|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 269 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the proceedings under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Rights of the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
3. Arbitrariness of the provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to pre-emptive purchase and dispossession.
4. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the proceedings under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner-company challenged the order dated June 22, 1989, issued by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandated the purchase of the property at door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Madras-2, by the Central Government for Rs. 26,00,000. The petitioner argued that the provisions for pre-emptive purchase and dispossession were arbitrary and unrelated to the objective of tackling black money and tax evasion. The respondent countered that the provisions were introduced to contain black money and tax evasion, and the vesting of the property free from encumbrances included tenancy rights as an encumbrance.
2. Rights of the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act:
The petitioner, as a tenant in occupation, claimed statutory protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and argued that they could not be evicted without following the Rent Control Act's provisions. The respondent maintained that the vesting of the property in the Central Government free from encumbrances extinguished the tenancy rights, and the Rent Control Act would not apply.
3. Arbitrariness of the provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to pre-emptive purchase and dispossession:
The petitioner contended that the provisions for pre-emptive purchase and dispossession were arbitrary and did not relate to the objective of tackling black money and tax evasion. The respondent argued that these provisions were necessary to ensure that the property vested in the Central Government free from encumbrances, including tenancy rights.
4. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, where it was held that the property purchased under section 269UD(1) would vest in the Central Government subject to bona fide encumbrances or leasehold interests subsisting thereon, except for monthly tenancies. The Supreme Court struck down the expression "free from all encumbrances" in section 269UE(1) and held that the property would vest in the Central Government subject to such encumbrances and leasehold interests. The court observed that if the agreement to sell provided that the property was free of all encumbrances, it would vest in the Central Government free of such encumbrances. However, statutory tenancy rights under the Rent Control Act would not be protected, and the Central Government could terminate such tenancies.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that since the agreement dated March 30, 1989, provided for a sale free of all encumbrances, the property would vest in the Central Government free of such encumbrances. The petitioner, as a statutory tenant, was not entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and the Central Government could terminate the tenancy. However, the petitioner could not be summarily dispossessed, and the respondent was directed to take steps to determine the tenancy and take possession. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule nisi was discharged without any order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 48
Issues: Assessment of income from a gift, whether the gift was void or voidable, ratification of the transaction by a minor coparcener, reasonableness of estimating income, interest calculation method, questions of law raised before the Appellate Tribunal.
In this case, the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000 to his nephew, which was deemed void by the Income Tax Officer based on previous appellate orders. The Tribunal found the gift to be ab initio void, following Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of ratification by a minor coparcener as an afterthought. The Tribunal directed the assessment of actual interest earned by the donee as income to the assessee, rather than a notional income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the gift being void, the donee was accountable to the donor for income derived from the amount. The Tribunal also found that the issue of recoverability of the gifted amount was not raised before them. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that once a gift is void, the donee acts as a trustee and is liable for income derived from the amount, leading to the assessment of actual interest earned. The Court found that the questions raised by the assessee did not hold merit as they were not relevant to the Tribunal's order. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on interest calculation and ruled in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the answers to the questions raised by the assessee were in the affirmative against them.
-
1994 (1) TMI 47
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the additional wealth-tax on the property known as Geetha Lodge, which was used for business purposes in partnership. The court applied principles from a previous case and answered the questions in favor of the assessee.
-
1994 (1) TMI 46
The High Court of Madras delivered a judgment regarding various questions raised by the Revenue and the assessee. The court did not answer the question about the provision made for leave salary deduction. The donation made by the assessee was allowed as a deduction under section 80G. The court upheld the decision that certain expenditures were not allowable deductions. The court approved the Appellate Tribunal's decision to treat shifting machinery expenses as capital expenditure and shifting employee expenses as revenue expenditure.
-
1994 (1) TMI 45
Issues:
1. Best judgment assessment under section 17(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of assessing authority's determination of petitioner's income and expenses.
3. Dispute regarding income from various agricultural sources like cashew trees, silk cotton, and arecanut trees.
4. Allegation of improper consideration of fuel timber income in the assessment.
5. Lack of local inspection of the estate by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer.
6. Failure of the petitioner to provide material evidence to challenge the assessment.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a best judgment assessment under section 17(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The revisional authority upheld the assessment, determining the petitioner's income at Rs. 1,05,445 and expenses at Rs. 61,845, resulting in a net agricultural income of Rs. 43,600 with a tax liability of Rs. 14,730.
2. The petitioner contended that no income was realized during the assessment year 1987-88, citing losses and disputing the inclusion of income from fuel trees. The assessing authority's determination of income from cashew trees, silk cotton, and absence of arecanut trees was also challenged.
3. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority erred in considering income from fuel timber stored in the estate, claiming it was not agricultural income and could not be sold due to pending proceedings. The counter-affidavit supported the assessment, citing lack of day-to-day accounts and justifying the valuation of timber stored as income.
4. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of a personal local inspection of the estate by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer before the assessment. The absence of such inspection was alleged to have led to an inaccurate determination of income and expenses.
5. The High Court, after reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, found no merit in the writ petition. It noted that the petitioner had not substantiated claims of errors in the assessment or provided material evidence to support their contentions. The court emphasized that interference with best judgment assessments is warranted only in cases of perversity or unreasonableness.
6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the assessing authority's conclusion was valid, and the revisional authority's confirmation of the assessment was upheld. The petitioner's failure to engage with the authorities and provide substantial evidence led to the dismissal of the petition.
-
1994 (1) TMI 44
Issues:
1. Inclusion of amount in reserve for bad and doubtful debts in capital computation for surtax liability.
2. Treatment of a sum as 'provision' instead of 'reserve' for computing capital base.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved questions regarding the inclusion of amounts in the reserve for bad and doubtful debts in the capital computation for surtax liability for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) contended that the amounts were provisions against estimated bad debts and not free reserves, hence not includible in the capital base. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the claim that the amounts were free reserves. The High Court concurred, stating that the amounts indeed represented estimated bad debts and were rightly treated as "provision" and not "reserve." Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to exclude the amounts from the capital computation was justified, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issue 2:
Regarding the treatment of a sum as 'provision' instead of 'reserve' for the purpose of computing the capital base, the court noted that the original provision was made against specific liabilities for expenses and continued to be shown as such in the relevant year. Despite the claim of an excess provision for other expenses, all lower authorities affirmed that the provision was against specific liabilities that persisted. As this factual finding was undisputed, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the sum should be correctly treated as "provision" and not "reserve." Consequently, the court answered question No. 2 in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 43
The High Court of Madras ruled in a case where an assessee transferred his hotel business to his wife through a settlement deed. The court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that there was adequate consideration for the transfer, thus rejecting the Revenue's claim under section 64(iii) of the Act. The court awarded costs of Rs. 500 against the Revenue.
-
1994 (1) TMI 42
The High Court of Madras held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on constructing a bedding and a room for storing cloth was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that there was no enduring benefit for the structure as the assessee was a lessee. The deduction was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. (Case citation: 1994 (1) TMI 42 - MADRAS High Court)
-
1994 (1) TMI 41
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. The penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(c) were cancelled based on the belief of the assessee that he had no income to be returned, supported by the fact that the assessment was based on his brother-in-law's income. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the delay was not without reasonable cause.
-
1994 (1) TMI 40
Issues involved: The judgment involves three main issues: (1) Addition of payments made in connection with printing counterfeit notes, (2) Deletion of cash deficit additions based on unreliable evidence, and (3) Cancellation of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Issue 1 - Addition of Payments for Counterfeit Notes: The Appellate Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 34,300 was based solely on witness statements from a criminal case, which were not provided to the assessee for cross-examination. These statements were not the basis of conviction, leading the Tribunal to conclude that there was no proof of payment requiring the assessee to explain the source of funds. Consequently, the Tribunal held that this addition was not sustainable.
Issue 2 - Deletion of Cash Deficit Additions: The Appellate Tribunal determined that the Department's cash flow statement, prepared based on an unverified diary, lacked evidence of actual expenditure. Notably, even income-tax refunds were not properly considered in the cash flow statement preparation. The Tribunal suggested that a proper recasting of the accounts might reveal an excess of funds rather than a deficit as indicated by the Department's cash flow statement. Therefore, the Tribunal found no proof of actual expenditure that the assessee needed to explain, supporting the deletion of the cash deficit additions.
Issue 3 - Cancellation of Penalty: The Appellate Tribunal's findings on the lack of proof of actual expenditure also supported the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not warranted based on the valid materials presented. Consequently, the judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decisions on all three issues, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.
-
1994 (1) TMI 39
The High Court of Madras ruled against the assessee on four questions: 1) Expenditure on Turf Invitation Cup not allowable, 2) Subscription received from members taxable, 3) Expenditure on Race Ball Day considered entertainment expense, and 4) Development rebate on air-conditioner denied. The Tribunal's findings were upheld in all instances.
-
1994 (1) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of evidence by the Tribunal.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's reliance on an unsigned stock statement and rejection of a bank certificate.
3. Tribunal's decision on stock discrepancy in light of CIT v. General Metal Works.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Rejection of Evidence by the Tribunal
The primary contention was whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated in law due to the rejection of evidence without sufficient grounds and failure to consider material on the record. The court noted that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on findings of fact and did not give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the affidavit and other material provided by the assessee, and concluded that the addition was justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the inflated stock statements submitted to the bank was an afterthought and not substantiated by credible evidence. The court emphasized that a finding of fact does not become a question of law merely because a different view is possible.
Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's Reliance on an Unsigned Stock Statement and Rejection of a Bank Certificate
The Tribunal based its conclusion on a stock statement dated March 31, 1981, which was not signed by the assessee, and rejected a bank certificate dated December 18, 1989. The assessee argued that the stock statement was inflated to secure a higher overdraft facility and that the bank certificate should have been considered. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not disputed the submission of stock statements to the bank where discrepancies appeared. The Tribunal also observed that the bank certificate was produced for the first time at the appellate stage, and the assessee had ample opportunity to present it earlier. The Tribunal found that the assessee's shifting stand and the affidavit were self-serving and did not fit the facts and circumstances of the case. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that they were based on material evidence and reasonable inference.
Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision on Stock Discrepancy in Light of CIT v. General Metal Works
The assessee relied on the case of CIT v. General Metal Works to argue that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that in General Metal Works, the discrepancy in stock was satisfactorily explained to the Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to explain the discrepancies in the stock hypothecated with the bank and that shown in the account books. The court reiterated that the Tribunal's findings were based on material evidence and did not give rise to any question of law. The court also noted that the Tribunal had considered the returns submitted to the Rubber Board and the sales tax assessment order but found them to have no evidentiary value as there was no proof of actual verification of the stock.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal's order was based on findings of fact and did not give rise to any question of law. The application for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the questions to the court was rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 150. The court emphasized that the burden was on the assessee to prove that the apparent tenor of the stock statement was not real, which the assessee failed to discharge. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on reasonable inference drawn from the evidence on record.
-
1994 (1) TMI 37
Issues:
Challenge of prosecution under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Continuance of two separate proceedings against the petitioners leading to double jeopardy; Relevance of civil court decision in a criminal prosecution; Legality of initiating criminal proceedings while other proceedings under the Act are pending.
Analysis:
The petitioners contested their prosecution under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after a series of events involving assessment orders and appeals. The Income-tax Officer initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners under sections 276, 277, and 278 of the Act, leading to the framing of charges. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that facing both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously would amount to double jeopardy and harassment. However, the Union of India contended that both proceedings were independent, with the burden of proof lying on the prosecution in the criminal case. The court emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal law, highlighting the need for independent findings in criminal proceedings despite the relevance of civil court decisions. The judgment cited a Supreme Court case to support the principle that the pendency of proceedings under the Income-tax Act does not bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under sections 276 and 277. The court held that the standard of proof and the nature of the two proceedings being different, the criminal prosecution should not be quashed merely due to pending civil proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, directing the petitioners to appear before the trial court without further notice.
-
1994 (1) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Whether the amendments made by the Income-tax Officer for a specific assessment year and subsequent years were only consequential orders and not affected by the bar of limitation under sections 154 or 147(b)?
2. Whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in relation to a specific assessment year was valid in law and not barred by limitation?
3. Whether the amendments made by the Income-tax Officer for subsequent assessment years were in accordance with the provisions of section 153(3)(ii)?
4. Whether the limitations prescribed under sections 154 or 147(b) were meant to be applied to amendments made consequential to the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court?
Analysis:
The High Court of MADRAS dealt with a case where the Income-tax Officer sought to amend an assessment for a specific year following a decision by the Appellate Tribunal and subsequent reversal by the High Court. The primary issue was whether the amendments made by the Income-tax Officer for that year and subsequent years were merely consequential orders and not subject to the limitation period under sections 154 or 147(b). The Appellate Tribunal held that the amendments were consequential orders giving effect to the decision of the High Court and were not bound by the limitation period. The court considered the arguments presented by both the assessee and the Revenue, referencing a previous decision to support its findings.
The court concluded that the amendments made by the Income-tax Officer were indeed consequential orders and could not be restricted by the limitation period under sections 154 or 147(b). The court highlighted that the delay in appellate and reference proceedings, extending beyond four years, was not envisaged in the Act. The court emphasized that strictly applying the provisions of section 154 or section 147(b) to such consequential amendments would practically make such amendments impossible in any case. The court reasoned that limitations prescribed under these sections were not intended to be applied to amendments made in consequence of decisions by the High Court or the Supreme Court, even though the authority to make such amendments could be traced back to section 147(b) or section 154.
Ultimately, the court answered questions 1 and 2 in the affirmative, indicating that the amendments made by the Income-tax Officer were valid and not subject to the limitation period. Questions 3 and 4 were deemed irrelevant based on the court's findings. The court also answered question 5 in the negative, asserting that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was not bad in law as it was not barred by limitation. The judgment concluded with a decision of no costs awarded in the case.
-
1994 (1) TMI 35
Issues involved:
Two connected applications u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by Revenue against a common order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.
Judgment Details:
1. Issue 1 - Legality of Cancelling Commissioner's Order:
The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessments under section 263 of the Act for fresh inquiries, deeming the initial assessments as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interests. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this decision. The Tribunal held that the assessments completed under section 143(1) could not be revisited under section 263, citing Departmental instructions in Board's Circulars. Additionally, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order unsustainable based on existing material and facts, noting that the required inquiry had already been conducted during a prior wealth-tax assessment. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual analysis and the Revenue did not challenge these findings. Thus, the Tribunal's decision did not raise any legal question.
2. Issue 2 - Tax Effect and Precedent:
The tax effect in the cases was minimal, with Rs. 80 for 1984-85 and Rs. 475 for 1985-86. Referring to a Bombay High Court case, it was highlighted that in instances where the tax effect is insignificant, policy decisions discourage reference applications. The Central Board of Direct Taxes' policy not to file references for cases with a tax effect below Rs. 30,000 per year was considered. Consequently, due to the nominal tax impact and policy guidelines, the applications were deemed meritless and rejected without costs.
In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the applications, emphasizing the factual basis of the Tribunal's decision, the policy considerations regarding tax effect, and the lack of legal questions arising from the Commissioner's order.
-
1994 (1) TMI 34
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) of the Act.
2. Tax liability on the entire 18 paise share income from Durga Flour Mills.
3. Determination of whether the settlement constituted a diversion by overriding title.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Assessment
The case involved a reassessment under section 147(b) where the Income-tax Officer concluded that there was no diversion by overriding title of the 6 paise share settled by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment, arguing that the audit party's opinion did not constitute valid information for reopening. The court held that the audit note highlighted facts overlooked by the Income-tax Officer, necessitating a reassessment. The Tribunal's decision to allow the reassessment was deemed valid under section 147(b).
Issue 2: Tax Liability on Entire Share Income
The dispute centered on whether the entire 18 paise share income from Durga Flour Mills should be taxed in the assessee's hands. The settlement deed indicated that the minor had a right to claim only 6 paise share from the assessee, not the firm. The court analyzed previous judgments and determined that the profits first accrued to the assessee before being applied for payment to the donee. As the donee had no direct link to the profits and the settlement did not transfer interest in the firm itself, the 6 paise share income was not diverted by overriding title. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the entire share income was liable to be assessed as the assessee's income.
Issue 3: Diversion by Overriding Title
The Tribunal had to determine whether the settlement constituted a diversion of income by overriding title. The court reviewed the settlement deed and relevant legal precedents. It concluded that the settlement did not transfer interest in the firm to the minor, as the profits first belonged to the assessee before being applied for the donee's benefit. The court distinguished this case from scenarios involving conversion of individual property into joint family property. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that there was no diversion of income in the 6 paise share by overriding title.
In conclusion, the court answered all questions in the affirmative against the assessee, upholding the tax liability on the entire share income and the validity of the reassessment, with costs awarded to the respondent.
-
1994 (1) TMI 33
Issues:
1. Calculation of interest on refundable tax amount above Rs. 26 lakhs.
2. Interpretation of sections 214 and 244A of the Income-tax Act.
3. Applicability of interest rate on excess tax paid.
4. Treatment of tax deducted at source in relation to advance tax.
5. Distinction between advance tax paid by assessee and tax deducted at source.
6. Constitutional validity under Article 14.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought interest on a refundable tax amount exceeding Rs. 26 lakhs for the accounting year ending September 30, 1987. The interest rate was a key contention, with the petitioner arguing for an additional interest amounting to around Rs. 10 lakhs from May 1, 1988, to September 4, 1991.
2. Section 214 of the Income-tax Act governed the rate and payment of interest, while section 244A, inserted later, was discussed. The judgment emphasized that the treatment of advance tax and tax deducted at source was already at par, with section 244A being declaratory rather than modificatory.
3. The court analyzed the terms of section 214 applicable during the relevant accounting year to determine the rate of interest payable. The judgment highlighted the importance of the specific wording of the section regarding the payment of advance tax during the financial year.
4. The respondents contended that the advance payment made through tax deduction at source was distinct from direct payment of advance tax by the assessee. However, the court disagreed, citing provisions like section 199 and 209(1)(d) which treated tax deducted at source on equal footing with self-paid advance tax.
5. The judgment clarified that the language of section 214 did not exclude its applicability to excess deductions made at source and paid to the Central Government. It reasoned that a purposive construction supported the inclusion of deductions made at source for interest calculations.
6. Lastly, the court addressed the constitutional aspect under Article 14, highlighting the potential class distinction if a different interpretation was applied. It concluded that such differentiation between individuals based on the method of tax payment lacked a reasonable basis and could not further the objectives of the Income-tax Act.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to pay interest at a simple rate of 15 per cent. per annum from April 1, 1988, until payment on the refundable sum. The judgment emphasized the parity between advance tax and tax deducted at source, ensuring equitable treatment for taxpayers.
-
1994 (1) TMI 32
Issues:
- Inclusion of gratuity reserve amount in the computation of capital employed for surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat was tasked with determining whether the gratuity reserve amount should be included in the computation of capital employed for surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The case involved assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69, with the assessee being a limited company engaged in the manufacture of medicines. Initially, the Surtax Officer did not consider the amount in the gratuity reserve account as part of the capital to be computed. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed and directed the inclusion of the gratuity reserve amount in the capital calculation. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of including the gratuity reserve in computing the company's capital for surtax purposes.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559, which established that an appropriation to a gratuity reserve should generally be considered a provision for a contingent liability. The liability to pay gratuity to employees arises upon certain events like death, retirement, or resignation, making it a known and existing liability. The Court emphasized that the method of appropriation, whether scientific or ad hoc, is crucial in determining whether the amount should be treated as a provision or a reserve. If the appropriation exceeds the estimated liability, only the excess should be considered a reserve. The Court noted the absence of material regarding the basis of the appropriation in the present case and highlighted the importance of actuarial valuation in such determinations.
Consequently, the High Court decided to remand the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration in line with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.'s case [1981] 132 ITR 559. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to assess whether the appropriation of the gratuity reserve amount was based on actuarial valuation or an ad hoc basis to determine its classification as a provision or a reserve. The reference was disposed of with directions for the Tribunal to decide the matter based on the principles established by the Supreme Court.
-
1994 (1) TMI 31
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing relief under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that even if part of the property was let out, the assessee could still claim the relief if the major portion was used for residence. The court cited previous cases to support its decision and awarded costs to the assessee.
-
1994 (1) TMI 30
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving the exclusion of property from the dutiable estate under the Estate Duty Act. The court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision that a gift deed was valid and not subject to estate duty. The court found that sections 10 and 27 of the Act were not applicable in this case. The judgment was transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal with no cost directions.
....
|
9911796707
