|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 290 of 290 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 10 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s if they have not already filed them, on or before June 1, 1990. However, in the interests of justice, it is directed that in the case of each of the petitioners, the concerned Income-tax Officer shall take up the first year for which notices under section 186 have been issued. He shall first decide that case and record his conclusions regarding the genuineness and validity of the partnership concern only thereafter the matters pertaining to the following years shall be taken up but not earlier than six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners are agreed that if the concerned Income-tax Officer takes up the notices for the subsequent years after period of six months of the passing of the first order aforementioned, then the petitioners shall not raise the question of limitation. With these observations, the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioners, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the concerned Income-tax Officers on June 1, 1990.
-
1990 (3) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... said that it must be reduced from the cost of capital assets for the purpose of granting depreciation. If the capital assets were not acquired with the help of the subsidy, the amount of capital assets could not be reduced by the amount of subsidy that has been paid by the Government under the scheme. The Tribunal has followed a decision of the Special Bench of Tribunal on identical facts in respect of a sister concern of the assessee-company. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly decided on the point that the subsidy could not be deducted from the cost of the capital assets of the company on the ground that the capital assets were not purchased with that subsidy and no part of that amount was paid towards reimbursement of the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. As such, the Tribunal has rightly decided the point and, accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1990 (3) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ions relate to depreciation. But the objections do not refer to the items of machinery on which depreciation was claimed and allowed. In other words, it is not clear from the note whether the objection as regards excessive allowance is based on the interpretation by the Internal Audit Party or on the factual part of it. In my judgment, those two objections also do not provide a sound basis for the formation of the belief that the assessee s income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. That apart, it may not be out of place to mention that the assessee s total income for the assessment year 1980-81 was computed at Rs. 10,92,977. Total depreciation was allowed at Rs. 12,366. Taking into account all these aspects, it is held that the condition precedent for reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act is not present in this case. The notice is, accordingly, quashed. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... esorting to such transactions, i.e., selling a property dividing into many shares, it is worthwhile to consider amending the Income-tax Act as well as the Registration Act. As the provisions exist on date, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed. S. Ramalingam J. has held recently in an unreported decision in K. V. Kishore v. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department-since reported in 1991 189 ITR 264 (Mad) (W. P. No. 4537 of 1988 dated 15-3-1990), that Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be applied taking the total consideration of the collective shares. In that case, the value of each share was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and what was sold was the individual undivided share in the said property. In view of my conclusion arrived at, I hold that the circulars issued in these cases are ex facie illegal and as such the impugned circulars are declared illegal and invalid. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... vided shares of respondents Nos. 4 to 8. It is not in dispute that the value of each such share is less than Rs. 10,00,000. The recitals in the agreement in more than one place refer to the fact that what is sold, is the individual undivided share in the property. Consequently, the impugned order made under Chapter XX-C of the Act taking the total consideration, the collective shares, cannot be sustained (sic). Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Counsel for the Income-tax Department prays that the amount paid by the Department during the pendency of the writ petitions to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 will have to be refunded by them. Since the petitioners have already agreed to purchase the property, they are bound by law to pay the price agreed upon and in this view, the petitioners herein will reimburse the Income-tax Department the amount which the Department has already parted with. The petitioners will have time till the end of May, 1990, for payment.
-
1990 (3) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... case of the assessee in any way. The object as stated in the circular is to curb the device to manipulate and reduce the taxable income of a company under the management of a controlling group of persons. But the circular has clearly stated in paragraph 19.1 that the business of purchase and sale of shares by companies which are not investment or banking companies or companies carrying on the business of granting loans and advances will be treated on the same footing as speculation business . Therefore, the circular does not leave any room for doubt that the Explanation will apply to the business of purchase and sale of shares of certain companies. Nowhere in the circular has any indication been given that where the only business of a company consists of purchase and sale of shares, the Explanation will not apply. Therefore, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (3) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... were two views possible about the controversy but two views were actually taken by different Benches of the Tribunal and a Special Bench had to be set up to resolve the conflicting views between the Tribunals. The language of section 13 of the Surtax Act is similar to the language of section 154 of the 1961 Act. It is well-settled that the phrase any mistake apparent from the record means a clear and obvious mistake. If two views are possible on the question, that will not be a mistake apparent from the record. In that view of the matter, we uphold the assessee s contention that, even if the court is inclined to reject the view taken by the Tribunal on merits, it cannot be said that two conflicting views were not possible to be taken about the point in issue. This is not a case of a mistake apparent from the record. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (3) TMI 3 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Company In Liquidation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... annot see the adequacy of the record on the basis of which the opinion is formed by the Income-tax Officer, but there must be some record to formulate the opinion. In the absence of any record worth the name, the action appears to have been taken either merely upon suspicion or change of opinion of the Income-tax Officer not warranted under law. Even in the column of reason for belief in the pro forma attached, the Income-tax Officer has only mentioned the conclusions of his belief without disclosing the reasons even in his own file. The issuance of the notices in the instant case under section 148 of the Act was, therefore, unjustified and without any material. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the orders impugned issued by the respondent are quashed. The petitioner is also held entitled to the payment of costs assessed at Rs. 200. The order of stay issued by the court on August 14, 1978, shall stand vacated and the C.M.P. No. 150 of 1978 disposed of.
-
1990 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he purpose of earning profits . Its range is wide it may take in not only the day-to-day running of a business but also the rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery it may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title it may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for carrying on of a business it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business . . . It has been contended, in our view rightly, that the assessee has to pay the amount in question under coercive process of law. The business of the assessee was in jeopardy because of the coercive measure adopted by the Central Excise Department. The question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Seizure and confiscation - Tribunal and the High Court have taken the view that whether a certain sum of money can be treated as the income of an assessee and whether that sum of money could be deducted as loss are different questions of law and not different aspects of the same question - aforesaid view of the Tribunal and the High Court is a possible view, we are not inclined to interfere with that view under article 136 of the Constitution
....
|
