Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 355 of 355 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 15
Advance Tax, Assessed Tax, Delay In Filing Return, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... he Commissioner had decided to withdraw the reference not because of the circular but because by the time R. C. came up for hearing, the principle of law was settled by the Supreme Court. For all these reasons, we are of the view that it is a fit case to direct reference of the following questions 1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in view of the non-obstante clause found in section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, the term assessed tax occurring in section 271(1)(i)(b) has to be construed de hors the Explanation thereto ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the advance tax payable by the unregistered firm shall be deducted, but not advance tax paid as registered firm for the purpose of quantifying the quantum of penalty under section 271(2) read with section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act ? We may mention here that the second question has been slightly recast by us. Accordingly, the I. T. C. is allowed. No costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 14
Assessment Year, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, High Court Judgment ... ... ... ... ..... directly in point against the Revenue but learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department -- Mr. D. Srinivas submits that the effect of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules was not considered by the Tribunal nor by the Division Bench in the aforementioned case. It may be noticed that the proviso to rule 9A can perhaps be pressed into service by the Revenue to negative the claim similar to the one put forth by the respondents herein, but that proviso was inserted long after the relevant assessment years. In the questions formulated in these applications, a reference is made to rule 9A only as it was in force during the relevant assessment year. But, bereft of the proviso, how far and to what extent the Revenue can draw support from rule 9A is at best a controversial point. The point having not been raised and decided by the Tribunal, we do not think it proper to direct reference of question No. 2 in these applications. We, therefore, dismiss these income-tax cases. No costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 13
Acquisition Of Capital Asset, Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ubmits that no fruitful purpose would be served after the long lapse of 30 years if the matter is examined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner instead of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Khatri, also does not have any objection for grant of the prayer of the assessee that the matter be heard by the Tribunal instead of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the above stance of both the parties, we direct that the Tribunal may consider the controversy involved in question No. 1 in the light of its own orders in relation to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and the orders of this court on the reference application in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In view of the above, we do not propose to answer question No. 1 referred to us. The Tribunal is directed to examine the controversy itself in the light of the above observations. This reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 12
Finding Of Fact, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... In the circumstances, applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Scindia Steam, Navigation Co. Ltd. 1961 42 ITR 589, we are unable to say that question No. 2 arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the Income-tax Officer only meant that title was not legally transferred during the relevant year and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under section 35(2A) of the Act. It is difficult to agree with this contention. We cannot read some words into the order of the Income-tax Officer. The fact that the argument was not raised in that form by the Departmental representative before the Tribunal to counter the argument of the assessee, reinforces our view that the Income-tax Officer s finding cannot be read in the light in which learned standing counsel wants us to read it. We, therefore, see no ground to direct reference of the questions Nos. 2 and 3. The I. T. C., is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 11
Delay In Filing Appeal, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ot suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. We issued a notice to learned senior standing counsel for the Department only to find out as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal could be heard on the merits, in view of the fact that the appellant had paid the taxes. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned senior standing counsel submitted that once the appeal had been rejected as barred by time, there was no justification nor was it permissible for the Tribunal to entertain any application to rectify the order, which did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. We are of the view that the submission made by learned senior standing counsel for the Department is quite in conformity with the provisions contained in section 254 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. Consequently, the appeal is rejected. C. M. P. No. 8450 of 1995 is also rejected.
-
1995 (11) TMI 10
Business Expenditure, Cash Allowance, Fines And Penalties, House Rent, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the purpose of the business of the assessee within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the fine paid by the assessee was not an allowable deduction under that section. The position is the same in the Act of 1961. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1990 182 ITR 21. In the said decision, the Bombay High Court was concerned with deduction claimed as penalty payable for non-payment of sales tax as in the present case. The Bombay High Court held that the penalty payable for non-payment of sales tax within the prescribed time is not interest for late payment of tax and is not deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the facts found by the Tribunal, it is evident that the payment of Rs. 2,150 was as a result of infraction of law and not in discharge of a civil liability. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 9
Cinema Building, Plant And Machinery, Rate Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... mmodation to the public for viewing the picture and cannot be taken out from the definition of building . The building is not used as a tool of the trade as it is used for accommodating the customers as a setting. In respect of cinema the work is carried on by the projector which displays the film on screen. The hall of the cinema may be air-conditioned and even it may be an open theatre. In the case of Mohd. Jaffar Ali, AIR 1971 AP 156 FB , it was considered that a cinema is nothing but a large house with furniture, etc., supplied and cinema apparatus and other accessories affixed therein. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the cinema building/hotel building belonging to the assessee-firm should be treated as plant and depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to a plant . Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 8
Actual Cost, Capital Asset, Central Government, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... es and Commerce Department) to the Secretary, Federation of A. P., Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hyderabad, offering clarification regarding the nature of, subsidy granted under the incentive schemes. It was mentioned in that letter that the subsidy or other financial concessions under the incentive scheme were intended to be a contribution towards capital outlay of the industrial units and the payments made in this regard was in the nature of capital receipt in the hands of recipient industrialists. Apart from the fact that the contents of the said letter were not relied upon by the Department before the Tribunal nor even in the reference application, we do not think that the view expressed by the Joint Secretary of the State Government, even assuming that it relates to central subsidy, outweighs the interpretation placed by this court on the Central Subsidy Scheme. We, therefore, do not see any referable questions. The income-tax case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 7
Articles Or Things, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Concessional Rate, Industrial Company, Investment Allowance
-
1995 (11) TMI 6
Assessee owns a sugar mill and a farm attached to it in what was then the East Paksitan. At the relevant time there were restrictions upon remittances from Pakistan to India. The books of the assessee for the said year showed a profit of Rs. 93,449, after making provision for taxation in India and Pakistan - Indian income was not sufficient to declare dividends - provision of section 23A could be applied the assessee
-
1995 (11) TMI 5
Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum transferred to the contingencies reserve account is not allowable as a deduction in arriving at the taxable business income of the assessee-company - held that amount appropriated to the contingencies reserve is set apart to meet possible exigencies, hence iIt is not a provision for known, existing liabilities.
-
1995 (11) TMI 4
Held that where a person is a partner in a partnership firm not in his individual capacity but as the karta of the HUF, neither the income accruing to his wife on account of her being a partner in the same partnership firm nor the income accruing to his minor children on account of their being admitted to the benefits of such partnership firm, can be included in the total income of such person---neither in his individual assessment nor in the assessment of the HUF
-
1995 (11) TMI 3
While interpreting a provision similar to section 84(5) of the Act, this court has held that the profits and gains from an industrial undertaking to which the section applies, have to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter IV-D of the Act and the development rebate has first to be deducted from the total income and it is only thereafter, if any profits and gains remain from this business, that the benefit under section 84(1) of the Act would be applicable
-
1995 (11) TMI 2
Right to claim registration - Whether the applicant could be refused registration u/s 185 on the ground that its constitution was illegal for breach of the provisions of clause VI of the General Licence Conditions made under the Excise Rules, although no action was taken by the Collector for cancellation of the licence under clause 14 of the Licence in Form C. S. No. 3, in spite of written intimation, about its constitution - applications u/s 256(2) filed by the assessee are allowed
-
1995 (11) TMI 1
Assessee is entitled benefit of section 4(3)(i) - income derived by assessee from the trust properties will get exempted u/s 4(3)(i) as the deed of 1955 is held to be having objects of wholly charitable nature - Once it is held that clause 2(b)(i) of the 1945 rectification deed imposed an obligation on the trustees to utilise the trust property for the benefit of the settlor-company's own workmen and employees, it would cease to be projecting an object of providing relief to poor workmen only
....
|