substituted for the word transfer , namely, a deduction which is proper and necessary for ascertaining the balance of profits and gains of the business is undoubtedly properly allowable, but where a liability to make a payment arises not in the course of the business, not for the purpose of carrying on the business, but springs from the closure of the business, it is not, in our judgment, a properly debitable item in its profit and loss account as a revenue outgoing , the decision of the Supreme Court would govern that case also and a fortiori to a case of closure of business, the principle of the decision of the Supreme Court would apply. We are of the view that the decision in Venkatesa Colour Works v. CIT 1977 108 ITR 309 (Mad) would squarely govern this case as well. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (7) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Return And False Verification, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... are concerned. The proceedings in C. C. No. 2186 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, as far as petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (A-2, A-5 and A-6) are concerned will be stayed pending final orders on their applications filed before the Settlement Commission. Criminal M. P. No. 2873 of 1983. -This petition is dismissed as against petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 (A-1 and A-7 to A-11). The prosecution in C. C. No. 2187 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in respect of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 (A-2, A-4 and A-6) will be stayed pending final orders of the Settlement Commission in their applications filed under section 245C of the Act. It will be open to the respondent to proceed with the prosecution in each one of the calendar cases pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, B. O. I., Egmore, Madras, as far as the petitioners against whom these petitions have been dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Arrest And Detention For Recovery Of Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... midnight of September 4, 1990, and thereafter in any case, the petitioner will be released from detention in civil prison so far as execution of the tax recovery certificate for Rs.6,69,635 for the assessment year 1984-85 is concerned. (4) Such final detention order if passed will be subject to the challenge which the petitioner may like to mount on it and will also be subject to the decision of the competent court before which such challenge is mounted. (5) The Tax Recovery Officer is directed to complete the entire exercise and to pass final orders under rule 76(1) read with rule 73(l) one way or the other on or before August 10, 1990. The third point is answered accordingly. In the result, this petition is partly allowed as aforesaid. Rule issued in Special Criminal Application No. 721 of 1990 is made absolute to the limited extent indicated above and subject to the directions issued herein. Rule discharged in Special Criminal Applications Nos. 157 of 1990 and 387 of 1990.
-
1990 (7) TMI 6 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... be deducted from the income of the partnership firm. Where a person is not a partner, the interest paid is to be deducted. Even the karta of a Hindu undivided family can have separate funds over which the family has no right, and where such family is a partner, interest paid on loan taken by the firm from the separate and individual fund of the karta and not from joint family fund would not be covered under section 40(b). Interest paid to other members of a Hindu undivided family for loans taken from their individual separate funds stand on a stronger footing. However, in order to get the deduction, the firm has to clearly prove the source from which the loan was taken. The Assessing Officer is to take into consideration the presumptions available in general Hindu law to come to correct conclusion for applying section 40(b). We are satisfied that the Tribunal has taken the correct view in law and the question is answered against the Revenue. No costs. J. M. MATRA J.-I agree.
-
1990 (7) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... uld indicate that agricultural operations were carried on this land from year to year. A reference to grass growing on the land in the record of rights for some years, in our view, is not sufficient to establish that the land was used as pasture land for cattle, or that agricultural operations were carried on this land from year to year. The circular therefore does not help the assessee. As repeatedly stated by our High Court as well as the Supreme Court in a number of judgments, whether the land is agricultural land or not will depend on the facts of each case. Looking to the facts in the present case, in our view, the land cannot be considered as agricultural land on the date of the sale. Capital gains arising from the sale of such land will, therefore not be excluded under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the premises, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... on of delay. It has not been shown on behalf of the Revenue why the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner. One judgment of the Supreme Court was cited, viz., the decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 167 ITR 471, where the Supreme Court had condoned four days delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Supreme Court also observed that in a matter like this both the assessee and the Revenue should be treated equally. But in this case, we are not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal s order, The Tribunal has decided not to condone the delay and it has not been shown how the Tribunal has not exercised its discretion in the matter of condonation of delay in a judicial manner. There is little scope for interfering with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, under the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Petition challenges the constitutional validity of clause (10C) inserted in section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1987 - Section 10 deals with incomes not included in total income for the purpose of taxation - held that section 10(10C) is not discriminatory between public sector and private sector employees
-
1990 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Search - Seizure u/s 132 - High Court held that the search was bad but the valuables, etc., were not ordered to be returned to the petitioner - since there is dispute about the ownership of goods, High Court, was justified in declining to direct return of the identical jewellery and other items to the wife - application for leave under article 136 of the Constitution is certainly not entertainable
-
1990 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271 ( 1 ) (c) - Whether, having regard to the provisions of Explanation to section 271 (1) (c), the Appellate Tribunal's cancellation of penalty is sustainable in law and on the materials on record -Whether Tribunal's view that the addition of Rs. 18,750 did not represent the concealed income of the assessee is based on valid and relevant consideration and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of this case
....
|
