Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 311 of 311 Records
-
1996 (5) TMI 11
Undisclosed Income, Search And Seizure, Undisclosed Stock ... ... ... ... ..... sed by the three authorities and we are of the opinion that the approach of the Tribunal appears to be justified. In the present case, it is only a pick and choose method adopted by the Income-tax Officer and he had applied the gross profit rate on sale for two varying periods and then worked out the amount of Rs. 29,735 as excess that is not correct. The appellate authority has found that the average rate of 17.78 per cent. was satisfactory therefore, two varying periods of the gross profit rate adopted by the Income-tax Officer was not correct. As per the finding of the Tribunal, there is no room or scope for making any presumption about existence of any of the requisite circumstances. Therefore, the question of excess amount being found on any principle was per se illegal. Hence, the application of section 69B was not proper. We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (5) TMI 10
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal that for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 the gross receipts exceeded Rs. 50,000. Therefore, the reopening of the two years was upheld under section 148 read with section 149(1)(a). For the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77, the gross receipts were found by the Tribunal to be above the taxable limit. The initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was upheld for those years. Accordingly against the order of the Tribunal, an application was moved by the assessee for making a reference to this court for answer and, accordingly, the aforesaid question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court. We have gone through the record and we are of the opinion that it is purely a question of fact and not a question of law. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is wholly justified. Hence, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 9
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Estimated Income ... ... ... ... ..... al affirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and has made a reference of the aforesaid two questions of law for answer by this court. We have gone through the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We are satisfied that both the authorities have correctly approached the matter and found that there was no fraudulent attempt on the part of the assessee. The assessee had placed before the authorities whatever books of account it had maintained whether they were properly maintained or not but it has not withheld or concealed any material or made any deliberate attempt to defraud the authorities. The assessing authority has employed the flat rate for assessing the income of the assessee and on that basis, he has been taxed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in setting aside the penalty appears to be justified and we answer both these questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 8
Business Expenditure, Amounts Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer on the basis of evidence led by the assessee found the payments unjustified in accordance with the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act read with rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. On the basis of the same evidence, the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Income-tax Officer and on examining the material on record came to the conclusion that all the payments made by the assessee in cash are fully justified and the said finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal in further appeal by the Revenue. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and in this view of the matter, the question which has been referred is purely a question of fact and does not involve any question of law. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified and no question of law arises. Hence, we answer this reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (5) TMI 7
Firm, Partners, Interest To Partner ... ... ... ... ..... ssee and it has been observed in the case of Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT 1990 183 ITR 1 (SC) as under Where two or more transactions on which interest is paid to, or received from, the partner by the firm, are shown to have the element of mutuality and are referable to the funds of the partnership as such, section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not preclude the quantifying of the interest on the basis of such mutuality. In such circumstances, the interest paid to a partner by the firm in excess of what is received from the partner could alone be included under section 40(b), in computing the firm s profits. Circular No. 33-D(XXV-24) of 1965 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes broadly accords with this view in so far as the quantification of interest for purposes of section 40(b) is concerned. In the light of this decision of the Supreme Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and we answer this reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (5) TMI 6
Winnings From Lottery, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ion of India 1985 155 ITR 120 (SC). Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that the decision is inapplicable to the instant case and that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 5,37,500 only. According to learned counsel, the conclusion of the Tribunal based on the interpretation of the newly inserted section 80AB does give rise to a referable question of law required to be considered by this court. After considering the submissions, we are satisfied that the question as extracted above, as regards the deduction, does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Question No. 2 is held to be non-referable. Accordingly, we allow the application in part and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the lone question for our consideration and opinion. Counsel s fee is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, for each side, if certified. Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal immediately for compliance at the earliest.
-
1996 (5) TMI 5
Reference, Estimated Income, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... were not justified to apply the net profit rate of six per cent. and 10 per cent. and were also not justified in disallowing the expenses claimed by the assessee. The order has been passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact which are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and the evidence produced by the assessee. As no question of law does arise out of the orders passed by the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in declining to refer the questions for the opinion of this court. The question raised by the Revenue is purely a question of fact. The application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act by the Revenue has, therefore, no merit. In the result, the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed as no referable question of law arises in the present case.
-
1996 (5) TMI 4
Salary, Deduction, Incentive Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... 1 above, is identical to that which was referred for the opinion of this court in Shiv Raj Bhatia s case 1997 227 ITR 7 and this court, in Shiv Raj Bhatia s case 1997 227 ITR 7 answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the same reasons, the above quoted question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner. Consequently, the reference is answered- in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not justified in directing to allow 50 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, relying on the Board s circular which is applicable only to the Life Insurance Corporation of India s agents and not to the Development Officers and the case of Development Officers is governed by the Board s Instruction No. 1774.
-
1996 (5) TMI 3
ITO allowed the change in the method of accounting for the assessment years concerned herein knowingly. It was not a case of an inadvertent mistake which was discovered later on after completion of the assessment or oversight. Once it is found that the change in the method of accounting was knowingly allowed by the Income-tax Officer, it is not permissible for the Income-tax Officer, or his successor, to reopen the assessment at a later point of time under section 147(b)
-
1996 (5) TMI 2
Accrual of income for bank - Bank purchasing property on behalf of its constituents - bank had received margin money from its constituents in respect of these purchases - constituents failed to pay the balance amount by the stipulated date. The bank forfeited the margin money and adjusted the same against the purchase price which the bank had paid for purchasing the securities and showed the balance of the price as the cost of purchasing the bonds - whether bank has right to adjust the margin money to reduce the purchase price of the bonds? - HC held that the profits and gains of the bank would arise only when the bank sold the securities or redeemed them at the time of maturity if it had become the owner of the securities and as the bank became the owner of the securities at the same time when it became the owner of the margin amount also, there was nothing unnatural or illegal in the bank taking into account this margin amount which had become its money at that time, in arriving at its cost of the securities.
HELD THAT:- This is not a case of pre-deposit of money for acquisition of licence or business contract which had to be kept deposited with the principal for the entire duration of the period of contract. Each deposit was made for a specific transaction. The bank undertook to purchase the securities for and on behalf of its constituents. The bank's practice was to take a deposit before purchasing the security, which was liable to be forfeited in case of default. The money was received and forfeited incidentally and in the course of day-to-day banking business. After the forfeiture, the money became the bank's own money. The Income-tax Officer was right in treating this forfeited money as income of the assessee earned in the usual course of banking business.
The bank has purchased the securities at face value. Its cost cannot be anything less than the price which was actually paid by the bank. The bank would have handed over the securities to the constituent if he had not defaulted. In that case, the bank would have been entitled only to the brokerage.
Since the constituent defaulted, the deposit amount was forfeited and the end result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the securities and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. The forfeited amount was the bank's income made in the course of its banking business and had to be assessed accordingly in the year in which it became the bank's money.
The accrual of income cannot be deferred by adjusting the deposit amount against the cost of the securities. It may have utilised the deposits although there is no finding of fact to that effect, as part payment of the price of the securities. But after its forfeiture, the deposit amount became the property of the bank. The money that was utilised for the purchase of the securities was the bank's money. No question of reduction of the cost of the securities by adjustment of the deposit amount can arise in the facts of this case. Decided in favour of revenue.
-
1996 (5) TMI 1
Retirement of Partner - liability to Tax - held that assessee is liable to pay tax of firm for periods when he was partner
....
|