|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 85 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Disallowance, Export Market Development Allowance, Roads, Scientific Research, Weighted Deduction
-
1993 (2) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... pinion in that regard as the matter can appropriately be gone into in proceedings under section 132(5) or section 132(11) of the Act as they are disputed questions of fact and could not be properly scrutinised in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. So far as the relief that the respondents be restrained not to proceed in proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act is concerned, it is also unsustainable as the question raised, apart from the validity of the warrant of authorisation, the other ground could more appropriately be gone into in proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act. Further, since even 120 days have expired from the date of seizure and there is every likelihood now that an order must have been passed under the said provision, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for this relief also. In view of the aforesaid, both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties. Stay order dated November 9, 1992, is hereby vacated.
-
1993 (2) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Donation To Charitable Institution, Sugar Industry ... ... ... ... ..... ve efficiency. It was not in connection with a new plant or a new project or a new product. It was to improve the production of the existing project with a view to increase its profitability. There is no element of enduring benefit in it. From an overall view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear opinion that this is not a case where the expenditure incurred by the assessee can be termed to be capital expenditure or an expenditure which has resulted in any enduring benefit to the assessee. The principles in this regard are well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court including the latest decision in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 377 which need no reiteration. Applying the ratio of the same to the facts of this case, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... in the opinion of Assessing Officer, the income cannot properly be deduced therefrom, then the computation shall be made upon such basis and in such manner as the Assessing Officer may determine. This is not such a case. The only question is whether the opening stock is also required to be revalued by excluding all overhead expenses when the assessee has been permitted to revise the method of valuing the closing stock for that year, as the assessee has decided to adopt this new method of valuation henceforth. For the reasons set out above, the directions given by the Tribunal to revise and determine the value of the opening stock also by excluding all overhead expenses, is not justified. We are not called upon to decide whether the method adopted for valuing the closing stock is in accordance with law and/or accounting practice. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. Certified copy be expedited.
-
1993 (2) TMI 81 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... relief. Such an approach will be against all accepted principles of interpretation. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the principle of beneficial interpretation or interpretation in favour of the assessee has application only in a case where, on a proper interpretation, the court is in doubt about the true scope and ambit of the provision or finds that two equally reasonable interpretations one in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of the Revenue are possible. It is only in such cases that the question of accepting one of the two reasonably possible interpretations would arise. The principle of beneficial interpretation has no application in a case where the words of a statute are plain, precise and unambiguous. In that case the courts have no option but to give effect to it. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CBDT Instructions, Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... essee on July 3, 1972, and the question of registration was considered by the Income-tax Officer on March 29, 1973, when he took up the case for assessment. On that day, he had the power to accept the declaration even though it had been filed beyond time. He did not exercise this power at all and refused registration merely on the ground of delay in filing of the declaration. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exercised this power and, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the Income-tax Officer to accept the same. No fault can be found with this action of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in upholding his action and rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 79 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... s held it to be income from other sources. In such a case, the assessee cannot be allowed now to go behind its own admission that the interest receipt was its income and raise a fresh controversy for the first time at the reference stage. The prayer of counsel for the assessee on this count is not tenable in law and the same is, therefore, rejected. In view of our answer to the first question being in favour of the Revenue, the answer to the second question is self-evident, that is, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year could not be assessed as business income under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been rightly assessed as income from other sources. Accordingly, the second question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, 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 (2) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Survey ... ... ... ... ..... itioner moved an application for the same relief but no order was passed hence this petition seeking the said relief. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the uncontroverted averments made in this petition and as per our observations above that no counter-affidavit has been filed so far in this case, we accept the averments made in this case. Admittedly, the documents and the books of account of the petitioner have been seized as far back as on January 24, 1986, under section 131(3) of the said Act and in the absence of anything from the side of learned counsel for the Revenue, we direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to return the impounded books of account and other documents of the petitioner, seized on January 24, 1986, when the impounding order was passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-B, and to keep the photostat copy of the same, if they so require in future. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. Costs on parties.
-
1993 (2) TMI 77 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Offences And Prosecution, Return, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... rned Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending. Accordingly, consideration of the contentions having a bearing on this point is left open. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated December 12, 1992, passed in Writ Petition No. 29666 of 1992 is set aside. Writ Petition No. 29666 of 1992 is partly allowed. Penal interest levied under section 139(8) of a sum of Rs. 1,35,970 and the interest under section 215 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 22,900 in the assessment order dated September 25, 1985, for the assessment year 1980-81 are quashed. The order of assessment in respect of other matters is not disturbed. If the respondents have recovered the penal interest levied under section 139(8) amounting to Rs. 17,998 and also the interest levied under section 215 of the Act amounting to Rs. 22,900, the same shall be refunded within period of three months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 76 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... mbine both the questions to the following effect Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were justified in holding that, in an order passed under section 144, the question of registration cannot be considered ? In view of the analysis made by us, the conclusion is inevitable that even though the registration aspect can be considered, two appeals are to be filed when the assessee questions both the correctness of the assessment and the refusal of registration. Since the assessee in the instant case had questioned only the refusal of registration, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal should have considered the legality of the order so far as it related to registration instead of holding that the same was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal shall consider this aspect when it hears the matter under section 260 of the Act. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of. D. M. PATNAIK J. -I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 75 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward, Delay In Filing Return, Loss, Return ... ... ... ... ..... application is made by the assessee for extension of time and no decision is rendered on such application, it must be presumed that the Assessing Officer has allowed time to the assessee to file the return within the extended period as asked for by the assessee. Even if the application for extension is rejected but the order of rejection is not communicated, such order will be treated as non est and the assessee will be entitled to presume that the application for extension has been allowed. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee not having been communicated of the fate of its extension application and having filed the return within the time asked for in the last of such applications, the Income-tax Officer cannot deny the assessee the benefit of carry forward of loss determined in the assessment. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY J. - I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 74 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... condition contemplated in section 10(26) of the Act. The third condition is that the income must have accrued or arisen from any source in the areas, States or Union Territories aforesaid. The Government college where the assessee is working is within the cantonment area. Her salary is paid by the State Government of Meghalaya whose capital is in Shillong town. In either view of the case, the income accrues from a source in the areas specified in Part 11 of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule. The third condition is also satisfied, It must, therefore, follow that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(26) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, there will be no direction as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... er of building, machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. These two clauses read together make it abundantly clear that the new business of manufacture formed by transfer of building, machinery or plant previously used by another firm for the purpose of manufacture does not fulfil the requirements of section 84 of the Act and, as such the assessee is not entitled to rebate thereunder. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no transfer of machinery, plant, electrical installations, which had been previously used, to the new business of the assessee and in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1965-66. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative that is 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 (2) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Power To Remand Case ... ... ... ... ..... with an added direction that the appellate authority will bear in mind the Calcutta and Madras High Court judgments and also the order of the Special Bench at Bombay. It was for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the matter on the basis of the law as it stood at the time when the appeal was heard. Since it was not done, the Appellate Tribunal failed to discharge the duty imposed on it by law. We hold so. The order of remit was unauthorised and illegal. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. We hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 15, 1980, is infirm. We answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1993 (2) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ears ? Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions which were made before the Tribunal and strongly urged that the loss suffered in the managing agency business should be allowed to be set off against the profits made in dealing in iron and steel pipes. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that since no fault could be found in the action of the income-tax authorities as well as the Tribunal, the reference should be answered against the assessee. On due consideration of the submissions of the parties and after carefully going through the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in its order, declining to accept the assessee s contention regarding carry forward and set-off of losses. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the issue involved in question No. 2 becomes academic and need not be answered. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Other Sources, Remuneration Received By Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... neration was paid to the directors as authorised by the company in a special resolution and it was not proved, the authorities declined to grant the relief prayed for by the assessee. In the light of the findings entered by the Appellate Tribunal that the payment was not authorised, even the audit report did not show the details of the payment and the amount so incurred was not spent wholly and exclusively for earning the agricultural income and the payments made were influenced by personal considerations, the conclusion is inevitable that the payment was not an allowable deduction under section 5(j) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The references are answered as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.
-
1993 (2) TMI 69 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Other Sources, Remuneration Received By Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... allowed as per the guidelines adopted by the authorities. There is no plea before us that the Appellate Tribunal failed to advert to the relevant facts or adverted to irrelevant facts in reaching the said decision. Since the amount of tapping expenses allowable in a particular case largely turns on appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal thereon is a finding of fact which is not ordinarily reviewable by a revisional authority. The fact-finding authority has found that the tapping expenses allowed in the case of the revision petitioner is much more than ordinarily or normally allowable or allowed as per the guidelines of the Department. In this perspective, we are of the view that there is no merit in this revision. The common order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 1, 1991, does not require interference in revision since there is no error of law. The revision is dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure, Remuneration ... ... ... ... ..... ees towards gratuity payable to them. Consistent with that intention and the scheme, the contribution towards the gratuity of employees who had not put in five years of service does not appear to be improper or against the provisions contained in section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal has not committed any error of law in allowing the deduction by way of contribution towards gratuity fund in respect of employees who had not put in more than five years of service. For the aforesaid reasons, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 3 to 5 are also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 6 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (2) TMI 67 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ertificates were delivered and consideration was also received during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79. As between the transferor and the transferee, the transaction was complete. The share certificates were handed over to the broker on June 28, 1977. In such circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. s case 1959 36 ITR 215 and Shelat s case 1975 45 Comp Cas 43, and by the Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Ramaswamy 1985 151 ITR 122, the transfer of shares for the purpose of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was complete in the assessment year 1978-79. The decision so arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court. The question of law raised is merely academic. It is not a referable question of law. We, therefore, decline to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law, formulated in paragraph 6 of the original petition. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 66 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... te Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not consider the case of the assessee keeping in view the new Explanation 1 applicable on and after April 1, 1976. By operation of the Explanation, the onus lay on the assessee and findings given at the time of assessment are relevant and have probative value where the assessee offered nothing beyond the explanation offered at the assessment stage. In such cases, it cannot be said that the assessee had discharged the onus even by a preponderance of probabilities. The initial burden which lay on the assessee was not discharged. There was total absence of material to rebut the presumption. The assessee s plea does not stand the test of preponderance of probabilities. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal erred in holding that penalty was not imposable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
....
|
