|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 65 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Other Sources, Remuneration Received By Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... Court s view. The question as to whether, in a case where the minor is admitted to the benefits of a partnership, the guardian should have signed the deed or expressed assent otherwise as representing the minor is a matter on which the courts have expressed different views. We are of the view that a question of law arises out of the common appellate order rendered by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 21, 1983. We, therefore, direct the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, to refer the two questions of law formulated hereinabove for the decision of this court for both the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The original petitions are allowed. The Appellate Tribunal shall comply with the order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registrar shall send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Agricultural Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, for compliance.
-
1993 (2) TMI 64 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liability and not the gross tax payable with reference to the book profits. The purpose of incorporating the bracketed words is to ensure that the advance tax paid is reckoned for the purpose of arriving at the real liability in regard to the tax. We, therefore, hold that, while the advance tax paid is ignored under Explanation II(i)(a) of the Rules, it is not ignored in arriving at the tax liability under Explanation II(ii)(e) of the Rules. The amount of advance tax paid shall be deducted from the total tax liability in respect of which provision is made, subject of course to the limit of the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law. The reference is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the, assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and 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 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Business Expenditure, Co-operative Society, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... may have to be paid for earning the income can be allowed as deduction, contribution to education fund would cease to be a distribution out of profits. The provisions of our Act cannot be said to be in pari materia with the provisions of the Madras Act and, therefore, the said provision would not be applicable to a case arising under the Gujarat Act. We need not, however, consider the correctness of the reasons given by the Madras High Court as we are of the opinion that the contribution made by the assessee to the co-operative education fund is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, we decline to answer question No. 1. As question No. 4 is dependent upon question No. 1, we decline to answer question No. 4 also. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is not answered as it was not pressed. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... or which the Reserve Bank approval was obtained one month later. The amount of the dividend so declared and which the assessee-company became liable to pay on the approval of the Reserve Bank of India, cannot be considered as a part of the general reserves of the company on April 1, 1971, and April 1, 1972, respectively. These amounts of dividend will have to be treated as a provision. The relevant general reserve therefore stood reduced accordingly, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Tube Co. 1992 194 ITR 102. The resolution of the general body of the shareholders along with the permission obtained from the Reserve Bank of India had, retrospective effect inasmuch as these pertained to the profits of the previous years ending on March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1972. The dividends so declared must be deducted from the relevant general reserves. Accordingly, the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 61 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is deleted. We are of the view that the above exposition by the Appellate Tribunal is in accord with the Full Bench decision in CIT v. Standard Furniture Co. Ltd. 1979 116 ITR 751 (Ker). The finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the liability to pay gratuity was not a liability that accrued to the employer only at one point of time, viz., when the liability is to be settled with the employees, that this is usually done at the time of retrenchment of an employee or on the termination of his services and that when such events happen in the normal course of carrying on of business, the liability would definitely be an expenditure allowable in the computation of the business income is a finding of fact. Since the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is in accord with the Full Bench decision of this court, we are of the view that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. We dismiss the original petition.
-
1993 (2) TMI 60 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interest, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e of the petitioner. However, without expressing any reason, the respondent proceeds to say that the petitioner deserves to get some relief. The provision set forth in section 18B of the Act gives the power or vests the power to reduce or waive when there is a satisfaction on certain factors. But, if the respondent chooses not to waive in full despite the satisfaction having been arrived at for waiver, there must be sound and convincing reasons expressed therefor. That is absolutely lacking in the present case. This feature alone obliges us to interfere in this special civil application. Accordingly, this special civil application is allowed and the order impugned is quashed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent, with no order as to costs. We make it clear that it will be open to the respondent to deal with the matter afresh in accordance with law and we are sure that, while doing so, the respondent will not depart from the well-accepted norms on the question of waiver.
-
1993 (2) TMI 59 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction For New Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... On the other hand, the Tribunal over-emphasised the effect of the notification promulgated by the Government of India under the Central Excises and Salt Act and completely under-estimated and diluted the legal effect of its earlier decision in Income-tax Applications Nos. 187 and 188/(Coch) of 1982 dated December 23, 1983. The approach to the question is totally faulty. The resultant conclusion is tainted. We hold that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, we decline to answer the questions referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to restore the appeal to file and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The 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, forthwith.
-
1993 (2) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Liability For Surtax, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... in CST v. Dharmdas Naresh Chand 1980 45 STC 289, and of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR It 1961 SC 1500. But for the fact that the point regarding deductibility of surcharge is now decided by this court in S. L. M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1988 172 ITR 176, we would have been required to consider the interpretation of the provisions of section 154 and more particularly sub-section (7) thereof, as it then stood. It is now settled law that the amount paid by way of surtax is not deductible from the total income. In that view of the matter, we decline to answer the question referred to us. We decline to answer the question also because even if the same is decided in favour of the assessee on the point of limitation, ultimately, it will have to be held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in not granting deduction of surtax amount. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Partner's Share In House Owned By Firm, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... titions Nos. 9501, 9502, 9417 and 8598 of 1987. A Bench of this court, to which one of us was a party, held that the question of law, similar to the one in this case, is not a referable one. This court followed the earlier Full Bench decision in CWT v. Keathikamal Kumari Varma 1989 179 ITR 543 (Ker) 1989 2 KLT 251. It was held that the above Full Bench has based its conclusion on the basis of various decisions of the Supreme Court as also a few decisions of other High Courts. Since the matter is covered by a Full Bench decision of this court, which only applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is in accord with the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, we are of the view that no referable question of law arises for the decision of this court. We, accordingly, decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law formulated hereinabove for the decision of this court. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 56 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Building, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Roads And Culverts Within Factory Premises ... ... ... ... ..... the premises in question can be said to be office premises or not is not a question which is referred to us, Therefore, on the basis of the finding recorded in this case, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate on telephone equipment installed in the administrative office. Question No. 2 will have to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Though the Tribunal has made only one reference, we direct the office of this court to register the references arising out of assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 separately. We direct the office to treat Income-tax Reference No. 216 of 1980 as a reference arising out of Reference Application No. 735 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Reference No. 216A of 1980 as a reference arising out of Reference Application No. 736 for the assessment year 1969-70. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Other Sources, Remuneration Received By Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... the Act. This aspect has not been borne in mind by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax when he passed the common order for all the four years on September 24, 1991. Since this is a question of fact, it is for the Commissioner to apply his mind, to advert to all the facts and circumstances and come to a positive finding on this aspect. The common order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax on September 24, 1991, discloses an error of law, viz., that the Commissioner has not stated as to why and on what basis the orders passed in revision can be considered to be reasonable as stated by this court in Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. I. T 1991 190 ITR 227 (Ker). We, therefore, set aside the common order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax dated September 24, 1991, for all the our years. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The revisions are allowed. No costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 54 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure, Maintenance Bonus, Production Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... purview of the Bonus Act. A factual conclusion has been recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the payments did not amount to bonus notwithstanding the use of the said expression and were in the nature of incentive wages. For coming to this conclusion, copious reference has been made to the agreements and settlements entered into between the assessee and the union of workmen. It is essentially a conclusion of fact. We are in agreement with the view. In CIT v. Rahimia Lands and Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. 1992 197 ITR 310, a similar view was expressed by the Calcutta High Court and it was observed that the nomenclature is not the determinative factor. In view of the above analysis made by us, it is clear that the payments were allowable as deductions in terms of section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us for opinion in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. D. M. PATNAIK J.-I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Abkari Contract, Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... L. J. (Tribunal Decisions) 15. It is pointed out that, on an examination of the relevant provisions of the Abkari Act, the Special Bench of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, in such cases, there is no illegality committed in carrying on the business of the firm on an abkari licence issued to one of the partners and, therefore, registration may be granted. Since the only basis for the decision, exhibit P-4, is the earlier decision of the Tribunal, which stands overruled by the decision of the Special Bench, and there is no other independent consideration of the matter by the Income-tax Officer, I think the matter require a remit to the respondent for consideration afresh. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed and the order, exhibit P-4, is quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner s application for registration taking note of the decision in ITO v. Raveendra Engineering Construction Co. 1992 K. L. J. (Tribunal Decisions) 15 also. No costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Education Cess, Priority Industry, Special Deduction, Textile Machinery
-
1993 (2) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Developement Rebate, Humidifiers, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ier that there was no justification for drawing a distinction like this in view of the further finding recorded by the Tribunal. It will have to be held that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that humidifiers manufactured by the assessee were not textile machinery or textile accessories and that the assessee was not entitled to higher development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. We hold that, in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it should have been held that humidifiers manufactured by the assessee were textile machinery or textile accessories and was thus entitled to higher development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. In the result, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is not answered as not pressed. Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Short-term Capital Loss ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be treated as a short-term capital loss. On a due consideration of the submissions of the parties and the material available on record, it is difficult to resist the claim made by the assessee about the short-term capital loss in purchasing machinery in India and exporting it to the Singapore company. It is quite apparent that, under the approval of the Government of India, the assessee was required to purchase and supply machinery to the Singapore company against which it would receive equity shares of Rs. 12,50,000. If this transaction is to be looked at in the proper perspective then there is no doubt in our mind that there was a transfer of a capital asset by the assessee to the Singapore company and, in the process of the transfer of the said capital asset, the assessee had suffered a loss of Rs. 81,755 as worked out above. In this view of the matter, we answer the question which is before us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... gift-tax, treat the amount as having been gifted to the petitioner, and at the same time treat the entire amount as belonging to Muraleedharan or the petitioner when it came to the question of assessing the capital gains. Exhibits P-1 and P-4 are unsustainable in the light of the subsequent proceedings, exhibit P-6, which has been accepted by the Department and which has become final. Exhibit P-1, the rectification (exhibit P-2) and the revisional order (exhibit P-4) are liable to be quashed with a further direction to assess the capital gains separately in the hands of the petitioner and his brother, Muraleedharan. The original petition is, therefore, allowed. Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-4 are quashed. The second respondent is directed to complete the assessments for the year 1981-82 afresh on the petitioner and his brother, Muraleedharan, separately in respect of the capital gain arising out of the sales effected by them of the respective properties in the year 1980. No costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... paid by the assessee to the M. I. D.C. was revenue expenditure. The present case is very similar to the above three cases. The assessee by spending Rs. 6,41,193 has obtained the facility of a jetty for the purpose of transportation of materials required by it. It has got the benefit of the use of the jetty without payment for a period of three years and thereafter it can use the jetty on payment of fees though on a preferential basis. The expenditure is incurred for commercial consideration and it is not incurred for the purpose of securing any capital assets. Applying the ratio of the above three cases, the expenditure of Rs. 6,41,193 is revenue in nature, incurred with a view to obtaining a commercial advantage and for facilitating trading operations. Hence, question No. 2 which is referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 2, it is not necessary to answer questions Nos. 3 and 4. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... an assessment following some directions issued by the Commissioner. That the assessee was given an opportunity to place before the Income-tax Officer all materials regarding the question relating to taxation of capital gains indicated in the order does not by itself restrict the powers of the assessing authority while making a fresh assessment. The entire assessment had been cancelled and the direction was to make afresh assessment. The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) was, therefore, right in observing that the assessee is legitimately entitled to claim the deduction. No error has, therefore, been committed by the Tribunal in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). For the aforesaid reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 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 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... be challenged in the proceedings. Exhibit P-13 is the notice for assessment of escaped income. That is also a notice to show cause why the Income-tax Officer should not assess certain income which had escaped assessment. It is in the stage of notice to show cause why assessment should not be made. This also cannot be the subject-matter of challenge under article 226 of the Constitution. The points now raised in the original petition and the writ appeal regarding non-liability for additional tax can be raised before the Income-tax Officer in response to exhibit P-13 notice. With this.
....
|
