Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 259 of 259 Records
-
1992 (8) TMI 20
Royalties From Foreign Enterprises ... ... ... ... ..... ar any additional tax as per the impugned order of March 21, 1991. Therefore, the question of granting any refund does not arise at this stage. Even otherwise, under section 143(1A)(b) where, as a result of an order, inter alia, under section 154 the amount on which case may be, the additional income-tax shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in the case of reduction, the excess amount, if paid, shall be refunded. There is no question, therefore, of the petitioners being liable to pay any additional income-tax. In the circumstances of this case, the impugned order in so far it levies additional income-tax on Rs. 1,64,772 is clearly a result of non-application of mind. In the premises, the intimation dated December 2, 1990 (exhibit D ), the impugned order dated February 22, 1991 (exhibit F ), and the order dated March 21, 1991 (exhibit I ), in so far as it levies additional tax on Rs. 1,64,772 are set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Certified copy expedited.
-
1992 (8) TMI 19
Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... also find that the books of account had been produced by the assessee before the authorities and they had not also discovered any mistakes, but the totalling errors and excess totalling were brought to the notice of the authorities by the assessee and this was also followed by the filing of the revised returns. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the assessee cannot be taken to task by the levy of penalty, as the assessee was not aware of the errors originally and they were discovered by the assessee later and immediately, the assessee had brought it to the notice of the authorities by a letter as well as revised returns. We are, therefore, of the view that, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was quite justified in deleting the imposition of penalty on the assessee and we are of the view that no referable question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. These tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 18
Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... fore the Tribunal, the representative of the assessee as well as the Department were requested to produce a copy of the account of the assessee with the Federal Bank and ultimately a copy of that account was produced by the Department through the inspector and it was seen therefrom that the assessee had deposited the cheque also for Rs. 30,000 and that had been brought into his account. The bank account thus constituted relevant evidence to show that though the assessee had received the sum of Rs. 30,000 and had deposited it in his account with the bank, he had not disclosed it. On the basis of the materials available on record, the Tribunal is right in concluding that the omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the sum of Rs. 30,000 for purposes of assessment was not accidental. We are satisfied that no referable question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The tax case petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 17
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... hat to make a purpose charitable, it is not necessary that it should be beneficial to the poor only and what is required is benefit to a section of the public as distinguished from specified individuals. This court also observed that marriage of children is considered as one of the obligatory actions of Hindus and is a religious duty of a high order giving financial and other help on the occasion of marriage is regarded as a part of religious charitable activities. This court, therefore, concluded that such an object was charitable. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by this court earlier in the case of CIT v. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (No. 1) 1990 186 ITR 728 and following the said decision, we affirm the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for both the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The common question referred to this, court is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee, There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 16
Cash Credits, Evidence, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... the Reserve Bank, it is not correct for the Tribunal to hold that the said document was a new evidence in the true sense of the term. The assessee has been consistently pleading before the lower authorities that the entries had to be made in order to bring the companies in conformity with the said direction. Moreover, the direction of the Reserve Bank is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Documents of a public nature and public authority are generally admissible in evidence subject to the mode of proving them as laid down in sections 76 and 78 of the Evidence Act. In our view, the effect and import of the transactions is that the assessee took over the liability of the aforesaid non-financial companies to GB and Co. in exchange for the shares as aforesaid. In the premises, we answer all the questions, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 15
Double Taxation Relief, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... y, Kuala Lumpur and Penang. It is also an admitted fact that the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 was not subjected to tax in Malaysia. In this view of the matter, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that what has been doubly taxed in India is only the balance sum of Rs. 9,24,484. No debate is necessary to come to this finding. Double taxation relief under section 91 can be allowed only in respect of that part of the income which has been doubly taxed in this country as well as overseas. Since what can be said to have been doubly taxed in this case is only Rs. 9,24,484, double taxation relief was wrongly allowed by the Income-tax Officer originally with reference to Rs. 14,98,084. In our view, the Income-tax Officer correctly invoked the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case. We accordingly answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 14
Application Of Rule 2B(2) Of Wealth Tax Rules, Exemption For Partner In Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax
-
1992 (8) TMI 13
Deduction, Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, Leave Salary, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... hat the role of the bins and shelves is passive, they answer the description of the expression plant for claiming H depreciation under section 32 of the Act. In so far as the second question is concerned, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The definition of the term radar as found in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, adopted by the Tribunal, clearly brings it within the purview of wireless equipment. As such, radars are wireless equipment not entitled to extra shift allowance. The third question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. 1988 174 ITR 340 in respect of the very same assessee, wherein the question has been answered in favour of the Revenue. For the reasons stated above, we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee the second question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and the third question is answered in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1992 (8) TMI 12
Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... ting subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme is concerned, a Division Bench of this court in Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO 1991 188 ITR 262 has already held that the subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Development Replanting Subsidy Scheme could not be considered as a revenue receipt and, consequently, could not be subjected to tax. This decision has also been followed by us in subsequent cases. In the light of the above, the claim under this head to the tune of Rs. 59,928 will stand allowed in the light of the ratio of the Division Bench judgment mentioned supra. For all the reasons stated above, the tax revision shall stand allowed in respect of the claim for deduction under the head of Rubber Replanting Subsidy to the tune of Rs. 59,928 and maintenance of the Bharat Medical Centre to the tune of Rs. 4,737 being 50 per cent. of the deduction claimed. In other respects, the tax revision shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 11
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... wealth-tax return showing all assets and liabilities on the valuation date, the last day of the previous year, i.e., March 31, 1971, nothing remains to afford a nexus of the investment with that source. This position emerges even if we agree to put on blinkers at the improbabilities, contradictions and incoherence of the assessee s assertions. Supposing the Revenue accepted the return allegedly filed for the assessment year 1971-72, it makes no difference to this position. That does not estop the Revenue to go into the rationality or materiality in adjudging the source of investment in a later year. The ratio in CIT v. Durga Prasad More 1971 82 ITR 540 (SC) relied upon does not match the facts in the case. Unlike that case, the Revenue has not treated the same matter on the same set of facts differently in different years. In the premises, we answer all the questions in the affirmative, and in favour of the Revenue. There will be, no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 10
Charitable Purpose, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... e income. We consider that the existence of such provision in the instrument of trust is evidence which goes against the assessee trust. Above all, as we have earlier mentioned, the Supreme Court did not have any occasion to go into the question whether, even if a fixed or aliquot part of the income is earmarked for the private benefit of the settlor s relatives, the trust is entitled to exemption, regard being had to the fact that it owes its origin to a date that falls after the commencement of the Act of 1961. We are, therefore, of the view that the trust in the present case does not meet the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 11. In the premises, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was correct in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 9
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... partnership refers to agency agreement which is anachronistically dated March 29, 1963. Anyway, the partnership was formed with the very purpose of commercially exploiting the buses and the route permits of the buses of a stranger and for no other purpose. Therefore, the Tribunal was not correct. The Tribunal s reading of the decision of this court on the application of the assessee-firm in the course of liquidation proceedings of the permit-holding company is erroneous. Besides, there appears to be some lack of circumspection as to the state of law governing the use of motor vehicles. The business as also the object of the partnership being illegal, the partnership agreement is ab initio void and non est. The Income-tax Officer was right in refusing the registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1992 (8) TMI 8
Royalties From Foreign Enterprises ... ... ... ... ..... 1, 1983, an application may be made and a contract approved under that section. In doing this the Board may not have, and certainly need not have, considered the provisions of section 80HHB. But, despite such approval, the receipts under the contract cannot qualify for relief under section 80-O if the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that the case falls under section 80HHB. The Legislature has clearly envisaged the possibility of the same receipts qualifying for deduction under section 80HHB as well as under any other provision of the Act and has specifically provided that, in such a case, the terms of section 80HHB would prevail over the provisions of such other provision. In the present case, looking to the nature of the agreement, this is a fit case where the rule should be made absolute as prayed. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The respondents to pay to the petitioners the costs of this petition.
-
1992 (8) TMI 7
Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... e Board to approve the contract on being satisfied that it gives rise to receipts qualifying for deduction under section 80-O and nothing more. All that the Board has to do is to grant an approval to the agreement for the purpose of section 80-O. It has nothing more to do. The Supreme Court has also clarified that after the insertion of section 80HHB, in the matter of a receipt governed by section 80HHB and section 80-O, the former and not the latter would prevail. The present case falls entirely under section 80-O and looking to the terms of the agreement, the Board ought to have granted to the petitioners approval under section 80-O as the provisions of section 80HHB are not attracted at all. There is a clear non-application of mind by the Board to the relevant facts in the light of sections 80-O and 80HHB. In the premises, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute n terms of prayers (a) and (b). The respondents to pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition.
-
1992 (8) TMI 6
Double Taxation Relief, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ch of this court in CIT v. C. S. Murthy 1988 169 ITR 686 understood the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramanathan Chettiar s case 1973 88 ITR 169 in the same way as we did. That was also a case of an assessee resident in India who was having foreign income in respect of which double taxation relief was claimed. The Division Bench held that by merely including the foreign income in the total income it could not be said that the whole foreign income was subjected to tax in India. It laid down the criteria that not only the foreign income must be included in the total income in the assessment made under the Income-tax Act in India, but it should also be subjected to tax in India. For claiming relief under section 91 of the Act, these two conditions must be satisfied. Respectfully we agree with this test. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The case referred is accordingly answered. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 5
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... sion of agricultural land as capital asset may not be available, the land should be situated within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a cantonment board as stated earlier and is also related to the population. Though the expression, municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committed town area committee, town committee , etc., have been used they refer only to certain specific entities either known by that name or by any other name and that cannot be taken to apply to a panchayat which is and has also always been understood as distinct and different from municipality, etc. In the absence of clear or specific words in the section to take in a panchayat, we are unable to countenance the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was quite justified in deleting the tax arising on capital gains on account of the sale of the agricultural lands by the assessee. The tax case petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 4
Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... n the absence of specific rules in regard to the valuation of the interest of the remainderman, is quite correct and is also fully supported by the observation of the Supreme Court in the decision referred to earlier. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that the value of the remainderman would be the present value of his right to receive the corpus of the property at an uncertain future date and such valuation should be done on an actuarial basis and that taking the future value of the asset to be received at a later date, its present value had to be discounted. That precisely had been done by the appellate authority and was also upheld by the Tribunal. Ultimately, the whole question revolves round the method of the valuation to be adopted, in the absence of any specific rule in that regard. We are, therefore, of the view that no referable question of law as such can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. These tax case petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1992 (8) TMI 3
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Land, Capital Gains, High Court, Law Applicable To Assessment, Retrospective Effect
-
1992 (8) TMI 2
Whether interest should be paid to the owner of an immovable property who has entered into an agreement to sell the same - where such a seller has raised no objection or obstruction either to the purchase of his property by an order u/s 269UD or to the completion to the agreement of sale entered into by him but is unable to get the purchase price by reason of the said order & the stay order or orders passed by a court, interest at an appropriate rate can, if equity so requires, be paid to him
....
|