|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Income Tax Act, Rectification Of Mistakes, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... S. Pathania 1992 196 ITR 55 (Bom). Both the aforesaid decisions are distinguishable having no direct nexus with the facts of the instant case. Besides this, a perusal of both the decisions referred to above reveals that the decision rendered by the apex court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1983 142 ITR 663 has not been referred to. Precisely, this decision deals with tax matter and envisages that where an alternative remedy is provided, no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. This being the law of the apex court and this court being bound by it, we hold that on the ground of alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable. Besides this, it is not that the grounds which have been raised in this writ petition, and are available to the petitioners, are not available before the appellate forum. In the result, on the ground of alternative remedy, this writ petition is dismissed. They stay order dated October 29, 1991, is hereby vacated.
-
1994 (10) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Company Surtax, Income Tax, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... that under section 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, penalty could be imposed only for failure to file the return and not for late filing of the return. It also held that the Tribunal had accepted the assessee s explanation for the late filing of the return and, hence, the case is concluded by a finding of fact. In view of the above decisions and looking at the language of sections 5 and 9 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, it is clear that in section 9 there is no provision for penalty for late filing of the return. So long as the return is filed under section 5(3) before the assessment is made and the assessment is on the basis of the return so filed, the penal provisions of section 9 are not attracted. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the observations made by the above three High Courts. No useful purpose would be served by allowing the Tribunal to raise the two questions and refer them to us. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... nd in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the return filed on December 31, 1986, was not a valid return ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the return filed by the assessee on March 11, 1987, was the only valid return and further that the assessment required to be completed afresh for non-issue of the notices under sections 142 and 143 of the Act ? Penalty matter Income-tax Appeal No. 3641(Coch) of 1989 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in cancelling the order of penalty ? The Tribunal shall state a case and refer the aforesaid questions of law for the decision of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1994 (10) TMI 41 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... er to be revised under section 263. The impugned order of the Commissioner was held unsustainable in law and it was accordingly set aside. The Income-tax Officer had not filed any appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upholding the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 11. What the Income-tax Officer did was to comply with the order and to grant exemption to the assessee. In that event, the Commissioner could not invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the revised order of assessment as that will in effect be setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. In seeking to revise the order of fresh assessment, what the Commissioner did in effect was to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and pass a revised order of assessment. Certainly this was without jurisdiction. We do not, therefore, find any referable question of law. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Company Surtax, Financial Year, Interest Payable, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... s for levy of interest at the rate mentioned in cases of default in payment of advance surtax. If as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the amount of advance tax paid, though belatedly, but within the financial year, partook of the nature of advance tax, the amount so paid is liable to be deducted from the assessed surtax for the purpose of computing the amount on which interest is payable. If the contention of the Revenue is to be accepted, the position will be that interest will be payable on the entire amount of assessed surtax as under the assessment without making any deduction of advance surtax paid even if it had been paid in time. We do not think such an interpretation is possible. Interest is made leviable for the purpose of compensating the Revenue for the loss caused to it by the non-payment of the amount due by way of advance tax during the financial year. We do not find any substance in this petition seeking reference. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Income From Business, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities, Question Of Law, Sales Tax Authorities
-
1994 (10) TMI 38 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... question No. 2 raised by the Revenue, namely,-- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on the materials before it in holding that the addition made by the assessing authority under the head Operation theatre, labour room charges, etc. was liable to be deleted from the assessment ? This will cover all the aspects of the case which the Revenue seeks to get referred to this court by questions Nos. 2 and 3 framed in the reference application in relation to this head. So far as the first question is concerned, we decline to refer this question. Accordingly, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is directed to state a case and refer the aforesaid question of law for the decision of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1994 (10) TMI 37 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the reasons and evidence on the basis of which the officer determined the profit margin of the liquor sold outside the books of account, the Tribunal had materials to interfere with the margin of business income ? Questions Nos. 7 and 8 relate to deletion of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 5,000 on which we do not find any reason to direct reference. Accordingly, we dismiss Original Petition No. 533 of 1992, filed by the assessee and we allow the other two petitions and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the questions of law referred to earlier for the determination of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal shall state a case and refer the aforesaid questions of law at the earliest. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1994 (10) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties, In The Nature, Interest Payable ... ... ... ... ..... greement. The only action contemplated for default is coercive and not penal. It has, therefore, to be held that interest payable is compensatory in nature and not penal. Interest is generally intended to compensate the person entitled to receive the amount for the loss that is sustained by him by reason of the deprivation of the use of the money during a particular period. That is precisely the position under rule 6(25). As already pointed out, there is absolutely no distinction between the nature of the interest payable up to the 25th and thereafter. Having regard to all this, we are of the opinion that payment of the interest accruing on delayed payment of the kist is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, liable to be deducted under section 37(1) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Income Tax Act, Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... e can be made. The last question stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this court. There are two other questions raised by the Revenue which do not merit any separate consideration. They do not give rise to any referable question of law. We do not therefore find any question of law arising out of the order in the reference applications filed by the Revenue. Original Petitions Nos. 14365, 14488 and 14494 of 1992 have therefore to be dismissed. The assessee s application containing the question under section 144B requires consideration only if we had referred the questions which the Revenue had sought in their petitions. Since we are not referring any question of law as arising out of the order at the instance of the Revenue, we do not find any necessity to consider the assessee s application for reference. We, therefore, dismiss Original Petition No. 15260 of 1992 as unnecessary. The result of the above discussion is that all the four petitions are dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Closing Stock, Income Tax Act, Purchase Tax, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... fficer because of his alleged death in a scooter accident, was found to be a genuine person. Evidently, the Tribunal gave the assessee the benefit of rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules and allowed deduction of Rs. 50,000. We are of the view that a question of law does arise out of this finding of the Appellate Tribunal and, accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the determination of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 50,000 paid to Rajan and that the provisions of section 40A(3) do not stand in the way of the payment being allowed ? Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1994 (10) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Audit Objection, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... and not by any administrative instructions, opinions, clarifications or circulars. Law is what is declared by the Supreme Court and the High Court, to wit, it is for the Supreme Court and the High Court to declare what a particular provision of the statute says, and not for the executive. In our judgment, the Commissioner of Income-tax had failed to exercise jurisdiction by placing blind reliance upon the opinion expressed by the Ministry of Law. In our judgment, the opinion was not correct because it was not permissible to reopen the completed assessment in pursuance of an audit objection and, consequently, the issue whether Reister was a technician or not could not have been examined. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, on December 31, 1985, is required to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to the relief. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b). There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mutual Concern ... ... ... ... ..... advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. We have tried to appreciate the facts of the present case and the provisions of law and the ratio of the various decisions, as discussed above. Taking a broader view and regard being had to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the claim of mutuality as per the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee are more plausible and acceptable. For the foregoing reasons we find that the view taken by the Tribunal is neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the materials on record and the provisions of law as attracted thereby. We accordingly answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 will follow the consequence and we accordingly answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 31 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... as engaged in trading business. He started an independent manufacturing business at a different place. The facts of each case have got to be appreciated in the proper perspective. Considering the nature of the trading business and considering in depth the business of manufacturing since started by the assessee, the Tribunal has considered the materials on record and found that both the businesses are not the same business and the relief sought for by the assessee will not be available. The finding of fact of the Tribunal appears to be consistent with, the material on record. The same is neither contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the principle of law as found by the Supreme Court and several other High Courts, as discussed above. We do not find anything wrong with the judgment of the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax Act, Mercantile System, Previous Year, Special Deduction, Surtax Liability, Tax Liability, Tax Proceedings
-
1994 (10) TMI 29 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Civil Court, Income Tax Act, Partition Suit, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... case held that although a suit by the taxpayer to set aside or modify an assessment is barred under section 293 of the Act, a third party may file a suit against the Government for declaration that he is entitled to certain income and properties which are treated by the Assessing Officer as belonging to the assessee. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by counsel for the parties and for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that although section 132 provides for a remedy by way of challenge before the named authority under sub-section (11) of section 132 of the Act, opposite party No. 1 cannot redress her grievance because the relief of partition claimed by her in the suit cannot be granted by the statutory machinery provided in the Act. The objection of the petitioners against the maintainability of the suit has rightly been overruled by the learned subordinate judge. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Coffee Plantation, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... erial available in the case itself is sufficient to dispel the applicability of the guidelines regarding the expenses, one of the valid reasons being what we stated earlier that the expenses as per the guidelines will not be commensurate with the yield from the estate as found by the assessing authority. Counsel for the assessee made a further plea, very fervently, that atleast the expenses, so far as pepper is concerned, should be separately dealt with and granted. We cannot agree. The expense allowed by the Tribunal is a consolidated amount for the entire estate, the estate being one which is inter-planted with coffee, pepper, arecanut and coconut. It is not possible to dissect one item from the rest and allow separate expenditure in the absence of any material to sustain such a grant. The orders of the Tribunal do not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity. They are eminently reasonable ones. We decline to interfere with them. The tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Valuation Of Land, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ered the questions referred to it as under (at page 524) 1. There was a transfer of the shares when the assessee made them over to the partnership-firm as his capital contribution. 2. When the assessee transferred his shares to the partnership firm, he received no consideration within the meaning of section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor did any profit or gain accrue to him for the purpose of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the aforesaid decision, our answer to question No. 1 is that there was a transfer of shares when the assessee made them over to the partnership-firm as his capital contribution. The answer to question No. 2 is that when the assessee transferred his share to the partnership firm he received no consideration within the meaning of section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor did any profit or gain accrue to him for the purpose of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Appeal, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... explaining the grounds for not filing the appeal in time. He is competent to file an affidavit. It is also not compulsory that the complainant himself has to file an affidavit in support of the condonation petition. Any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case and the person who is in the know of things is competent to file an affidavit justifying the grounds for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, there is no merit in the above two contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent. But taking into consideration the fact that the accused had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court and the offence found to have been committed by the accused is in respect of the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and more than nine years have elapsed after the period of assessment, I see no justification to condone the delay at this distance of time. The delay had not been properly explained. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... of the relevant assessment year becomes erroneous as a result of certain findings arrived at in other proceedings or the happening of certain events subsequently. Such conditions being different conditions to be fulfilled in each case requiring amendment of the order, the conditions of section 154 cannot be read in the abstract in each case concerned under section 155. Therefore, merely because it has to be established whether the condition for exercise of power under section 155(5) has come into existence or not by a process of reasoning or interpreting the statute, the same cannot be said to be falling beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing authority by applying the principles governing the exercise of power under section 154 of the Act. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the question referred to above is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
....
|
