|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 68 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Revision, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessee not having preferred the appeal on that ground and it was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and there is no effective order of the appellate authority on that point and as such the Commissioner has the jurisdiction to revise the order under section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the entire surtax assessment having merged in the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax lost jurisdiction to revise the original assessment made in the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. It is further held that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 67 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Application For Revision, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... regard to the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court on the expression subject of an appeal in Board of Revenue v. Raj Brothers Agencies 1973 31 STC 434 (SC) and the later decision of the Madras High Court in Chiranjilal Daga v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 363, construing the very same expression subject of an appeal occurring in section 264 of the Income-tax Act as subject of effective appeal, I am of the view that the matter stands squarely concluded by the above decisions in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the Revenue. 1, therefore, allow this original petition and quash exhibits P-1 and P-4 orders passed by the respondents. The findings of the first respondent that the revision petition filed by the assessee is incompetent and cannot be entertained , vide paragraph 4 of exhibit P-4 order, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to take the revision petition on file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 66 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... al was justified in allowing the deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act at Rs. 1,50,132 out of the total deduction claimed by the assessee at Rs. 4,60,385. The Tribunal was further right in coming to the conclusion that only the proportionate expenses at the rate of 67 per cent. has to be reduced. The expenditure under section 37 of the Act refers to the expenditure which is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession and the business which is referred to under section 37 of the Act is that whose income is chargeable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession and, therefore, the expenditure which is attributable only to the income which is chargeable to tax has to be determined separately and the expenditure which has been incurred for earning the non-taxable income cannot be allowed under section 37. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Fiduciary Relationship, Income, Shipping Agent ... ... ... ... ..... 2, it is observed that the High Court acting under article 226 of the Constitution does not sit or act as an appellate authority and the main objective of its supervisory jurisdiction is to keep the Government and several authorities within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction, taking care at the same time that the High Court while performing its functions, does not overstep the well-recognised bounds of its own jurisdiction. The petitioner in these writ petitions virtually has approached this court for directing the respondents to take a policy decision with reference to the inclusion of T.S.I. anodes for purposes of higher depreciation eligibility and that, in our view, cannot be done. For the foregoing reasons, the rule nisi in Writ Petitions Nos. 13224 and 13225 of 1987 is discharged and those writ petitions will stand dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand) (one set). Writ Petition No. 17059 of 1991 is also dismissed, but without costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Fiduciary Relationship, Income, Shipping Agent ... ... ... ... ..... as sales tax formed part of its trading or business receipts and the fact that it was credited by the assessee under the head Sales tax collection account did not make any material difference. It was, however, observed that the assessee would be entitled to claim the deduction of the amount as and when it pays it to the State Government. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the principles of law set out above, we are of the clear opinion that the assessee was merely a debtor for the amount of freight due from it to the shipping companies and not a trustee and hence the interest of Rs. 38,102.73 accrued on the call deposits made by it was the income of the assessee and was rightly subjected to tax in its hands as such. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 63 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... equirement is that wherever the search might have been carried out and the seizure has been made of any books of account or documents, then such person to whom the books of account or documents belongs can make a declaration under section 14. The provisions of section 8(1) of the Ordinance of 1975 are applicable only in respect of the declaration which has been made under section 3 and are not applicable to a declaration which has been made under section 14. In view of the above proposition of law, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the declaration was legally made under section 3 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. We are also of the view that the provisions of section 8(1) of the Ordinance of 1975 are not applicable in respect of the declaration which has been made under section 14. The reference is, accordingly, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1993 (10) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 36(1)(ii). The order of the Tribunal reveals the specific aspect as to whether the bonus paid by the assessee may stand the test specified in section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act read along with the proviso has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we decline to answer the question. We direct the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decisions in CIT v. P. Alikunju, M. A. Nazir, Cashew Industries 1987 166 ITR 611 70 FJR 412 (Ker), CIT v. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation 1990 183 ITR 197 (Ker) and Income-tax Reference No. 185 of 1985 (CIT v. P. Balakrishna Pillai, International Cashew Traders 1990 182 ITR 449) and Income-tax Reference No. 399 of 1985. (CIT v. Kumar Industries 1990 183 ITR 156). The question referred is answered as above. Reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (10) TMI 61 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Deemed Gift, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... cision of the apex court, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in giving a decision in respect of non-existent rights of future profits and not considering the aspect of existing rights. The case of Addl. CGT v. P. Krishnamoorthy 1977 110 ITR 212 (Mad) refers only with regard to the right to receive future profits in the firm. The existing rights and the interest in a firm, if surrendered will be deemed to be a gift. Since the facts have not been found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we, therefore, refer the matter back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the question in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties. The Tribunal shall also take into consideration the definition as given under section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act and shall also record a finding as to whether the said gift was bona fide or not to attract the provisions of section 4(1)(c) of the Act. The reference is returned unanswered.
-
1993 (10) TMI 60 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... ract, in order to remove any uncertainty with regard to the quantity of removal of overburden, it has already been provided to reduce the payment by Rs. 11 per tonne and on that point the matter has already been sent back by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The fixation of amount of Rs. 11 also shows that the formula which was adopted for removal of overburden was not a foolproof formula and, therefore, it was contemplated that the rate shall stand reduced by Rs. 11 per metric ton, even if the overburden has not been removed according to the agreed ratio. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no actual liability existing for removal of the overburden to the extent of 10 lakh metric tonnes and, therefore, the liability of Rs. 82 lakhs as claimed by the assessee was not allowable. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1993 (10) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Building Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ly the excess additional tax liability which has been created by the assessment order and the demand notices issued. Before such assessment order, there was no quantification and it could not be said that the additional liability which has been created by virtue of the assessment order was ascertained even before the finalisation of the assessment. We are, therefore, of the view that the additional liability which has been created in the present case in the assessment order was not the ascertained one before the date of assessment and, therefore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of Rs. 11,900 pertaining to the earlier years and demanded by the assessing authority under the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act on May 23, 1978, being a statutory liability is allowable for computing the total income of the assessee in the year under consideration. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1993 (10) TMI 58 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... income. Various heads of income have been given under section 14 and clause A of the said section refers to salaries. No provision of law has been brought to our notice by which the deduction by any employer from the salary of the employee in respect of Compulsory Health Scheme is to be excluded in computing the income from salary. Similarly, the rent-free accommodation provided by the employer has to be included in the category of perquisite and is an income as defined under section 2(24). Section 4 has created the charge on income and, therefore, ignoring these provisions and not assessing in accordance with law was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Income-tax Commissioner, therefore, was justified in exercising the power under section 263 of the Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred and, therefore, questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the reference is allowed. No orders as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof Of Ownership, Development Allowance, Industrial Undertaking, Weighted Deduction
-
1993 (10) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Company In Which Public Are Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... ture, which had to be exercised by the directors in the best interests of the company for preventing any undesirable person becoming a member, if that was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the company it was a power which had to be reasonably exercised for protecting the interests of the company. Free transferability of shares was a normal and common feature of limited companies and article 37 could not by itself be regarded as a restriction on the transfer of shares. On the basis of the various findings which have been given by the Tribunal and on the plain reading of the provisions of section 2(18) of the Act, we are of the opinion that all the conditions are duly fulfilled and the provisions of section 104 are not attracted. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 104 are not attracted. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No orders as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Capital Asset, Capital Gains Tax, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ourt, there was a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the contribution of the precious stones towards the capital asset in the partnership firm amounted to a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. But, so far as the liability of capital gains tax under section 45 is concerned, this court has already followed the decision of the apex court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 509, wherein it was held that the assessee is not liable to tax. Accordingly, on the basis of the decision of the apex court and the view taken by this court, we are of the view that the assessee is not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 54 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1993 (10) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e was being maintained by the assessee . The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has proceeded only on the basis of the letter given by the assessee and has not given any finding as to what was the nature of the expenditure incurred, whether it pertains to the payment of rent or other expenditure. According to the statement of the assessee, the expenditure was in respect of payment of rent. If the payment has been made on rent, then the expenditure could not be considered to be an expenditure for maintenance of the guest house, which is its liability under section 37. Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal for examining this issue as to what was the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee and then to give a decision in accordance with law. This question, therefore, is returned unanswered. Accordingly, the first question is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the second question is returned unanswered.
-
1993 (10) TMI 52 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
House Property, Retrospective Operation, Rule 1BB, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... sion of the Allahabad High Court which is in respect of interpretation of rules 1C and 1D, we are of the opinion that the provisions of rule 1BB are procedural in nature and apply to pending assessments. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the lower authority and restoring the matter regarding valuation of self-occupied property to the Wealth-tax Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment in accordance with law and as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench A , dated February 17, 1981, (Wealth-tax Applications Nos. 614 to 624/(Delhi) of 1979 and Wealth-tax Applications Nos. 703 to 717/(Delhi) of 1979 in the case of Biju Patnaik v. WTO 1983 3 ITD 693). It is also held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is procedural in nature and retrospective in operation and, therefore, the same is applicable in the year under consideration.
-
1993 (10) TMI 51 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Charitable Trust, Delay In Application ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee s claim and allow the exemption in respect of accumulations as claimed by the assessee. There is another point that the provisions of rule 17 which are framed under section 11(2) before April 1, 1971, did not prescribe any time-limit for filing Form No. 10 and without there being any amendment in the provisions of the Act, the rule was substituted with effect from April 1, 1971, prescribing the time-limit from the assessment year 1971-72. Prior to the assessment year 1971-72, the form could have been submitted up to the stage of assessment. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to allow exemption in respect of accumulation as claimed under section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The reference accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 50 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... would be most unfair to accept the said agreement. The agreement was found detrimental to the interest of the Hindu undivided family. A document has to be admitted in evidence in accordance with law and, secondly, it has not been brought on record as to whether the karta was devoting full time to the business of the Hindu undivided family in the past or not and has devoted full time during the year in dispute and whether any extra services were rendered. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration the services and the verbal agreement of the parties vis-a-vis the services rendered by the karta during the year. From the fact which are available on the record, it is not proved what was the expediency for making the payment and as such we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not right in allowing the payment of salary of Rs. 9,000 to its karta. The reference is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 49 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... d as restricted to the grounds of appeal, because, while passing an order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could set aside the entire assessment order for making the fresh assessment. The examination of the whole case afresh, therefore, is similar to the case of Rambilas Chandram 1985 156 ITR 344 (Raj) referred to above and the further direction to follow the correct procedure in law as mentioned in the appellate order, i.e., no adverse order could be made unless the taxpayer was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cannot be interpreted to mean that the addition beyond Rs. 5,000 cannot be made. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that in the fresh assessment proceedings on the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
