|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 122 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 44 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... come-tax Act, 1961, there is now no force in the contention that the two separate appeals must be filed in such a situation. An earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court in Fuel Supply Co. v. CIT 1965 58 ITR 130, based on the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was distinguished. Same is the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Hansa Agencies 1980 121 ITR 147. We do not find any reason to take a different view particularly when no authority or principle has been cited in support of the contrary proposition. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee should have filed two appeals one under section 246(c) and another under section 246(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, it was also not justified in making the consequential direction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Loss
... ... ... ... ..... ty, the assessee-company had approximately Rs. 20,000 as surplus with it. It was invested by it instead of keeping it idle. When the money was needed for making alterations to the property and for making repayment to the creditors, it was withdrawn by the assessee-company and the funds were utilised for the aforesaid purposes. The Tribunal held that such activity would not constitute business. The company merely invested its funds when they were not required by it for the time being. As such the income from such investment cannot be assessed as business income. The Tribunal has further held that such income would be assessable only under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee was unable to show any authority taking a contrary view nor was he able to show any error in the order of the learned Tribunal. In view of these circumstances, both the questions referred to above are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1986 (9) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her of the two parties. Consequently, we do not consider the present case as a fit one where we should exercise our discretion conferred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and call for a statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This application is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... shut our eyes to the finding of the Tribunal. It was laid down by the Bombay High Court that the expression it agricultural land as occurring in section 2(14)(iii) should be so read as not to include land used for agricultural purposes. Reasoning of the Bombay High Court was that if lands were used for agricultural purposes, income or profit arising on sale of such land would partake the character of agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) and would, as such, be exempt from income-tax under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act. Even the decision given by the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, 2nd ITO 1981 128 ITR 87 (Bom) does not assist the petitioner. Even on merits, on the basis of the papers filed, we are not satisfied that the land could be considered as agricultural on the date when it was sold. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Interim stay order passed by this court is withdrawn.
-
1986 (9) TMI 40 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his was not done on account of the fact that all concerned including the Tribunal appear to have overlooked this statutory provision contained in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above conclusions reached by this court, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision by adverting to the above observations. For this reason, further arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee do not arise for consideration by us at this stage and it would be for the Tribunal to consider and decide all questions which arise for decision on this point. Consequently, the reference is answered by us as follows The Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalties for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 without recording the requisite findings required in accordance with the Explanation to section 27l(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applicable during those years. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... 974 94 ITR 154 (All) and also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Lakdhir Lalji 1972 85 ITR 77 (Guj). Learned advocate for the assessee also pointed out that the Supreme Court has already pronounced on the question in CIT v. Angidi Chettiar 1962 44 ITR 739. In the instant case, the assessment was modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who included in the total income of the assessee amounts which were stated to be business income. The Supreme Court clearly laid down in the above case that the power to impose penalty depended upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act. In the instant case, the proceedings were not before the Income-tax Officer but before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In that view, we are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that a substantial question of law is required to be referred to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this application. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the questions or dismisses the application as not maintainable, the Tribunal is acting quasi-judicially. Even otherwise, we are unable to agree with learned counsel that only in the case of quasi-judicial orders, this court could be invoked in writ jurisdiction. We have gone too far and even in administrative and public interest matters, the High Court has interfered and there is no limitation provided for the exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, therefore, we allow the writ petitions, quash the orders of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the applications on merits and dispose of the same according to law. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of the writ petitions. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set). In view of the decision in the writ petitions, the two tax case petitions are dismissed as premature, because the tax case petitions could be filed only if the Tribunal refuses to refer the questions sought to be raised.
-
1986 (9) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Suits In Civil Courts ... ... ... ... ..... tax Officer is that the direction by the Commissioner (Appeals) only related to the assessment years other than those to which the present notices relate. Further, it is the stand of the Income-tax Officer that under the law (section 153) he is under an obligation to finalise the assessment proceedings within a period of two years from the end of the assessment year and in view of that, he could not indefinitely wait for the finalisation of the abovenoted proceedings in the civil court. Anyway, the fact remains that the merits of the respondents case which, of course, are seriously disputed by the petitioner-authorities, cannot confer any jurisdiction on the civil court or remove the bar of jurisdiction brought in by section 293 of the Income-tax Act referred to above. In the light of the discussion above, while allowing this petition, set aside the impugned order of the trial court and hold that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter. I make no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e employees. The Tribunal has, therefore, allowed the assessee s claim under section 35B of the Income-tax Act on repairs as well as on bonus. We do not find that in doing so, the Tribunal has committed any error of law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no statable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The application filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act is hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... d deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in India which is attributable to the sales made by the firm to foreign tourists at the counter in Agra ? We consequently allow the application and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to draw up the statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... on only for the purpose of the said section which sets out the mode of devolution of interest in coparcenary property. It comes into operation only after the death of the coparceners, and only for the limited purpose of laying down the succession. But where, as here, there was no coparcenary in existence at the time of the death of justice Harish Chandra, there was no question of applying Explanation I to the present case. In State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh 1987 163 ITR 31 (SC), section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act came to be considered. This decision also indicates that Explanation I to the proviso to section 6 can apply only to a case where there is a coparcenary. It has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum 1981 129 ITR 440. From what we have said above, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We do not make any order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India ... ... ... ... ..... ee that the expression through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India was introduced in section 9 with the object of taxing capital gains arising out of transfer of such capital assets situated in India. This is a view which has been taken in the commentaries in the recognised and standard text books. The learned advocate for the assessee has drawn our attention to the Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, 7th edition, volume I, page 205 and Law of Income-tax by Sampath Iyengar, 7th edition, page 694, where the learned authors have taken the same view. For the reason as aforesaid, we hold that the interest payable on the said stock is not income accruing or arising to the assessee through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India. For the reason as aforesaid, the assessee succeeds in this reference. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on, rightly. In the said case, the property was treated as the property of the firm for a period of six years. The income was assessed in the hands of the firm and the firm also claimed depreciation. In such a situation, the property could not have been transferred by the firm to the partners by the simple method of making entries in the accounts. But, in this case, we have agreed with the appellate authorities in holding that the said seven flats never became the property of the firm, but they were the properties of the seven partners separately and individually from the very beginning. In other words, there is no question of any transfer of the property by the firm to the partners in this case. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the principle of the said decision advances the case of the Revenue. In the above circumstances, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he above questions of law at the instance of the Revenue. In our opinion, the facts found by the Tribunal and on the basis of which these questions have been referred for our decision leave no doubt that the present is not a case of a mere change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187 of the Act. There is a clear finding that the two firms are distinct and there was a definite gap between the dissolution of the first firm, as a result of which three out of four partners retired from the firm and constitution of a new firm at a later date, in which one of the earlier partners has been included. On these facts, the Tribunal was justified in the view which was taken. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that there were two firms so that two separate assessments were required to be made in the manner indicated by it. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 29 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal. The court further observed that it makes no difference whether the order of dismissal is made before or after the appeal is admitted. An appeal presented out of time is an appeal and an order dismissing it as time-barred is one passed in appeal. On the aforesaid analysis, it has to be held that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with section 249(4) of the Act came within the ambit of section 250 of the Act and was appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, committed no illegality in entertaining the appeals and in condoning the delay on being satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that there was sufficient cause for the assessee s failure to comply with section 249(4) of the Act and in remitting the cases to the first appellate forum for disposal on merits. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative. K. P. MOHAPATRA J.-I agree.
-
1986 (9) TMI 28 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... rtner brings his personal asset into the partnership firm as his contribution to the capital, there is a transfer of a capital asset. In the instant case, all the eight partners of the assessee brought the parcel of land of which they are co-owners into the partnership firm as their contribution to the capital. The amount of such contribution to be credited to the account of each partner was agreed upon by all the partners and this transaction has been found to be a genuine transaction. The cost of acquisition of land incurred by the assessee cannot but be held to be Rs. 2 lakhs. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in law in reaching the conclusion that the cost of acquisition of land incurred by the assessee-firm was Rs. 1.25 lakhs and not Rs. 2 lakhs. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1986 (9) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ed to pay cash in turn to persons from whom he has purchased the goods or (f) specific discount is given by the seller for payment to be made by way of cash. A careful study of the provisions of section 40A(3) and the rules made thereunder and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would reveal that the case of the assessee is not covered under any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances or any of the exemptions or by any of the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the premises aforesaid, the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the payments in sums exceeding Rs. 2,500 made for the purchases were hit by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 40A of the Act and, as such, such amounts should have been added to the total income of the assessee in terms of the said section. In the result, the answer to the question is in the positive in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1986 (9) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... er of such findings. Now, so far as the question of profit-making activities in order to advance any object of general public utility is concerned, the matter is now set at rest by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association s case 1980 121 ITR 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax had placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Dharmaposhanam Company s case 1978 114 ITR 463, which is admittedly no longer good law. Had the case of Dharmaposhanam Company 1978 114 ITR 463 (SC), been not overruled by the Supreme Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association s case 1980 121 ITR 1, there would have been valid ground for a question of law arising in the present case but the said decision having been overruled, there remains no res integra for being considered by this court. In the result, we find no force in these reference applications and the same are dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssage of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant urged that this court is obliged to correct the mistake by noting that the argument about the applicability of section II (1)(b) had been made before it. Sri V. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, also stated before us that the argument about the applicability of the aforesaid provision in the alternative had been advanced by him in the High Court and wrongly the argument had not been noted and decided. In our view, the present is not a case to which the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above could be applied. We are not in a position to adjudicate upon this controversy in this application. In fact, granting of the application would result in reviewing the judgment of this court which is not the scope of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having found no merit in this application, we reject the same. But, in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... f India 1985 155 ITR 120. A larger Bench of the Supreme Court took the view that the earlier decision in Cloth Trader s (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 1979 118 ITR 243, by smaller Bench was incorrect and that, properly construed, section 80M, as it stood from the very outset, gave benefit thereunder only on the basis of net dividend Income and not gross dividend income. Accordingly, it was held that the insertion of section 80AA was merely to declare the law as it existed from the very outset and not to introduce an additional tax burden retrospectively. After this decision of the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the view taken by the Tribunal in the present case was correct. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under The Tribunal was justified in construing section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to mean that the deduction thereunder should be given only on the net dividend income. There will be no order as to costs.
|
