|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 276 of 276 Records
-
1992 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... filed on different dates, there is the same omission. No allowance for the clerk s mistake explains the queer coincidence. The pattern of the mistakes is unmistakable and absolutely justifies the Tribunal to disbelieve the dates of filing. Thus, we find no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. There are sufficient materials and circumstances to hold that the wealth-tax returns were not filed on the dates on which they are purported to have been filed but were filed later upon the discovery in the search. Similarly, the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the assets discovered in the course of the search have been, accordingly, held to represent undisclosed income of the assessee and the conclusion is based on fair and correct appraisal of materials and facts present before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... v. Arundhati Balkrishna 1970 77 ITR 505. In that case, the Supreme Court held that jewellery used for personal use was exempt in entirety under clause (viii). Subsequently, the Legislature, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, excluded jewellery as articles of personal or household use with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963. The assessee has now claimed exemption in this case under section 5(1)(xiii) of the said Act. The expression but not including jewellery appears after the comma, which makes it quite clear that jewellery is not exempt under this clause. The language clearly conveys that jewellery may fall under heirloom, not intended for sale, yet it is not in the exempt category under the provision. There is no element of equivocation to admit of any other construction. We, therefore, answer the first and second questions in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The third question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. S. K. SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assets, Debt Secured On Assets, Net Maintainable Rent, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... pears that the Wealth-tax Officer made addition under clause (viii) of sub-section (3) which is as under any other asset which is acquired or represented by a debt secured on any one or more of the assets referred to in clause (i) to clause (vii). Thus, provision for undischarged liabilities towards municipal taxes was treated as a debt secured on one or more assets referred to in clauses (i) to (vii). But the assets mentioned by the Wealth-tax Officer like advances to parties, shares or deposits in banks are clearly not covered by clauses (i) to (vii) of sub-section (3). That apart, provision for unpaid disputed liability cannot be treated as a debt secured on any asset of the company. Municipal liability was admitted to be a debt incurred in relation to the house properties brought to charge as assets. For the reasons aforesaid, the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm, Partners, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... uestion of individual assessability of the partners of an unregistered firm treated as such in the assessment. Section 158 is extracted below Whenever a registered firm is assessed, or an unregistered firm is assessed under the provisions of clause (b) of section 183, the Income tax Officer shall notify to the firm by an order in writing the amount of its total income assessed and the apportionment thereof between the several partners. In any case, in our view, the matter stands concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. S. K. Basu 1970 76 ITR 291. Following the said decision, we hold that the assessee in this case being a partner of an unregistered firm could not have a right of appeal under section 246(c) read with section 247. We answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the second question has become superfluous and we decline to answer it. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
CBDT, Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... on the part of the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the valuation of the type of shares referred to therein. This opinion is not expressed on any appeal but merely represents the Board s own opinion of the position of law. Such opinion cannot be information to form the basis of a notice of reassessment to be issued under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act corresponding to section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. The view that the Bombay High Court has taken in Union of India v. Arvind N. Mafatlal, Trustee of Seth Hemant Bhagubhai Trust 1986 160 ITR 420 is the only view to be taken in the light of the pronouncement of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern News paper Society (1979 119 ITR 996. We, accordingly, hold that the Tribunal was right in holding the initiation of the reassessment proceedings to be invalid. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. J. N. HORE J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. . Admittedly, the present case does not fall in any of the categories mentioned above. I may also point out that the offence under section 276B read with section 278B of the Act is compoundable as provided under sub-section (2) of section 279 of the Act by the Chief Commissioner or the Director General even after the institution of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners shall be free to approach the concerned authority if they so desire for compounding the offence. If it is so done, it is expected from the said authority to consider such request sympathetically keeping in view that the delay in making payment is not abnormal and that interest has also been charged from the petitioners to compensate the Revenue for the delay. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed as indicated above.
-
1992 (7) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... inciple is borne in mind, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the deduction was claimed in connection with the expenses which do not have any relationship to the agricultural income derived in the previous year. The very same view has been taken by us in an unreported case in New Ambadi Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (since reported in 1994 207 ITR 874) (T. C. No. 154 of 1983, dated June 29, 1992) when construing the scope of section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income tax Act, 1955. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee with regard to this decision. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part and we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act towards payment of interest on the loans borrowed and spent on immature plants to the tune of Rs.3,83,742.86. No costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 9 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ile and cash for a particular source of income ? Pursuant to the direction, the Tribunal has stated a case. The dispute revolves round the method of accounting adopted by the assessee-corporation in respect of certain loans styled as sticky loans. The interest chargeable in respect of such loans was credited to an account called interest suspense account . The legality of this method came up for the consideration of this court in the assessee s case in S. J. C. No. 155 of 1988 disposed of on February 4, 1992. For the reasons indicated in the said judgment, we answer the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has not given any definite finding and has merely followed its earlier view. Therefore, strictly speaking, the question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we decline to answer the same. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... dismissed or his employment can be terminated by the company, if his work is not satisfactory, it can hardly be said that he is not a servant of the company. As already observed, the managing director as well as other directors are to perform their duties subject to the control of the board of directors and are also liable to removal from office if the general will of the company as expressed in the resolution of the shareholders in general meeting so commands. This power of removal furnishes a clear indication that the director in the light of the clauses of the articles of association cannot but be the servant of the company. The power of removal of the directors from the office of director is the test whether the remuneration arises from employer-employee relationship and in the course of employment. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 7 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... o control by judicial review. The first illegality , the second irrationality , the third procedural impropriety and the fourth improportionality . By illegality as a ground for judicial review is meant that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates the decision-making power and must give effect to it. The question then is, whether the Agricultural Income-tax Officer committed an illegality ? On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that he has not considered the matter in the light of principle discussed above. Therefore, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has illegally exercised his jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and is to be set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer made on June 10, 1986, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for disposal afresh in the light of the above observations. No costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Private Trust, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... as made had been transferred to Calcutta. The orders vacating the said demands have been passed by the Income-tax Officer at Calcutta. Even if the writ petition is returned on the ground that all the authorities are outside the jurisdiction still a fresh writ petition can be filed now at Calcutta in view of the fact that the assessments of the said private trust are now made at Calcutta. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case this court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application and the contention to the contrary has to be rejected. In the result, this application succeeds. Rule is made absolute. The notice of attachment dated February 15/17, 1977, the order of attachment dated June 7, 1977, the order dated June 22/27, 1977, of the Tax Recovery Officer and his letter dated November 9, 1977, are set aside and quashed. There will be no order as to costs. This judgment and order will also govern C. R. No. 6550 (W)/77.
-
1992 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Fact By Tribunal, Question Of Law, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1992 (7) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... accordance with the provisions of the Act under section 5(1) read with section 37. The definition of employee under section 2(e) is very wide and covers the petitioners in W. P. No. 13382 of 1987 also. Thus, there is no special status given to them as contended by the petitioners, We, therefore, hold that employees of the High Court also fall within the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987, and are liable to pay tax. So also, the petitioners in W. P. No. 14184 of 1987 are liable to pay tax under the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the writ petitions only to the extent of declaring Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987, as invalid. All other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are rejected. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each.
-
1992 (7) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Provident Fund, Purchase Tax, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... to sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 which is as follows (x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees. From a combined reading of these provisions, it is clear that the contributions to provident fund or superannuation fund or a fund under the Employees State Insurance Act are allowable only if the payments are made within the due date under the Acts or the Rules or the orders governing such contributions. In any case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions are allowable, if the liabilities are discharged in terms of the provisos below section 43B read with the Explanations. In the premises, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.----I agree.
-
1992 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the betterment charges be disallowed ?
Held that:- The High Court of Gujarat has rightly held that the betterment charge on account of increase in the value of the land of the assessee should not be held to be revenue expenditure although general improvement of the area may have an impact on the better running of the business. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Gujarat High Court by accepting the reasoning of the Madras High Court in Dollar Co.'s case [1986 (3) TMI 65 - MADRAS High Court]. The instant appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed
-
1992 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Settlor provides funds for religion, charitable purposes, and the funds are utilised to construct a building from which the trust derives income -Whether it has been rightly held that the income of the trust would be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
....
|
