|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 123 Records
-
1955 (9) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd to the income of the annuitant. The annuity that he receives stands on the same footing as the dividend received by a shareholder, and we are not permitting the Income-tax authorities to tax Sir Joseph Kay with the help of some legal fiction introduced into out Income-tax Act for the purpose of dealing with shareholders who have received dividends from companies here. We are upholding the action of the Income- tax Act authorities in taxing Sir Joseph Kay on the simple finding that in substance and in fact the income of Sir Joseph Kay is £500, that it accrued to him outside the taxable territories and that as he is a resident he is liable to pay tax on that amount. The question therefore referred to us must be answered as follows "The sum of £500 fell to be included in the assessee's total income for the year ending 31st March, 1952, for the purpose of assessment for the year 1952-53." The assessee to pay the costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 58 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 37,000. In other words, the parts replaced in place of those worn out cost approximately seven or eight per cent. of the entire machinery in the first two items and about eleven per cent. in the third item. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has also said that there was no case of renewal of the entire machinery and the replacement of the worn out parts did not bring any new value to the machinery or change its identity. In view of the interpretation I have placed upon section 10(2)(v) of the Income-tax Act, I am clearly of opinion that the expenditure of ₹ 17,256 on machinery repairs should be deducted in computing the assessable profits of the assessee in the circumstances of this case. I would accordingly answer the question referred to the High Court against the Income-tax Department and in favour of the assessee. The Income-tax Department must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee ₹ 250. IMAM, J.--I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agricultural income," as adapted, to be taken as valid and he pressed for a certain construction of it. Now he was trying to say that the adaptation must be ignored altogether, because it had been enacted without jurisdiction. We do not think that it is possible for us to entertain the attack on the validity of the adaptation which had not even been hinted at, at any stage of the proceedings. For the reasons given above, the answers to the questions referred must, in our opinion, be as follows - Assessment year 1948-49 (Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1954) Question (1)-"Not pressed." Question (2) as amended-"No." Assessment year 1949-50 (Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1953) The sole question "Not pressed". The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs from the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1954, but there will be no order for costs in Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1953. LAHIRI, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 47 all that remains due and payable is only a sum of about ₹ 16,624. It is said that a sum of ₹ 60,220 was paid in the course of the period from April, 1954, up-to-date. It has also paid a tax of ₹ 53,685 from 1st January, 1954 till now. It is stated, that on account of these payments, all its available liquid assets have been practically used up and that it is not in a position to pay the balance, on account also of the present market conditions. It offers, however, to furnish security for the balance payable. We cannot hold that mere inability to pay on the part of the assessee could be a good ground for our directing stay of collection of the tax. The circumstances are not so compelling as to call for our interference. This case does not seem to us at all to stand on a footing substantially different from that of a number of other cases where references have been made and are pending. In the result, we dismiss the petition with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e 28th December, 1950, then the right of the managing agents would have been to receive the 3?% under the agreement, but by reason of this variation of the agreement which was arrived at in the year of account the right which the managing agents had was not to receive 3?% but such amount as the directors might determine after considering the working of the managed company. Therefore, in our opinion, no question here arises as to any deduction to which the assessee company is entitled. The reference is capable of being decided on the narrow question that the income of the assessee company was not ₹ 2,05,575-3-0 but only ₹ 1,05,575-3-0. If that was the income of the assessee company, that income alone can be brought to tax and not any hypothetical income which they might have earned if the old agreement might have continued to subsist. The answer to the question therefore is in the negative. Commissioner to pay the costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... indirectly attempts to satisfy us that on all the materials which were before the two Tribunals the decision of the first Tribunal was correct and the decision of the later Tribunal was not correct. We are not concerned with the merits of the decision of the second Tribunal, nor do we wish to adjudicate between the competing claims of the first Tribunal and the second Tribunal as to the correctness of their respective decisions. It may be that the first Tribunal was right in its decision and the second Tribunal was wrong, but all that we have to consider on this reference is whether in law the second Tribunal had the power and authority to re-open the decision given by the first Tribunal. If the second Tribunal had that power, then as to whether the power was properly exercised or not or whether its decision was correct and valid is a question that does not arise on this reference. The notice of motion is therefore dismissed with costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... company which has no profits to distribute by way of dividend at all in the preceding year and yet declares a dividend. But although there may be no logical reason for this distinction, the function of this Court is to interpret the statute as it stands. It may be a case where the Legislature has not succeeded in giving effect to its intentions and in any event it appears to me that if the Legislature intended that in the case of a company which has no total income which attracts tax a tax should be levied within the framework of the Income-tax Act as it exists, such an object could only be achieved by providing that the company shall be deemed to have a total income and proceeding to tax such total income. I find nothing in the provisions of the Indian Finance Act which can possibly be construed to have that result. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the answer to the questions should be as indicated by my Lord the Chief Justice. Question No. 1 answered in the negative.
-
1955 (8) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re therefore not liable to be included in the assessments for those assessment years. As regards the assessment year 1948-49, the question does not seem to me to arise, because the whole of the commission amount included in the income of the relevant accounting year was earned in that very year and was not either wholly or in part accumulated or arrear commission of any previous year. As respects the last assessment year, the amount of ₹ 1,650 is referable only in part to commission which had been earned in a previous year, but what that part is no one has determined. In the result, the question referred should, in my opinion, be answered in the following way As respects assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45-"No." As respects the assessment year 1948-49, the question does not arise. As respects the assessment year 1949-50-"No", as to the part coming out of commission earned in previous years and lying to the credit of the assessee. Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they should be allowed to withdraw the reference. There does not appear to be any provision in the Income-tax Act under which a party who has caused a reference to be made can be allowed to withdraw it after the Tribunal has made a reference to this Court. A reference made to this Court must be decided unless at least the party who had caused the reference to be made fails to appear and to take any interest in the matter. In the present case the assessees have appeared through an advocate and have brought it to our notice that the question has now been finally determined against the contention of the assessees by the highest Court of the country. In the circumstances the only order which we can possibly make is an order in accordance with our previous decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. The answer to the question referred must therefore be in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax prays for his costs. He will have them from the assessee. Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 48 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... due s to him from the father of the Plaintiff, while D. W 2 deposed that the debt referred to as be1ng payable to him was real. The scribe of the mortgage-bond, was examined on the side of the Defendants as D. W. 3 and he supported them. On these facts, the lower appellate Court decided that Exhibit B-l is binding upon the Plaintiff. In the course of its judgment, after discussing a portion of the evidence, it observed that the burden lay upon the Plaintiff to establish want of consideration. We are inclined to agree with the learned District Judge, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that the burden lay upon the Plaintiff to establish that the recitals in a mortgage-bond which was executed six years before the actual alienation and twenty years before the date when it was attacked were false, especially in the absence of their father from the witness-box. 14. We therefore , affirm the decision of the learned District judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
1955 (8) TMI 47 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xcluded from liability for income-tax in Travancore except under certain circumstances. In the absence of a similar provision to the effect that losses incurred within British India or any other Indian State should not be taken into account in computing the income of an assessee under section 13 of the Act (section 10 of the Indian Act), there will be no justification in not deducting those losses when computing the income of the assessee. 14. We, therefore, hold that, in computing the income of the assessee, the sum of ₹ 79,275 representing loss incurred by the assessee in the erstwhile Cochin State and the former British India should be deducted from the profits made by the assessee in the erstwhile Travancore State. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will get his costs of the reference including advocate's fee ₹ 100 (one hundred only), from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (8) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m a line of succession under the Hindu law. These notions of Hindu law have not in our opinion to be imported in interpreting the words "lineal descendant". The view that we are taking is further confirmed by the provision of the First Schedule to the Finance Act of 1955 dealing with the question of exemption. In the Finance Act of 1955, the words used are "lineally descended from any other living member of the family not entitled to claim partition." This would clearly show that lineal descent is possible from female members who may not be entitled to claim partition. Our answer, therefore, to the question put to us by the Division Bench is that a son or a grandson can be said to be a lineal descendant of his mother or grandmother respectively within the meaning of condition (b) of clause (i) of Part I (A) of Schedule I of the Indian Finance Act (No. 23 of 1951) which prescribes ₹ 7,200 as an exemption limit in the case of a Hindu undivided family.
-
1955 (8) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ficult, but I do not consider it impossible that it can be performed under the provisions of section 26(1) of the Income-tax Act. It appears to me to be desirable that the language of the section, as also that of the rules, should receive legislative attention. Apart from the instances of disharmony which I have noticed, the Legislature does not seem to have known very well what it would direct to be registered. Under section 26A(1) itself, what is to be registered is the firm. Under rule 2 of the rules, certain particulars are to be registered. Under paragraph 4(1) of the form, what is to be registered is the instrument of partnership. Such draftsmanship is obviously not the best. In accordance with the view which I have taken with respect to the true meaning of section 26A(1) and for the reasons I have given, the answer to the question referred to this Court must be in the negative. We would make no order for costs. LAHIRI, J. --I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (8) TMI 42 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s own method. But in doing so he must have reference to the accounts before him as section 13 does not contemplate the rejection of the accounts. Section 13 adds nothing to and takes nothing away from section 23(3)." We respectfully accept the said observations as laying down the correct law on the subject. If the Income-tax Officer intends to act under that proviso, he can adopt his own method but in doing so he must have reference to the accounts furnished by the assessee. But in this case as aforesaid the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's accounts and determined the income under section 23(3). The order of the Tribunal, a gist of which we have given supra, gives valid and relevant reasons for determining the income under section 23(3). The finding arrived at by them is one of fact and there are no grounds for directing them to state a case. The applications fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocates' fee ₹ 100 in each. Applications dismissed.
-
1955 (8) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es no further, that contention will not have been properly disposed of. We can however protect the interest of the assessee only by qualifying our answer and indicating the precise point to which it is limited. What we do decide is only this, that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the service of the notice was not sufficient service within the meaning of section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, merely on the finding that the notice had been served upon a brother of the assessee who had no authority to receive it on the assessee's behalf, without considering the presumption which arose under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and without coming to any decision as to whether that presumption had been rebutted. The answer to the question referred will, therefore, be "No, in the absence of any consideration of the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and any finding that the said presumption had been rebutted." Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the assessee was the owner of firm Harish Chandra Satish Chandra. The Bombay High Court, in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Gokaldas Hukumchand, 1943 11 I.T.R. 462 had occasion to deal with a case where very similar facts were found. In that case also, firms were inter-connected and the owner of one had financed the other. In fact, in that case, there were closer associations between the assessee and the partners of the firm, the profits of which were sought to be assessed as the profits of the assessee. It was held that the circumstances could merely give rise to a suspicion but could not justify holding that the assessee had a share in the other firm. The principle laid down in that case is applicable to the case before us. Consequently, our answer to the question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is in the negative. The assessee will be entitled to its costs from the department which we assess at ₹ 250. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (8) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lf to the proper question at issue, and considered whether the sums in question could fairly be taken as part of the concealed profits of the business and having considered that matter, it decided against the assessee and held that the amount should be restored as concealed profits from undisclosed sources. The question which I have so long been discussing has been referred in the following terms - "Whether on the above facts and circumstances of this case, the addition of ₹ 23,563 as income from undisclosed sources is legally justified when an estimate of gross profit on the turnover was already made and the sum of ₹ 50,000 added as suppressed income of the assessee from business." The answer to the question must, in my opinion, be in the affirmative. As one of the two questions was of some difficulty, we direct that the Commissioner of Income-tax shall get half of his costs from the assessee. LAHIRI, J.--I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (7) TMI 34 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s a case of escapement of tax and proceeding under Section 26 of that Act. 8. In the present case, as I have pointed out, the assessment proceedings had not come to an end. The return was still pending. Whether it was pending before the territorial Income Tax Officer or the Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, is immaterial so far as the assessee is concerned. He had filed a return and an assessment could have been made by the department under Section 23 in pursuance of that return. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the income chargeable to Income Tax had escaped assessment, and therefore, the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Act. 9. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative and hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment under Section 34 is not valid. The assessee is entitled to his costs. 10. Hearing fee one hundred rupees. S.P. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree.
-
1955 (7) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... transfer or settlement as disclosed by the partnership deeds. Only we wish to add that if we had reached a conclusion favourable to the assessee on the construction of section 16(1)(c) and we are inclined to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in D.R. Shahapure's case (supra)we would have directed the Tribunal to take these documents into consideration and submit a better statement of the case, with reference to the conclusions to be drawn on the nature of the property or asset, which was the subject matter of the disposition. But in view of the conclusion we have reached on the construction of section 16(1)(c) even on the footing that the transfer in the present case satisfied the requirements of the third proviso we do not find it necessary to refer the case back to the Tribunal. The result is that the question which has been referred to this Court for its decision has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs.
-
1955 (7) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 953 23 I.T.R. 278. It follows quite clearly that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has powers to set aside the entire assessment and remand the case directing the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment after making such further enquiry as the Income-tax Officer thinks fit or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may direct. On receiving the cases on remand the Income-tax Officer has powers to make fresh assessment as directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to determine afresh the amounts of tax payable on the basis of such fresh assessment. Therefore, the director of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to make fresh assessment by including the sum of ₹ 64,000 in the amount of tax payable was perfectly legal and valid. I, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The Income-tax Department is entitled to their costs. Hearing fee ₹ 200 only. DAS, C.J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
|
