|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s made out is insufficient. The inadequacy emanates from the fact that more facts ought to have been brought out before drawing the conclusions. The Tribunal has not gone into the question as to what was the consideration that guided the decision of the self-same first appellate authority under the Income-tax Act in deciding that the rental income derived from the subletting was business income or what terms the lease deed contained or what is the duration of the lease. We cannot say whether there was a manifest intention of the assessee to resume in future the use of the part of the leasehold property for the purpose of its business as before. In the premises, we decline to answer the questions and remand the matter to the Tribunal for going into these factual aspects of the matter for deciding the issue more satisfyingly. If the Tribunal feels it necessary, it can allow the parties to adduce further evidence. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... t it may not be necessary to quash the complaints, instead a direction need be issued to keep the complaint in abeyance till the reassessment is over and to revive the same if the result of the reassessment is in favour of the Revenue. The two orders of this court favoured the quashing of the complaint without prejudice to the Revenue to file a fresh complaint, if so advised, in the light of the reassessment proceedings against the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances, annexure I in the Criminal M. Cs. are liable to be quashed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to file a fresh complaint, if so advised, in the light of the result of the reassessment proceedings. In the result the Criminal M. Cs. are allowed and annexure 1 in the respective Criminal M. Cs. are quashed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to file a fresh complaint, if so advised, on the basis of the result of the reassessment proceedings which are pending against the petitioner.
-
1993 (2) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Addition To Income ... ... ... ... ..... , this court came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income earned by two artists, who were partners in the firm Shobhna Pictures, was their individual income and not the income of Shobhna Pictures. Following the ratio laid down in that case in the instant case also, we have no hesitation to hold that out of the income earned by Messrs. Caprica Film Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., in various films where the assessee acted, the assessee was entitled to only Rs. 80,000 from the said company and not the entire income which the producers paid to the said company. We are entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that nowhere in the order of the Income-tax Officer any whisper has been made to show that there was an attempt on the part of the assessee either to evade and/ or avoid tax. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Development Rebate Reserve, Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ee at all although its books of account are being regularly and properly audited by a firm of chartered accountants. The entire basis of calculation adopted by the assessee was wrong. In our view, in such a situation, paragraph (c) of the circular dated January 30, 1976, is not attracted. This is not a case of condoning any genuine deficiencies as contemplated under that circular. In this view of the matter, we are not examining the question relating to the binding character of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes even though it may grant a relaxation in respect of the law as laid down under the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the benefit of the circular is not available to the assessee, in our view the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it has come to, though we hold so on slightly different grounds. Therefore, the question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Widely Held Company ... ... ... ... ..... g is held by a public limited company, condition No. (iii) is not attracted. We find support for this interpretation in a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd. v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 787. This decision dealt, inter alia, with the interpretation of section 23A as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1957. Interpreting a similar condition in the Explanation to the above section, the Madras High Court held that, where a single entity holds more than 50 per cent. of the shares of the company, sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of the Explanation is not attracted so as to take such a company out of the pale of section 23A. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that applying condition (iii) to companies which fall in categories (a), (b) and (c) of condition (i) would lead to absurd results. Question No. 2, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ses where the partners have no other source of income than the share of profit in the partnership firm, such share of profit cannot be taxed in the hands of the partners. Such an interpretation would thus bring about absurd results and cannot be accepted. For the reasons discussed above and agreeing with the views expressed by the various High Courts, we hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in taking the view that the income arising to the minor sons of the assessee as a result of their admission to the benefits of partnership is liable to be included and assessed in the hands of the assessee not with standing that the assessee has no income of her own from any source whatsoever. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative. The Revenue shall be entitled to its costs of this reference. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad in accordance with the provisions of section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1993 (2) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits, Deemed Dividend, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... payment referred to in those sub-clauses. The Supreme Court in the case of P. K. Badiani v. CIT 1976 105 ITR 642 has held that the term profits appearing in section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, means profits in the commercial sense, i.e., profits made by the company in the usual and true sense of the term. It has also held that development rebate reserves created out of the company s profits constitute a part of the accumulated profits of the company. In view of this judgment, it is clear that the development rebate reserves created by the subsidiary company form a part of the accumulated profits for purposes of section 2(22)(e). In the premises, question No. 2 which is referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2, question No. 3 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Delay In Filing Estimate ... ... ... ... ..... necessary facts, it cannot be clearly predicated of the action of the Income-tax Officer that it constituted violation of a statutory duty or obligation. For the above reasons, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no action could have been taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 154. The approach of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal is not correct in the matter, but somehow both the authorities stumbled at a correct conclusion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no interest can be charged under section 154. In the result, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Appellate Tribunal to enable it to pass an order conformably to such judgment to dispose of the case under section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1993 (2) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity, Nexus Between Expenditure And Business ... ... ... ... ..... red for the purpose of carrying on business and that such expenditure was incurred as a businessman. The facts of the present case are quite different because, here, we are concerned with the temple maintained by the assessee. There is nothing to show that the said temple was maintained with the help of a pujari for the personal benefit of any person. Thus, the temple appears to have been maintained by the assessee mill company for the general benefit of its employees and for that reason, we hold that the said expenditure was neither of personal nature nor of a purely religious nature but was incurred for the purpose of or in the interest of the business of the assessee. For the reasons stated above, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty, Proceedings, Unexplained Money ... ... ... ... ..... It is due to this reason that even though the Revenue has a good case for imposing penalty under various provisions of the Act, the assessees, by and large, succeed right from the first appellate stage itself. In the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal and in the reference before the High Court, the Revenue finds it extremely difficult to improve the case which was not well thought of when initiated at the first stage. In this case also, a similar thing has happened. If the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had invoked the provision of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, perhaps the decision of the Tribunal and thereafter, of this court would have been different from what it is. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. Before we part with this judgment, we would like to put on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Shri Tripathi as amicus curiae.
-
1993 (2) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Borewell ... ... ... ... ..... orded by the Income-tax Officer and that he had not given reasons for the direction which he gave for payment of interest. The prayer for setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer was very much implicit in the grievance made by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in giving direction to the assessee to pay interest under section 216. The Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ought to have remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer for passing a fresh order as contemplated by section 216 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue and question No.2 in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... er under section 147(a) cannot be sustained under section 147(b) read with Explanation 2 to section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 ? After some discussion with the parties and after carefully going through the material available on record, more particularly the order of the Tribunal under reference, it is agreed by the parties that the question as reframed and referred to us by the Tribunal does not arise out of its order. The Tribunal has applied the ratio laid down by this court in the case of New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 760 which is directly on the point at issue. In the instant case, the notice which was specifically issued under section 147(a) of the Act cannot be converted into a notice under section 147(b) of the Act as per the said decision of this court. Under the circumstances, we decline to answer the question referred to us and return the reference unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... ase, the Tribunal erred in holding that rule 6D(2) of the Income-tax Rules was also applicable in respect of travel in India by foreigners whose headquarters were not in India, for the assessment year 1972-73? It would appear from the above that the question refers to travel in India by foreigners whose headquarters was not in India. In other words, even though the assessee had argued at length regarding the hotel expenses, there is no mention of the same in the question referred to us. In fact, the expenditure incurred on travelling by these foreigners has been allowed by the Income-tax Officer himself as would appear from the information tabulated above. However, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we would answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that rule 6D(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, would be applicable in respect of travel in India by foreigners whose headquarters was not in India, in the assessment year under reference. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... on the other hand, relied on the order of the Tribunal. On a due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the clear provisions of the Hindu law, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal holding that only 5/8ths portion of the Walkeshwar property came into the hands of the bigger Hindu undivided family of Shri Gordhandas Vallabhdas Kapadia and his sons on the death of the widow of the late Vallabhdas. Further, in view of the clear provisions of section 54 of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time, the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the assessee-Hindu undivided families claim of benefit under section 54 of the Act as such benefit could be given only to an individual-assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question No. 2 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Broker, Broker Dealer, Business, Profession, Stock Broker ... ... ... ... ..... h it in reference. We do not find force in this submission. There is no factual dispute regarding the activity of the assessee or its nature. The controversy is whether, on the admitted facts, the assessee can be held to be engaged in a profession . This evidently, is a pure question of law and can always be the subject-matter of a reference under section 256(1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the last submission also and it is, therefore, rejected. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee, a firm of sharebrokers, was engaged in a profession. It was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of lower rate of surcharge on income-tax in computation of its tax liability. The 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 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Widely Held Company ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal was not justified in holding the assessee as a company in which the public are substantially interested in respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. In fact, as indicated above, learned counsel for the assessee had not disputed this fact. In this view of the matter, we answer all the three questions for these two years in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1975-76, we are of the opinion that, in view of the substitution of sub-clause (b) of clause (18) of section 2 of the Act, with effect from April 1, 1970, coupled with the clear finding of the Tribunal referred to above, viz., that the shares of the assessee-company were listed on the stock exchange and were freely transferable, the stand taken by the assessee is unassailable. In this view of the matter, we answer all the three questions for these three years in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions, Purchase Of House Out Of Sale Of Residence ... ... ... ... ..... ied the period of two years in the section with reference to which it is to be considered whether the building was being used by the assessee for the stated purpose. Thus, from the object of the provision and the reasons as to why the duration of the period is specified in the section, it becomes clear that what was in the mind of the Legislature was use for the full period of two years in order to qualify for the benefit of exemption. In our opinion, if any other interpretation is put on the word in , then that would enlarge the scope of the exemption without any justification in that behalf. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the property should have been used by the assessee for his own residence for at least two years prior to its sale. For the reasons stated above, the question is answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annual Charge, Deduction, Income From Property, Voluntarily ... ... ... ... ..... , 1969, also the assessee must be given the benefit of such deduction and, for the purpose of amended section 24(1)(iv), the charge which is created prior to the amendment should be considered as an involuntary charge. This submission, however, does not appeal to us. The question whether the charge was voluntary or involuntary will have to be decided with reference to the facts relating to the creation of such charge. If the charge is created voluntarily, it remains so, whether it is created before the amendment or after the amendment. If the benefit of the deduction is taken away as a result of the amendment, then, from the date of the amendment, such a deduction cannot be allowed in future. The second contention of the assessee, therefore, that, by not granting the deduction, retrospective operation is given to the amendment also has no substance. The question, therefore, which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 27 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Offences And Prosecution, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , attention has been invited to Sant Parkash v. CIT 1991 188 ITR 732 (P and H), where the complaint was filed earlier to the decision of the Income-tax Department and the allegations were that there was an undisclosed income of Rs. 16,50,000 which was noticed by the assessing authority whereas in the case now in hand, the wealth-tax was Rs. 5,666 according to the order dated February 29, 1988, and the penalty imposed was Rs. 5,550, and that too was deposited on February 29, 1988. The respondent proposes to prosecute the petitioner long after the passing of the assessment orders and depositing of the wealth-tax together with the penalties Imposed and that too without fulfilling the conditions laid down in section 17 of the Act. In view of these reasons, the present petition is accepted and the complaint lodged against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings in respect thereof are hereby quashed. This also disposes of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4676-M and 4679 M of 1992.
-
1993 (2) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Other Sources, Remuneration Received By Managing Director ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner is, therefore, erroneous. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed as stated in paragraphs 9 and 16 The direction of the respondents to include the value of the stock-in-trade in the agricultural income of the petitioner for the year 1979-80 is found to be erroneous and the same is set aside. There should be an appraisal and finding as to whether the proceedings under section 34 of the Act were initiated within a reasonable time as stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this judgment. There will be an order of remit to the Commissioner on this aspect. The direction contained in annexure G for a reassessment taking into account the amount of Rs. 13,44,264.96 as the value of coffee supplied by the petitioner during the year 1979-80 is sustained. We make it clear that the adjustment of the tax realised by the Revenue from the firm is a matter to be considered by the assessing authority it the time of making fresh assessment. The revision is disposed of as above. No costs.
....
|
