|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 142 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 138 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... n No. GSR 606(E) dt. 9th June, 1989. Para 3 of the Circular dt. 1st Sept., 1994, is also applicable to the facts of the case. In any case the assessee was under the genuine impression that the amount in question was exempt under s. 10(14). We are therefore, of the opinion that the employer cannot be made liable to pay tax under s. 201(1) Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. . There is no case against this view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and we hold that the same has to be applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the AO was not justified in charging interest under s. 201(1) and the CIT(A) was further not justified in confirming the same. 4. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed and the tax charged is accordingly cancelled. We are also fortified by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA Nos. 5975 to 5992/Del/1996 reported in (1997) 61 ITD 444 (Del). 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 135 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... which does not relate to contravention of any statutory rule has to be allowed as an admissible deduction. In the case of Sardar Prit Inder Singh vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (Pat) 185 (1986) 160 ITR 493 (Pat) the Hon ble Patna High Court held that the damages paid for the delay in supplying goods and materials should be allowed as a deduction. No materials have been brought into record to contradict the finding of the learned CIT(A) that during the year the assessee was aware of such damages payable by it. The order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and this ground of the Revenue is rejected. 22. The next ground is in respect of application of s. 43B. In our view, the matter has to be looked into by the AO in conformity with the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 118 CTR (Guj) 257 (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj). This issue is restored back to the file of the AO. 23. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1997 (9) TMI 134 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... tly) and there was no occasion for making the huge gifts to the well to do assessees and as such the genuineness of the gifts to the assessees cannot be accepted. In this we are fortified by the judgement of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Lall Chand Kalra v. CIT 1981 22 CTR 135/6 Taxman 171. in this case the donor was a stranger to the assessee and the Hon ble High Court held that there was no reason why he should make a gift of Rs. 10,000 to the assessee. It was further held in that case that gift from a relative who had other more important liability like marrying four sisters of his own would not be a genuine gift and especially when there was no occasion for such a gift. 8. In the light of the above discussion we uphold the action of the A.O. in treating so called gifts from stranger agriculturists as income of the assessees from undisclosed sources. We accordingly reverse the findings of the Dy. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 101 - SC ORDER
New Industrial Undertaking, Computation Of Capital, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ates ORDER In view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 1987 167 ITR 639 these appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Capital Loss, Set Off, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ng deduction under section 80T of the Act, does not arise. We are supported in our above conclusion by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. V. Venkatachalam 1993 201 ITR 737. So far as the entitlement of the assessee to set off the short-term capital loss against income under any head other than capital gains is concerned, it is clear from sections 70 and 71 of the Act that there is no bar on such adjustment. Loss relating to short-term capital assets can be set off under section 71 against income under any other head in the same year. In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80T of the Act, short-term capital loss cannot be deducted from the long-term capital gain. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 98 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... able to pay tax in respect of income, profits and gains which he has not received for the previous year. Following the above decision, we hold that even though a single assessment has to be made against the reconstituted firm for the year 1979-80, as regards income received for the period between July 1, 1977, and March 28, 1978, the liability for tax has to be apportioned between the partners of the firm before its reconstitution and for the period between March 28, 1978, and June 30, 1978, it has to be apportioned between the partners under the reconstituted firm. We answer question No. 1 in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We decline to answer question No. 2 as it is not relevant. In the light of our answer to question No. 1, we decline to answer question No. 3. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Ernakulam.
-
1997 (9) TMI 97 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Change In Constitution Of Firm, Firm Assessment, Previous Year, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... income in the previous year is absent in section 28(1), such a provision cannot be read into section 28(1). We cannot agree with the above view. As mentioned earlier, since the entire procedure of assessment under section 18 is also incorporated in section 28(1) no partner can be made liable to pay tax in respect of an income, which he has not received in the previous year in view of the provisions contained under clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 18. We, therefore, answer question No. I in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We decline to answer question No. 2 as unnecessary. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of the answer given to question No. 1, we decline to answer questions Nos. 4 and 5. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram.
-
1997 (9) TMI 96 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Incentive Bonus, Special Allowance, Standard Deduction, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1997 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Assessment Year, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... support had not been included as income and had clearly offered to include the same in any assessment if the basis is shown to exist. A similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court following the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) 1996 222 ITR 140. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this court given in the case of Sanctus Drugs Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. v. Union of India 1997 225 ITR 252 wherein this court has taken the view that section 143(1A)(a)(B) is valid and is not penal in character. The question of validity of section 143(1A)(a)(B) is not involved here. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the provisions are compensatory in nature. Therefore, this judgment will not come in the way of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. We answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 94 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, High Court, Territorial Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... time. So far as the assessment for the year, 1980-81 is concerned, it had stood concluded. The said transfer has taken place under section 127(1) of the Act. It is not that the jurisdiction to make assessment in respect of matters arising at Bombay has been conferred or transferred to Delhi by reference to territory or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases as contemplated by section 120 of the Act. Such transfer of assessment cases for a few years other than the year in question has no relevance and no bearing on the territorial jurisdictional competence of the High Court of Delhi to hear the present application under section 256(2) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed though without any order as to the costs. Needless to say the petitioner s right to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent High Court by filing an appropriate application under section 256(2) is not taken away by this dismissal.
-
1997 (9) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Charitable Trust, Immovable Property, Interest In Property, Movable Property
-
1997 (9) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Finding Of Fact, Mercantile System, Question Of Law
-
1997 (9) TMI 91 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deemed Income, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... be set off. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 508. In that case, it was held that section 205(1)(b) has been fictionally incorporated in the Income-tax Act but still their Lordships have worked out the profit and loss in terms of the Income-tax Act and not by a borrowed enactment, i.e., under the Companies Act. Once we have held that section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act stands adopted under the Income-tax Act then the loss and depreciation have to be worked out in terms of the Companies Act and then the set off has to be given of either of the two and whichever is less therefore, in our opinion, the depreciation and loss have to be worked out in terms of the borrowed Act, i.e., under section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act and not under the Income-tax Act. Hence, we answer the aforesaid questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... on, and specification of the possible sources of income to be aggregated, cannot be read to mean that two sources of income must co-exist even when there is no such explicit requirement in the section. The purpose of the provision for composition must be given its full scope and effect, and cannot be truncated by reading into the provision, limitations not found in it. Section 65 overrides other provisions in the Act, opening as it does with a non obstante clause. We, therefore, hold that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of R. Anandakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 196 ITR 219 (Mad), is erroneous and we overrule the same. We hold that the absence of individual holding of land by a partner of a registered firm or of an unregistered firm treated as registered, does not disentitle such a partner from applying for composition of agricultural income-tax, under section 65(3) of the Act. Matters referred to the Full Bench shall stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 89 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Interest Payments, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... sed by the petitioner) for the opinion of the High Court 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessee suffered trading loss of goods worth Rs. 15,53,504 when there is no evidence on record of title in goods (PVC) having passed to the assessee from Singapore exporter (Bentrex and Co.). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee disputing its liability to pay Rs. 15,53,504 to Indian Overseas Bank in suit in the Delhi High Court, can still claim deduction of Rs. 15,53,504 as a business loss? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest of Rs. 1,42,369? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the deduction of interest of Rs. 1,42,369 even though it is not an accrued liability? No order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessment Order, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... order of assessment, the assessee did file objections and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment himself on the basis of the draft order without forwarding the draft order and the objections to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and obtaining directions from him. Such an order, on the face of it, is beyond the powers of the Income-tax Officer under section 143 read with section 144B of the Act and, hence, without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in its conclusion that the assessment was liable to be annulled. It was right in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case without reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had rightly been annulled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 87 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... nsel. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the words though the material disclosed that the Income-tax Officer had passed an order without making proper enquiries are contrary to the findings in the present case. Therefore, the question has to be refrained deleting those words Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing that the material available at the time of passing the order under section 263 but which was not available at the time the Income-tax Officer passed the impugned order dated August 29, 1981, under section 185 should be ignored ? This question, we answer in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1997 (9) TMI 86 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... l for consideration the contention was that as the corporation rendered service within India, the benefit of sub-clause (viii) would not be available. This court held that so long as the service was rendered outside India it was immaterial that the person rendering service was within India. We do not think that that judgment is in any way helpful to the assessee. The view taken by us has the support of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Southern Sea Foods (P.) Ltd. 1983 140 ITR 855 and Lucas TVS Ltd. v. CIT 1996 217 ITR 382 (Mad) the Bombay High Court in Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1994 206 ITR 328 the Calcutta High Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 1992 193 ITR 390 and the Gujarat High Court in Testeels Ltd. v. CIT 1994 205 ITR 230. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly answered, but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 85 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As noticed above, in our considered opinion, the decision in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, 1992 193 ITR 77 (Kar), has absolutely no bearing in relation to payment of salary to a partner of a firm. Moreover, in the case of Kalburgi Wine Distributors 1998 230 ITR 159 (Kar), this court has not noticed the earlier binding precedent of this court in the case of N. M. Anniah and Co. 1975 101 ITR 348. Accordingly, in our opinion, the order passed in I.T.R.C. Nos. 69 to 74 of 1994 (CIT v. Kalburgi Wine Distributors 1998 230 ITR 159 (Kar)) referred to above is per incuriam and cannot be held as a binding precedent. For the above said reasons, we hold that the salary paid by the assessee-firm to its partner, may be in a representative capacity, was liable to be disallowed in view of the clear intendment contained in section 40(b) of the Act. The question is accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Change Of Law, Interest Payable By Assessee, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e event of the amount of tax payable by the assessee as per original assessment having been enhanced as a result of subsequent proceedings. In view of the above, it is clear that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not correct in holding that interest under section 215 of the Act could be levied in a consequential order passed with a view to giving effect to the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act with reference to the tax determined as payable on the basis of such revised order of assessment. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax dated June 9, 1983, levying interest under section 215(1) of the Act on the basis of the amount of tax determined as payable on the basis of the revised assessment order and the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the same are set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.
........
|
