|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 142 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rent Control ... ... ... ... ..... under rule 3(a)(iii) of the Rules at Rs. 30,000 per annum and the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the same. The Income-tax Officer could have accepted the fair rental value disclosed by the assessee which was higher than the municipal valuation. If he was not satisfied with the correctness of the same, it was open to him to determine the fair rental value himself by applying the principles laid down in the Rent Control Act for determination of the standard rent. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We make it clear that it will be open to the Tribunal to accept the fair rental value shown by the assessee which is higher than the municipal valuation or if it is not satisfied about the correctness of the same, to determine the same by applying the principles laid down under the Rent Control Act for fixation of the standard rent. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Charitable Trust, Immovable Property, Interest In Property, Movable Property
-
1997 (9) TMI 81 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Stay Of Collection Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... that the petitioner has to seek relief from the Tribunal cannot be treated as one declining to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under the law. We therefore find no illegality in the order of the second respondent. Mr. Sreenivasa Reddy submits that the interim orders granted by this court may be continued for a period of two weeks during which the petitioners in the above writ petitions will approach the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to seek appropriate interim relief. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct that the interim order granted by this court in W. P. M. P. Nos. 12957, 12967 and 13065 of 1997 dated May, 13, 1997, shall remain in force till September 26, 1997. The writ petitions are without merit and are liable to be dismissed. For the above reasons and subject to the above direction the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 80 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Power Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... been framed which talk about fresh evidence being taken into consideration. So far as the certificate issued by the Government regarding 46 per cent milled paddy is concerned, that was the only document placed before the Tribunal as per statement of case and this was never objected to by the Department. There is no prohibition for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage, the only condition being that the Department should not be prejudiced and should be given reasonable opportunity to rebut this additional evidence. In this case, no such request was made by the representative of the Department whether they disputed this certificate or not. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal which accepted the certificate of 46 per cent of the yield. In this view of the matter, we find that the additional evidence entertained by the Tribunal cannot be said to be bad. 9. Hence both the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... same ........ inasmuch as the assessee is a manufacturer of buildings or constructor of buildings, an intermediary stage should not be taken to convert the assessee into a manufacturer of goods. A transitory or evanescent product like an R.C.C. block or a door is only a step towards making the whole building. It would not be reasonable to say that the assessee is a manufacturer or processor of goods as understood in common parlance, in the context of the definition of industrial company given in the Finance Acts, 1969 and 1970. 10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no referable question of law arises on the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The answers to the questions raised are obvious and covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi referred to hereinabove. The Tribunal did not err in rejecting the petitioner s application under s. 256(1) of the Act. The present petition is, therefore, rejected though without any order as to the costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... above judgment has any relevance in deciding the issue involved in these references. 10. The Tribunal has to consider MP 25/Coch/86 and MP No. 33/Coch/1987 a afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment by making necessary enquiry as contemplated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) TC 20R.900 . 11. As far as the questions referred in IT Ref. 48/96 are concerned, we find that the second reference was made pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in OP 7949/90. 12. We answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of the above, it is unnecessary to answer questions 1 and 2. 13. In IT Ref. 37/90, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We decline to answer the questions referred in IT Ref. 48/96.
-
1997 (9) TMI 77 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Entertainment Expenditure, Computation Of Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... icularly long-term borrowings in the computation of the capital employed by a new industrial undertaking for purposes of tax exemption, could not be said to be outside the rule-making authority, conferred on the Central Board under section 80J(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was a perfectly valid piece of subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court having clearly held that rule 19A did not suffer from any infirmity and was valid in its entirety, relief under section 80J will be worked out taking into consideration rule 19A of the Rules and we, therefore, approve the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this behalf. We, therefore, answer the abovementioned question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it will suffice to say that relief claimed by the assessee under section 80J will be worked out considering rule 19A of the Rules. This question is answered accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Estimated Addition, Concealment, Powers Of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ents about the consideration of the case without taking into account the provisions contained in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, in passing, it may be stated that if we were to come to a different conclusion than what has been stated above, then the case might have required a remand to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration about the validity of imposition of penalty with reference to the provisions contained in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, a course which was adopted in Banaras Textorium v. CIT 1988 169 ITR 782 (All). As we are of the opinion that the impugned penalties are to be upheld even under the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) without calling in aid the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), it is not necessary to adopt the course. In view of the above discussion, both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Powers Of Iac, Draft Assessment Order, Opportunity, Power Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... . CIT 1981 131 ITR 451, the Supreme Court has held as under It is, however, difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the assessee that the duty of the Tribunal ends with making a declaration that the assessments are illegal and it has no duty to issue any further direction. It is well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing so by the statute. For what we have said above, we feel inclined to agree with the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The second contention is accordingly rejected. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 74 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture, Processing, Diagnostic Centre ... ... ... ... ..... ds are indeed relevant. Such expression, in my view, connotes that an undertaking to be an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, must be engaged in the processing of goods meaning thereby the very business of the concerned undertaking would be to process goods for the purpose of marketing the goods and sale of such processed goods. The medical diagnostic centre, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be engaged in processing of goods, but the same is engaged in diagnosis of human ailment through different processes. Simply because one of such processes requires use of unprocessed films and the same is processed through such scanner, would not make the activity, a business of processing of goods, the scanner being used for diagnosis of human ailments. For the reasons stated above, the writ application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All interim orders, if any stand vacated.
-
1997 (9) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Failure To Disclose, Validity Of Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... taxed, had escaped assessment. It is settled position in law that reopening of an assessment on the basis of subsequent discovery and objective belief of the Income-tax Officer that in the original assessment, the income had escaped assessment for non-disclosure of true facts, would justify an action under section 147(a) of the Act. The findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal about the non-disclosure of material facts are concluded by findings of fact. These findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged by raising any independent question. The correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal is, therefore, not open to question in these proceedings. In view of the above discussion, we endorse the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and agree with the findings recorded by it. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 72 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Books Of Accounts, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... necessary in connection with the income from interest on money lent by the petitioner shown in the assessment year 1990-91. Hence, it is difficult to hold that the Assessing Officer was making a roving and fishing enquiry and that the impugned notice dated November 13, 1992, requiring the petitioner to produce the books of account for the two previous years relevant to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 was issued with a prejudiced mind. Regarding transfer, of the assessment to any other Assessing Officer, it is always open to the petitioner to move the concerned authority under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this court on December 1, 1992, staying the impugned notices dated October 27, 1992, and November 13, 1992, is vacated. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 71 - DELHI HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture, Engineering Design ... ... ... ... ..... . In paragraph 3 of the appellate order of the Tribunal dated September 13, 1994, we find a reference having been made to pages 33 to 35 of the paper-book No. 1 before the Tribunal wherein such details are found to have been mentioned. Accordingly, the question as suggested by the Revenue needs to be reframed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80-1 in respect of income from other sources ? While drawing up the statement of the case, the Tribunal shall clearly state the heads and the amounts covered under income from other sources , which are referred to at pp. 33-35 of the paper book-I before the Tribunal and included in the expression also other income as used in the question suggested by the Revenue. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 70 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Settlement Commission ... ... ... ... ..... g before it is imminent so that it may also take into consideration the order to be passed therein. However, such exercise of discretion on the part of the criminal court in an appropriate case will depend on the facts of each case and it is not possible to lay down any proposition that if the Settlement Commission had allowed an application to be proceeded with an order refusing to stay the criminal proceeding by the trial court under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on that ground will amount to an abuse of the process of the court to make it a fit case for interference by this court in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, for the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any case either for the quashing of the criminal prosecution or for stay of the criminal proceeding. Both the criminal miscellaneous cases are, therefore, found without merit and are dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Revision, Merger, Plant, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... nal jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Act has been invoked by the Commissioner on February 17, 1987. In this view of the matter, since the assessment orders had already merged in entirety with the appellate order before the coming into force of clause (c) of the Explanation under section 263 of the Act, nothing was left for the Commissioner to examine and interfere with in his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the first question is answered against the Revenue. Similarly, as far as the second question is concerned in I. T. R. C. Nos. 48-49 of 1993 dated June 16, 1997, in the case of CIT v. Woodlands Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 1998 233 ITR 224 (Kar), we have opined that, the building in which the hotel business is carried on, has to be treated as a plant for the purpose of grant of depreciation. Accordingly, the said question is also answered against the Revenue. The present reference cases are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... nto cash. The resultant income is not agricultural income. The Explanation inserted in section 2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1970, makes the position clear when it declares that revenue derived from land shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2. The Explanation completely renders ineffective the ratio of the decision in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar 1981 128 ITR 87 (Bom). Following the view taken by this court in Tuhi Ram s case 1993 199 ITR 490, it is held that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the capital gains arising on the transfer of agricultural land situated within the municipal limits was not chargeable to income-tax in the assessee s hands and the question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Draft Assessment, Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... d period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was held by the Tribunal that sub-section (7) of section 144B did not require the Income-tax Officer to follow the procedure laid down in that section if the Income-tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction together with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner concerned. A similar question has been examined by this court in Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1985 (CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand 1998 233 ITR 82) decided on September 25, 1997, and it has been held that sub-section (7) of section 144B was not attracted and the procedure laid down in that section, was rightly followed as the Income-tax Officer, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. Following the said view, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 66 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Limitation, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B ... ... ... ... ..... urrent jurisdiction under section 125A, proceeded to make an assessment. Paragraph 6 of the circular reads as under The provision contained in section 144B will be applicable in respect of all assessment proceedings which were pending on January 1, 1976, or which are initiated on or after that date. It will, however, not be applicable to any case where the assessment is made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125 or section 125A. The Income-tax Officer, in the case in hand, followed the procedure under section 144B of the Act and sought directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having concurrent jurisdiction over the case. The procedure followed by the Income-tax Officer is upheld. Since the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not performing the functions as an Assessing Officer, sub-section (7) of section 144B was not attracted. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Sales Promotion, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... f the society. The directions given by the State Government to the assessee/society were thus statutory directions and in compliance therewith the expenditure incurred by the society was part of the business expenditure of the society. Since it happens to be a statutory direction pursuant to which expenditure has been incurred by the society, it is a business expenditure and it is totally exempted from tax under section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is true that it has some potent of publicity character, but none the less, it is quoted as a statutory direction violation whereof may lead to supersession of the committee of the society and as such, it has to be treated as business expenditure and will have the protective umbrella of section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act. Viewing this matter in the above perspective we are of the opinion that the approach of the Tribunal was correct. Consequently, we answer both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (9) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transfer, Notice, Reasons, Opportunity To Be Heard ... ... ... ... ..... question has also been raised as to whether the first respondent is competent to order transfer of the petitioner s file from Madras to New Delhi, which are under two different circles and under the administrative control of two different Chief Commissioners. However, this court is not going to decide the issue and it is left open as it is not necessary at this stage to decide this point. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that reasons have been recorded, that reasons are available on the file but that they have not been communicated to the writ petitioner. This is fatal to the case of the Revenue. In the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents or other competent authority to pass fresh orders in terms of section 127 of the Act by complying with the requirements of the said provision. Consequently, W. M. P. Nos. 15489 and 15490 of 1997 are dismissed.
|
