|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 154 of 154 Records
-
1994 (6) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interest Payable, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... g rise to the claim of an assessee for refund. The court negatived the contention of the Revenue for restricting the meaning and scope of the phrase other proceedings only to references made under the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is on the face of it illegal. There is no reason to hold that if the refund is granted as a result of a rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to get benefit under section 244(1A) of the Act. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated February 9, 1983 (annexure G ), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass an appropriate order under section 264 of the Income-tax Act granting interest on the refund granted to the petitioner for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Affidavit By ITO, Assessment Notice, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Notice, Writ Petition
-
1994 (6) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ng of the revision petition. After perusing the records, the Commissioner has observed the assessee had not voluntarily filed the return of income and the disclosure made in the original return of income was also not complete. Therefore, it is difficult to say that there is no application of mind by the Commissioner while disposing of the revision petition. When an authority has refused to exercise its discretion on certain reasons, this court in the present proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own reasons for such exercise. It is the discretion of the authority who passed the order and not the discretion of this court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. It is dismissed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Income Tax Act, Money Lending Business ... ... ... ... ..... -trade of the business of the assessee and the advances for acquisition of such a right were made in the course of business. Besides, worthy it is to mention here, the Appellate Tribunal has referred to a decision of the apex court in CIT and EPT v. South India Pictures Ltd. 1956 29 ITR 910, wherein their Lordships held that the advances paid to producers for getting distribution rights are in the nature of business transactions and if any loss occurred, it is in the ordinary course of business and hence a trading loss. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are of the view that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the two sums of Rs. 15,630 and Rs. 21,720 claimed as business loss should be allowed while computing the income of the assessee for the year 1972-73 and the first question is answered accordingly. The reference is thus answered. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
1994 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... whether the benefit, perquisite or amenity may or may not be convertible into money. That would be immaterial. According to us, this would be the proper reading of the section. We are in complete agreement with the meaning as given by the Kerala High Court. It is not possible to accept the approach of the Calcutta High Court as the same will defeat the very purpose of the legislation, and give a free hand to the employer to show payments in cash to employees in the shape of various allowances and escape taxes. This also is the view of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1994 205 ITR 200. The Gujarat High Court has also taken pains in the instant judgment to discuss the fact of the later amendments in the Act and finally has said that remuneration is the expression which would include that which is quantified in money and paid to a person for his services or work. The reference is answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Finality Of Findings Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Secret Commission ... ... ... ... ..... undoubtedly, see whether there is any invalid material taken into consideration by the Tribunal or whether any valid material has been omitted and not taken into consideration. The High Court cannot, however, go into the facts first to decide any issue of fact which is opposite to the opinion and come to a finding opposite to that of the Tribunal and then hold that the Tribunal has committed an error of law. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 58, which has taken notice of the trade practice of secret commission paid to the customers and others and found no error in granting deduction of such expenditure under section 37 of the Act. To conclude, we hold that the Tribunal had full materials to support its conclusion and it has committed no error of law. The reference is answered accordingly. Fee for learned counsel for the Revenue on the usual rate.
-
1994 (6) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... the amounts spent by it on advertisement because bank facilities were not available to the extent required for such payment or for the reason of the expediency of business and other relevant factors, it made payments not by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts. It will be open to the assessing authority to take into account the nature and extent of banking facilities available, consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors and if he is of the opinion that the expenditure is genuine and correct, can hold that there has been no negligence on the part of the assessee, which would disentitle it to the benefit of the proviso aforementioned. The reference is answered accordingly. Mr. N. V. Balasubramaniam, who has represented the Revenue before us, we are satisfied, has given full assistance to the extent possible and deserves payment of full hearing fee for two days work in the court in connection with the hearing of the case. We fix each day s fee at Rs. 750.
-
1994 (6) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Taxing Statutes, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... port and its meaning must be gathered from the context in which it occurs payable generally means that which should be paid. In the context of section 273A, the word payable would mean that the assessee is liable to pay a particular sum as penalty. Even if the liability to pay penalty is discharged, it would not mean that he is not entitled to get relief under section 273A as otherwise no assessee would pay the penalty till the proceedings under section 273A are over. In our view, as the Commissioner has rejected the application of the petitioner on a totally irrelevant ground, the order passed by him requires to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated December 18, 1979 (annexure K ), passed by the respondent is quashed and set aside. The Commissioner is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh on the merits in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital Reserves, Reserves And Provisions ... ... ... ... ..... leave entitlement was not availed of. Section 80 lays down the quantum of wage that a worker must be paid during the leave period. The unpaid wages of the leave period will be recoverable under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the instant case, the company was under an obligation to pay leave wages to the workman. Any amount whether the workers availed of the entire amount of wages in one calendar year or not is immaterial for the purpose of the case. This is a liability imposed upon the company by the statute. Therefore, any amount set apart for meeting this liability must be treated as provision and not reserve . In that view of the matter, the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Since Justice Suhas Chandra Sen has been elevated to the Bench of the Supreme Court of India, this file cannot be placed before his Lordship for signature. ARUN KUMAR DUTTA J.-- I agree.
-
1994 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... was concealment in the original return. But before that concealment came to light, the assessee itself filed a revised return disclosing the income from the sale of the import licences. By the filing of the revised return the concealment in the original return was wiped out. It is not the case of the Revenue that any investigation had been made or that the concealment in the original return had come to light before the filing of the revised return. On the other hand, by filing the revised return, the assessee had in fact come up to admit the concealment. In the circumstances, we do not think that the facts of this case warrant the imposition of penalty. We, therefore, cancel the imposition of penalty. The answer given by the Tribunal is the only correct approach, as there is no discovery of any concealment or inaccurate statement by any representative of the Revenue or any other source, but it has come only from the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cinema Theatre ... ... ... ... ..... judice the assessee, we think it appropriate to suggest to the Appellate Tribunal while giving effect to our opinion to hear the parties and come to a definite conclusion as to whether, on the relevant dates, the construction had reached a stage of habitability and if it finds that it was habitable, it should be taken as a house and the exemption should be extended otherwise, the view taken by the Wealth-tax Officer should be sustained and exemption would not be admissible. We have no manner of doubt that for the purpose of the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, the concept of habitability is inherent in the word house and unless it is habitable, the word would not answer the commonsense meaning of house . A cinema theatre cannot answer the requirement of the elements of habitation, as envisaged under the Act. This question thus must receive an emphatic no against the assessee. The two questions overmentioned are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Building Tax, Business Expenditure, Concessional Rate, Hotel Building, Income Tax Act, Industrial Company, Investment Allowance, Manufacture Or Production, Mercantile System, Municipal Corporation, Taxing Statutes
-
1994 (6) TMI 2 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Preliminary Expenses, Special Deduction
-
1994 (6) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... f the relevant assessment proceedings. There is no legal bar in giving due regard to the result of the proceedings under the Income-tax Act. In the instant case, the alleged wilful concealment is only on account of the mistaken system of method of accounting followed by the accountant of the firm and so it cannot be said that there was any deliberate or intentional attempt on the part of R-1 firm to suppress or conceal the income. Under these circumstances, the trial court found that no offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act are made out. Learned counsel for the respondents took me through the entire judgment and I find that the trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused. I do not think that the circumstances of the case warrant any interference with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. I, therefore, find that the appeals preferred by the Department are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
....
|
