|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT
Whether having upheld the merits of his contention, we should now take away the benefit which the respondent has actually obtained under the orders of the Tribunal?
Held that:- We do not think that it would be fair to the respondent to take away the benefit which he has secured on the basis of the contentions which are accepted as justified. We, therefore, maintain the relief which has been granted to the respondent. But obviously after this lapse of time. Such relief cannot be granted to anybody else.
No effect on the right of the appellants to decide in accordance with law on the number of vacancies which are required to be filled up or not filled up, while maintaining the ratio of 50:50 between promotees and direct recruits.
-
1998 (12) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sales made by the appellants were sales in the course of export and, therefore, exempt from the levy of sales tax?
Held that:- The High Court and the authorities below were in error in concluding that the sales made by the appellants were not sales in the course of export and, therefore, not exempt from the levy of sales tax. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Income Or Capital ... ... ... ... ..... he latex and was, thus, a capital receipt. This, in our view, is an unassailable conclusion. In regard to the second agreement, dated February 17, 1975, however, the High Court noted that the consideration thereunder had not been so split and there was no recital in this behalf. Even so, the High Court said that the fact that the earlier agreement had treated practically 2/5ths of the consideration as payable for the latex, that portion of the consideration payable under the second agreement should be presumed to relate to the latex and should be taxed as a revenue receipt. In this regard, we cannot agree with the High Court. We do not think that such a presumption was justified in the absence of a recital in the agreement or any other factor which indicated that latex was present and recoverable from the unyielding trees covered by the second agreement. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed only to the extent hereinbefore stated. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Method Of Computation, New Industrial Undertaking, Backward Area, Interest On Money Borrowed ... ... ... ... ..... of an assessee, determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, includes any income by way of long-term capital gains a deduction is permissible therefrom under the provisions of section 80T in computing his total income. The deduction is from such income . As aforementioned, such income has been held by this court to be the assessee s long-term capital gains and there can be no doubt, having regard to the context, of the correctness of this interpretation. From the above discussion, it is clear that the deduction under section 80HH has to be computed with reference to the assessee s income from the profits and gains derived from the new industrial undertaking after making all the deductions under sections 30 to 43A of the Act including the investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 86 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Fines And Penalties, Sales Tax, Business Expenditure, Compensatory ... ... ... ... ..... uestion to the Tribunal in order to decide whether the penalty which is levied for delayed payment of sales tax is compensatory in nature either in part or in full as would entitle it for a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, while we respectfully agree with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT 1993 201 ITR 684, it is not necessary to remit the question to the Tribunal in the present case as was done by the Supreme Court in the case before it. In our opinion, the controversy in this case stands concluded by the above decision of this court wherein this court has clearly held that no part of the penalty under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the material time, is compensatory. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 85 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Return, Constitutional Validity, Proviso To S. 139(1) ... ... ... ... ..... ll be having a taxable income. Therefore, these two conditions cannot altogether be discarded as having no nexus with the income. As rightly and fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other criteria, viz., ownership or lease of a motor vehicle, travelling to any foreign country, holding of credit card and membership of a club where entrance fee charged is twenty-five thousand rupees or more, may have relevance to the income of a person. As on date, I do not find any illegality in making these conditions for the purpose of filling return. As righty pointed out by learned standing counsel, filing of the return is simple and it cannot be termed as onerous. It must be treated as a duty of a citizen to file return even if he does not have an assessable income provided he satisfies these conditions. For all these reasons, I do not find any illegality in the proviso to section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Hence, the original petition fails and it is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Actual Cost, Central Subsidy ... ... ... ... ..... There is no dispute that the question referred to in this case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 8. For the reasons set out above, we hold that the central subsidy received by the assessee is not a payment, directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost but intended as an incentive to the entrepreneurs. The fact that its quantification is determined as a percentage of the fixed capital cost does not change the nature and character of the subsidy. The amount of central subsidy, therefore, cannot be deducted from the actual cost . Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Before parting with this case, we want to put on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us in this case by Shri G.S. Jetly, learned senior advocate, as amicus curiae. 10. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 83 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Purchase, Appropriate Authority, Urban Law, Ceiling ... ... ... ... ..... atement. In the case of Chamundi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority 1997 225 ITR 590 (Kar), referred to above, the NOC from the competent authority under the Urban Ceiling Act was not obtained which was required. Whereas in the present matter, the order itself of the competent authority was not furnished. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appropriate authority was justified in adopting the third alternative of not passing any order and it will be considered a case of not filing a complete statement as required in law which does not require passing of an order. The petitioner if so desires may file the information as desired by the appropriate authority within six weeks. The appropriate authority would take into consideration the document which may be filed by the petitioner and then shall proceed to pass the order in accordance with law. The statement would be considered complete on the date when the information is furnished. The petition is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 82 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Natural Justice, Compulsory Audit, Complexity, Interest Of Revenue, Approval, Application Of Mind
-
1998 (12) TMI 81 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Rural Development, Donation, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ral development work as was envisaged under section 35CCA of the Act and for which approval had been granted by the prescribed authority to the two institutions under the section. It was no part of the assessee s obligation to either keep track of the movement of the institutions or to find out as to whether the rural development work was actually being carried out or not. It had not been found that either the assessee did not make the payment to the institutions or that the certificate as required under sub-section (2A) of section 35CCA was not furnished by the assessee or that the institutions were not granted approval for the purpose mentioned in section 35CCA by the prescribed authority. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions in the negative. As a necessary corollary it follows that the remand order would stand quashed and the assessee is held entitled to claim deduction.
-
1998 (12) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Penalty, Concealment, Undisclosed Income, Adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... sessee is held to be income of the assessee of the relevant year, it carried with it liability to pay tax and penalty thereon under the Act, and such liability is relatable to the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year. That is the valuation date for the purpose of wealth-tax. That liability, being relatable to that date, in the absence of any prohibition to that effect under the statute, has to be taken into account in computing the net wealth. As there is no challenge to the fact that if the liability arising under the Income-tax Act in relation to the assessment years in question is adjusted against the value of assets, the assessee is not left with taxable wealth at all. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that no penalty was leviable. We, therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., to say in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 79 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Revision, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... question of loans between inter connected undertakings was not a subject of the revisional order under section 263 and, as such, the Tribunal s order is not bad in this regard. Answer to question No. 6 Based on relevant evidence, not perverse. Answer to question No. 7 Not perverse, based on law and legal possibility. Answer to question No. 8 A question of fact as to non-genuineness does not arise in the circumstances as the Income-tax Officer had accepted the writing off as genuine. Answer to question No. 9 Not perverse, based on the material of the Income-tax Officer s favourable first order. Answer to question No. 10 The Tribunal was justified in law. Answer to question No. 11 The Tribunal was correct as the Commissioner had no basis to treat the nature and character of the debt as having changed by reason of change of the personality of the debtor. Answer to question No. 12 The Tribunal was fully justified. Copies of the dictated order may issue on the usual undertakings.
-
1998 (12) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Air Freight, Marine Insurance, Customs Duty, Internal Telex
-
1998 (12) TMI 77 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Extra Shift Allowance, Question Of Law, Guest House, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... e view that extra-shift allowance on transformer, electric switchgear and air circuit breaker valuing Rs. 1,87,374 was not allowable in view of sub-part 3 (special rates) of Annexure-I to rule 5 as electric machinery as mentioned in serial No. 1 and not special machinery as Part III(B)(8) and C(4) of Appendix I to rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules ? More or less same was the view taken in ITC No. 23 of 1990 decided on February 25, 1997. In view of the above we are of the opinion that question No. I is a question of law which arises from the order of the Tribunal. We thus direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law along with the statement of the case for the opinion of this court 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra-shift allowance on transformers, electric substation and electric motors which are stationary installations ? The petition thus stands disposed of. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 76 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Material Facts, Escapement Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... then Income-tax Officer to form the belief for reopening the assessment. Even if these projected reasons were taken at their face value, these may still not pass the test of being germane and having proximity with the escapement of income from assessment by the assessee. Therefore, all things considered including the lapse of time and the default of the respondents in not promptly replying to this petition and in not disclosing the record before the court to show if reasons were recorded by the Income-tax Officer in support of his belief before issuing the notice, it would be appropriate to let the impugned notice die its own death leaving the respondents free to take future action, if any advised, strictly in conformity with the requirements of sections 147 and 148 of the Act. This petition is accordingly partly allowed to that extent. The impugned notice is quashed. But this shall not come in the way of the respondents to take fresh action in the matter if permitted by law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Failure To File Return, Firm, Accounts Finalisation, Individual Partner, Reopening ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 5,83,692 as loss incurred by Aiswarya Chitra, one of the partners of the petitioner-firm, from her individual business. The explanation of the petitioner that the accounts could not be finalised in time as the vouchers in the film production were not available, was found to be unacceptable since film production was not the business undertaken by the firm, but by the partners in their individual capacity. If the case of the petitioner is accepted, then they must be permitted to wait till the completion of the accounts of the partners of the firm so that the loss in the business of the individual capacity can be claimed against the income of the firm. This aspect has been considered both by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax and found to be not acceptable. I do not find any error in the reasoning of the authorities below. Hence, no grounds are made out to interefere with the order. The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Interest, Penalty, Compulsory Acquisition Of Land, Delay In Filing Return, Advance Tax, Agricultural Land
-
1998 (12) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appellate Tribunal, Procedure, Additional Grounds, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... er seen that the assessee did not raise any such additional ground either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal also found no reason as to why the assessee waited from December 1, 1992 to March 24, 1998, without pursuing the alleged miscellaneous petition and without getting it disposed of. I do not find any error in the findings and the conclusion of the Tribunal. As found by the Tribunal, the application of the petitioner filed to raise additional ground has not been registered, The Tribunal has not granted leave as required. The said application was not before the Tribunal at the time of the disposal of the appeal. That apart, the petitioner has not taken due care, if really the petitioner has filed it to get it registered and posted, from the years 1992 to 1998. For all these reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Income Escaped Assessment, Limitation, Validity ... ... ... ... ..... appeal, reference or revision. In that light, it is actually the appellate order of the Commissioner which can be said to be the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the order of the Commissioner dated March 29, 1990, is the order which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The period of limitation should have been available on the date of the appellate order of the Commissioner. Since the notices under section 148 have been issued by the Assessing Officer to both the petitioners on March 1, 1996, these notices are beyond the period of limitation as laid down in section 149(1)(b) read with section 150(2) of the Act. As a result of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are allowed. The notices issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioners under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1977-78 are quashed inasmuch as they have been issued after the expiry of the period of limitation. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Life Insurance Corporation, Incentive Bonus, Additional Conveyance Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has not given any independent finding on this question, but has decided the same by adopting the same reasoning which related to question No. 1, referred to above. We find that the Income-tax Officer had granted the additional conveyance allowance under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act to the tune of Rs. 30,000 as against Rs. 51,305 claimed by the assessee. A sum of Rs. 30,000 was allowed on the basis of the certificate issued by the Branch Manager, LIC, Madhopur. The same was the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the Income-tax Officer as also the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly interpreted section 10(14) of the Act and had allowed Rs. 30,000 on account of additional conveyance allowance. Thus this question is also answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
....
|
