|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 155 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 661
... ...
... ... ..... ders being time barred not having been pressed at the time of hearing of the appeals before us no longer survives for our consideration." The findings recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment dated January 16, 1991, are purely findings of fact and do not give rise to any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in not referring the proposed questions mentioned in the application for the opinion of this court as none of the proposed questions set out in the application, is a question of law fit for reference to the High Court. We are also of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order dated January 16, 1991, passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, as no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal, and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 639
... ...
... ... ..... s treated as a contract entered into by the assessee with the Tata Aircraft Ltd. and the benefit of the same was transferred by the assessee in favour of Messrs. Pokhraj Hirachand for a consideration of ₹ 3 lakhs. In the view that we take of the matter, therefore, the sum of ₹ 1,87,000, which has been found by the Tribunal as having been received by the assessee was a sum received by the assessee for transferring the benefit of a contract entered into by him in the ordinary course of his business. The said sum had nothing to do with his relinquishment for forgoing the right to participation in the profits of any partnership. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the sum of ₹ 1,87,000 was an income of the assessee liable to income-tax. The result, therefore, is that our answer to the question, which has been referred to us in the present reference, must be in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the department.
-
1996 (9) TMI 637
... ...
... ... ..... dditional ground of objection at the stage of second appeal. The said judgment is based upon three decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The question Nos. 1 and 3 are, therefore, no more referable questions of law. The assessee, though filed return of income in compliance with the notices under section 143, but it could not be thereby taken that he had waived the objection as to the jurisdiction of the ITO when the notices under section 148 were not validly served. The question of waiver has been discussed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in P.V. Doshi v. CIT in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The question No. 3 is, therefore, not a referable question of law." 13. We are satisfied that the common question as proposed in these two cases is not a referable question of law. 14. Accordingly, we dismiss these cases, but with no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at ₹ 750, if certified.
-
1996 (9) TMI 625
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case, where at the instance of the assessee the Commissioner had intervened and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment at the returned figure, which the Assessing Officer, who was subordinate to the Commissioner, had followed and concluded the assessment. 5. In view of the above, the conclusion is that in the present facts which show that the assessment was framed according to the directions received from the Commissioner, the successor Commissioner is not empowered to revise the said order because it tantamounts to revising his predecessor’s directions. On this jurisdictional aspect we uphold the claim of the assessee. While doing so we may observe that we have taken guidance from the Supreme Court decision in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.’s case (supra). 6. In view of the above, merits need not be gone into and is considered not worthwhile hearing and give any conclusion thereon. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 624
... ...
... ... ..... ssible to assess the value of the land without making any attempt in that direction. (10) As regards the point of standard rent fixed by Shri F.T. Jones, Rent Controller, Delhi by order dated 24th June, 1942, it may be mentioned that the standard rent was fixed in respect of Premises No. 56, Queensway, New Delhi. If in those circumstances, standard rent of Premises No. 56 was fixed, it is not possible to accept it as the standard rent of the Premises No. 54, Janpath under Section 6 of the Drc Act in the light of the observations of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur v. NDMC, and Dr. Balbir Singh & Others v. MCD & Others. (11) The impugned resolutions and the judgments in these three writ petitions are hereby quashed. NDMC is directed to assess the property afresh in the light of judgment in Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD (supra) after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. (12) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (13) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 620
... ...
... ... ..... roperty was overvalued so that the petitioners could meet the objection. 6 For this reason alone, I quash the impugned orders, by which reference was made to the Evaluation Officers, Income-tax Department and allow the writ petitions. However, the respondents shall be free to refer the matter to the Evaluation Officers, after giving a show-cause notice to the petitioners as to why the property in question be not reassessed while giving such notice, the respondents shall also take into consideration the final assessment orders passed by the ITO and shall also state the reasons on the basis of which the valuation projected by the petitioners, is not acceptable to the respondents. After giving a chance to the petitioners to show cause against such a notice, the competent authority under the Act shall be within his rights to pass appropriate orders, after taking into consideration the objections, if any, filed by the petitioners. 7. These petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
1996 (9) TMI 616
... ...
... ... ..... . This being so, we are unable to agree with the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal is possessed of the power to review its own order. Moreover, this contention of the assessee runs counter to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. ( supra). 10. In addition to the reasons already discussed above, we feel that even a review application, in the circumstances of the case, is not maintainable. By way of miscellaneous application, the very same contentions which were advanced at the time of hearing of the appeal and were dealt with by the Tribunal are being canvassed. Hence, even the review petition stricto sensu is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed summarily. We are fortified in this view from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association AIR 1993 SC 2493. 11. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the application and it is consequently dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 581
... ...
... ... ..... sion in Commissioner v. Gopalakrishna Murlidhar (1963) 47 ITR 469 (AP.), the disallowance was unjustified. The plea of the Departmental Representative was that the authorities had justifiably disallowed the interest which is in line with the decision of Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom.). In our considered view, it is necessary to establish nexus between borrowed funds and the amount advanced, and in the absence of this finding the lower authorities were not justified in making the disallowance. Further, considering the capital and free reserves aggregating to Rs. 71.49 lakhs, we find considerable merit in the claim of the assessee and we uphold the same. The jurisdictional High Court (supra) is of no assistance to the Revenue because, it has not held that even where there is absence of nexus between borrowed funds and the amount advanced. We accordingly uphold the claim of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1996 (9) TMI 206
Assessment Year, Previous Year, Right Shares, Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... taxes. Both the parties agreed that the issue is now covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case pertaining to assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 in ITA Nos. 194 and 749/PN/1990 wherein it has been held vide para 14 of the order that the liability of municipal taxes were the legal liabilities of the landlord and not of the assessee. The assessee had to reimburse 50 of the municipal taxes only to the landlord on production of receipts. Therefore, the provisions of section 43B could not be applied. However, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee under section 37(1). Following the said decision of the Tribunal, we delete the disallowance under section 43B and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall examine the claim of the assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly modified. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 205
Assessment Year, Excise Duty, Export Business, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... een prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The learned departmental representative has also not pointed out any provisions of the Companies Act which prevent the assessee from debiting the loss from fluctuation of foreign currency to the P and L a/c. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the P and L a/c has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act has to be accepted. The adjustment provided in the Explanation do not provide exclusion of such loss. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 19. The last issue relating to the adjustment of the claim under section 80HHC in computing the book profit under section 115J is consequential. The Assessing Officer is directed to adjust the amount which may be worked out under section 80HHC in accordance with our order. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 204
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Levy Of Penalty, Non-resident Company, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings, Total Income
-
1996 (9) TMI 203
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Backward Area, Carrying On Business, Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains
-
1996 (9) TMI 202
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... accountable persons and therefore, the Tribunal is entitled to hear this appeal. 36. To conclude, we are of the view that Shri Homi H. Kanga had no right of appeal against the order of the Assistant Controller. Since he was not a person objecting to or aggrieved with, he could not have filed a legally maintainable appeal before the Appellate Controller. Any person who is really aggrieved by the assessment order and on whom burden of tax will fall will be entitled to prefer an appeal so that the tax burden can be entirely reduced or lessened. Shri Homi H. Kanga was not such a person. The Appellate Controller was, therefore, not legally justified in entertaining the appeal from Shri Homi H. Kanga. We, therefore, vacate his order. 37. As already mentioned above, the case was argued extensively on merit also. However, we refrain to express our opinion on the merit of the case as the appellant has succeeded on the preliminary ground itself. 38. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1996 (9) TMI 192
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Deemed Gift ... ... ... ... ..... Valuation Officers. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, where M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Limited are in occupation of the property and there is a suit of pre-emption by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Limited, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities and the Valuation Officers were justified in taking into consideration the reversionary value of the leased land. We are also of the opinion that the CGT(A) has given quite cogent reasons for upholding the valuation on the basis of the method adopted by the Valuation Officer by including reversionary value and granting proper relief to the assessee. In our opinion, the relief granted by the CGT(A) is proper and the assessee does not deserve any further relief on this count. The department is also not justified in requesting us to uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in place of the CGT(A) s order. We accordingly dismiss both the department s and the assessee s appeals. 19. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 190
... ...
... ... ..... e conditions have been prescribed subsequent to the year with which we are concerned. But it has to be borne in mind that these are all procedural matters, and hence, are deemed to be retrospective in operation. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court, and that too of a larger Bench, while hinges on the vital aspect of public policy, is based on the above referred conditions of the licence. The said condition prohibits a licence-holder from making any other person a co-licencee without the express permission of the Excise Commissioner. So far as consumption of alcohol as a matter of public policy is concerned, there cannot be any distinction between country liquor and IMFL. Similar conditions prescribed under both the licences for making a person co-licence bears testimony to this aspect. Under the circumstances we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the cancellation of the registration of the assessee-firm. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 189
... ...
... ... ..... lowed the claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Revenue relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court reported in Manoj Dyeing Co. vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (Raj) 393 (1995) 212 ITR 299 (Raj), wherein it was held that substantial replacement of equipment would entail capital expenditure. In the instant case, however, the Tribunal gave a finding of fact that replacement of electric motors did not amount to substantial replacement of equipment and accordingly upheld the order of the CIT(A). Thus, the decision being on a vital finding of fact that there was no substantial replacement of equipment, in our opinion, no referable question of law arises and reject the same. 9. The next question proposed for asst. yr. 1989-90 is also liable to be rejected as it stands on the same footing as the second question for asst. yr. 1988-89 discussed above. We, therefore, do not refer the same to the Hon ble High Court. 10. In the result, both the applications are dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 188
... ...
... ... ..... essee s appeal. The grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) has not given any finding on the trading addition of Rs. 70,355. 4.11. While framing the assessment, the AO had applied the provisions of s. 145(1) to the assessee s case and had made a trading addition of Rs. 70,355. Being aggrieved by this addition, the assessee had raised this ground in its appeal before the CIT(A). However, we observe from the order of the CIT(A) that the said ground has not been dealt with by him at all. We, therefore, remit this matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to deal with the ground and give his finding thereon. 5. In result, For asst. yr. 1987-88 (a) the appeal of the Department is dismissed (b) the appeal of the assessee is allowed and, (c) the cross-objections of the assessee are partly allowed. For asst. yr. 1988-89 (a) the appeal of the Department is dismissed (b) the appeal of the assessee is allowed and, (c) the cross-objections of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 182
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Dissolution Of Firm, Short-term Capital Gains, Two Partners
-
1996 (9) TMI 181
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... ty items as specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. It may be clarified that the business of construction is an eligible business for the purposes of this provision. In view of the above clarification, an assessee, who is engaged in the business of construction, becomes eligible for deduction under section 32AB of the Act. The said circular is undoubtedly beneficial to the assessees engaged in the business of construction inasmuch as it has toned down the rigour of the law insofar as it related to an assessee engaged in the business of construction for the purposes of deduction under section 32AB of the Act. It is now well-settled that the benevolent circulars are binding on the Income-tax Authorities even if they deviate from the legal position. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the CIT (Appeals), which we hereby uphold. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby rejected. 10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 180
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Bad Debt, Export Business, Financial Year, Foreign Company, In Part, Income Tax Act, Sale Proceeds
........
|
