|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 211 of 211 Records
-
1979 (11) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Sampath Iyengar s Treatise on the Three New Taxes , 5th Edn., Vol. I, where the learned author also expressed the view that r. ID must be understood as being directory and not mandatory. With respect, we are unable to give our assent to this view. We rather agree with the principle in the decision of the Allahabad High Court noticed earlier. The result is that the Tribunal in these cases was wrong in having interfered with the valuation made by the WTO and confirmed by the AAC, following the principle indicated by r. ID of the Rules. We answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeals preferred by the Revenue will go back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the opinion rendered in these references. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1979 (11) TMI 10 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... contention raised by Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that certain wearing apparel of the assessees were also taken into possession by the I.T. authorities and the same being not incriminating articles should be returned to the petitioners as they are being devalued while in the possession of the I.T. authorities. Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the Revenue, has stated before us that on a proper application being made, the I.T. authorities shall return the wearing apparel to the assessees which were taken into possession. We accordingly direct that the I.T. authorities should return the wearing apparel of the petitioners which were taken into possession during the raid in question on an application being made by the assessees to the I.T. authorities. No other point has been pressed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In all other respects the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. S. S. DEWAN J.-I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was rightly set aside stating that the assessee must explain its conduct as to why she could not file her return in time? After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Certain submissions had been made on behalf of the assessee before the AAC, who accepted, some of them but without verifying them properly. It may be noted that no explanation whatsoever was given by the assessees before the WTO. Thus, there was still greater reason for the AAC to properly verify those submissions. The Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, right in remanding the case to the AAC for its decision in accordance with law. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue in entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200, and the counsel s fee at the same figure one set.
-
1979 (11) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of sales tax paid, though raised before the AAC, was expressly given up by the assessee before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Department suggested that the said ground was given up because, otherwise, the amount was taxable in the hands of an individual and in that case the amount of tax leviable would be much more than if the same is taxed in the hands of the assessee which is a firm consisting of three partners. Moreover, as found by the ITO, which has not been challenged by the assessee, as per the deed of partnership, the liabilities and assets as well as the litigation of the proprietary concern were taken over by the assessee-firm. In the circumstances, it is not open to the assessee to raise the aforesaid contention and on merits also it has no substance. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (11) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Delayed Return Before 1-4-1962, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... appeal is a valuable right and thus in that background the question whether a particular assessee has been served in accordance with law assumes considerable importance. In such matters, the courts usually insist that the procedure, as postulated by law, should be meticulously followed so that no injustice is done to a person whose right of appeal will come into play only if he has been served in accordance with law. In the present case, an ex parte assessment order was passed and obviously the assessee had no knowledge of the passing of the order. We, therefore, quash the demand notice, copy of which is appended as annex. P-3 to the petition, and allow the assessee to file an appeal against the assessment order within six weeks from today. However, it will be for the AAC to determine the merits of the appeal to be filed by the assessee, but the same will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs. S. S. DEWAN J.- I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... shorn of the right of the firm to use it free of interest till the happening of marriage of the donee. The firm only retained possession and enjoyment of such rights which were not the subject-matter of the gift. The benefit to the firm of which the donor was a partner arising from the use of the amount till marriage was in respect of rights not forming the subject of gift. Viewed in this way, it cannot be said that the donee in each case did not bona fide assume possession and enjoyment of the property which was the subject-matter of the gift to the exclusion of the donor and did not retain the possession and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the donor. In our opinion, the conditions for exemption from the operation of s. 10 are satisfied here also. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, in favour of the accountable person and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (11) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Contingency Reserve, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... t reserve was dealt with in CIT v. Craigmore Land and Produce Co. Ltd. 1977 110 ITR 730 (Mad) and Addl. CIT v. Craigmore Land and Produce Co. Ltd. 1979 116 ITR 889 (Mad) and the dividend equalisation reserve was dealt with in Addl. CIT v. Adoni Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. 1977 108 ITR 236 (Mad). As the matter is already concluded by the decisions of this court, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by calling for reference of the question on the said reserves. As regards the contingency reserve, the learned counsel contended that it is not covered by any decision of this court. We consider that contingency reserve is only in the nature of general reserve. We do not, therefore, find that any question of law can be said to arise out of the points raised in the second question. In this view of the matter the first question would assume only an academic interest even if there is a direction. The result is, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ealth-tax Reference No. 17/1977, we answer the questions referred to for our opinion in Wealth-tax References Nos. 10, 11, 14,15 and 16, 18 of 1977, 15 and 16 and 21 and 22 of 1978 and 1, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 and 7 of 1979 and question No. (ii) in Wealth-tax Reference No. 19 of 1977, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. Now, we advert to question No. (i) in Wealth-tax Reference No. 19/1977. The learned counsel for the Department fairly conceded that the Full Bench decision of this court in Pritam Singh v. .Asst. CED 1976 103 ITR 661, covers the subject-matter of question No. (i) against the Revenue and he refrained from contesting the decision of the Tribunal in regard to the subject-matter of question No. (i). The answer to this question would obviously be in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The references are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Notice issued u/s 148 by annulling the earlier assessment completed on 22/12/65 - When reassessment proceedings under s. 34 of 1922 Act were pending on April 1, 1962, as per s. 297(2)(d)(ii) issue of notice under s. 148 would be incompetent - notice is liable to be quashed
-
1979 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Limitation of two years for passing order by CIT in revision not applies to order passed on remand from Tribunal - Tribunal's order vacating the Commissioner's order and directing the Commissioner to make assessment afresh after giving due opportunity to the respondent-assessee was proper - appeal of revenue is allowed
-
1979 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Claim for exemption under s. 11(1) - activities of promotion of commerce and trade - object is for general public utility - exemption entitled
....
|
