|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 214 of 214 Records
-
1991 (6) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... t the special rate of 30 per cent. in respect of rigs and compressors used for drilling borewells ? Recently, in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service 1992 194 ITR 12 (Mad), we had occasion to consider an identical question and it is not in dispute that that decision would be applicable to this reference as well. In view of that, the question referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... High Court, namely, the Madras High Court, in the decision reported in CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 542. Learned counsel for the assessee in this case, Mr. Y. Ratnakar, advanced identical arguments as were put forward by counsel for the assessee in the connected R. C. No. 108 of 1983 (CIT v. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd. 1992 198 ITR 375). Sri Ratnakar, in particular, has placed strong reliance on the observations in the judgment of this court in CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. 1988 171 ITR 663. As explained by us in our judgment in R. C. No. 108 of 1983, the principle of the said decision cannot be extended to the situation obtaining in the present case. Hence, following our judgment in R. C. No. 108 of 1983 (CIT v. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd. 1992 198 ITR 375), we uphold the decision of the Tribunal and answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (6) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... bides Ltd. v. CIT 1992 198 ITR 386), though there is a certain amount of overlapping in the discussion in regard to the allowability of deduction under section 57(iii) and the treatment of the receipt for the purpose of capitalisation. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Patna High Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT 1988 170 ITR 545, and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1969 72 ITR 503, wherein the interest income received on share capital money during construction period was held to be exigible to tax though the issue was considered from a different standpoint. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the sum of Rs. 18,913 being interest received by the assessee-company from bank deposits could be brought to tax for the assessment year 1977-78 and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not justified in annulling the assessment. We answer the question accordingly in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1991 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... e referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) to so much of his income included in his total income as is specified and we do not find any restriction specified regarding the availability of the concession on any portion of the income included in the total income under paragraph 3(1)(i)(a) of the Concessions Order which would be applicable here. Thus, on a due consideration of the scope of the Concessions Order, particularly on the language employed in it, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the Concessions Order in respect of its entire income and not merely the income accruing or arising in the Union Territory or outside India. We, therefore, answer the common question referred in T. C. Nos. 1058 to 1061 of 1979 in the affirmative and the common questions Nos. 1 to 3 referred in T. C. Nos. 42 to 47 of 1982 also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1991 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s in the year in which the liability is actually discharged. We may, however, add that clause (va) has been inserted in sub-section (1) of section 36 by the Finance Act, 1987. The effect of the amendment is that no deduction will be allowed in the assessment of the employer unless such contribution is paid to the fund on or before the due date. The due date in the context means the date by which an employer is required to credit the contribution to the employees account under the provisions of any law or the terms of the contract of service or otherwise. If such contribution is not credited by the employer in the account of the employees in the relevant fund by the due date, it will be assessed as the income of the employer. This amendment, however, has been made effective from the assessment year 1988-89. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Expenditure On Abandoned Film Project, Limitation For Draft Assessment Order, Rental Income
-
1991 (6) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... to the amount, if any, by which the amount so utilised exceeds the aggregate of the cost of acquisition of the capital asset transferred and the cost of any improvements made to such asset, will be regarded as having been applied to such purposes. From a combined reading of sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b) and section 11(1)(A), it is clear that the income of a trust including capital gains is treated on a separate footing and the assessee-trust has to fulfil the conditions laid therein for the purpose of availing of exemptions from taxation. The income from property held for charitable or religious purposes cannot, therefore, be equated with the income which is computed under the general provisions of the Act in respect of other assessees who are not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid provisions. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends, Special Deduction, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... only prohibits buying of its own shares by a company and does not prohibit the receiving by way of gift, or surrender, if any, of such shares. Learned counsel even pointed out to the passage in Ramaiya s Guide to the Companies Act, 11th Edition, page 298 (based on Castiglione s Will Trusts, In re 1958 28 Comp Cas 365 (Ch D)) stating that although a company cannot purchase or hold its own shares, a bequest of his shares by a shareholder to the company is not illegal. He also argues that he could even go to the extent of submitting that the said dividend cannot be treated as income at all in the hands of the company when it receives it. Any way, all that the assessee now seeks is a 60 per cent. deduction under section 80M of the Act. Therefore, in view of section 161 of the Act and the above-said two Supreme Court judgments, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1991 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fide annual value. Merely because the assessee has filed an ejectment suit or the assessee is not collecting rent or occupation charges, as the case may be, which are being deposited by the tenant to the Rent Controller, it cannot be said that the annual value cannot be assessed. Whether the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property or has let it out to a third person is not a relevant consideration for determination of the annual value of the property. The liability does not depend upon the right of the owner to enjoy or let out the property. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to be taxed on the annual value of the property irrespective of the fact that the ejectment suit was pending in the relevant accounting year. For the reasons aforesaid we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... circulars are binding on the authorities concerned. It is not necessary for us to consider the aforesaid decisions as the question before us is whether in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Supreme Court, the assessment made on the basis of the circular is rendered invalid or erroneous and whether the Commissioner can still invoke his revisional jurisdiction, particularly when, on merits, the validity of the assessment is not challenged. A Division Bench of this court has considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore 1986 158 ITR 102 as well as the relevant circular in Grindlays Bank v. CIT in 1. T. Ref. No. 76 of 1987, where the judgment was delivered on March 12, 1991 ( 1993 201 ITR 148 (Cal)). For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 4 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... (2) S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT 1991 187 ITR 685 (All) regarding a cinema theatre. A nursing home is not an ordinary building. A building used as a nursing home is not comparable with an ordinary building, having regard to the number of persons using it, the manner of its use and the purpose for which it is used. The building is used not only to house the patients and nurse them, but also to treat them for which various equipment and instruments are installed. In CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel 1971 82 ITR 44 AIR 1972 SC 168, at page 171, the Supreme Court has quoted the dictionary meaning of the word plant as including land, buildings . . . ., etc. Therefore, whenever a question comes up before the court as to the status of a building, straightaway it cannot be held as not a plant . A wide meaning is attributed to the term plant because of the functional test. Consequently, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... December 10, 1980, the said liability became real and enforceable in the relevant subsequent year though the demand was referable to the earlier years. As held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Shalimar Chemical Works Private Ltd. v. CIT 1987 167 ITR 13 (Cal), to which one of us was a party, we are also of the opinion that, from a commercial point of view, the assessee was at that stage entitled to treat the demand of the market fee as final and enforceable and contend that the liability accrued on the basis of the said demand at that stage. The earlier decision of the Division Bench of this court is binding on us. In any event, we are not inclined to take a different view and refer the matter to a larger Bench. For this reason, the aforesaid question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Dividends, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Reference, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... dividend. As a matter of fact, after the accounts had been finalised on August 24, 1977, the sum of Rs. 6,60,000 which was lying with the assessee-company and retained by it acquired the character of dividend in the hands of the assessee-company, on and from the said date which was fully within the accounting year relevant to the assessment year dividend must be held to have been paid to the assessee on August 24, 1977, when the accounts were finalised and, with effect from that date, the assessee ceased to hold the money as a custodian or bailee or trustee and from that date it belonged to the assessee as and by way of dividend. This amounted to payment of dividend, to the assessee-company of a sum of Rs. 6,60,000 within the meaning of section 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the questions which have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (6) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Chargeable To Tax, Gift Tax Act, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner, Transfer Of Property
....
|
