|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is not engaged in the production of cinematograph films mentioned in item No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Prasad Film Laboratories P. Ltd. 1997 225 ITR 348has held that the assessee was entitled to make a claim for investment allowance. The assessee s business consists of producing feature films, processing and drying plant, where exposed films in various stages are processed into positive films used for projection in cinema theatre. The assessee is entitled to make a claim for investment allowance, in the light of the above decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... nefit given to the assessee. Even Form No. 6 prescribed under the Rules requires the assessee to state that it is not possible/has not been possible to file the return of income. It is obvious, that the words is not possible can be used only where the time has not expired and the words has not been possible , have to be used where time has already expired. For the form prescribed it is quite clear that it is meant to cover situations where the time had not expired as also the situations where the time had expired. The reference of the question proposed, namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss though Form No. 6 was filed along with the return of income on December 20, 1990, for the assessment year 1988-89 ? is wholly unnecessary and we do not find any merit in this TCP. The TCP is dismissed, with costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) only.
-
1998 (12) TMI 28 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not accounted for and regarding which there is suppression is to the tune of Rs. 66,84,993.95. This suppression is for a period beginning from February 1, 1972, to January 31, 1985. As to how for a period of 13 years the assessee can be asked to explain qua a single assessment year 1985-86 is not apparent. The authority issuing the notice should have been specific vis-a-vis the amount which was suppressed in the assessment year 1985-86. It is only qua that amount the assessee can be called upon to explain. The clubbing together of an amount with effect from February 1, 1972, to January 31, 1985, and creating liability in one year would not be in accordance with law. As respondent No. 1 has not applied his mind to the above aspect and has included material which is extraneous thus notice is liable to be quashed. This petition is allowed leaving the respondents to take such steps as they may deem proper. Proceedings would not be taken in pursuance of the notice noticed above.
-
1998 (12) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appropriate authority by a letter dated July 22, 1997, subsequent to the date of the agreement to which the petitioners are parties, had issued no objection to the registration of the sale of a property on the same North Usman Road at a rate of Rs. 30 lakhs per ground. In view of these submissions, I consider it just to permit the authority to re-examine the matter. The authority shall furnish to the petitioners all the relevant details with reference to the two transactions to which it had adverted to in paragraph 23 in its order. It will be open to the petitioners to file before the authority the details regarding the sale transaction, which according to them, has been approved by the authority at the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs per ground as also any other relevant material. The authority shall, after considering all the materials and hearing the petitioners, pass orders in accordance with law. The W. M. Ps. are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Salary, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... case of the assessee who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family, and he represented the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm. This court held that since the Hindu undivided family is not a legal entity, it cannot enter into a contract with the firm for payment of salary and where certain amounts were paid as salary this court held that the amounts paid by the firm to the partner should be deemed to be the share of profits assessable in his individual capacity and standard deduction is not available on such salary. The decision of N. S. M. SanKarapandian s case 1996 222 ITR 289 (Mad) will squarely apply to the facts of this case and following the above cited case, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... the Hindu undivided family. No doubt, the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT 1982 133 ITR 690 has held that unless there is an order passed by the Income-tax Officer recognizing the partial partition, the entire income of the divided property which was the subject-matter of the partial partition should be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. Since we are holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under the provisions of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, it is unnecessary to answer the second question of law referred to us which deals with the merits of the case. Accordingly, we answer the first question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In view of the answer to the first question of law, it is unnecessary to provide any answer to the second question of law which deals with the merits of the case. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Loss, Unregistered Firm, Carry Forward And Set Off Of Loss ... ... ... ... ..... r renewed and those provisions do not require that all events pertaining to the firm during the period when it was not registered should be ignored. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view of other High Courts. The High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka as also Punjab and Haryana in their decisions in the cases of Excel Productions v. CIT 1967 64 ITR 65, CIT (Addl.) v. B. S. Dall Mills 1981 131 ITR 111 and CIT v. Sunil Theatre 1989 177 ITR 558, respectively, have taken a similar view. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us which reads as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case an( having regard to the provisions of section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the unabsorbed losses of the earlier years when the firm was assessed as an unregistered firm should also be carried forward and set off and apportioned amongst the partners ? in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is not engaged in the production of cinematograph films mentioned in item No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Prasad Film Laboratories P. Ltd. 19971 225 ITR 348 has held that the assessee was entitled to make a claim for investment allowance. The assessee s business consists of producing feature films, processing and drying plant, where exposed films in various stages are processed into positive films used for projection in cinema theatres. The assessee is entitled to make a claim for investment allowance. In the light of the above decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Assessment, Firm, Partner, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... it relates to the 1922 Act and the Board s circular will not be binding upon the court. Hence, for the purpose of ascertaining the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income of a non-resident partner, his share income alone should be considered and tax determined accordingly and his other income from any other source should not be included for the purpose of determining the rate of tax payable on such share income. Admittedly, in the instant case, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel (Income-tax), fairly states that the income of the petitioner as a non-resident partner in the said firms was also assessed and the returns were submitted by the firms. Applying the principles laid down by this court and for the reasons as stated above, I am satisfied that the impugned notice dated August 20, 1991, issued under section 148 of the Act, is illegal and without jurisdiction, and therefore, I am obliged to allow the above writ petition as prayed for. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Salary, Standard Deduction, Not Liable To Be Assessed As Salary ... ... ... ... ..... f the Hindu undivided family was representing the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm. This court held that since the Hindu undivided family is not a legal entity, it cannot enter into a contract with the firm for payment of salary and the amounts paid by the firm to the partner should therefore be deemed to be the share of profits assessable in his individual capacity and standard deduction was not available on such amount. The decision of N.S.M. Sankarapandian s case 1996 222 ITR 289 (Mad), in our view, would apply to the facts of this case as well and following the above cited case, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the amount received should be assessed under the head Salary and the assessee can claim standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the same. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Hotel Receipts Tax ... ... ... ... ..... titutes its trading receipts and it had to be included in its total income and if and when the appellant pays the amount collected to the State Government or refunds any part thereof to the purchaser, the appellant would be entitled to claim deduction of the amount so paid or repaid. In the instant case, the assessee has not made over this collection to the Government nor returned any amount to the customers from whom it was collected. Applying the ratio laid down by the apex court in the decisions cited supra, we hold that the hotel receipts tax amount is a trading receipt and is liable for assessment. But, of course, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the amount as and when it pays it to the Government or refunds it to its customers. The Tribunal has committed an error in passing the order that this amount cannot be taxed as the assessee s trading receipts. We answer the question referred to us, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Exemption, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... f, as already observed, without the aid of the amendment, it is not possible to treat cinema houses as exempted from wealth-tax as per unamended provision, the fact that that provision was subsequently amended does not of its own force make it declaratory. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us which reads as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the orders of the Commissioner passed under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the ground that the theatre building has to be excluded out of the assets included in section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, as it forms part of the business assets of the assessee-company for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87? In favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and hold that for the assessment years from 1984-85 to 1986-87, the cinema house owned by the assessee was not exempt from wealth-tax under section 40(3)(vi) of the said Act.
-
1998 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction of Tax At Source, Penalty Justified ... ... ... ... ..... led a loss return and the other sister concern had claimed refund. The concern which had filed the loss return was at the time of assessment found liable to pay tax and the concern which had claimed refund at the time of original assessment was found not entitled to the refund, though such refund was directed in appeal. The assessee had a duty to deduct tax at source. It apparently did not do so as payments were made to its own sister concerns and it did not wish to part with any part of that interest to the Revenue at that point of time. That however cannot be an acceptable reason for its failure to deduct tax at source and remit the same to the Government. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in cancelling the penalty that had been levied on the assessee under section 201(1A) of the Act. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand) only.
-
1998 (12) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital or Revenue Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough and even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. The most relevant aspect here is that the machine was installed to protect the health of the workmen as otherwise their health would have been injuriously affected by the dust arising from the operation of the carding machine. That is the primary object of the installation of machine and having regard to that object, the expenditure incurred on the installation of the machine must be regarded as revenue expenditure for promoting the health and welfare of the workmen. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum incurred for installation of dust extraction plant is not capital expenditure? In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and we hold that the expenditure so incurred by the assessee is revenue expenditure.
-
1998 (12) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... is concerned, it is only the provisions of the Income-tax Act that govern. The legislative intent as expressed in section 64 of the Income-tax Act is to regard the income of the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership as income taxable in the hands of the parent. All the conditions which attract section 64(1)(iii) of the said Act being satisfied, the income of the minor has been rightly clubbed with that of the parent. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view in the case of Kumaraswamy Reddiar v. CIT 1965 49 ITR 687 (Ker), which is now brought to our notice by learned counsel for the Revenue. The question referred to us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the assessee s minor married daughter should not be included in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act? Is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (12) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Business Expenditure, Custom Duty ... ... ... ... ..... al has held that the expenditure was not on sales promotion but it was only an instance of sale of the product at a discount and the coupons which the customer was required to send back to claim the discount were only meant to ensure that the discount reached the ultimate buyer and was not pocketed by the middle man. The discount so given cannot be treated as sales promotion expense. The sales promotion normally refers to an activity which is intended to promote the sale of all the products by way of advertisement or special campaigns. Offering a discount on the price in effect is only an instant of the sale of the company s product at a lower price and cannot be regarded as expenditure on sales promotion. This petition is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ment and the Assessing Officer could very well have allowed the assessee to claim the expenditure for earlier years and that he had without doing so, wrongly denied to the assessee the benefit of expenditure in the accounting year 1975-76. Thus, the Tribunal held against the Revenue. It was contended before us that each year is a separate unit and the expenditure should have been claimed in the year in which it was incurred. As there was a doubt as to whether the expenditure was incurred for the benefit of the Indian Dairy Corporation or for the benefit of the assessee, till the doubt was cleared it was not possible for the assessee to make the claim. As the claim had been made in the year in which the clarification was answered, the Tribunal is justified in the view taken by it. Having regard to the said facts, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Continuation of Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ved by one of the partners, had in fact, been shared by the partners in a ratio different from the one set out in the deed of partnership, to hold that the firm s registration should be cancelled. The Tribunal has, in the course of its order, referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Chanderbhan Harichand and Co. 1980 126 ITR 709, wherein a view similar to the one taken by us, was taken by that court. It was observed therein that the other partners should have assented to such a distribution of secret profits in a manner different from the one prescribed in the partnership deed. We answer the question referred to us for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85, namely Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act? in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal, Invoking Revisional Jurisidction ... ... ... ... ..... long as such remedies are available, the aggrieved parties can certainly invoke them. The Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee, notwithstanding his unsuccessful effort at having the order revised, could still file an appeal as invoking the revisional jurisdiction could not constitute a bar to the filing of an appeal. It is for the Legislature to impose such a bar if it considers it necessary to do so. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the Tribunal. We answer the question as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in entertaining the assessee s appeal against the assessment even though the Commissioner of Income-tax had passed an order under section 264 against the assessee and holding that the provisions of section 154 were applicable and a revision was not barred by limitation in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Act refers to maintenance of race horses. If the horses are maintained for the purpose of racing, the requirement of section 74A(3) of the Income-tax Act is fully met. Further requirement that such horses should have participated in the races in the year relevant to the assessment year cannot be read into the section. There is no dispute that the horses were maintained for participation in the races and as such the expenditure incurred on the maintenance would be covered by the provisions of section 74A(3) of the Income-tax Act which is a revenue expenditure. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
....
|
