|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Valuation Of Land, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... tion has been sought to be raised in Original Petitions Nos. 8917, 9469 and 10949 of 1992, which relate to the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessee had declared the value of six cents of land in Vazhuthacaud at Rs. 18,000 in the year 1976. The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the value of the land at Rs. 1,20,000. The Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 10,000 per cent. The Revenue pleads that the Tribunal has fixed the value without any material. We do not agree. Having regard to the value declared in 1976, it cannot be stated that the decision of the Tribunal is arbitrary or perverse or unsupported by material giving rise to any question of law. The original petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The reference is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. 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.
-
1994 (10) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ome-tax Act, it has to be subjected to tax. Counsel pointed out that section 10(30) stood amended by introducing rejuvenation subsidy as an item of exemption only with effect from April 1, 1985. We do not agree. Receipts can be either of capital nature or of income nature. The receipt in this case is not of a revenue nature having regard to what we had stated. The fact that rejuvenation subsidy was introduced as one of the items liable to be exempted from April 1, 1985, is immaterial as it is more in the nature of a clarificatory amendment. It is not indicative of the fact that rejuvenation subsidy was liable to be treated as revenue receipt prior to that date. We do not find any reason to uphold the contention of the Department on this aspect. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any question of law liable to be referred to this court, particularly having regard to the decision in Ruby Rubber Works case 1989 178 ITR 181. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition.
-
1994 (10) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Company In Liquidation, Fixed Deposit, Other Sources, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... placed it while re-enacting the Agricultural Income-tax Act in 1991, by providing a revision petition to this court as the remedy in such cases. That reduces the time lag between the decision of the Tribunal and the decision of this court, which could be rendered with all expedition, and questions of law settled to the advantage of all. It is necessary that the appropriate authorities take a fresh look on this question, as to whether the procedure of reference prescribed under section 256 should be persisted in or whether it may not profitably be replaced by a direct revision to this court on a question of law. The original petition is disposed of as above. 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. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission of India as also to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, for information.
-
1994 (10) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Special Deduction, Work In Progress ... ... ... ... ..... pellate Tribunal and the Tribunal disallowed the ground in these words We cannot allow this ground to be raised. The Income-tax Officer in his rectification order or assessment order for 1971-72 has not even referred to such a point. He had no such case at all. He had treated both the carbon-di-oxide plant and rectified spirit as one industrial undertaking. So an argument that there are two industrial undertakings is not permissible. Neither are there any materials placed before us by the Department to justify such a contention or even indicate that both are different industrial undertakings. Hence, we reject that ground. The Revenue s position before us is no better. There are no materials to support any contention that the units manufacturing the rectified spirit and carbon-di-oxide were different undertakings. We find no error in the approach of the Tribunal that any such ground cannot be raised in the instant proceeding. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, False Statement, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... stances explained in those cases. Therefore, on this ground also, the petitioners cannot succeed. These petitioners originally filed a petition before this court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5705 of 1985 and also obtained the order of stay of the proceedings in C. C. No. 128 of 1985. However, as they did not pursue the petition and did not appear on the hearing date, that petition was dismissed in 1988. Thereafter, once again they have filed this petition for the same relief of quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the previous petition filed by them was not disposed of on the merits. Anyhow, on a thorough consideration of all the grounds raised by the petitioners, I find there is no merit in this petition to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. I.), Egmore, Madras, in C. C. No. 128 of 1985. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Application For Revision ... ... ... ... ..... es of employees, relating to any period commencing on and from the date of taking over (e) any debt incurred by the company during any period commencing on and from the date of taking over, not being a debt falling under clause (a), clause (b) clause (c) or clause (d) or specified in category I of the Schedule, shall, on and from the appointed day, be the liability of the Central Government, or the State Government, or the Government company aforesaid and shall be discharged by the Central Government or the State Government or the Government company aforesaid as and when repayment of such loans becomes due or as and when such wages, salaries and other dues and debts become due and payable. We, in the circumstances, deem it just and proper to quash the order at annexure H and direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda, to examine the case of the petitioner on the merits keeping in view the aforesaid observations. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Life Interest In Property, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , right to receive half of the income of the property left by Pestanji for the assessee during his lifetime. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the necessary consequence is that for the purpose of wealth-tax also, the assessee can be considered as the owner of only a moiety in the residuary property left by Pestanji. For the purpose of the capitalised value of the interest of the assessee in the trust property the value of his right to receive income from the property can only be half of the capitalised value of the interest in the trust property. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that only half and not the whole of the capitalised value of the interest of the assessee in the immovable properties of the trust was liable to be assessed to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on to wholly or exclusively to clarify that the requirements of section 54 would be satisfied if the house is used mainly for the purpose of the residence of the assessee or his parent. It is intended to nip in the bud any possible argument that user of the house by the assessee for his own residence would mean user by the assessee to the exclusion of all other members of his family, friends or guests and to make it clear that the requirement would be satisfied if it is mainly used by the owner for his own residence. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the condition of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was fulfilled despite the user of the flat by the assessee only for a period of 62 days in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Assessee, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... t required to project himself into the future. If, at the time when the estimate is filed, there is proper basis and justification shown for it, then it cannot be said that it is an underestimate. Keeping the aforesaid decisions in mind, we find that the Tribunal rightly observed that in the present case, the sales of this year were much lower than in the previous year when the profits were Rs. 4,45,126 and that the assessee had material before him to show an estimate of even lower figure than Rs. 4,45,126. According to the Tribunal, on the contrary, the assessee had shown an estimate of Rs. 6 lakhs. In view of this finding and as per the principles enunciated by this court referred to above, the interest was not leviable as the same did not come within the purview of section 216 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court Under Article 226, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Legal Representative, Tax Recovery Officer, Territorial Jurisdiction, Writ Petition Against Recovery Proceedings
-
1994 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Profession Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nt. of the expenditure claimed under this head. In Kanthimathy Plantations Ltd. v. State 1993 4 MTCR 409, this court took the view that 50 per cent. of the expenditure claimed for the medical centre is allowable as expenditure since the hospital was used both by the employees of the company and outsiders. Considering the fact that the medical centre was utilised both by the employees of the company as well as by outsiders, following the earlier view taken by this court in the case of the same assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to 50 per cent. of Rs. 47,533 and Rs. 14,037 claimed under the head Expenditure towards medical centre and Depreciation , respectively. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is set aside and the assessee is entitled to deduction of 50 per cent. of the claim made towards hospital expenses and depreciation . Accordingly, the revision filed by the assessee is allowed in part. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Advance Tax, Burden Of Proof, Business Expenditure, Computation Of Capital, Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Travel Expenditure
-
1994 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Initial Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Plant Or Machinery, Special Deduction
-
1994 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Expenditure Incurred, Sale Proceeds, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) contended that inasmuch as no bifurcation of the expenses was shown by the assessee, it is not possible to grant relief as claimed under section 5(e) of the Act. According to the assessee, part of the loan amount was incurred for the purpose of running the estate. What are the items of expenditure which were incurred for the purpose of running the estate are not known. However, in order to give an opportunity to the assessee to establish his case on this point, we remit back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to ascertain what would be the amount on which relief can be granted under section 5(e) of the Act on the basis of the particulars furnished by the assessee. If the assessee fails to furnish the particulars with regard to the relief claimed under section 5(e) of the Act, then the assessee is not entitled. to the relief asked for. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax, The High Court ... ... ... ... ..... maintenance and upkeep of the crop can be taxed under section 5(g) of the Act. The facts on record show that the assessee has not claimed any amount under the head Upkeep and maintenance of the crops . The entire expenditure was claimed under the head Replantation expenses . When the assessee himself has not claimed either before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil, or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner any amount under the head Upkeep and maintenance of the crops and in the absence of any documentary evidence on the side of the assessee to establish that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep of the crops by the assessee, we consider that it is not proper for the assessee to make such a claim at this stage. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is in order and we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, this revision is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Prejudicial To The Interests ... ... ... ... ..... the hands of four different assessees for the relevant assessment years. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the aforesaid question referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal has also referred the following question for our opinion at the instance of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no overriding title or diversion of income before the assessee received the share from the firm of Messrs. Atmaram Maneklal and Co. ? However, in spite of service, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the person at whose instance the aforesaid question has been referred has not chosen to appear, we are not inclined to examine and answer that question. Hence, we decline to answer the same. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import Entitlements, Profits Derived From Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... mi and Co. in Tax Case No. 888 of 1983 wherein this court by an order dated January 20, 1994 (see 1995 211 ITR 141) has held, on identical facts, that the instruments cannot be regarded as hundis so as to attract the application of section 69D of the Act. This view was also taken by this court on similar facts in Tax Case No. 886 of 1983 in the case of CIT v. Paran Jothi Salt Co. 1995 211 ITR 141 (Mad) in its order dated January 20, 1994. Since the facts arising in the present reference are similar to the facts arisen in the abovesaid decisions stated supra, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that section 69D would not be applicable in the present case. Similarly, interest payment also cannot come within the purview of section 69D of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is in order. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1994 (10) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import Entitlements, Profits Derived From Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... id section are attributable to and not derived from . Adverting to the facts of this case, a mere glance at the objective of the policy aforequoted is sufficient to convince us that the registered exporters were provided by way of replenishment licences and the only use contemplated for the business activities of the registered exporters was to facilitate the export of their product or the import of raw materials, components, spares, machinery and other goods to help them increase their production. The sale of replenishment licences is an act wholly unconnected with the business in the goods which were either required to be exported or imported for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In the absence of any immediate and direct nexus of the sale of the licences by the assessee, and its business activities, we hold that the Tribunal has erred in granting benefit to such income to the assessee under section 80J of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Previous Year, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... as above, had the assessee claimed deduction in respect of contingent liabilities, i.e., the right to receive the payment is yet to accrue to the employees, it obviously had made a wrong claim. It is not in dispute before us, however, that the claim is made only of such amount of gratuity to which employees on their retirement or termination of their service had become entitled. The claim is in respect of a liability that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the assessee was obliged to discharge for such employees who had already retired or otherwise been superannuated or whose services had already been terminated before March 31, 1973. For payment of gratuity to such employees, it made the funds available in the irrevocable trust which had been created in accordance with the requirement of section 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the Act. On the basis of the above, we have no hesitation in answering the two questions abovementioned against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner without assigning any reason set aside the permission given by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and directed the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to assess the assessees on the basis of their returns filed by them individually. Unless the Commissioner says for what purpose he exercised the suo motu power under section 34 of the Act, it is not permissible to sustain such an order passed by the Commissioner. Under section 65 of the Act, it is open to the assessees to ask for composition of tax and this was permitted. Without assigning any reasons, it is not open to the Commissioner to set aside the said order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 34 of the Act and restore the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer permitting the assessees for composition of tax. In that view of the matter, the revision applications are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
....
|
