|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 286 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemption From Tax On Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... observed that if you sell your house to make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him unless it be that you have bought or built another house, subject to the conditions of section 54(1). If that be the position, the capital gains in question, inasmuch as the same does not arise from out of the acquisition of a house property, would not attract section 54. We, accordingly, hold that the finding of the Tribunal, namely, that "the capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of the land of the assessee's wife of an extent of 2.45 acres has to be treated separately and that there is no scope for the application of section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect thereof" is beyond challenge. For the reasons stated above, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (9) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the salary and allowances to be eligible for weighted deduction, is purely arbitrary. It is not supported by materials. We answer the question to this extent but decline to fix the amount which the assessee is entitled to by way of deduction for salary and allowances to staff engaged in export sales under section 35B of the Act. That is a matter which the Tribunal should fix, regard being had to all the facts and circumstances. We, therefore, answer question No. 2, referred to this court, in part and direct the Tribunal to restore the appeal to file on this limited aspect and determine the quantum of deduction permissible towards the salary and allowances to staff engaged in export sales. To this extent, there will be an order of remit and no further. We answer the questions referred to this court in the above manner. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (9) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Question Of Law, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ay in filing the appeal if the order was received earlier and the delay might be around somewhere six months. The petitioner affirms that the delay was caused by reasons beyond his control and his knowledge. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee has not been successful in showing that there existed sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period. It is clear from the findings of the Tribunal that the assessee had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. The explanations given by the assessee in his affidavits are not convincing. Even on his being told that the appeals were filed out of time, he was trying to sustain his contention that they were filed within time. The findings of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, cannot be said to be perverse. If that be the position, the questions challenging the said findings cannot be said to be questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, reject the applications.
-
1991 (9) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal that the provision for school building was in the nature of an amenity which would persuade prospective buyers to purchase plots in the colony in question and also the further finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was as a matter of commercial expediency which was to be determined from the angle of the assessee, that the said building was constructed in order to boost the business of sale of plots in the new colony established by the assessee, we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure in question was revenue in nature and was not in the nature of capital expenditure as contended by learned standing counsel. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us by holding that the expenditure in question was revenue in nature and not a capital expenditure, i.e., to say in favour of the assessee and against the Department with costs of Rs. 300 payable by the Department to the assessee.
-
1991 (9) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere the conduct of the assessee is unequivocal, cannot be treated as evidence of the fact that income has not resulted or accrued to the assessee. In view of the same and in view of the findings arrived at by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its appellate order that whether the assessee charged in its books interest or not was immaterial and on the basis of the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee, the assessee was liable to pay tax on the accrued interest on such loans, we find that in doing so the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error of law. Besides this, we may also point out that for the assessment year 1981-82 in I.T.A. No. 109 of 1991 (see 1992 198 ITR 267) in the case of this very applicant, we have by our order dated 26th July, 1991, rejected the application of the assessee in regard to similar claim. Thus, this application has got no force and is accordingly rejected.Costs payable to the Department is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1991 (9) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... re resulted in the expansion of the said manufacturing activity. Further, the test of enduring benefit is not an exclusive and sole test to determine whether an expenditure is in the nature of a capital or a revenue expenditure (vide Empire jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10). Mr. Raghavendra Rao relied heavily on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1963 48 ITR 67. The facts of the said case were entirely different. It was a case of advance made to purchase certain shares. The new company was sought to be promoted by another agency. The advance was treated as a business loss by the assessee as it thought that the advance could not be recovered. The advance made was held as an expenditure incurred to acquire capital and hence the loss was in the nature of a capital expenditure. In these circumstances, the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. References are answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... n this view of the matter, we find that the property of Sri Lalloo Prasad Misra did not pass after his death to Sri Sheo Rattan Lal Misra for the purposes of section 53(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The other contention of learned standing counsel that Sri Sheo Rattan Lal Misra was managing the partnership property and, therefore, he shall be taken to be a person in the management is also not correct in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Act quoted above which states that nothing in this section shall render a person accountable for duty who acts merely as an agent for another person in the management of the property. No other contention was advanced on behalf of the Department. In view of what we have stated above, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made in question was bad in law and the sole question referred to us is answered in the affirmative with costs of Rs. 300 payable by the Department to the assessee.
-
1991 (9) TMI 39 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ss filed for the assessment year 1986-87 or earlier years within the prescribed period as per the existing provisions will not be denied the benefit of the carry forward of loss. Therefore, the requirement to file return within the prescribed period is only for the benefit of carry forward of loss. In so far as Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, does not claim the benefit, we think it is incumbent on the part of the assessing authority to consider the return, though the return came to be filed on July 31, 1987. Therefore, subject to this direction, we allow the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned single judge and quash the impugned order. The matter will stand remitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Special Range, Hubli, to take into consideration the return dated July 31, 1987, and deal with the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that this is not for the consideration of the benefit of carry forward of loss. No costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 38 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence at the instance of the Revenue. There can be no doubt that the amount in question could not be claimed by the assessee as belonging to it. The utilisation of the amount in question could be only as per the directions that may be issued by the Government from time to time. The right to the fund got diverted from the hands of the assessee by virtue of the Molasses Control Order. Under almost similar circumstances, in a matter of contribution to the education fund created under section 57 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1957, this court held in CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. 1988 174 ITR 475, that the amount contributed to the said education fund cannot be included in the income of the assessee. It was held that the amount in question got diverted at the source itself by virtue of the statutory obligation. We are in respectful agreement with the said view. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (9) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ed as a deduction for the purpose of computing the taxable income under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. In Income-tax Referred Case No. 146 of 1986 (CIT v. Bharat Printers 1992 198 ITR 601) decided on September 6, 1991, we have considered the principles applicable in detail. The decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 350, was referred to and relied upon for the conclusion arrived at by us therein. That was a case of penal levy under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act which was held as a non-deductible expenditure. Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, brought to our notice that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken similar view in respect of the levy under section 14B of the Provident Funds Act the same is reported in Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1979 116 ITR 387. Consequently, the question referred is answered in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Authorities, Jurisdiction, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ati and Chemical Co. Ltd. 1982 135 ITR 221 (MP), the penalty was imposed under section 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It was observed that the liability to penalty was not automatic and it arises only as a result of an order imposing the penalty on the discovery that the assessee had committed a breach of the provisions of the law. Therefore, the payment of levy cannot be equated to any trading expenditure. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of this decision. The view taken by the Bombay High Court in Jairamdas Bhagchand v. CIT 1988 171 ITR 545 also supports the conclusion reached by us. In the said case, the penalty levied under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was claimed by the assessee as in the nature of interest and, therefore, a trading expenditure. This contention was not accepted. In view of the above, the question referred to us has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 35 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, according to which partner includes a minor who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that (at page 533) What the definition does is to apply to a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership all the provisions of the Income-tax Act applicable to partners .... The definition is designed to confer equal benefits upon the minor by treating him as a partner but it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. For that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in the Income-tax Act . The said decision of the Allahabad High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 11821 of 1991 decided on July 12, 1991. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ty before removal. But the taxable event under the Central Excises and Salt Act is on the manufacture or production of goods. If the taxable event takes place, the liability accrues on the manufacturer or producer. The fact that the assessee contested the liability in appeal or in other proceedings will be immaterial in allowing the deduction. As there is no dispute, the excise duty demands in question related to the accounting year which ended on June 30, 1982, and, in view of the fact that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal went wrong in holding that the additional demand is not an admissible deduction during the assessment year in question. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (9) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... It is thereafter that the assessee has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Act to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the two questions of law, formulated hereinabove, for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. Question No. 1 is really hypothetical. The sales tax authorities did not admit the claim. It has been so found by the Appellate Tribunal. That is a question of fact. That specific finding is not challenged. In so far as the Tribunal has held that the assessee has not been able to prove that goods worth Rs. 1,56,174 were damaged as on March 31, 1976, which is essentially a finding of fact, we should say that no referable question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in declining to refer the above two questions for the decision of this court. The questions of law formulated by the assessee are not referable questions of law. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income, Mutual Concern ... ... ... ... ..... tances of the case and for the reasons set out in detail in Tax Case No. 54 of 1980 (CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 137 (Patna) FB ), which has been disposed of today by this Bench, I answer the questions referred to this court in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. I may indicate here that so far as the two questions regarding imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act are concerned, they are merely consequential to the answer to the main questions relating to determination of the income of the assessee. Therefore, those two questions do not need further elaboration. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order is to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, tinder section 260 of the Act. S. B. SANYAL J. - I agree with the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother, Bharuka J. AFTAB ALAM J.- I agree.
-
1991 (9) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... unt to the creditors was also considered and it cannot be stated that any essential matter, as formulated in question No. 4, was ignored. Question No. 4 does not arise for consideration. We were not invited to any specific instance whereby any specific direction or finding by the Appellate Tribunal in the earlier order dated January 30, 1979, was deviated or departed from. Indeed, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after remit is in accord with the directions given by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated January 30, 1979, and it is the said order that was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. Question No. 2, formulated in the original petition, does not arise and the orders passed after the remit are in accord with the order of remand. We are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises out of the appellate order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated January 27, 1988. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... olved during the accounting period and that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that registration cannot be refused on the ground that the firm had been dissolved during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1979-80. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. We, therefore, answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question whether the firm was genuine is largely one of fact. No material was placed before the Tribunal nor was placed before us which will point out that the firm was not genuine. The Income-tax Officer was not justified in declining to grant registration for the relevant assessment year. We answer question No. 2 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (9) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... l), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, also related to benami transactions and is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Thus, the assessee-petitioner having failed to discharge the burden that lay on him in satisfying this court that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to invoke proceedings under section 147 of the Act by the impugned notices and because of the petitioner s omission to place all necessary facts before this court, as pointed out in the judgment and on the view taken by us as stated above and on the facts and materials which were present in this case before the Income-tax Officer at the time of issuance of the said notices, in our opinion, the Income-tax Officer concerned was wholly justified under the law in seeking to reopen the assessment proceedings against the petitioner under section 147 of the Act by the impugned notice for both the aforesaid reasons. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... isions of section 40(b) were clearly attracted. Such is not the case here. In the instant case, the amount of the loans taken by the partners has been transferred to the bank s account with the assessee-firm on the same day on which the loans were taken. In the books of account of the assessee-firm, the amount borrowed stood credited to the bank s account and interest on the amounts borrowed was paid directly to the bank. Apart from that, there is a clear finding of fact to the effect that it was the assessee-firm which had borrowed money from the bank through its partners. Since it was the assessee-firm which had borrowed money for the purpose of its business, the interest paid to the bank could not have been disallowed as deduction under section 40(b). We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question which is referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The reference shall stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Firm, Interest, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... en treated as assessable under the Income tax Act. We are of the opinion that this approach of the appellate authority is not correct. The question of jurisdiction of the agricultural income-tax authority is involved when they purport to assess an income, already assessed by the Central income-tax authorities. We have already referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1963 48 ITR 83, which lends support to the arguments of the assessees. Consequently, we hold that the assessment of the interest received by the assessees from the partnership firm is not exigible to agricultural income-tax having regard to rule, 7 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules since it stands taxed under the Central Income-tax Act already. We make it clear that we are not deciding the other questions of law raised by the petitioners. All the tax revision cases, are, therefore, allowed in the above manner. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
....
|
