|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 122 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 66 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nowhow, to persons outside India and (b) The expenditure in relation to which weighted deduction has been claimed is incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business referred to in (a) above. These additional conditions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 7 were introduced by the Finance Act, 1978, with effect from April 1, 1978, and later on omitted with effect from April 1, 1980. In the present case, the assessee is admittedly a holder of an Export House Certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and, therefore, qualifies for the exemption under clause (a) referred to above, according to the said instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. As it is not disputed that the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are binding on the Revenue, it would not be open to it to seek a reference of the question noticed above. This petition is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 65 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry has been conducted to ascertain whether the property belonged to the petitioner and whether the same was liable to be proceeded against under the law. Levy of penalty and interest in the facts and circumstances has also been challenged as without authority. Learned counsel for the Revenue has endeavoured to justify the action by referring to various provisions contained in the Income-tax Act and the Second Schedule thereto. Non-service of demand notice goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer initiating the proceeding for recovery of tax. Some other questions urged also require investigation into facts which can appropriately be done only by the original authority. We, therefore, vacate the impugned order, annexure-1, and remit the matter to opposite party No with a direction to determine the questions raised after giving the parties an adequate opportunity of hearing. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty drawback and the excise duty rebate are riot the real income of the assessee and hence, being held by the assessee for and on behalf of the foreign buyers, any accretion to the said amounts, while in the hands of the assessee, by way of interest or otherwise, cannot also be held to be the income of the assessee. The parties beneficially entitled to the said amounts, namely, the foreign buyers, can also claim the accretion thereto from the assessee and hold the assessee accountable for the same. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Tanubai D. Desai 1972 84 ITR 713 and by the House of Lords in Brown 1965 57 ITR 729. For the above reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 is also answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. MRS. MONJULA BOSE, J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e public interest concerning minors is a futile attempt to breathe life into what is, ab initio, still-born and therefore non-existent. Such a trust is not severable and it cannot be saved partially. In the circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in ITR Nos. 48 and 49 of 1980 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of our answer to that question, it is unnecessary for us to answer the questions referred in ITR Nos. 130 and 131 of 1981. Counsel for the assessee submits that, in any view, the assessee is entitled to claim the status of co-owners for the purpose of assessment. That is a matter on which we express no view as it does not arise from the questions referred to us. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1986 (9) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Deduction, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... im it as an allowance in its entirety. The second reason given by the Tribunal is equally untenable. The establishment of the school was primarily to provide facilities for the education of the children of the employees and ex-employees of the assessee. Any expenditure incurred in connection therewith could be claimed as deduction. Merely because some children other than those of the employees and ex-employees are also admitted to the school, the expenditure incurred in connection with the activities of the school cannot be disallowed under section 37(1). Both the reasons given by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. But we cannot answer the question without a finding recorded by the Tribunal as to whether the donation in question can be considered as an it expenditure in the sense which we have explained. We, therefore, decline to answer question No. 3 and direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made.
-
1986 (9) TMI 61 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... taxes. On the basis of this complaint, the impugned order of cognizance has been passed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that, as a matter of fact, no criminal liability can be fastened and also he has raised certain points which are perfectly involved with the facts and difficult to be adjudicated at this stage by this court. I am afraid, in the absence of any patent point of law, it is difficult to appreciate that the impugned order of cognizance can be said to be bad in law. However, it appears that there are certain remarkable points connected with the question of facts and, therefore, if so advised, the petitioners will raise all these points at the time of framing of the charge and the learned trial court will consider the same and thereafter dispose of the issue as to whether the facts disclosed make out a case warranting framing of the charge, by a speaking order. With the above observation, this application is disposed of.
-
1986 (9) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Change Of Law, Depreciation, Foreign Company, Gratuity, Written Down Value
-
1986 (9) TMI 59 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TR 190 (SC). There is thus no escape from the position that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the disputed property belonged to the Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee, his wife and daughter. It could not be treated as a Hindu undivided family property. The income therefrom had to be treated as the individual income of the assessee. The question thus referred in Taxation Cases Nos. 170 and 171 of 1976 and the first question in the other two cases must, therefore, be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the view that we have taken of the aforesaid question, the second question referred to us has become academic and need not be answered. We therefore, refuse to answer the second question. Since the assessee is now dead, the references are answered without costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted by the Assistant Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1986 (9) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... give a finding or direction to make assessments, in the hands of Durgamma, as a receiver, so that the subsequent fresh assessments could have been founded on that basis. Even when the impugned assessments came in appeal before the Tribunal, no contention appears to have been urged before the Tribunal by the Department that if these assessments also have to be quashed, a suitable finding or direction for making assessments in the hands of Durgamma as a receiver be given. The result is that by the time the matters reached this court under section 256 of the Act, the Revenue had exhausted all the remedies open to it to make proper assessments in respect of the business admittedly carried on by Durgamma as a receiver appointed by the court. The incomes assessed are fairly large and the Revenue lost substantial revenue. In the result, the question as reframed is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Private Company ... ... ... ... ..... r as the order that is passed under section 179 of the Act is concerned, the same is not appealable. Therefore, the first underlying necessity of issuance of the notice under section 156 is not there. So far as the second underlying necessity of issuance of the notice under section 156 is concerned, it may be observed that the position of a person on whom liability is fastened under section 179 is equated to that of the defaulting assessee. Under section 179, the liability is fastened on a director of the company only if the company has become a defaulter, and the money cannot be recovered from it and the directors are held liable for the default. Hence, for the purpose of the provisions of section 220(4) of the Act, the person held liable under section 179 to pay the tax liability of the company would be deemed to be a defaulting assessee in terms of section 220(4) of the Act. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in these petitions and dismiss the same with costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 56 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ture under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the expenditure falls under the specific section 36 of the said Act? The Tribunal, however, disallowed the application for reference on two grounds, namely, that the earlier Bench of three members had already settled the matter and that the questions were covered by the Supreme Court decision in Shahzada Nand and Sons v. CIT 1977 108 ITR 358. So far as that first ground is concerned, that would be no reason to decline the questions of law to be referred to this court. The other ground is equally not available because Shahzada Nand s case 1977 108 ITR 358 (SC) does not deal directly with the bonus question and was rendered regarding the deduction of the commission paid. So, on none of the two grounds given, the petition could be declined. Accordingly, a mandamus is ordered to be issued to the Tribunal to refer the questions referred to above together with the statement of the case for the opinion of this court.
-
1986 (9) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... been affirmed by the Supreme Court. We also accept the contentions made on behalf of the assessee that a provision for payment of pension to the widow of an employee is neither unusual nor unnecessary. Such provisions are in consonance with the modern trend. Employees have generally come to expect such provisions as their normal due for the services rendered to their employer. Even in Government service, provisions have been made for payment of pension to the widows of Government servants. The Income-tax Act, 1961, recognises this trend and has provided for superannuation funds for the benefit not only of the employees but also of their widows. For the reasons as above, we have no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to the advocate for the assessee to file her vakalatnama within a fortnight from date. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... cessary that the assessee should establish the nexus between the voluntary disclosure and the assessment proceedings before the tax authorities. Unless this burden is discharged, it cannot be said that the mere filing of voluntary disclosure automatically absolved the assessee from discharging the obligation that is otherwise cast on him to point out by some evidence the nexus between the voluntary disclosure and the matter under enquiry before the assessing authorities. Admittedly, this has not been done in the present case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment of Rs. 1,02,000 as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the assessee paid some paltry taxes on the voluntary disclosure made for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Having regard to the above, we would answer the question referred to us in the negative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 53 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... passed prior to expiry of the peremptory time and the retention of the books of account beyond the period of 180 days would be quite unjustified and they must be returned to the assessee concerned. It has already been stated in the petition that the assessee-petitioners require the books for submitting proper return and to co-operate with the Department to their best in the assessment proceeding. In the circumstances referred to above, it was on consideration of the facts as discussed above, that we had passed interim orders for the release of the articles and the books of account seized, as per different seizure lists and panchanamas prepared for the same and we expect that the respondent-Department by now must have complied with the orders passed by this court. With the findings as noted above, the application stands disposed of. All the articles, books of account, fixed deposit receipts, etc., if not yet returned, must be returned forthwith. MADAN MOHAN PRASAD J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... , etc. cannot be held to be entertainment and the expenditure incurred for the said purpose cannot be held to be expenditure in the nature of entertainment. The meaning of the expression expenditure in the nature of entertainment cannot be stretched to include expenditure incurred for hospitality or expenditure in the nature of hospitality. The two concepts are different and their nature are also necessarily different. In any event, we are bound by the decision of this court recorded in the judgment dated June 14, 1982 (sic) in Income-tax Reference No. 503 of 1979 which has been referred to earlier and has been relied on by the assessee. We also take note of the fact that the Supreme Court did not allow the special leave petition which was sought to be moved from decision of the Bombay High Court on the same point. For the reasons above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. MRS. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he was of the view that since the petitioner had not paid the amount of interest, he would not be entitled to get the benefit of that section. That was not correct in law. In case the petitioner had made arrangements for payment of interest, he was entitled to the consideration of his application on merits. In the instant case, the petitioner did not state in the application for waiver moved on his behalf that he had made arrangements for payment of interest. Be that as it may, it appears to us that the requirements of section 273A would be satisfied if we direct the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of interest in cash with the Income-tax Officer within one month from today. We order accordingly. Subject to the observations made by us, this writ petition is disposed of. Before passing this order, we have had the advantage of hearing Sri M. Katju. A copy of this order shall be given to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of the requisite charges within 24 hours.
-
1986 (9) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Partition Suit ... ... ... ... ..... n making the application, but he had not been impleaded as a respondent herein, and, therefore, there is no need to hold that she was aware of the nature of the order but still secured the passport. Hence, she is exonerated. It is because of the first respondent opening the premises that he had brought about the present situation leading to serious claims of loss to estate being made, which now leads on to a long drawn litigation between the family members. Lot of court s time had been taken and parties have spent considerable sums due to his improper acts. Hence, the remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 1,500. This sum and other expenses incurred by him to be shared equally by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Regarding handing over of keys he has to await orders in other applications filed by contesting parties in the writ petition. Hence, this application is ordered with costs as against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, but dismissed as against the third respondent.
-
1986 (9) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the above contention of the assessee and we find no error of law committed by the Tribunal in taking the said view. In the result, the question of law referred to above is answered in the following manner On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 5,231 were incurred in maintaining kitchen for providing meals to its trade constituents. Thus, so far as this item is concerned, the answer is given in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as the item of Rs. 2,383 is concerned, it is held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,383 was incurred in providing tea, cold drinks etc. to its customers and was not expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This part of the question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1986 (9) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the above case held that the interest that was paid under section 3(3) of the Cess Act could not be described as a penalty paid for an infringement of the law and that it was in the nature of revenue expenditure in respect of which the assessee could claim deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Bench of this court placing reliance on the above Supreme Court case held that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the provision for payment of interest amounting to Rs. 5,050 on sales tax collections withheld by the assessee and utilised for the purpose of its own business was not admissible as deduction in computing its total income. The question was, therefore, answered in the negative. We agree with the view taken by this court in the above referred Rajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd. s case 1985 156 ITR 90 (Raj). In the result, the above mentioned question of law referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1986 (9) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Trading Loss ... ... ... ... ..... e same in the assessee s books of accounts. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee to oppose this reference. One of the conditions necessary for making such allowance is that it should have been an expenditure incurred in the particular accounting year in which the deduction is claimed. The expenditure incurred by the assessee during the relevant period was only to the extent of Rs. 50,772 on account of the forfeiture of the security amount. It is, therefore, obvious that the assessee can be given benefit of deduction as business expenditure only of the amount of Rs. 50,772 and not more. The Tribunal was not, therefore, justified in allowing the deduction in excess of Rs. 50,772. Consequently, the reference is answered partially in favour of the Revenue as under The Tribunal was not justified in allowing deductions business expenditure of the amount in excess of Rs. 50,772 while computing assessee s total income during the relevant assessment year. No order as to costs.
|
