|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 111 Records
-
1978 (6) TMI 51 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Padampat, Singhania 1973 90 ITR 418, in which contrary view was taken had not been accepted, and was under appeal to the Supreme Court (vide Board s Instruction No. 545 dated May 10, 1973). But it seems to us that the method of deducting a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in the computation of the net wealth of the firm under rule 2 is not warranted by the terms of section 5(1)(iv-a). The deduction contemplated is in the computation of the net wealth of an assessee and not a firm which is not the assessee. On the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court, the assessee is a person who owns the agricultural land and, therefore, deduction has to be given in his/her hands. This is what has been directed by the Tribunal. We do not find any error in the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the question referred in these two cases is answered in affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... l for the assessee for our consideration. It was submitted that such a benefit is required to be considered under the head Salaries . It was further submitted that since the relationship of employer-employee did not exist between Ballarpur and the assessee, it was not permissible for the revenue to claim that this income should be regarded as income from other sources Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S. A. L. Narayan Row, Commissioner of Income-tax 1966 61 ITR 428. The fallacy underlying this argument is the starting point thereof that such a benefit has to be regarded as pertaining to income from the had Salaries . There is no warrant for such an assumption. Unless this is assumed there is no basis in the second argument advanced by Dr. Pal. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the revenue.
-
1978 (6) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Business Income, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... ease to be a part of the circulating capital of the appellant nor would they cease to form part of its banking business. The returns flowing from them would form part of its profits from its business. In a commercial sense the directors of the company owe it to the bank to make investments which earn them interest instead of letting moneys lie idle. It cannot be said that the funds of the bank which were not lent to borrowers but were laid out in the form of deposits in another bank to add to the profit instead of lying idle necessarily ceased to be a part of the stock-in-trade of the bank, or that the interest arising therefrom did not form part of its business profits. From the foregoing, it is clear that the income of Rs. 82,305, which had been shown by the assessee in its books as interest, has been rightly held as income from its business. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. The department is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200.
-
1978 (6) TMI 48 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
House Property, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... be one lakh of rupees. So where the house is situate in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand and the value of the house exceeds one lakh of rupees, the amount to be excluded in the net wealth of the assessee is limited to one lakh of rupees. The section itself contemplates the house as belonging to the assessee and the exemption is in respect of a house belonging to the assessee. Therefore, when the value of the house is to be considered for the computation of the net wealth, it has to be assumed even for purpose of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act that the house in question belongs to the assessee and the exemption that has to be allowed is in the hands of such assessee. This is also the view taken by the High Court of Madras in the case of S. Naganathan v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax 1975 101 ITR 287. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 one set.
-
1978 (6) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ng the net wealth by three, because the exemption allowable under section 5(1)(iv-a) of the Act has to be given in its entirety to the assessee. In a case of this type we have to bear in mind that the wealth-tax is leviable on the basis of the ownership of the assets of the assessee concerned. Any assessment made on the basis of the total wealth of the assessee and his tenants-in-common whose titles are distinct and separate from the title of the assessee and the calculation of the exemption allowable under the proviso to section 5(1)(iv-a) as if all of them are being a assessed jointly is clearly not warranted by law. The method adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer which virtually denies the full exemption allowable under law is erroneous. The method of computation followed by the Tribunal has, therefore, to be upheld. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (6) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entire Exclusion, Estate Duty Act, Principal Value Of Estate, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... wife cannot in any way militate against the wife-donee retaining to the entire exclusion of the donor the possession and enjoyment of the house. For the department the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Bibi Ahmadi Begum v. Controller of Estate Duty 1972 83 ITR 303 was relied upon. The view taken by the High Court of Calcutta was sought to be relied upon before the Allahabad High Court, but the learned judges were not inclined to agree with that view. In our opinion, the view taken by the other High Courts referred to above appears to us to take the correct view and accordingly we follow them in preference to the decision of the High Court of Allahabad. For the reasons stated above, the inclusion of the value of the house gifted in favour of his wife, Girija, in the computation of the principal value of the estate passing on the death was not warranted. Therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. No costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 45 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Central Government, Failure To Disclose, Managing Agent, Reopening Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... connection as it is nowhere provided that for purposes of granting relief under s. 80L the net realisation by way of dividend, after deducting expenditure under s. 57(iii), should be taken into consideration. The expression dividends in cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L cannot be read as net dividends . We do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal on this question. This view of ours receives support from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. B. M. Grover. It was next argued by Sri Rajasekharamurthy relying upon sub-s. (2) of s. 80A of the Act that the aggregate amount of deduction under Chap. VI-A in which s. 80L appears, could not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. No such contingency arises here because the gross total income of the assessee as defined in s. 80B(5) is in excess of the deduction claimed under s. 80L of the Act. We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... in Bangalore. Having rejected the said case of the accountable persons, the Tribunal valued the property at Rs. 1,28,000 (by rounding off the actual price paid by the deceased) as on the date of the death of the deceased, i.e., February 9, 1969, nearly 3 years after the purchase. It is no doubt, true that one of the modes of the computation of the value of a property is the capitalisation of the rental receipt in respect of it. This principle has to be adopted when there is no other better material. In the instant case the Assistant Controller, Appellate Contr. and the Tribunal have all depended upon the best evidence which was the actual price paid for the very same property by the deceased nearly three years before the time of his death. In the circumstances, there was no justification for the Tribunal to apply the capitalisation principle enunciated in the case of V. C. Ramachandran 1966 60 ITR 103 (Mys). Hence, all the questions are answered in the affirmative. No costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... w that this finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures or surmises or is such that no person acting with a sense of responsibility could have arrived at. Appreciation of material is for the Tribunal to consider and unless it is pointed out that the finding is perverse, it would not be permissible for this court in its advisory jurisdiction to reappreciate it with a view to consider whether the finding that has been arrived at by the Tribunal is one which could have been arrived at by the court upon appreciation of such evidence. As it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that in the present case the finding of the Tribunal is capricious or perverse or is one which no man acting with the sense of responsibility could have arrived at, the question referred to us shall have to be answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the question reframed by us as aforesaid is answered in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (6) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Affidavit By ITO, Assessment Notice, Income From Property, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice
-
1978 (6) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... would be served in pursuing this branch of the enquiry any further. Accordingly, it is clear th at the reopening was sought to be done on the basis of the provisions of the trust deed which were being construed by the ITO in the assessment of the individual and would clearly come within the scope of information as now interpreted by the Supreme Court in its several decisions which have been indicated and summarised in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. s case 1976 102 ITR 287. This does not appear to be a case of the type contemplated in Holck Larsen s case 1972 85 ITR 467 (Bom), viz., by a change of opinion which would not justify reopening under s. 34(1)(b). In this view of the matter, we must hold that the conclusions of the Tribunal on this point are erroneous and answer the question referred to us accordingly. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner the costs of this reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Valuation Officer
-
1978 (6) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... of the operations were carried out in India it had to be determined to what extent the income of the business could be reasonably attributed to such local operations. In this view of the matter, an enquiry as to whether the contract between the assessee and the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. was a single or a divisible contract has no relevance. For the reasons as stated above, we decline to answer the questions referred to us and remand the matter to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law as has been indicated above. The Tribunal is directed to give further opportunity to the parties of being heard and is also directed to take fresh evidence if necessary. We record that there is no dispute between the parties that the assessments have to be made on the basis of receipts and/or expenses on a yearly basis and not on a lump sum basis. The Tribunal is directed to proceed on such basis. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (6) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act, Total Income
-
1978 (6) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... ler and by the Tribunal that neither the donor nor his wife resided in the said premises at any time after the execution of the deed of gift and the donees were in actual possession. We are of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, the first prov. to s. 10 of the Act is attracted in respect of this house. The circumstances justify that either by reason of the surrender of the right reserved by the donor or otherwise, the donees subsequently retained possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor of the said property and this was for a period of more than two years before the death of the donor. The Tribunal ought to have held that the premises bearing No. 8 did not pass on the death of the donor. The Tribunal should have, therefore, excluded the value of that property from the estate liable for duty. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative in regard to premises bearing No. 9 and in the negative in regard to premises bearing No. 8.
-
1978 (6) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... g of judicial mind of the officer or was otherwise vitiated by being arbitrary or capricious. Strictly, we see no question of law which can really be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Even assuming that the conclusion on the facts is to be regarded as a question of law, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal in regard to the said question of law is correct and calls for no interference. I.T.R. No. 8 of 1976 On the facts which we have stated in regard to I.T.R. No. 7 of 1976, we are satisfied that the rejection of accounts and the best of judgment assessment for failure to file a return was justified under s. 144 of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal was correct. In the result, we answer the question in I.T.R. No. 7 of 1976 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, and the question in I.T.R. No. 8 of 1976 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... fficer relied upon the relevant aspects only in issuing the later order of assessment for the year 1969-70, which was confirmed on appeal by the AAC. This, in our opinion, constitutes information within the meaning of s. 147 and in the light of the judicial decisions, on the basis of which a change of opinion was justified and proper. The Tribunal was wrong in the view that it took. Counsel for the assessee attempted a feeble argument that the information , if such it could be, had come from the officer himself, as it was the succeeding officer in 1969-70 who took a different view, which was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the light of the decisions we have noticed, this seems to make no difference. In the result, we answer the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal will rehear the appeal in the light of the answer given by us to the questions and dispose of the same on the merits. We make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deemed Income, Indian Company, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ich was assessed to income both in the United Kingdom and in India, and that in grossing up the dividend received by the assessee the I.T. authorities were not entitled to take into consideration the tax paid by the company in the United Kingdom. It was observed that the case (in 21 ITR 28) was different from the later case (in 29 ITR 774) considered by tile learned judges. Observed the learned judges We are upholding the action of the I.T. Act authorities in taxing Sir Joseph Kay on the simple finding that in substance and in fact the income of Sir Joseph Kay is pound 500, that it accrued to him outside the taxable territories and that as he is a resident he is liable to pay tax on that amount. We cannot, with respect, adopt the above line of reasoning in the present case. Having regard to the provisions of ss. 198 and 5(1)(c) of the Act, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... art or fraction of the gifted property and thenceforward retaining it to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise, the estate duty shall be payable not in respect of the whole of the gifted property but only in respect of that part or fraction of the gifted property of which the donee did not assume bona fide possession and enjoyment and thenceforward retain it to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. Thus, it is quite evident that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the Calcutta High Court, the view that has been taken by the Appellate Controller as well as the Tribunal is right and just and there is no scope for different interpretations as sought to be contended by Mr. Joshi on behalf of the revenue. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. The revenue shall pay the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... require shade, that the trees in question have not been planted to give shade to the rubber plants, and that the object with which the trees had been planted was not solely to protect the rubber plants, but to derive income from those trees by selling them for the production of catamarans. The above findings have not been challenged before us. The planting of the trees in the margins and vacant places in the plantation becomes agricultural operation and the income derived from such activity or operation would attract tax under the Act. We, therefore, accept the view taken by the Tribunal in this case, even though in respect of the earlier assessment year the petitioner had succeeded before this court in Nellayappan Sastha and Bros. v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. 1972 86 ITR 151 (Mad) with regard to the sale proceeds of trees cut and sold from the plantation. The reference is accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
|
