|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Being Heard ... ... ... ... ..... stantial rights of the assessee, which statutorily provide him to have a composition, are effected by the different method of calculation adopted by the Commissioner. It could not be asserted with justification that the Commissioner had properly dealt with the matter objectively in the order finally passed. In view of the above, we are of the view that the order, as passed, cannot be sustained and that the interests of justice require that the same should be set aside and the assessee should also be given a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard before proceeding further in the matter. The impugned order is set aside. The tax revision cases are allowed. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax shall restore the proceedings and proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall submit his explanation, if any, within four weeks from today and the Commissioner shall thereafter fix a date for hearing an dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
-
1992 (8) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application For Rectification, Tribunal, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd. v. CIT f 1980 123 ITR 354 (Delhi). In these cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided the matter and when the question of reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arose, this court decided that the reference application will lie before the High Court under which the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was situate and not in the Delhi High Court. The present case is distinguishable because the question of reference would arise only under the Income-tax Act and the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules whereas the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which decided the application of the petitioner under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act and passed the impugned order is within the jurisdiction of this court. Although the High Court at Allahabad may also have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, it cannot be taken that this court will have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reject the preliminary objection.
-
1992 (8) TMI 38 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... essment proceedings after hearing the assessee and providing him with an opportunity. Normally, this is not required but, in the peculiar facts of the case, I consider it to be in the ends of justice to do so. Counsel for the Department contended that section 147 of the Act is discretionary. Assuming that to be so, it can be justified only when the conditions precedent existed. If the Income-tax Officer, after providing the opportunity, is satisfied that the issuance of the notice was justified, he would be entitled to proceed to determine the amount due. In that event, initiation of the proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act would be justified but if grounds are not found for initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act, then the proceeding would have to be dropped. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and a direction to the effect mentioned above is given. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of this petition which are fixed at Rs. 700.
-
1992 (8) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Return ... ... ... ... ..... co Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1984 148 ITR 478, which has been followed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we prefer to follow the view of the Bombay High Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The next point for consideration is regarding the effect of a revised return. This aspect has been considered at length by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Arun Textile C 1991 192 ITR 700. It is held that once a revised return is filed under section 139(5), the original return is substituted by the revised return. Consequently, the entries in the relevant column of the original return seeking depreciation cannot be used for any purpose. It is, therefore, not open to the Income-tax Officer to advert to the original returns or the statement filed along with it for the purpose of allowing deductions after such claim was expressly withdrawn under the revised return. In that view of the matter, we answer all the questions In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1992 (8) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Public Policy ... ... ... ... ..... If expenditure is incurred for ensuring the regular supply of raw material, may be for periods extending over several years, it is on revenue account. We respectfully agree with the above enunciation of the tests. The expenditure incurred in the instant case was incurred once and for all with a view to bring into existence the asset or the advantage of obtaining the privilege to vend liquor for one year. The entire business itself was of one year s duration. The expenditure incurred to obtain this right, or privilege cannot be just treated as expenditure incurred only for one year because the very business asset had a life of one year only. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the expenditure was in the nature of a revenue expenditure cannot be accepted. The second question formulated by us also has to be answered in favour of the Revenue. In the result, the broad question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is answered in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1992 (8) TMI 35 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had become successful before the Tribunal by interpretation of the clauses of the same articles of association of the company. In S. J. C. Nos. 20 to 29 of 1987 and batch ( CIT v. Shanti Devi 1993 199 ITR. 800 ) decided on April 22, 1992, this court has answered the question in favour of the Revenue as follows (at page 805 ) On the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that, in the instant case, the relationship of employee and employer is lacking and this being so, the assessees were rightly assessed by the Income-tax Officer without taking into account the claim of deduction under section 16(i) of the Act. Our answer, therefore, is that the assessees are not entitled to any deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 . . . . .. Since the answer to the question referred to us is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, we adopt the same answer in these references which is in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. A. K. PADHI J. -I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... is the claim made in respect of the rubber subsidy. A Division Bench of this court to which one of us was a party in the decision in Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO 1991 188 ITR 262 has held that the rubber subsidy received is an allowable deduction and the ratio of the said decision was also followed by us in the subsequent decision in T. C. No. 474 of 1983, dated July 13, 1992 (Vaikundam Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 2) 1993 202 ITR 589 (Mad)), following the earlier decision of this court in T. C. No. 877 of 1981, dated February 13, 1991 (Vaikundam Rubber Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1991 TLR 379 (Mad)). On behalf of the respondent there can be no serious objections to the said item of claim being allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside only in so far as it related to a sum of Rs. 3,652 claimed as a deduction representing the rubber subsidy. In all other respects the tax revision case shall stand rejected. The tax revision case is partly allowed. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Special Deduction, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... f tax Rs. 12,07,812 after adjusting the amount already paid. An additional tax under section 143(1A) has also been levied which forms part of the total tax demand of Rs. 12,07,812. In view of the ratio of the judgment by a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.) was a party, in the case of Khatau Junhar Ltd. v. K S. Pathania 1992 196 ITR 55, such recalculation of adjustment under section 80HHC is not permissible under section 143(1)(a). Hence, the intimation dated March 21, 1991, exhibit J , to the petition is set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare and forward a fresh intimation under section 143(1)(a) in accordance with law and in the light of the above judgment. If any refund is found due as a result of the fresh intimation, the same to be adjusted against the demand for the assessment year 1989-90, subject to the final orders in the appeal for the assessment year 1989-90. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Financial Corporation, Special Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... ing subject to the context it has to be read in section 36(1)(viii) as relating to the total income without making the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) as well. That seems to be logical in the context in which the provision occurs. The matter has been dealt with exhaustively by the Gujarat High Court. We are in agreement with their view and the reasoning adopted by them. In this view of the matter, the decisions of this court do not require reconsideration as contended by counsel for the Revenue. We are in agreement with those decisions which themselves are based on the decisions of the Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts where the matter has been discussed in full. These references are, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 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, for information and compliance.
-
1992 (8) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Fees For Technical Services Rendered Abroad, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... hat Continental s case 1992 195 ITR 81 has illuminated and elucidated the legal position, we are of the view that the matter must go back to the concerned respondents for a decision in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Continental Construction s case 1992 195 ITR 81. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated April 11, 1991, (exhibit D ), by which approval to the management service agreement was refused is hereby quashed and set aside. The application dated September 19, 1989, made by the petitioners is sent back to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with law. The respondents may obtain such clarification in the matter as they desire from the petitioners and, after giving a hearing to the petitioners, shall, as expeditiously as possible decide the application. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.
-
1992 (8) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rent view similar to the one taken by us had been taken, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned judges, In Addanki Narayanappa s case, AIR 1966 SC 1300, the question for decision was whether a particular document by which the interest of a partner in partnership assets comprising immovable properties also had been relinquished, was compulsorily registrable under section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act. It was in this context that the apex court held that an interest of a partner was not immovable property as such and was movable property and, accordingly, section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act was not attracted. The ratio of this case hardly justifies the conclusion arrived at by the Madras High Court in Purushothamdas Gocooldas case 1976 104 ITR 608. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. The references are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Limitation For Levy Of Penalty, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ect of the provision. If it were held that not only the original order imposing the penalty must be passed within the prescribed period of limitation, but all further proceedings, including those initiated by the assessee by way of appeal, etc., must be completed before the expiration of two years, it would be well-nigh impossible to impose penalty because the right of two appeals one after another and the right to make an application for reference to the High Court has been invested by the Act itself. The order imposing penalty can thus be successfully defeated by filing one appeal after another so that the period of limitation of two years expires before the proceedings are finalised. For these reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that fresh orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer in pursuance of the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was hit by the limitation provided in section 18(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. We decide accordingly.
-
1992 (8) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... only to seek peace with the Department. Apart from this so-called admission of the petitioner, the prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence showing that the petitioner had concealed his income in the return and had wrongly verified the same. The prosecution only proved on record the assessment order, the notice issued to the petitioner and the replies sent by him. No evidence was led by the prosecution to show what was the actual income of the petitioner for the year in dispute. The evidence of the Income-tax Officers that the petitioner concealed his actual income remains an opinion of the officers, while in a criminal case, a heavy onus is cast on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt I am afraid that the prosecution has failed in its duty in this case . In this view of the matter, there is hardly any merit in the appeal against the acquittal filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-A, Hissar. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1992 (8) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Adjustment U/S 143(1)(a), Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... essee, any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie, inadmissible, shall be disallowed. The present adjustment does not fall within the parameters of this proviso. See in this connection a decision by a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.) was a party in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S. Pathania 1992 196 ITR 55 . The first respondent, therefore, had no jurisdiction to adjust the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 at the stage of intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The intimation dated February 20, 1991, is, therefore, set aside. The claim for additional tax under section 143(1A) is also set aside and the respondents are directed to send a fresh intimation under section 143(1)(a) in accordance with law and in the light of the ratio of the above judgment. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
1992 (8) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Other Sources, Property ... ... ... ... ..... , it held that the said expenses could not be treated as entertainment expenses within the meaning of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the disallowance of the aforesaid amount in the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Looking to the nature and magnitude of the business of the assessee and keeping in mind the amount spent by the assessee towards tea and messing expenses, we are of the opinion that the amount spent by the assessee towards tea and messing cannot be said to be lavish, extravagant, wasteful or unreasonable and, following the decision of our own High Court in the case of Patel Bros. 1977 106 ITR 424, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the aforesaid expenses could not be treated as entertainment expenses within the meaning of section 37(2B) and in deleting their disallowance. We, accordingly, answer the third question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Intimation U/S 143(1)(a) ... ... ... ... ..... which one of us (Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.) was a party, in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K. S. Pathania 1992 196 ITR 55. In view of the ratio which is laid down in that judgment, the first respondent had no jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) of the Act to reopen the account of the assessee and to recalculate the quantum of income of the assessee by allowing or disallowing certain deductions as set out hereinabove. The intimation dated August 3, 1990, is, therefore, set aside. Since the impugned intimation under section 143(1)(a) is set aside, the additional tax levied under section 143(1A) is also set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in accordance with law and in the light of the ratio laid down by the above judgment and to grant to the petitioners refund, if any, due to them under the fresh intimation to be issued as aforesaid. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Fees For Technical Services Rendered Abroad, Royalty, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... d has exercised any jurisdiction not vested in it, or that it has travelled beyond the bounds of section 80-0 of the Act, or that the Board has either taken into consideration irrelevant material or not taken into consideration any relevant material. On the other hand, despite the earlier decision taken to reject the application, vide order dated March 25, 1977, the Board gave ample opportunity to the first petitioner to produce material in its support. The first petitioner did its best and produced whatever material was available with it. Having considered all the material which was placed before it, the Board has come to the conclusion that it was not possible to review its earlier order declining to grant approval. The earlier order has not been challenged. The second order, in our view, is perfectly justified and not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. There is no merit in the petition which must fail. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 23 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... that remained unabsorbed in the assessment of the firm relating to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 could be allowed against the firm s profit of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 ? Assessment year 1979-80 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation to the assessee-firm ? The above controversy stands resolved in favour of the assessee following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 512, which has been considered in Reference No. 22 of 1983 of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 (sic). In the light of the said decision, the references are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of the preceding years from the profits of the, firm for the assessment years in question. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een forwarded to the Registering Officer who has filed a copy in Book No. 1 and, secondly, because, as said earlier, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sale having taken place under the Second Schedule to the Act, though by private negotiation, shall be deemed to have taken place by public auction and the show-cause notice also, in my opinion, is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition and direct the Tax Recovery Officer (11), Income-tax Department, Jaipur, respondent No. 2, to send a copy of the sale certificate granted to the petitioner on March 28, 1981, in respect of flats Nos. 7, 8 and 9 as said earlier in this order to the Registering Officer (Sub-Registrar, Jaipur) and the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur City, Jaipur, respondent No. 3, is directed that, on receipt of the sale certificate, he shall file the copy of it in Book No. 1 after the petitioners submit the requisite stamp duty. Costs made easy.
-
1992 (8) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore, the Board regretted their inability to entertain the review petition in the matter. Here also the Board has not applied its mind to the question as to whether any part of the consideration under the agreement is covered by section 80-O or not. Both these orders are, therefore, the result of non-application of mind to the relevant facts and the provisions of law. In the premises, both the orders of March 6, 1986, and September 29, 1986, are set aside. The application of the petitioners for approval under section 80-0 is referred back to the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Board is directed to dispose of the same in the light of the ratio of this judgment as also in the light of Circular No. 253 dated April 30, 1979, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Continental Construction Ltd. 1992 195 ITR 81. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The application shall be disposed of within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Certified copy expedited.
....
|
