|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1345 Records
-
1997 (12) TMI 102 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Market Value, Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... alue admittedly lower than the market price. Yet the shares could not be assessed on the difference amount being her income because no inference can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case that the design of the assessee was such that she concealed certain facts and she received the difference of the value by fraudulent means. There was no evidence direct or inferential, nor was there any finding by any income-tax authority that the assessee indulged in such a practice. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1986 159 ITR 71 (SC). We also find support in our view from a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B. N. Panda, Dy. CIT 1993 200 ITR 710. For the reasons above, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. All parties are to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1997 (12) TMI 101 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Article 14 Of The Constitution, Undisclosed Income, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income, Writ Petition
-
1997 (12) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of High Court, Search And Seizure, Territorial Jurisdiction, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... cation would bind the income-tax authorities or the petitioners while applying and extending or availing of the benefit of the VDIS to the petitioners if the same be otherwise legally available. The communication dated October 1, 1997, does not provide any cause of action to the petitioners. In our opinion, the petitioners are at liberty to make a declaration, pay the tax and pray for issuance of a certificate under section 68(2) to the Commissioner of Income-tax at Mumbai and seek an appropriate relief from an appropriate forum in the event of the certificate being illegally or unreasonably withheld by the appropriate authority. None of these steps or actions are contemplated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the present petition is premature and certainly it does not lie within the competence of the High Court of Delhi by reference to its territorial jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
-
1997 (12) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Foreign Technician ... ... ... ... ..... xemption which cannot be clubbed with exemption falling under sub-clause (viia)(A) of clause (6) of section 10 of the Act. Both these exemptions are available to an individual, who is not a citizen of India. Thus, in the present case, the passage money received by the assessee cannot be clubbed with the exemption under clause (viia)(A) of clause (6) of section 10 of the Act and cannot be made subject to the upper limits as specified therein. In our judgment, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption under section 10(6)(i)(a) was an independent exemption available to the assessee and cannot be clubbed with the exemption under section 10(6)(viia)(A) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly given the benefit of exemption of passage money available to the assessee under section 10(6)(i)(a) of the Act. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reference to stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 98 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Reference To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be reason to suspect. It is settled law that reason to believe can never be the outcome of a change of opinion. It is essential that before any action is taken by the Officer, the Officer should substantiate his satisfaction. Reasons recorded in the instant case, which were quoted earlier, do not bring out any ground, making out an objective satisfaction arrived at by the officer. No reason other than those recorded by the officer therein can possibly be urged to sustain his action either. Since the entire facts relating to the income were made known to the assessing authority and no objective reason has been given for issuing a notice under section 148, we are constrained to quash the impugned notices issued to the applicants in these special civil applications. In view of what has been stated above, the petitions are allowed and notices dated March 13, 1997, issued to the applicants herein are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. We make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 97 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Foreign Currency, Movable Property, Not Ordinarily Resident ... ... ... ... ..... money by post, the post office cannot be regarded as an agent of the donor when the postal authorities delivered the draft in India. But, this court had no occasion to consider the further aspect of the question that even if the gift is complete in India, where the property is situate and what is the location of the property in respect of the banking laws and the exact relationship between the bank and customer and the points are considered and focussed only in the present case. It is only in this view of the matter, the further questions regarding the location of the debt and the relationship of the banker and the customer were examined and we hold, considering the relationship between the banker and the customer and the location of the debt at the time of acceptance of the gifts, the assessee is entitled to the exemption as provided under section 5(1)(ii) of the Act. In fine, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 96 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Foreign Technician ... ... ... ... ..... hat (blank) day of March, 1997 was fixed for drawing up the proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. Therefore, the petitioner would have been justified in waiting till the end of March 1997. By another notice, simultaneously issued on February 4, 1997, the sale was sought to be held on March 25, 1997. This could not have been done without allowing the notice dated February 4, 1997, for settlement of terms and conditions of sale proclamation to fully operate. Under these circumstances, the sale proclamation dated February 4, 1997, which did not specify the exact date fixed for settlement of sale proclamation and the auction of the petitioners property held on March 25, 1997, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside, with liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law, after settling the proclamation by issuing a fresh notice for settlement of terms and conditions of sale proclamation. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 95 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, Dividend From New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... duction under section 80K as has been found on facts, it was held that the Tribunal was right in holding that such deductible amounts received by the assessees from these discretionary trusts were eligible for deduction under section 80K of the said Act. The facts and the said question of law in the present case are identical to those in the case of Dr. Vikram A. Sarabhai 1998 231 ITR 524 and the opinion of this court on question No. 2 in the cognate references, i.e., Income-tax Reference No. 216 of 1977 and Income-tax Reference No. 268 of 1977, will hold good even for the present question No. 2. Following the reasoning given in the judgment of the Division Bench rendered on February 26, 1997, in Income-tax Reference No. 216 of 1977 and Income-tax Reference No. 268 of 1977 (see 1998 231 ITR 529), we answer question No. 2 referred to us in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 93 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Cash System, Partnership Deed, Transfer Of Income Without Transfer Of Assets
-
1997 (12) TMI 92 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... vitiate the materials so far collected unless the genuineness or correctness of the same are in doubt. The Courts in India persistently refuse to exclude material evidence solely on the ground that it was obtained by illegal search or seizure. Illegal search will not invalidate the seizure of the articles. In such cases only the Court is to scrutinise the evidence carefully, refer to Radha Kishan vs. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 822, Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) of Income-tax 1974 CTR (SC) 25 (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) TC 60R.357, Dr. Pratap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement and State of Maharashtra vs. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni (1980) 4 SCC 669 AIR 1980 SC 593. 9. On an overall consideration of all the aspects of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the reopening of the assessment by the respondents. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The respondents may now proceed with the matter. Stay order if any stands vacated.
-
1997 (12) TMI 91 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the claim for deduction on either of these two grounds. The assessee under s. 35CCA of the Act is made entitled to the claim of deduction only on his establishing that he made the payment to the institutions which had been approved for the mentioned in s. 35CCA of the Act and the approval has been granted by the prescribed authority. In our view, nothing more than that is required to be done by the assessee. In the case before us all these factors are present, in the sense that it has not been disputed by the IT authorities that these two institutions were actually approved by the prescribed authority. Similarly, the factum of the payment has also not been disputed. We are fortified by a single Bench judgment of our Court in the aforesaid view in the case of Pressman Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Cal) 89 (1994) 208 ITR 768 (Cal) TC 15R.600. 6. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (12) TMI 90 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Shares ... ... ... ... ..... es. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the CIT by exercising his power under s. 263 of the Act was incorrect. Since in this case the transfer of shares by the assessee to Akshoy Trading Co. (P) Ltd., was a genuine and legitimate act, it could not be said that this was the device adopted by the assessee to deprive the Revenue of the annual tax. The Tribunal has taken a correct view of the matter by holding that since the transfer was valid and proper execution had taken place between the transferor and the transferee, it was improper on the part of the CIT to hold that the assessment was erroneous in this case. We are also of the view that the reliance placed by the CIT on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (supra) was wholly incorrect since the ratio in that case could not be applied to the facts of the present case. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (12) TMI 89 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... rder. The extra shift allowance was to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which an independent factory as a whole had actually worked double shift or triple shift and the allowance was required to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift or triple shift. 11. In view of the above position, we are in complete agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that there was no justification for the ITO to exercise his powers under s. 154 for rectifying the earlier order. It is obvious that both the issues were highly debatable and it can never be said that the ITO who had passed the order originally had committed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification proceedings under s. 154. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 88 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... exercise of discretion by the Assessing Officer with regard to the levy of penalty and the quantum thereof. Whether in the case an assessee who admittedly is liable to pay penalty, should be proceeded against or not by the Assessing Officer in exercise of his discretion under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a question which is entirely different from the one whether an assessee is at all liable or not. This is a case relating to the determination of liability as such. In our case, there is no question as to whether the discretion ought to have been exercised by the Assessing Officer or not. That question is totally outside the purview of this reference. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and also in favour of the Revenue.
-
1997 (12) TMI 87 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Perquisite, Directors, Debit Balance ... ... ... ... ..... at he gets the use of the monies belonging to the company or any other employer, without having any liability to pay interest. So is the view taken in yet another Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. S. M. Lingappan 1981 129 ITR 597. In this case, the Division Bench has gone on to hold that even if the benefit has been conferred on the director unilaterally without the aid of any agreement between the parties, the benefit could be taxed as a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii). We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view so taken by the Madras High Court. We may, however, state that no decision to the contrary has come to our notice. For the forgoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that there was no income within the meaning of section 2(24)(iv) assessable in the hands of the assessee. Both the questions are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (12) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm, Assessment, Succession, Dissolution Of Firm, Death ... ... ... ... ..... he death of a partner out of the two only one partner was left and one man cannot constitute a firm. The firm automatically came to an end. In an identical situation the Full Bench of this court in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory 1976 103 ITR 517 had taken the view that it would be a case governed by section 188 of the Act where two separate assessments are called for and it would be a case of succession of one firm by another. For what has been stated above, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed and two separate assessments should have been made for the two broken periods. Further, on the death of Sri B. G. Mathur, a partner of the firm, there was a dissolution of the first partnership and upon the constitution of the second partnership, the firm could be assessed in accordance with section 188 of the Act. In the result, both the questions are answered in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1997 (12) TMI 85 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Pre-emptive Purchase, Immovable Property, Fair Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... the requisite no-objection certificate by January 31, 1998. The possession of the flats which is now with respondent No. 7 shall also be handed over to the writ petitioners by respondent No. 7 on payment of the balance amount of the consideration money. Respondent No. 7 will also furnish accounts to the writ petitioners relating to cost incurred by respondent No. 7 towards maintenance of such flats possession of which is handed back to respondent No. 7 under the order of the court and towards payment of municipal taxes and the writ petitioners shall pay such amount to respondent No. 7 within the month from the date of furnishing such accounts. Both writ applications are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Learned advocate appearing for the appropriate authority prays stay of the operation of the order. The prayer is considered and refused. Certified copy/certified xerox copy of the judgment and order if applied for be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
-
1997 (12) TMI 84 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Hire Purchase, Firm, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ection 36 of the Act. However, the Tribunal has formed an opinion that payment of interest to another firm could not be treated as payment of interest to the partners of that firm within the meaning of section 40(b) though the partners in the two firms were common. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in taking the view of the law which it has done. The scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entities so far as the provisions of tax law are concerned. While framing an order of assessment under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and its partners are to be treated as two separate legal entities and payment of interest to a firm cannot be treated in the tax law as payment of interest to its partners. For the foregoing reasons, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (12) TMI 83 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delayed Return, Interest And Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Revenue does not dispute the figures. What all is stated is that she claimed deduction of 35 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. under section 80T of the Act. In our considered view, the Explanation to the above provision enjoins that where the above deduction is such as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, the petitioner shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of her income. We are unable to see as to how section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in this case and hence it is a case of voluntary disclosure of full and true income made in good faith. Thus, in our view, it is a fit case under section 273A(1)(iii)(a) of the Act to waive the penalty. The impugned order regarding imposition of penalty is quashed. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. For all the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed in part waiving the penalty of Rs. 33,592 and confirming the interest. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (12) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, High Court, Powers, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... substance part and parcel of the same transaction. Inasmuch as the finding of fact arrived at is that various fixtures and furniture provided by the assessee to the tenant form the subject-matter of a separate agreement with the tenant and they were so provided to the Englishman at his instance so as to make his stay in the premises comfortable, the rent realised pursuant to such agreement referable to fixtures and furniture could not have been treated as income from property . On the facts as found by the Tribunal, question No. 4 suggested by the Revenue does not arise as a question of law from the order of the Tribunal. It may be stated that the question suggested by the Revenue does not challenge the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons the application is allowed in part. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer questions Nos. 1 and 3 stated hereinabove for the opinion of the court. No order as to costs.
........
|
