|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 339 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 19
Firm, Registration, Condition Precedent, Partners, Application For Registration, Partnership Deed
-
1997 (10) TMI 18
Provisional Attachment ... ... ... ... ..... Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, fairly states that the statutory declaration that the transfer is void is more than sufficient and whatever rights the petitioner in each of the writ petitions will get will be subject to the rights of the Income-tax Department. Mr. S. Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has no quarrel over this proposition. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, has no objection to the documents, viz., the sale deed in Nos. 150 and 151 of 1992 being released to the respective petitioners. To this limited extent, the writ petitions are allowed and the third respondent is hereby directed to complete the registration formalities relating to documents Nos. 150 and 151 of 1992 and hand over the said documents to the respective petitioners within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. No costs. Consequently W. M. P. Nos. 26102 and 26103 of 1993 are dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 17
Salary, Profit In Lieu Of Salary ... ... ... ... ..... ause (ii) of clause (3) of section 17 of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee has not seriously disputed the position that the decision of this court in N. B. Tendolkar s case 1996 221 ITR 268, would apply to the facts of the case. Accordingly and following the earlier decision of this court in Tendolkar s case 1996 221 ITR 268 we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 23,990 was a cash compensation for not having availed of the right of vacation and, therefore, it should be treated as capital receipt. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount is not taxable under the provisions of the Act. We hold that the amount received for encashment of the leave salary would be a profit in lieu of salary and, therefore, taxable as salary. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 16
Rectification Of Mistakes, Penalty, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... -tax is also empowered to amend any order passed by way of revision and the provisions relating to revision are found in Chapter XX, appeals and revision . Under the said provision, the Commissioner is also empowered to pass an order of rectification in the order of revision passed by him. Thus section 154 of the Act gives the indication that section 154 of the Act is not restricted to orders of assessment passed under Chapter XIV, procedure for assessment but extends to orders of penalty as well. Therefore, we reject the contention of Mr. Ramagopal, learned counsel for the assessee, in this regard as untenable. We find no error or any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Income-tax Officer was competent to rectify the order of penalty under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 15
Agricultural Income Tax, Reassessment, Condition Precedent, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... hat a notice under section 16(2) of the Act is mandatory, for reassessment under section 35 of the Act. But, this notice under section 16(2) of the Act was made only in the year 1985, i.e., beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 35 of the Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly right in contending that as the notice was not issued within the period of five years, the proceedings for reassessment beyond the period fixed under the Act is illegal and, therefore, the order of reassessment made by the respondent has to be quashed. I fully agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on this point of limitation. Therefore, necessarily, orders have to be quashed. In the result, the common order passed by the first respondent in R.P. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1986 dated June 13, 1988, is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 21397 and 21398 of 1988 are closed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 14
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ation of the assessment if such an application was made in time and the conditions mentioned in that section were satisfied. Such an application had been made in time, was found to be acceptable and the order of assessment was cancelled. Such a cancellation was not a revision of the order but cancellation provided for in section 19 of the Act. Thereafter a fresh assessment was made after considering the materials placed by the assessee. Such an order is perfectly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, instead of ensuring proper and effective administration of law, has himself made an order which is violative of the provisions of the Act. It is most unfortunate that such an order has come to be made by a person who should not have made such a blunder, as is revealed in the order. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The assessee is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 1,500 (rupees one thousand and five hundred only).
-
1997 (10) TMI 13
Agricultural Income Tax, Transfer Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... that the properties owned by the wife must be deemed to be the property owned by the husband. The wife is as much entitled to own property as the husband is, she is equally entitled to receive income from the land. The object of section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act is only to ensure that income taxable in the hands of the husband is not sought to be reduced with a view to reduce the burden of tax, but the transfer of part of the holding to the wife for no consideration or inadequate consideration. There has been no such transfer in this case. The acquisition at the very inception was by the wife. The enquiry permissible under section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act is a limited enquiry confined to cases of transfer by the husband for no consideration or inadequate, consideration, and cannot extend to calling into question the title of the wife when such title had been acquired by purchase from a third party. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the revision petition is allowed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 12
... ...
... ... ..... no on the face of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this court in an unreported decision in the case of N.P.R. Narayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Chennai in T. C. No. 427 of 1990, etc., and batch dated September 25, 1997---since reported as R. M. Adaikalavan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1998 230 ITR 663. The Full Bench held that the absence of individual holding of land by a partner of a registered firm or of an unregistered firm treated as registered, does not disentitle such a partner from applying for composition of agricultural income tax under section 65(3) of the Act. In fine, all the tax cases are allowed and the orders of the Commissioner Agricultural of Income-tax, Chepauk, Madras, are set aside, restoring the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor. No costs. In view of the order passed in T. C. Nos. 887 to 890 of 1990, no further orders are necessary in T. C. M. P. Nos. 520 to 523 of 1990.
-
1997 (10) TMI 11
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Guest House, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be stated that sub-section (5) of section 37 of the Act was inserted to clarify the position. Therefore, we are of the view that the principles of the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Bros. and Co. Ltd. s case 1995 215 ITR 165, though rendered with reference to sub-section (2A) of section 37 of the Act, would apply to sub-section (5) of section 37 of the Act also. The language of the provision and the object sought to be achieved behind the provision also indicate that it was not given full retrospective effect. We have already seen that the flat was made only for the employees and not for strangers. The Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion by holding that the apartment maintained by the assessee in Bombay cannot be regarded as a guest house. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the first question of law referred to us also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 10
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... stance of the assessee in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. In so far as the second question of law referred to at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, as already seen, it is a reference for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the Tribunal has followed its earlier order in ITA No. 1555/Mad/76-77, dt. 21st Dec., 1978. As against that earlier order for the asst. yr. 1973-74, we answered the question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in Tax Case Nos. 220 and 221 of 1981 reported as Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 148 CTR (Mad) 541 by judgment of even date and therein we upheld the order of the Tribunal and answered the question of law referred to us against the Revenue. Following the said decision in Tax Case Nos. 220 and 221 of 1981 of even date, we answer the question of law referred to us in this reference at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative and against the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1974-75 as well. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 9
Reference, Powers Of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ng a new question which was not raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had no occasion to apply its mind to the suggested question whether it arises for reference or not--CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigatio Co. Ltd. 1961 42 ITR 589 (SC) CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons 1971 79 ITR 499 (SC) and Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1969 73 ITR 634 (SC). For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the questions on which reference has been sought for do not arise as questions of law from the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal. We may reiterate that the correctness of the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal are not the subject-matter of challenge on the phraseology of the two questions as suggested. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal refusing to make a statement of case to this court and rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act. The petition is, therefore, rejected though without any order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 8
Agricultural Income, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... ral Income-tax Officer, Yercaud, for fresh consideration, in the light of the materials to be placed by the assessees. We may also make it clear that if the assessees, namely, Tmt. Thilagavathi, Sumithra and Gayathri were unable to place sufficient and adequate materials explaining the source of funds for the purchase of certain holdings of the lands in their favour, it will be open to the Assessing Officer to draw an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act and assess the income from their holdings is the income of Mr. K. Muthusamy and make the assessment accordingly for the relevant assessment years. If the Assessing Officer gets the required solidified satisfaction that the aforesaid three assessees were able to explain their source of income for purchase of the agricultural holdings in their favour, he may make individual assessments or composition under section 65 of the Act, as the case may be. All these revisions are thus disposed of. No costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 7
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ch the Court has provided to the petitioners at their residence is no longer required, and there is some controversy also whether the cost, as required by law for such security at a private residence, has been paid by them. In view of the judgment delivered by us today, we do not think the Government would allow any of its officers to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners any further. No need, in our view, thus should exist for continuing the arrangement of security, pursuant to the of this court dated March 26, 1996. The security accordingly, if any still continuing pursuant to the said order, shall be withdrawn. We, however, make it clear that in case there is any threat to the petitioners from any of the respondents, they if so advised, can apply to the commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, for providing such security, which on the facts and in the circumstances of the case at the relevant time is thought fit and proper. Let the order accordingly issue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 6
Case of the assessee is that even if it has sold the rubber plantation, the profits derived from the sale of plantation should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposition of tax u/s 104 - The company being an investment company did not have any trading activity - The profit attributable to sale of investment may be assessable as capital gains. But there is no reason why such gains made by investment companies are not available for distribution as dividend to its shareholders
-
1997 (10) TMI 5
Tribunal and the High Court were in error in holding that the information given by the internal audit party could not be treated as information within the meaning of section 147(b) - There can be no dispute that the audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment. Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law
-
1997 (10) TMI 4
Salary paid to partners of firm - Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the salary could not be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family - Held, yes
-
1997 (10) TMI 3
Constitutional validity of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS) - held that provisions of the Scheme are constitutionally valid.
-
1997 (10) TMI 2
Assessee, a club - Section 21AA was not in force during the assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78 - hence club could be assessed as an association of persons in these assessment years
-
1997 (10) TMI 1
Service Tax – Advertising agency – Services by advertising agency to its customers – Taxable service
....
|
