|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemption, Incentive Bonus, Additional Conveyance Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... 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. 2, 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. 47,843 claimed by the assessee. A sum of Rs. 30,000 was allowed on the basis of the Life Insurance Corporation s Circular No. MKTG/7B/10(8), dated March 31, 1987. 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. References are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vishnukumar Bhaiya (1983) 35 CTR (MP) 38 (1983) 142 ITR 357 (MP) TC 35R.262. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided those cases, we are unable to agree with that line of reasoning. 17. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, referred to the decisions of the Allahabad, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the case of Premkumar vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 347 (All) TC 37R.254, Bharath Kumar D. Bhatia vs. CIT (1992) 108 CTR (Kar) 351 (1993) 199 ITR 190 (Kar) TC 37R.201, Ashok Kumar Ratanchand vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (AP) 202 (1990) 186 ITR 475 (AP) TC 37R.261 wherein it has been held that an individual who receives ancestral property at a partition and who subsequently acquires a family but has no male issues would hold that property only as property of the HUF. 18. For the reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs, we answer the questions referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (12) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Return, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... though the return was filed by it beyond the time allowed, regard being had to the fact that payment of interest is only compensatory in nature. In this case, it is seen that the entire amount of tax was paid by the assessee by way of advance tax. The assessee had paid Rs. 25,300 and the ultimate tax liability was arrived at only Rs. 21,367. 3. Applying the principles and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Dass Sreeram vs. ITO, the interest being only compensatory and since the assessee had paid the entire advance tax which is more than the ultimate tax determined, there is no question of levy of any interest on the assessee though it has filed the return belatedly. Hence we are not in agreement with the views of the Tribunal that interest is chargeable under s. 139 of the IT Act. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Firm-Registration ... ... ... ... ..... not been able to understand the rationale behind the suggestion. If it was a case of dissolution and thereafter constitution of a new firm, the question of clubbing of the income would not arise merely by altering the status from registered to unregistered and if that was not a case of dissolution of the firm, there cannot be two separate assessments for period upto the date of death of the partner and thereafter by treating the firm to be in two different stages differently for the same previous year, namely, registered for the earlier part of the year and unregistered for the latter part of the year. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the firm was not entitled to continued registration for the part of the year on the basis of declaration made by it under s. 184(7), r/w r. 24 and Form No. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 46 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Valuation Of Stock, Change In Method Of Valuation Of Stock ... ... ... ... ..... , on the other hand, argued that change in the method of valuation of the closing stock was rightly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, because it was found to be bona fide and was also regularly employed by the assessee in subsequent years. The plea taken by the Assessing Officer that the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock was detrimental to the interests of the Revenue is not relevant and valid. The Tribunal, in its appellate order, has observed as under Therefore, since on facts the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock was bona fide and the same was followed in subsequent years, we find no warrant or justification for any interference with the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Since the Tribunal has, on appreciation of evidence, arrived at a finding of fact, the question sought to be referred is not a referable question of law. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Ceiling On Expenditure, Exemption, Mercantile System Of Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... to claim the amount shown in its books of account as compensation being the amount of the accrued liability to be deducted from its income for the purpose of determining its liability for income-tax for the assessment year. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. With regard to the third question referred to us at the instance of the assessee the same is required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1996 219 ITR 581, wherein it was held that the surtax paid by the assessee under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not required to be deducted while computing the total income of the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This question is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (12) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... R. should be made on the basis of the prevailing market price, affirming the view taken in the case of Ramachari and Co. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 142 (Mad). The assessee-firm was constituted under the partnership deed dated 1-4-1983. It was a partnership at will and on the death of one of the partners P. Chenniappan on 6-2-1984, the firm stood dissolved, a new firm was constituted on the next day and two separate assessments were ordered to be made by the Commissioner following the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A. L. A. Firm s case. We hold that the closing stock of the firm as on 6-2-1984, is to be valued at market price. On the death of P. Chenniappan on 6-2-1984, the firm stood dissolved and so, the closing stock as on 6-2-1984, being the date of dissolution of the firm, should be valued on the basis of market price. The view taken by the Tribunal is not justified. We answer the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Interest, Constitutional Validity ... ... ... ... ..... CIT and Ors. (1996) 131 CTR (Pat) 368 (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) TC 43R.740 held that the provisions for levy of interest under ss. 234A. 234B and 234C are compensatory in character and are not unconstitutional. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Hence, this original petition is dismissed. 2. However, the dismissal of this original petition will not in anyway prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to move the IT Department under Samadan scheme or any other scheme.
-
1998 (12) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... urt judgment in Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No. 1) case 1991 187 ITR 412, the Assessing Officer thought that his earlier decision has been erroneous as a result of which the income has escaped assessment. It is a clear case where the Assessing Officer has no reason to link escapement of income from assessment with non-disclosure of any material fact necessary for his assessment at the time of original assessment bill is due to an erroneous decision on the question of law by the Assessing, Officer. Thus, the case is squarely covered by the proviso to section 147 and not section 149. Initiation of proceedings under the proviso being clearly barred by time, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction by issuing notice under section 148 in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. As a result, all these petitions succeed. The impugned notice under section 148 read with section 147 in each case is quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business, Property ... ... ... ... ..... hat the godown has been earmarked only for storing, picking and clearing and mixing of cotton and cotton waste and therefore, the purposes of the use of godown are intimately connected with the specific nature of the activities carried on by the assessee and it is not as if the lessees could sublet or carry on any other activity in the godown let out to them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in drawing the correct inference from the facts found by him and arriving at the correct conclusion that the income from the godown is assessable as business income and not income from house property as held by the Income-tax Officer. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal. We hold that the income from the godown is assessable under the head Business since the godown is used in connection with the business activity of the assessee. We answer this question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital Gain, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... gains by the said sum resulting in deduction of capital gains to that extent which is not the case of the Revenue either. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the deduction of depreciation allowed to the deceased is not permissible for the purpose of reducing the cost of acquisition of capital asset for the purpose of computing capital gains in the case of capital gains arising in the hands of the successor on transfer of capital asset in case it falls within the provisions of clause (2) of section 50 and an option to adopt the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, as its cost of acquisition in place of the written down value has been exercised by the assessee. The computation thereafter must follow the procedure provided in section 50(2) and other provisions of the Act. As a result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 39 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsideration, the transfer of share from the father to sons, both remaining as members of the firm, the father with the reduced share with the same capital, was held to be transfer without consideration amenable to gift-tax. It was not a case where a person has retired from the firm while settling his accounts some adjustment has been made and after retirement new partners have been inducted. The question whether in such state of affairs it would amount to a gift from the retiring partner to the new incumbents was not before the Supreme Court, nor was such an issue before the Madras High Court in P. Krishnamoorthy s case 1977 110 ITR 212, or before the Kerala High Court in K. G. Raghu s case 1994 210 ITR 979. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee has not appeared in spite of service. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... sit in section 269T of the Act, it is impermissible for this court to enlarge the concept and take in the concept of loan transaction also within the meaning of section 269T of the Act. In my view, the provisions of section 269T are not applicable to repayment of loan transaction and this section is intended to cover and cover only the repayment of deposits over and above the amount prescribed in the section. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner after having held that the transactions in question were repayment of loans, have erred in holding that there was a violation of the provisions of section 269T by the petitioner. 1, therefore, hold that penalty levied on the alleged violation is not justified in law. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 18512 of 1996 is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction
-
1998 (12) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Transfer, HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... one inasmuch as it has been shown to have been made voluntarily and not induced by any fraud or collusion and the conduct of the parties referred to by the Revenue is consistent with the bona fide family arrangement particularly when it was arrived at in the presence of panchayatdars. So, the family arrangement is a bona fide one and it was effected to dissolve the family dispute. Applying the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra, we hold that the family arrangement involved in this case does not amount to transfer. The Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking the view that the transaction of the assessee being a family arrangement did not amount to transfer and therefore, there was no chargeable capital gain arising from that transaction. So, the transaction of the assessee did not amount to transfer and there was no chargeable capital gain arising from that transaction. We answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Return, Penal Interest, Delay In Filing Returns, Failure To Pay Advance Tax, Waiver Of Interest
-
1998 (12) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Recovery Of Tax, Certificate Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... evenue Officer had the delegation of powers of the Collector. In such a case it cannot be said that the District Revenue Officer is an appropriate authority to take action under section 41 of the Act. In view of the above provisions, as there is violation of section 41 of the Act, the impugned order is quashed. But, however, liberty is given to the respondent to proceed afresh, after complying with the provisions of the Act of 1955, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order copy. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the credit of the respondents. But, however, the respondents should not withdraw the amount, pending disposal of the final orders as directed above, within a period of two months. If the respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax amount of Rs. 2,00,000 the amount must be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.
-
1998 (12) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Inclusions ... ... ... ... ..... ferred to us, namely Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the share income of the minor sons was includible in the hands of the assessee under section 64 even though he had no independent source of income for computation in his individual status ? is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 only. For the earlier assessment years, the income of the minors was not so includible. As regards the first question regarding the correctness of the Tribunal s views that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, it must be held that it was justified for the assessment year 1976-77 only and not for other assessment years. We answer the first question referred to us, namely --- Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act ? in the manner as set out above.
-
1998 (12) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification ... ... ... ... ..... tted and the assessment has been made by the officer concerned. Further, even according to P.W. 1, the question of payment of capital gains will arise only in the next year. Therefore, the liability to pay the income-tax would arise only in the next assessment year 1982-83 and, therefore, if any false address is given in the year 1981, it cannot be said to have given a cause of action to proceed against the accused under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the offence as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be held to have been made out. Though I do not agree with the reasons given by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, for acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 2, in view of the discussion made in this judgment, it follows that the order of acquittal has to be confirmed, though for different reasons. In this result, these two criminal appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 3.
-
1998 (12) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... med investment allowance which was negatived by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the assessee s claim and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. On that this reference has arisen. A similar question was considered by this court in Tax Cases Nos. 810 and 811 of 1989 and this court by its order dated October 27, 1998 (CIT v. Gomatesh Granites 2000 246 ITR 737, has answered this question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Following the above decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question referred to us, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
