Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 288 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 8
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities, Loans Or Deposits ... ... ... ... ..... ground that if reasonable cause was shown by the assessee, then he could not be punished and that the prosecution could be at the instance of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, who were the highest functionaries in the Income-tax Department. Now, there is no provision for prosecution but we have the provision for penalty only. But the same reasons would be available for holding that there is sufficient safeguard against any arbitrary action and, therefore, in that sense the provision is reasonable. Merely because this provision may cause hardships to some persons that can hardly be regarded as sufficient for the purpose of invalidating the section, particularly, when we find that it is preventive in nature, although penal in character, and that it has been enacted in the interest of public revenue. As we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 7
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... l is not transferred. The Supreme Court has observed that the right to receive profits and to contribute to losses constituted the income-producing apparatus or asset and once that stood transferred by gift to the benefi ciaries, section 60 of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked. In this case also, the same would be the result. The assessee has transferred 50 per cent. of his right, title and interest to share in the profits/losses of his ten per cent. share in the partnership firm, namely, Messrs. Kinariwala R. J. K. Industries. By the deed, the assessee s assets in the partnership firm are assigned and, for that purpose, it is not necessary that the capital owned by the assessee ought to be transferred. In the result, section 60 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 6
Advance Tax, Income Tax Act, Interest Payable By Assessee, Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... o show that interest was bound to be charged up to the period of one year from the date of the return, we are unable to hold that there is any such period for which there is a statutory mandate to charge interest. We do not think it possible also to construe the statutory provision in the light of the rules. The rules can only prescribe, and cannot control the construction of the statutory provision. It is not possible, therefore, to accept the submission that in the present case, it was mandatory on the part of the Income-tax Officer to levy interest from April 1, 1965, till April 6, 1967. Thus, none of the grounds given by the Income-tax Officer and the commissioner for levy of interest is tenable and for that reason, the orders passed by them must be regarded as bad. They, therefore, deserve to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders at annexures F and I to the petition are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 5
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ght and one-third per cent. would be with regard to each year and for three years the admissible amount can be up to the extent of 25 per cent. (8 1/3 x 3). No doubt this would be subject to Explanation 2 and also other conditions provided in section 40A(7)(b)(ii) such as that the provision is to be made in accordance with the actuarial valuation and the ascertainable liability. This question arises mainly because of condition No. (3) which, inter alia, provides that a sum equal to at least fifty per cent. of the admissible amount is paid by the assessee by way of contribution to the approved gratuity fund before the 1st day of April, 1976, and the balance is paid before the 1st day of April, 1977. Hence, it cannot be said that the direction given by the Tribunal is in any way erroneous. In the result, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 4
Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... er dated December 29, 1980, in Income-tax Application No. 104 of 1980 passed by the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, the aforesaid questions are referred for our opinion. In Income-tax Reference No. 302 of 1981--CIT v. Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. 1995 212 ITR 453, decided on October 4, 1993, we have dealt with a similar contention and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. Considering Explanation 1 to section 40A(7)(b)(ii), we have held that the outer limit of eight and one-third per cent. is for each employee and is in respect of each year of his service for which the provision is made by the assessee. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is in any way erroneous. In the result, questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 3
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Income Tax Act, Interest Income, Interest Payable, Rectification Of Mistakes, Tax Deducted At Source
-
1993 (10) TMI 2
Reassessment - in pursuance of notice assessee filed a return for disclosing further losses - appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition for issuance of mandamus to the Income-tax Officer to pass orders in pursuance of the aforesaid notice - writ petition was rightly dismissed observing that no mandamus can be issued compelling the Income-tax Officer to make an order of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 153(2)
-
1993 (10) TMI 1
Whether the payment made to the Textile Commissioner by the assessee for contravention of the direction given by the Textile Commissioner was in the nature of penalty and not incidental to the carrying on of the assessee's business - Whether the payment made to the Textile Commissioner under the provisions of clause 21C(1)(b) of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, as amended from time to time, was business expenditure allowable u/s 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
....
|