|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 142 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest, Waiver Of Interest, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... d in the notice of demand is either already paid or no longer payable or subsisting, no liability to pay interest under section 220(2) arise. The situation in the present case is entirely different. The writ petitioner has invited the problem on itself by not co-operating with the Department by taking proceedings challenging the assessment. Granting that pursuit of legal remedies by the petitioner could not be construed as non-co-operation with the Department, the writ petitioner not having satisfied the other two criteria, the first respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner s claim for waiver. The first respondent has exercised his discretion properly and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for waiver of interest. In these circumstances, I have no alternative except to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Consequently, the injunction petition W.M.P. No. 22728 of 1988 is also dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... arbitrary power on the officers to reopen the proceedings as and when they consider it admissible without informing the assessee the precise reason for seeking to reopen the proceedings and without setting out the basis on which the order is to be revised. In these cases, it is not as if the assessee as also the Department were fully aware of the relevant facts on the basis of which the reassessment was being done. No information whatsoever is available from the record as to why and how the addition was made to the income of the assessee which had been duly considered and assessed six years earlier. The officers are required to act with reasonable despatch, and not take assessees by surprise by making orders several years after issuing a notice and remaining silent in the interval. The impugned orders of the Tribunal as also of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are, therefore, set aside. The revision petitions are allowed. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Survey, Recovery Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s by the other Income-tax Officers and the attachment and seizure of the negotiable instruments (the promissory notes) by the Tax Recovery Officer were done at one and the same time, the action initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer invoking his powers under rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Act is totally unquestionable, though such act was put in action along with the other officers who were present at the time of seizure. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the contention of Mr. G. Rajagopalan that the promissory notes are also documents and the protection given under section 133A(4) is also available to the promissory notes. The writ appeal, therefore, fails and the findings rendered by the learned single judge in para. 25 of his order which is challenged in this writ appeal are confirmed. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Any observation made by us in this judgment will not affect the rights of the appellant in his appeal pending now before the authorities.
-
1997 (9) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification, Prosecution, Mens Rea
-
1997 (9) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Agricultural Income, Deduction, Accident Insurance ... ... ... ... ..... he subsidy granted to the assessee by the Rubber Board in respect of the previous years relevant to the assessment years in question cannot at all be construed as an income derived by the assessee-company from the land and, therefore, the addition of the subsidies relatable to those years as agricultural income is not at all justified and the assessee company is entitled to the tax relief therefor. The disallowance of the alleged expenses incurred by the assessee-company relating to personal accident insurance premium, repairs to motor vehicles and cost of fuel to the said vehicles cannot at all be interfered with and the assessee-company must thank its stars in getting a part of the relief if not in full measure, on those items at the hands of the assessing authorities below, though they are not entitled to the same. In fine, to the extent indicated above, the assessee-company will be entitled to the relief. The revisions, in other respects, shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Status, Tenants-in-common ... ... ... ... ..... as association of individuals . In view of what has been stated above, we have no doubt in our mind that as per the salient provisions adumbrated in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act, Thiru M.S.P. Rajes owning 9/10ths share and Thirumathi Bhanumathi Rajah owning the remaining 1/10th share in Stanmore Estate, Yarcaud, have to be assessed as tenants-in-common and, therefore, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in suo motu revision proceedings are not sustainable and they deserve to be set aside, In fine, this tax case (revision) is allowed by setting aside the orders passed in suo moto revision proceedings by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras. The authorities below are directed to treat Thiru M. S. P. Rajes and Thirumathi Bhanumathi Rajah as tenants-in-common and levy tax in respect of the relevant assessment year in question, according to the salient provisions adumbrated in subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... nding in paragraph 19 of his judgment that as regards the entries for three relevant crucial dates, it is seen that the accounts have not been properly maintained and they are contradictory to each other. Therefore, the liability of the first accused automatically follows on the basis of the said finding. This appeal has therefore, to be allowed. As regards the penalty to be imposed on the first accused, since the relevant assessment year is 1983-84 which is more than 14 years earlier to this date and also having regard to the fact that both the partners who were in charge of the affairs of the firm are no more, imposition of nominal fine would meet the ends of justice and a penalty of Rs. 500 would be sufficient. In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the first accused is found guilty under section 276C of the Income-tax Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The charge under section 277(ii) is set aside as the said provision cannot be invoked against the firm.
-
1997 (9) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... 5, made in R. P. No. 427 of 1979 is confirmed. Thus the ultimate portion of the order is vitiated and the first respondent could not in law confirm the order dated September 10, 1985, as it is no longer available or in existence on file. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated January 2, 1997, made in A-1./R. P. No. 427 of 1979 on the file of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the first respondent herein, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for de novo proceedings. It is well open to the respondents to pass fresh orders on the merits and according to the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. As the matter has been remitted back for de novo proceedings, the first respondent shall afford one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders according to law. The writ petition is allowed, but no costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 21051 of 1997 is closed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ear is not relevant for the purpose of determining the eligibility for the purpose of benefit of compounding. Section 65 of the Act speaks of land held by the assessee. But it is not stated that the land should have been held by the assessee throughout the assessment year. Composition is for the year and for subsequent years until the assessee opts out by filing a return. The assessee is required to report any change in the extent of the land held after he is permitted to compound. The Act does not contemplate levy of tax for parts of the year, the year is the unit and it is the income for the year that is the basis for the assessment. For the purpose of compounding it is the maximum extent of land held during any part of the year which has to be the basis for determining the composition fee. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction calling for our interference. This revision petition is dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... , entitled to depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent. for the fan which admittedly has been purchased and used for business purpose as the cost of that fan is less than Rs. 5,000. The ceiling mentioned in the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under which depreciation could be claimed is at the rate of 100 per cent. As regards the disallowance of a part of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the cost of bringing out a brochure of the Murugappa group, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. We have seen the copy of the brochure which was placed before us. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the cost of bringing out the brochure cannot be regarded as part of the assessee s expenditure contributing to the business of the assessee. The disallowance on the part of the expenditure on this brochure is fully justified. In the result, this revision is allowed in part so far as the claim for depreciation of fan is concerned. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income ... ... ... ... ..... essee. The rejection of a revision petition filed by the assessee is declared by the second proviso to section 34(1) to be an order which shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. Having regard to the express language used in these two sections the legislative intent is manifest that a revision under section 54 at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the assessee s revision, is not maintainable and it cannot be entertained. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jacob v. Deputy CAIT (Addl.) 1986 158 ITR 596, that it is only when the assessee is able to plead and prove that prejudice has been caused otherwise than by mere rejection of his revision petition by the Commissioner that the assessee can invoke section 54 of the Act. No such prejudice has been demonstrated before us. The revision petitions, therefore, have to be, and are accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Surtax, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Ceiling On Expenditure
-
1997 (9) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... ee is entitled to deduction under section 5(e) of the Act for the assessment year 1983-84. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85 again the bulk of the loans in respect of which interest had been paid are ad hoc crop loans. Interest paid on such loans can only be claimed under section 5(k). However, in respect of the medium term tea development loan a sum of Rs. 16,380 was paid. On another medium term ad hoc development loan for tea, interest of Rs. 10,505.15 was paid. The assessee is entitled to deduction under section 5(e) of the Act, in respect of these sums as those loans relate to medium term development of the estate. The Tribunal was in error in rejecting the assessee s claim for deduction of interest paid in the previous year on the loans. In the result, the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Interest paid on replanting and development loans being now held to be deductible under section 5(e). The revision petitions are allowed in part.
-
1997 (9) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... se of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty v. CIT 1939 7 ITR 263. The Privy Council in the context of the Income-tax Act had held that where the assessee also had a complaint against any assessment made by any subordinate officer, he had the appropriate and specific remedy which the Act provides and that when he approaches the Commissioner to exercise his powers of revision, the assessee does nothing to worsen his own position, and he can acquire no right by having approached the Commissioner and the Commissioner declining his plea. It was held that the assessee does not acquire a further right to approach this court by way of a further revision. The assessee s right is only by way of appeal against the orders of the subordinate authorities and that right has to be exercised in the manner provided under the Act. The remedy by way of revision is limited to what is provided in section 34. Having regard to this position in law, this petition has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to direct it to make a reference under section 256(1). Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel, we agree with Shri Mittal that no question of law arises for adjudication in this case. In his order, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the generating set cannot be treated as independent of the whole concern and that the extra shift allowance should be granted by taking the entire concern as one unit. This view of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Tribunal and we do not find any reason to take a different view. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not show as to how the generating set is not a part of the plant and machinery and how it could be used independently for the purpose of carrying manufacturing process. Thus, we do not find any reason to entertain the application filed by the Revenue for directing the Tribunal to make reference of the question of law framed by it. Consequently, the reference application is dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The first batch of appeals was concerned with the power of rectification under section 154. In the assessment made under section 143 of the Act there had not been included in the assessee's income the amount of tax paid on behalf of the assessee by the ONCC to the Department - That tax paid was sought to be included by rectification - whether such an exercise of inclusion could be undertaken by way of rectification - In the second batch of appeals also the tax paid on behalf of the assessee was again under consideration but in a different light. The issue here was whether the tax paid on behalf of the assessee would be taken 100 per cent. as gains of business or profession (as would ordinarily be the case in the case of an ordinary citizen not engaged in oil exploration) or whether 10 per cent. of such tax would be taken as profits and gains of business, such tax paid being connected inextricably with the fees paid in regard to services rendered for oil exploration, or thirdly whether the tax paid on behalf of the assessee could at all be included in the profits and gains of the profession or business.
-
1997 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
In the instant case, the immediate source of the profit is sale of goods. The export of other goods is not even the second degree but it has to be traced to an even more remote degree. The import was of palm oil. The import was possible because of earlier export of goods at a loss. In the chain of sequence the earlier export would be four degrees away - hence assessee is not entitled to allowance of deduction in respect of profits derived by it on specified export sales
-
1997 (9) TMI 6 - SC ORDER
Collaboration Agreement with foreign company for know-how - assessee was merely given a non-exclusive and non-transferable right of user of the technical information - High Court was justified in holding expenditures in question to be revenue nature.
-
1997 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a proper interpretation of the terms and conditions of the 'leave and licence agreement' executed on October 19, 1963, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of ₹ 20 lakhs which had been deposited by the assessee with S pursuant to clause 17 of the said agreement, arose in the carrying on of the assessee's business and was incidental to it and was accordingly allowable as a business loss - Held, no
-
1997 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Allegation of commission of an offence under section 276B, read with section 278B - Firm - on revision petition HC was not justified in holding that no substantive sentence could be imposed on the firm and in upholding the discharge of the other respondents - set aside the impugned order of the High Court upholding the discharge of the respondents and direct it to hear the revision petition filed by the appellant afresh in accordance with law
....
|
