|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 84 Records
-
1977 (6) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion in Income-tax Officer v. K. P. Varghese 1973 91 ITR 49 (Ker) FB which had reversed the decision in K. P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer 1970 77 ITR 719, while reference has been made to the decision of the learned single judge in 1970 77 ITR 719 (Ker) in the course of the judgment. In the absence of any discussion of the points taken before us being considered in the said case, we consider that it is not possible to apply the conclusion drawn in that case to the facts herein. For the reasons given above, we consider that the first question requires to be reframed, as it does not bring out clearly the dispute between the parties properly. The question is reframed as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was properly applied? We answer the said question in the negative and against the revenue. The respondents will be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 each in T. N Nos. 278 and 282 of 1972.
-
1977 (6) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Gratuity Reserve, Reserve For Doubtful Debts, Super Profits Tax
-
1977 (6) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... ferred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the revenue. Mr. Dastur for the assessee requested us that a direction to the taxing authorities may be issued by us as, according to him, the income from these cash credit deposits has been taxed doubly, once in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and again in the hands of Shrimati Parwatibai for some years, and that having regard to the decision which has been reached by this court in the reference, such double taxation would not be proper. Mr. Dastur has categorically stated before us that his client, the assessee, is accepting the decision of this court in the above reference and would not prefer any appeal to the higher court against the same. In view of this statement made we feel that the taxing authorities should consider the aspect of double taxation of the income as pointed out by Mr. Dastur and, if necessary, proper adjustments may be made.
-
1977 (6) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Tax, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... documentary evidence. The pattas are in her name. The kist and electricity charges are paid by her. In such circumstances, we hold that the first defendant has not discharged the burden of proof cast upon him in establishing the fact that these properties were taken benami in the name of the plaintiff by the third defendant with the object of defeating the claim of the income-tax department towards the arrears of tax due from him. On the other hand, there is clinching evidence, both oral and documentary, on the side of the plaintiff, which goes to prove that she is the real owner of the properties with good title and that she is in absolute enjoyment thereof. Accordingly, we confirm the finding of the court below that the suit properties cannot be made liable for the income-tax arrears due by the third defendant. The first defendant, appellant, has not challenged the findings of the court below on issues Nos. 3 and 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Inaccurate Particulars, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings, Reference To IAC ... ... ... ... ..... st and then the penalty proceeding is started, the assessee is deprived of the benefit of section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, any observation made in that decision with regard to the penalty preceedings are obiter and it was not necessary for the court to go into the question whether the penalty proceedings can also be initiated before the completion of the assessment. That being the position, I do not think that the said Bench decision will be of any help to the petitioner in this case. I also do not find anything wrong in the notices dated October 10, 1974, under section 131 and warrant of authorization under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. In fact the petitioner did not make any argument on them. There is thus no substance in this rule. In the result, the rule stands discharged. All interim orders stand vacated. No order made as to costs. On the prayer of the petitioner appearing in person the stay of the operation of the judgment for six weeks is allowed.
-
1977 (6) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Dues, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ing in the present context. In that view of the matter this petition must be allowed by quashing the impugned order of the Tax Recovery Officer at annexure B and by directing the Tax Recovery Officer to release the said amount of Rs. 59,904 also from attachment in connection with the aforesaid tax dues of the deceased, defaulter-assessee, Jayantilal, and restraining the respondent from recovering these dues from the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs. 59,904 which belongs to the petitioners. It is clarified that the Tax Recovery Officer shall be entitled to continue his proceeding of recovery from the remaining amount of Rs. 3,000 which was awarded by way of loss of estate to the petitioners as conventional amount of loss of expectation of life, and that he is allowed to proceed even in respect of any further amount which may be awarded to the petitioners by way of loss to the estate in the pending appeals before this court. The rule is accordingly made absolute with costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Income Tax Act, Profits And Gains, Reassessment Notice, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... appellant, issued notices under section 143(2) and heard the appellant for the assessment years in question under section 143(3), but without completing the assessments he took recourse to reopen the assessments under section 147 by issuing the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act. In our view, the Income-tax Officer has acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the learned judge and make the rule absolute. We direct that a writ in the nature of certiorari issue quashing the impugned notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, we direct that a writ in the nature of mandamus issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the said notices or to any proceedings started thereon or any orders made pursuant to the same. The appeal is allowed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. SHARMA J.--I agree.
-
1977 (6) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Apparatus And Appliances, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... clearly liable to be attached by creditors for satisfaction of their debts. In other words, to the extent of nine policies which had been nominated by the deceased in favour of his wife, the moneys thereunder were liable to satisfy the unsatisfied debts of the free estate and in a sense the said insurance moneys really formed part of the free estate of the deceased and not property deemed to pass under other titles. If that be the position, in view of the undisputed fact that the insurance moneys under the said nine nominated policies which were of the value of Rs. 1,24,000, the unsatisfied debts to the extent of Rs. 64,097 will have to be deducted from the said amount, representing the value of nominated, insurance policies. In our view, therefore, the unsatisfied debts to the extent of Rs. 64,097 would be allowable as a deduction under section 44 of the Act, and the question is answered accordingly. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the accountable, person.
-
1977 (6) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cross Transfer, Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... while the Division Bench decided the Framji Commissariat s case 1967 64 ITR 588 (Bom) thereafter, i.e., on March 3, 1967. We can normally proceed on the assumption, more so as Mr. Joshi was one of the counsel who appeared in Framji Commissariat s case 1967 64 ITR 588 (Bom), that both the court as well as the counsel were fully aware of the observations of Lord Macmillan which were approved by the Supreme Court. These observations, in our opinion, do not assist Mr. Joshi. In the result, our answers to the questions referred to are as under Question No. 1 is answered in the negative in view of the decision of this court in Framji Commissariat s case 1967 64 ITR 588 (Bom). Question No. 2 has to be answered in the negative in view of our answer to question No. 1, because this question also is restricted to the applicability of the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) even when assets are transferred by creation of a trust. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee throughout.
-
1977 (6) TMI 15 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Enduring Benefit ... ... ... ... ..... rmance of the contract of transportation of ore. This is apart, altogether, from the once for all quality of the outlay which is made for construction of the access roads. In our opinion, the outlay does, therefore, bring into existence an advantage for the enduring benefit of the business--enduring in the sense that it is reasonably expected to extend over the duration of the business venture under the contract. On an appreciation of the whole set of circumstances and all the guiding features the outlay must be held to being to the structure and organisational set-up of the business. The outlay must accordingly be held to be of a capital and not revenue nature. In the result, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We answer the second question in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Burden Of Proof, Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... act. So long as the finding of the Tribunal cannot be characterised as arbitrary or unreasonable, in the sense that there is total absence of legal evidence to support its conclusion, this court will be very slow to interfere with it. In the present case, it cannot be stated that the Tribunal did not have the necessary evidence to support its conclusion or that no reasonable man would have reached the same conclusion on the basis of the determined facts. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing the deletion of a sum of Rs. 57,461 which was included in the assessee s total income as capital gains. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1977 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Liability To Capital Gains Tax, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1959 37 ITR 26. This decision, in our opinion, instead of supporting the contention of Mr. Joshi is against him. It is held in this case that in order to attract liability to tax on capital gains under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it is sufficient if in the relevant accounting year profits have arisen out of the sale of capital assets, that is to say, if the assessee has a right to receive the profits. It is not necessary that the assessee should have received them. Having regard to the provisions of clause 8 of the indenture referred to above, in the present case, during the accounting period the assessee had no right to receive the profits. His right to receive the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was only going to arise or accrue either on retirement or on death in the manner provided by the indenture. That being the position the question of levying tax on capital gains will never arise. In the result, the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... creditor so as to deprive him of his security or to affect or injure his rights as such secured creditor. This charge of the secured creditor is not only traceable against the property over which it is charged but also against the proceeds obtained by a sale of the charged property. In this case, the property has been sold under orders of court subject to the charge of Govindaswamy being maintained throughout and indeed over the sale proceeds as a result of the public sale of the property held by the official assignee. Following the ratio in the above two well-known decisions of our court, we accept the first respondent s case that the appellant cannot claim a better right, since the 1st respondent, Govindaswamy, was a secured creditor and that the act of the official assignee in having recognised him as such in consequence has to be upheld. Paul J. was right in having done so. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Family Property, Income Tax, Partnership Firm, Share In Partnership, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... it would follow that the partnership interest held till then by the individuals became joint family property. When the assets had become the joint family assets, the income flowing therefrom has to be taken as the income of the joint family and not of the respective individuals. In the case of the respondents in T.C. Nos. 460, 461 and 462 of 1974, the above discussion would go to show that the income has to be assessed in the hands of the respective Hindu undivided families and in the case of T. C. No. 459 of 1974, there being no son, the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1975 101 ITR 776 (SC) would govern and he will have to be assessed as an individual with reference to the share income as far as this assessment year is concerned. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs as the respondents are not represented. We place on record our appreciation of the assistance of Mr. J. Jayaraman.
-
1977 (6) TMI 10 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... nds as a separate assessee. That being the position, we hold that this sum of Rs. 15,000 and a sum of Rs. 863, which were spent by the assessee for acquiring the interest in the house property from which the capital gain in question has arisen, are deductible under section 48(ii) while computing the capital gain of the assessee-partner. In the circumstances, we find that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,863 could not be allowed as deduction for computing the amount of the assessee s share in the capital gains earned by the firm, M/s. Bagaria Building Corporation. In the result we answer the question of law referred in the negative and against the department. The reference is answered accordingly. We make no order as to costs. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, as provided under section 260(1) of the Act. D. PATHAK J.--I agree.
-
1977 (6) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... for the purpose of calculating the abatement to be allowed. So far as the present case is concerned, in our opinion, the controversy between the parties has to be decided upon correct interpretation of the definition of the expression Indian rate of tax given in rule 2(b) of the Income-tax (Double Taxation Relief) (United Kingdom) Rules, 1948. The language of the rule is clear and precise and is not capable of more than one interpretation and, in our opinion, as stated above, the view that was taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was the correct one. In our opinion, the question referred to us is answered as under The double taxation relief in respect of super-tax on income taxed both in India and in U.K. is to be determined by dividing the sum of Rs. 23,319.81, being the gross super-tax in India, i.e., without abatement on Pakistan income, by Rs. 3,73,117 being the gross total income. This comes to 12 pies in a rupee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1977 (6) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Original Order, Valid Notice ... ... ... ... ..... tablish his case that the larger extent of land had been included in his holding. In the revisional orders passed by the Commissioner, it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not substantiate his claim by producing any concrete materials. Even before this court, no material has been referred to by the petitioner to show as to what is the actual extent of land held by him in that village. It is not, therefore, possible to go into that question. However, now that for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 and 1971-72, the assessing authority has been directed to proceed with the revision of assessment after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner can substantiate his claim as to the actual extent of land in Mukundarayapuram village. In this view the Writ Petitions Nos. 1569, 1571, 1573, 1592 and 1593 of 1973 are dismissed. W.P. Nos. 1570, 1572, 1590 and 1591 are allowed. There will, however, be no orders as to costs in all these writ petitions.
-
1977 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... for the revenue was not prepared to avail himself of this offer and pleaded want of instructions. We were not prepared to offer time for the purpose. Counsel stated that by R.P. No. 52 of 1974 the revenue had endeavoured to clear some misconceptions, but in the absence of the petition or other material, we cannot accept this. We should have thought that the revenue need not fight shy of accepting the offer made on affidavits, to treat the reassessment notice, as one for original assessment, and to waive the plea of limitation. But the revenue apparently suspects a snag where we are inclined to see none and we cannot compel it to agree to the offer. We have, therefore, dealt with the arguments. In the result, subject to the remedy, if any, of the petitioner to object to the attachment under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and under the procedure attracted to proceedings taken under the said provision, we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... ts are made to persons who are not genuine arid similarly no good reason was suggested by Mr. Joshi why the assessee which had an aggregate borrowing exceeding Rs. 71 lakhs should have only received such a petty amount as income from undisclosed sources when at least the taxing authorities as well as the Tribunal accepted the remaining deposits as genuine. In fact not one circumstance of this evidence is pointed out by Mr. Joshi which will reasonably enable any judicial authority to come to the conclusion that these deposits or any one of them was income from undisclosed sources. In that view of the matter, it was unnecessary to consider the alternative contention of Mr. Kolah that in any event this should be regarded as income of the Pithore branch and not of the Bombay branch. Accordingly, our answer to additional question No. 2 is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As both the parties have partly succeeded in this reference, each party will bear its own costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Income Tax Act, Profits And Gains, Reassessment Notice, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... bate reserve account created by the company in the accounting year was not made up by the company by creating an additional reserve or by debiting the excess amounts of the earlier years in the profit and loss account of the instant accounting year and by crediting the same in the development rebate reserve account of this instant year. It was not the case of the company before the authorities below that the said shortfall was unintentional or that there was a genuine mistake on the part of the company in that behalf. It is an admitted fact that the company has not transferred the excess amount of the earlier years in this accounting year for the purposes of making up the corresponding reserve. Non-compliance of the provisions of s. 34(3)(a) of the Act by the company is also an admitted fact. In the premises, we answer question No. 2 as refrained by us in the negative and in favour of revenue. We, however, do not propose to make any order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
|
