|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 69 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 115 - ITAT AGRA
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ls of generation of different types of scrap was given as well as the process being adopted by the assessee for sale of scrap, etc. These facts have not been disputed. The addition had been made on ad hoc basis and on the basis that there was difference in the average sale rate shown by the assessee and than to the rate shown in the Financial Express. The assessee was found carrying on business in the remote area and persons who are purchasing scraps have to keep in mind that they have to incur expenses for transportation on scrap from remote area to the market while rate in the Financial Express may not be the same as in the case of assessee and that basis was also not sufficient warranting any addition. The CIT(A) had taken into consideration all the aspects and rightly deleted the addition. The result is that this ground also fails. 16. No other ground was agitated in both the appeals. 17. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the manner as stated in the body of the order.
-
2000 (6) TMI 114 - ITAT AGRA
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ng any commission income from transportation of gitti or from its business. Assessing Officer except placing reliance on the assessment order had not brought any other material on record and findings of assessment order are not conclusive but only relevant. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence assessee at least had been able to make out a plausible case and if we examine with the standard of proof required to levy penalty the evidence from the Department which is nothing but finding in the assessment proceedings, are not sufficient to conclude that assessee had concealed or suppressed his income. Thus, penalty was not leviable merely on the basis of addition sustained in quantum proceedings. Accordingly, orders of the CIT(A), confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for both the assessment years under consideration are set aside and penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stand cancelled. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Failure To File Return, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... oversial issue. Therefore, if in the belief of the Assessing Officer, notwithstanding the fact that escapement was not due to a mistake which could be rectified under section 154 of the Act, but it still persists he has his power coupled with duty to go into the question under section 147 of the Act when he has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdictional fact for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act did not exist in respect of the assessment years which are the subject-matter of Special Civil Applications Nos. 2381 of 1996 and 10744 of 1996. In the result, therefore, the challenge of the petitioners in all these petitions against the impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment under section 147 thereof fails. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged in each of them with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
-
2000 (6) TMI 26 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income ... ... ... ... ..... s expression used itself excludes inclusion of agricultural income. There is no occasion to submit that the agricultural income would first be included under section 32AB as profits and gains of business or profession and deduction as may be admissible shall be given first and then at a later stage at the time of computation, the agricultural income as a whole shall also not be included in the total income. The question of allowing deductions will arise only in case the income is included in the total income chargeable to income-tax and not otherwise. The position under the law and the provisions of the Act are quite clear. In the result the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, that is to say, that the Tribunal erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow benefit of section 32AB after holding that the income is agricultural income exempt from income-tax under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2000 (6) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... to meet expenses incurred for the purpose of the duties of an office or employment was exempt from tax to the extent that such expenses were actually incurred for that purpose. It was also held that the word perquisite would also not apply to reimbursement of necessary disbursement. It was also held that if an amount was paid by way of reimbursement of an expenditure incurred in the performance of the duties, the same would not be liable to be taxed as salary. It was held that as these assessees were foreign technicians and as they were required to stay away from their homes, the daily allowance given to them was relatable to the extra expenditure which the assessees were required to pay on food, etc., which was necessary for the performance of duties and such reimbursement stood excluded from the purview of the Act. This decision of the High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Goslino Mario 2000 241 ITR 312. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... icable for the assessment year 1984-85. Learned counsel relied on a decision of this court in CIT v. S. A. Wahab 1990 182 ITR 4 64. In that case, Varghese Kalliath J., on behalf of the Bench observed thus The amendment sought to be relied on was an amendment to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The notification amending the rule came into effect only on July 24, 1980, and the amendment did not have retrospective operation. The provisions relating to depreciation as they stood on April 1, 1980, had to be applied in the instant case. The assessee was not, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. Following the same decision, we are of the view that the new rates of depreciation which came into force with effect from April 2, 1983, will be applicable only for the assessment year 1984-85 and not for the assessment year 1983-84. In view of the above fact, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. Income-tax reference is disposed of as above.
-
2000 (6) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... owed. On the other hand, the Appellate Tribunal considered the explanation of the assessee that the National Savings Certificate, is purchased from the Income, that the assessee had an income of Rs. 30,750 which is more than the amount invested in National Savings Certificate and held that the assessee is bound to succeed from any point of view. This view taken by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as unreasonable or perverse. The assessee has clearly stated that the National Savings Certificate was purchased from the income and admittedly he had an income of Rs. 30,750 which is more than the amount invested in National Savings Certificate. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee purchased the National Savings Certificate from out of the income of the previous year. In this view of the matter, the question raised by the Tribunal does not arise. We accordingly decline to answer the question. The income-tax reference is disposed of as above.
-
2000 (6) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... will not stand as an obstacle to do justice. This court which has an extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 need not send the petitioners to the magistrate s court for quashing a complaint which is admittedly not maintainable. Rules of procedure are only hand maids of justice. Further, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special, Judicial Magistrate 1998 AIR 1998 SC 128 1998 5 SCC 749, what can be done under the Criminal Procedure Code can be done under this jurisdiction also. Having admitted that penalty orders and assessments issued against the petitioners were set aside and therefore prosecution will not lie, I set aside the prosecution proceedings based on the complaint (exhibit P-10) questioned in this case. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the Department in making assessments as directed by the appellate authority and prosecution, if necessary, according to law, both the original petitions are allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Interest, Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... apply his mind. There is no patent illegality or error of jurisdiction. The amount of tax which was payable was paid late and interest was assessed. Even though hardship is not financial hardship also from the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner came to the finding of fact that there is no genuine hardship. In any event it was clearly found that non-payment of tax in time was not due to any circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. All the three conditions mentioned in section 220 should be satisfied before granting the waiver. Hence, the second condition was not satisfied. I see no ground to interfere with the above order. There is no patent illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. This court is not sitting in appeal under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Income-tax Commissioner. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Director, Law Applicable, Revision, Powers Of CIT ... ... ... ... ..... of the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Act. When the company has not gone into liquidation nor, the amendment in section 179 made in 1975, has retrospective effect, we found no error in the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 4, 1987, passed under section 179 of the Act. When the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 4, 1987, is not erroneous and is passed in compliance with the direction of this court dated February 17, 1986, there is no error in that order that the petitioner s husband is not liable for the tax dues against the company when the order is not erroneous. The Commissioner has wrongly invoked the provision of section 263 of the Act of 1961. In the result, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be sustained hence quashed, we also quash all the orders passed in consequence of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act of 1961. The appeal is allowed accordingly. RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR J.---I agree.
-
2000 (6) TMI 19 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Company, Book Profit ... ... ... ... ..... aken by the High Court that in case there is profit in a year but after adjustment of depreciation it results in loss, no adjustment in the book profit under section 115J can be allowed. The view taken by the High Court would partially defeat the object sought to be achieved by section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We also do not agree with the High Court saying that having lifted section 205(1), proviso, clause (b), from the Companies Act into section 115J of the Income-tax Act, there is no occasion to refer to the Companies Act, 1956, at all. In the light of the fact that the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 508relied upon by the Tribunal has been set aside and the view taken by the Supreme Court as quoted above, the order dated March 14, 1997, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is incorrect and the reference is answered in the negative. There would, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (6) TMI 18 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Assessment, Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... aper or form containing the computation except the notice of demand. No tax calculation had been made in Form I. T. N. S. 150 or on any other sheet of paper signed or initialled by the Income-tax Officer. It was in such factual situation that in that case the assessment order was held to be invalid. The above decision is not an authority for the proposition that the assessment will be vitiated if the calculation of tax payable is not done in the assessment order itself. In the premises, we are of the clear opinion that in the instant case, the tax payable having been determined by the Income-tax Officer himself on Form I. T. N. S. 150 simultaneously with the determination of income, the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessment order was vitiated. In view of the above, we answer both the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (6) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Status ... ... ... ... ..... 1989-90. There is no material on record to show the activities of the trust and how the income is derived by the trust, who are the beneficiaries under the trust. In order to decide the question whether the trust can be treated as an association of persons, it is absolutely necessary to decide the matter with reference to the trust deed. the accounts and other records maintained by the assessee. None of the authorities including the Tribunal had considered the matter with reference to the said documents. As such, we are not in a position to answer the questions referred either way and we decline to answer the same. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter must go back to the assessing authority for consideration afresh. We set aside the assessment orders and the appellate orders and the orders of the Tribunal. We direct the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
-
2000 (6) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... e parties and their counsel reposed full faith in our ability to remember and decide the facts and the legal issues on the basis of our detailed notes supplemented by the efficient written submissions filed by the parties. At their request, we have decided the matter ourselves, though after a span of twenty-two months. While regretting the unavoidable delay in delivering our judgment, we express our gratitude to learned counsel on both sides who have with consummate skill rendered invaluable help in unravelling several knotty and complicated legal issues. At the end of the day, in our considered judgment, the writ petition has no merit and must fail. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousands only) each to the first, second, fourth, sixth and ninth respondents as costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all interim orders are vacated. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
2000 (6) TMI 15 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... two reasons given by us while deciding Naresh Kumar and Co. s case 2000 243 ITR 760 (P and H). It is, therefore, not necessary for us to decide in the present cases whether the petitioners are buyers in further sale of goods of the nature specified in the table referred to in sub-section (1) of section 206C of the Act. For the reasons recorded in our earlier order in Naresh Kumar and Co. s case 2000 243 ITR 760 (P and H), we hold that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner is not a seller within the meaning of section 206C of the Act and that the amount sought to be collected from the petitioners as tax at source is not the amount payable within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner could not recover ten per cent. of the licence fee as income-tax at source. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices issued by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (6) TMI 14 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Reference, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... sion can be drawn, no question of law arises. The findings of the Tribunal also cannot be held to be perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal took note of the material evidence and reached its own conclusion. If there is material to support the conclusion, the fact that another body or the court might have arrived at a contrary conclusion is not relevant. The findings of the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and, therefore, no question of law arises. If in arriving at its conclusion of a fact, the Tribunal has not faltered in employing any rule of law nor has overlooked any material fact or circumstances, no question of law arises. The pure question of fact cannot be turned into a question of law by asking the Tribunal to state a case as to whether the Tribunal reached a correct conclusion of fact as a matter of law. In the circumstances we do not find any merit in this application and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... hereafter, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuer, who valued the property at Rs. 6.66 lakhs and, accordingly, the difference has been added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income. The above basis clearly shows that the Department has not understood the scope of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act. By no stretch of imagination, the impugned addition fell within the Chapter XIV-B. There would be no finality, if the Department is permitted to add back to the income of the assessee on the basis of the Departmental valuer s report obtained subsequent to the order of the regular assessment. Hence, the Tribunal was right in deleting the said addition. Accordingly, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. For the above reasons, questions Nos. 4 and 5 are also answered accordingly, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... purposes, the payment of which is enforced by law. Penalty is ordinarily levied on an assessee for some contumacious conduct or for a deliberate violation of the provision of the particular statute. Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee, who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable, the levy of interest is geared to actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of the delay in paying the tax on the due date. Essentially it is compensatory and different from penalty---which is penal in character. In view of our discussion made hereinabove, it is, therefore, clear that the interest payable for arrears of municipal taxes is really compensatory in nature and not a penalty/tax. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question raised before us against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on an operative portion of a copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (6) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reference, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... led these petitions under section 256(2) of the Act, seeking a direction to the Tribunal, to refer the said questions. The first question that is sought to be raised for 1987-88, and the only question for 1988-89 raised, is whether unexplained investments by the major sons can be added as income of the assessee under section 69. This cannot be said to be a pure question of fact. This question is a question of law, which requires consideration. In so far as the second question for 1987-88 is concerned, it relates to addition of Rs. 1 lakh towards purchase of a residential house on the basis of the valuation made by the District Valuation Officer, which is purely question of fact and does not involve any question of law. In view of, above, these petitions are allowed in part and the Tribunal is directed to make a reference in regard to the first question for 1987-88 and the only question for 1988-89. Sri E.R. Indrakumar is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks.
-
2000 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... sident company in India and, accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the Department. This appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal is misconceived. No substantial question of law is raised in this appeal. It is well settled that the orders passed under section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act are not conclusive. They do not pre-empt the Department from passing appropriate orders of assessment. We have already taken a view in Income-tax Appeal No. 217 of 2000 (CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. 2000 245 ITR 823(Bom)), in which this court has laid down that the findings given under section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act will not preclude the Department from taking a contrary view in the assessment proceedings. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|
