|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 111 of 111 Records
-
1978 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... this enabled him to make larger profits. The said sum of Rs. 12,000 was claimed as deduction in the computation of the taxable profits under s. 10(2)(ix) of the 1922 Act. The Full Bench took the view that the payment of Rs. 12,000 not being for the purpose of working the contract but for obtaining the same, the expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, not a permissible allowance under s.10(2)(ix). In support of its view the Full Bench had relied on the decision in City of London Contract Corporation Ltd. v. Styles 1887 2 TC 239 (CA), wherein a payment made by a company for taking over a business of another rival company on payment of certain sum was held to be a capital expenditure. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal is right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was not deductible as an allowable expenditure. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the revenue which we fix at Rs. 250.
-
1978 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... 78 114 ITR 51 (Cal), we answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Income-tax References Nos. 407 to 413 of 1971 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question in Income-tax References Nos. 396 to 402 of 1971 has not been pressed by the assessee and, therefore, we decline to answer the same. Before concluding we would like to add that in our decision in the case of Eyre Smelting P. Ltd. 1978 114 ITR 51 (Cal), as also in the present case, we have confined our discussions to recovery proceedings under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or the I.T. Act, 1961. We did not lay down that the right of the revenue to institute a suit in similar circumstances could also be barred by limitation. The period of limitation for a suit to be instituted by the Government of India is specifically laid down by the relevant article of the limitation Act, 1963 and none of our observations can or were intended to affect the same. There will be no orders as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1978 (6) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Voluntary Disclosure, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... I.T. Acts. It is this consideration and reason which seems to us to have principally appealed to the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Courts in their decisions. Looked at from this angle, it appears to us that although it is not possible to say that the amount of income-tax paid under s. 68 of the Finance Act 1965, is income-tax under the charging s. 3 or s. 4 of the I.T. Acts it must be regarded as income-tax paid in lieu of such income-tax and would be entitled to the same considerations as lavished by the Supreme Court on the ordinary charge of income-tax. It is on this footing that we would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is clarified that the deduction which the assessee will be entitled to will be the amounts specified in col. 7 of the table to be found in para. 3 of the statement of the case, which we have extracted earlier in our judgment. We, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Partner In Firm, Passing Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... e are also in agreement with the Tribunal s view that the assessed income to be considered would be the one finally determined. The view taken by the Tribunal in para. 18 of its order appears to be correct and there is no reason to interfere with its conclusion on the quantification of the goodwill. No other point was urged before us. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1.--The share of the deceased in the goodwill of Messrs. Natwarlal and Co. was includible in the principal value of the property under s. 5 of the E.D. Act. The share of the deceased in the goodwill of Messrs. Kantilal Manilal and Co. and Messrs. Pannalal Brothers was not includible in the principal value of the property under s. 9 of the E.D. Act read with Expln. 2 to cl. (15) of s. 2 of the said Act. Question No. 2.--The goodwill of the firm of Messrs. Natwarlal and Co. was valued on correct legal principles. The parties will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Private Company ... ... ... ... ..... found by the Tribunal, there is neither an agreement to buy back the shares on the part of the assessee nor has he acquired an option to buy back the same. Such a conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and when such is the case the provisions of s. 44E would not be attracted. The evidence that has been given by one of the persons examined before the taxing authorities was that if ever he desired to sell the shares to the assessee he would be under an obligation to purchase the same at the price of Rs. 125 per share. Such an understanding does not amount either to an agreement to buy back the shares or a conferment of an option on the part of the assessee to buy back the shares. Thus, it is quite evident that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the provisions of s. 44E were not attracted. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (6) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agreement For Avoidance, Double Taxation Between India And Pakistan, Income Tax Act, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification Of Mistakes
-
1978 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... the I.T. Acts. It is this consideration and reason which seems to us to have principally appealed to the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Courts in their decisions. Looked at from this angle, it appears to us that although it is not possible to say that the amount of income-tax paid under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is income-tax under the charging s. 3 or. s. 4 of the I.T. Acts, it must be regarded as income-tax paid in lieu of such income-tax and would be entitled to the same considerations as lavished by the Supreme Court on the ordinary charge of income-tax. It is on this footing that we would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is clarified that the deduction which the assessee will be entitled to will be the amounts specified in col. 7 of the table to be found in para. 3 of the statement of case which we have extracted earlier in our judgment. We, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Actually Allowed, Distributable Income, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... the dividend was declared and paid out of the profits earned during the earlier years inasmuch as there was no available income for distribution during the year 1960-61. It also appears to be the agreed position that there is a difference between the amount allowed in the assessment for 1960-61 by way of depreciation and development rebate and that provided for in the balance-sheet for that year. It is the difference and the short provision in the balance-sheet, which, in our opinion, brings in its wake the Expln. II and inasmuch as by reason thereof a distributable income is discovered to the extent of Rs. 1,81,644, to that extent the dividend paid would be deemed to be paid out of such fictional distributable income and only the balance of Rs. 706 would qualify for relief under s. 49BB. This may be deemed to be the answer to the question referred to us. The matter was res integra and in the special circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Gift, Own Use And Benefit ... ... ... ... ..... isfied. Thus, this contention of Mr. Joshi must also fail. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, we may incidentally point out that Mr. Dastoor, who appears on behalf of the accountable person, drew our attention to the fact that it was not permissible for the revenue to raise such a question in respect of the debit item of Rs. 4 lakhs because, he posed, that long after this debit entry was effected, there were several credit and debit entries and the subsequent credit entries were in excess of Rs. 4 lakhs and it would not be permissible to the revenue to pick up solitary item for the purpose of urging a contention restricted to the provisions of s. 44(a) of the Act. As, on merits, we have taken a view against the revenue, it is unnecessary for us for the purposes of this case to deal with this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, our answer to question No. 3 is in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. The revenue shall pay the costs of the accountable person.
-
1978 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r such purpose the motive, the purpose of the transaction, must be decisively held to be not of the nature suggested by the Tribunal and unless we are in a position to do so, which we are not, we must hold that the Tribunal was not in error in arriving at the conclusion it did. This case must be distinguished from the Himalayan Tiles case 1975 100 ITR 177 (Bom), on the footing that since the assessee was closely involved with the judgment-debtors, the purchase of the decrees against the judgment-debtors could be explained on the footing of a motive to help them. In any case, the possible existence of such a motive cannot be ruled out. If that is so, the conclusion reached in this case must be different from that reached by the Division Bench of this court in the Himalayan Tiles case 1975 100 ITR 177 (Bom). For these reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties, however, will bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income, Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... ant assessment year which were not challenged. In the assessment year 1954-55 and the assessment year 1955-56, relevant to the present reference, the Tribunal has similarly found facts and drawn factual inferences therefrom which have not been challenged. Such findings have become final. The present reference has to be decided on the facts as found by the Tribunal in this year, and different facts found in another assessment year was no ground for a remand in this case. The, contentions of Mr. Sengupta are not without substance. It does not appear to us that any grounds have been made out for a fresh hearing or for taking fresh evidence by the Tribunal. There is no question of res judicata in the assessment proceedings and the facts found in a particular year cannot in any way affect the findings made in another assessment year. In this view, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SEN J.-I agree.
....
|
