|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 87 Records
-
1965 (12) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts of the case and having regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of Difficultics) Order, 1949, and clause 8 of the Agreement made on 20th September, 1938, between the assessee and the State of Bhopal, the correct basis for computing the written down value of the depreciable assets as at 1st November, 1948, is the one which is adopted by the Income-tax Officer or the one adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?
Held that:- Applying the 1962 Order to the facts of this case it is clear that the answer to the question referred must be that the correct basis for computing the written down value of the depreciable assets as on November 1, 1948, is the one which was adopted by the Income-tax Officer. In the result, the appeals are accepted. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question answered as indicated above.
-
1965 (12) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee was entitled to have an adjustment of the advance tax paid by it under section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act in Lahore for the assessment year 1947-48, against the demand of tax raised by the Income-tax Officer, 3rd Additional Business Circle, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1947-48 ?
Held that:- In our opinion the effect of section 18(3) of the Indian Independence Act was to change the incidents of the advance tax paid. Previously the advance tax was to be adjusted towards a single regular assessment to be made by British India. After the Indian Independence Act the advance tax was liable to be adjusted against two regular assessments, one by India and one by Pakistan. In Pakistan, under section 18A(11), the Pakistan Government was entitled to adjust the advance tax paid by the assessee against its demand. Similarly, the Government of India was entitled to adjust the amount against its demand. It follows that if the assessee has been given credit for the advance tax by the Pakistan Government, he cannot claim that credit should be given to him by the Indian income-tax authorities. The effect of the Indian Independence Act was not to double the advance money the assessee had paid. The amount of money he paid as advance tax remained the same. Having been given credit by the Pakistan Government he could not claim that there was any amount left on which section 18A(11) could operate.
The answer to the questions should be in the negative and against the assessee. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
Whether capital appreciation in respect of the lands from which the income derived is agricultural income and which was not taxable in the hands of the company as capital gains would still on distribution be liable to be taxed as dividend under section 12 of the Income-tax Act?
Held that:- Capital gains under section 12B are chargeable in respect of any profits arising from transfer of " capital assets ", and " capital assets " do not include lands from which the income derived is agricultural income. Profits derived by transfer of lands from which the income derived is agricultural income would not, therefore, be chargeable on a combined reading of section 12B with section 2(4A) of the Income-tax Act under the head " Capital gains ". The expression " accumulated profits " does not include capital gains arising within the excepted periods : vide Explanation to section 2(6A). " Accumulated profits " are, therefore, profits which are so regarded in commercial practice, and capital gains as defined in the Income-tax Act. Realization of appreciated value of assets in commercial practice is regarded as realization of capital rise, and not of profits of the business. Unless, therefore, appreciation in the value of capital assets is included in the capital gains, distribution by the liquidator of the rise in the capital value will not be deemed dividend for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT
Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashing the notice issued by the appellant under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the respondent as the karta of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1955-56 questioned
Held that:- The High Court went wrong in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Act against the respondent as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the surplus of $1,41,326 realised by the assessee-company by the sale of some of its estates and properties held by it in Malaya was income chargeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The purpose or the object for which it is incorporated where the taxpayer is a company may have some bearing, but is not decisive, nor is the circumstance that a single plot of land was acquired and was thereafter sold as a whole or in plots decisive. Profit motive in entering into a transaction is also not decisive. Here, as already pointed out, the primary object of the company was to take over the assets of the P. K. N. firm to carry on the business of planters and to earn profits by sale of rubber. The incidental sale of uneconomic or inconvenient plots of land or houses could not convert what was essentially an investment into a business transaction in real estate. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of rupees 84,633 expended by the assessee in obtaining the loan or any part thereof is an allowable expenditure ?
Held that:- The expenditure of ₹ 84,633 was not in the nature of capital expenditure and was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The answer to the question referred, therefore, must be in the affirmative. The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court set aside and the question referred answered in the affirmative.
-
1965 (12) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
Prosecution - Sentence ... ... ... ... ..... fication for doing that. We do not think that the amount of the profit which the transaction, which constituted the offence, produced, should necessarily be accepted as a measure of the criminality or as a guide to fix the sentence to be imposed. The point of view should be whether looking at the object of the Act, the conduct of the appellants has been such as to cause a serious breach of it so as to require a deterrent sentence. However, as we are not accepting Mr. Patwardhan s submission, we need not discuss this matter further. 6.The only order that we, therefore, pass in this appeal, is that the sentence of fine on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- each. We are told by Mr. Sen that the appellants have already paid the fine which the High Court imposed on them. So, it is unnecessary to provide for a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. They will be entitled to the refund of the amount paid by them after deduction of the fine that we have imposed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
'Proper Officer' — Connotation of — Seizure of documents — Physical possession not necessary — Searches — `Secreted' — Connotation of
-
1965 (12) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether all or any of the conditions mentioned in rule 48 of the IT Rules 1922 have been satisfied - It is necessary to conduct an investigation to find out whether a discretion is vested in the ITO or not by determining whether any part of the rule [rule 48(1)], had been satisfied and if it is possible to decide whether there was an error or not only after coming to the conclusion whether r. 48(1) has been satisfied, it appears to me the error is not an error apparent on the face of the record
-
1965 (12) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Gift - Whether the transaction was mala fide and could not for that reason be a gift ... ... ... ... ..... t be bona fide satisfied that it was a deed of gift and not a deed of relinquishment. Clearly there is no such finding in the present case. The appellate authority also did not look into this aspect of the matter. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case should be remanded to the appellate authority for rehearing the matter and deciding it in accordance with the provisions of section 4(c) of the Act, keeping in view the observations made by us above. The result, therefore, is that we dismiss Writ Petition No. 1291 of 1959 with costs, but allow Writ Petition No. 566 of 1961, quash the orders passed by the appellant authority and in exercise of our powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India direct the appellate authority to restore the appeal of Smt. Bhagwat Devi to its original number and rehear it in accordance with law, after giving proper notice to the parties. In the circumstances of the case, costs in Writ Petition No. 566 of 1961 shall be on the parties
-
1965 (12) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Sole coparcener in respect of the property that fell to his share after partition - status of the petitioner - individual/HUF
-
1965 (12) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Service of a notice u/s. 34 - Section 33B does not require a notice to be issued and served on an assessee, as is required by s. 34 of the Act. All that s. 33B requires is that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard
-
1965 (12) TMI 15 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Set off against the under other heads - sum being the loss under the head "Income from property", which income is exempt from taxation u/s. 4(3)(xii), could not be set off against the assessee's income under other heads
-
1965 (12) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Family property - Whether the entire income from property and money-lending in this case had been correctly assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family - Held, no
-
1965 (12) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income escaping from escapement - reopening of assessment u/s 148 on the ground that interim payments made by the Government under the Madras Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 are income - It could not be said that the power to pay interest under the Land Acquisition Act on the market value of the property acquired till such time as the compensation is not deposited is ultra vires the powers of the legislature - petition of assessee is dismissed
-
1965 (12) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tribunal cannot exercise the functions of the ITO and decide that an assessment can be sustained under cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of section 34 - If the Tribunal does not enjoy that jurisdiction, subsequenlty it does not have jurisdiction to convert an assessment made under cl. (a) to one under cl. (b).
-
1965 (12) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Order made by CIT u/s 33B - CIT acted on evidence or materials collected by the income-tax department behind the back of the respondent. The order made by CIT cannot be held to be bad on the ground that it had been made in violation of the principles of natural justice - revenue's appeal is allowed
-
1965 (12) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - notice under s. 33B of the IT Act, 1922 ... ... ... ... ..... ment orders were made by the Income-tax Officers without jurisdiction and were, therefore, void. Regarding the second charge also in the said notice, namely, initial capital and income from business, the trial court was right in holding that there were ample materials on the record to justify and uphold the impugned order. Before concluding, I should refer to one other matter. At the hearing before the trial court as well as before us, reliance was placed on a judgment of Sinha J. in Rampiyari Khemka v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The trial court had considered the effect of this judgment at great length. But as the judgment of Sinha J. is the subject-matter of a separate appeal now pending before us, being Appeal from Original Order No. 274 of 1964, we do not think we should deal with the judgment of Sinha J. at present. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Certified for two counsel. BOSE C.J.--I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (12) TMI 9 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Legal expenses - expenditure incurred in resisting an application by shareholders of the assessee-company under s. 153C of the Companies Act, questioning the appointment of some of the directors of the assessee-company, cannot be considered to be an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company - not allowed as a deduction under s. 10(2)(xv)
-
1965 (12) TMI 8 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Claim for exemption of Rs. 33,01,964 under s. 5(1)(xxi) of the Act on the ground of having employed that amount in the setting up of a new and separate unit after the commencement of the Act - exemption allowed
|
