|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 53 of 53 Records
-
1973 (10) TMI 13
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisional assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 is an assessment within the meaning of the second proviso to section 2(xx) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? "
-
1973 (10) TMI 12
The order challenged herein is an order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the said order, the Commissioner dismissed the two revision petitions preferred by the petitioner against the levy of interest under section 215 - The issue that minor income was not to be included in the assessee's estimate of advance tax was pending before Supreme Court, whether this can be a valid ground for waiver of interest under section 215 – held that dismissal of the revision petition without considering this contention would be bad in law
-
1973 (10) TMI 11
Whether, within the meaning of section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty order must not only be made within two years of the completion of the proceedings for the imposition of penalty concerned but also communicated to the assessee within the said period of limitation ? - " The order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be passed within two years from the dateof the completion of the proceedings in the course of which the proceedings for the imposition of penalty had been commenced and it is not necessary that the communication of the same to the assessee should also be within the said period of two years."
-
1973 (10) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Whether the benefits of partnership given to minors constitute a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958?
2. Whether the reconstitution of the firm and admission of new partners amount to a gift under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act 1958?
Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the applicability of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 to the reconstitution of a partnership firm and the admission of minors to its benefits. The respondent-assessee's share in the firm was reduced from 44% to 25% due to changes in the partnership structure. The Gift-tax Officer treated this reduction as a gift of goodwill, leading to a gift tax liability. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no gift of goodwill but found a gift of the right to future profits for the minors. The Tribunal, however, ruled that no gift occurred as the right to future profit was not considered existing property under the Act.
The key legal issue revolved around whether the reduction in the respondent's share constituted a transfer of property, thereby attracting gift tax liability. The definition of "gift" under section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act was crucial, requiring the transfer of existing movable or immovable property voluntarily and without consideration. The term "property" was defined broadly to include any interest in property, movable or immovable. The concept of "transfer of property" under section 2(xxiv) encompassed various forms of disposition or alienation, including transactions intending to diminish one's property value and increase another's.
The court examined the provisions of the Gift-tax Act and emphasized that for a transaction to qualify as a gift, there must be a transfer of existing property. The respondent's reduction in share and the admission of minors to partnership benefits did not amount to relinquishment or abandonment of property interest. The court rejected the argument that the reconstitution of the firm led to a transfer of property, as the minors were admitted to partnership benefits with the consent of all partners and did not become full partners themselves.
Ultimately, the court held that the benefits given to the minors were not a gift under the Gift-tax Act, as there was no transfer of existing property. The decision clarified that the reconstitution of a firm and adjustments in partnership shares did not constitute a taxable gift under the Act. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, concluding that the changes in partnership structure did not trigger gift tax liability.
-
1973 (10) TMI 9
" Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the transaction of giving Rs. 45,000 to Smt. Gatkoo Bai was neither a valid partition nor a family arrangement nor a valid gift and, therefore, disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,898, Rs. 2,838 and Rs. 2,336 in the assessment for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, was correctly made ? " - submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the transfer of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 45,000 to Smt. Gatkoo Bai represented a family arrangement cannot, therefore, be accepted.
-
1973 (10) TMI 8
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company's claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 55,545, being the difference between the book value of the Government securities held by the assessee and the value at which they were taken over by Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., on the amalgamation of the assessee with the said bank has been rightly rejected by the Income-tax Officer ? " - The fact that the assessee practically ceased to do business simultaneously does not alter the character or the nature of the transaction. The sum of Rs. 55,544.05, therefore, should have been deducted from the other business income of the assessee computed by the authorities. - We answer the question referred to us in the negative that is in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
1973 (10) TMI 7
Total income of the family - Hindu undivided family held shares in a company and the karta was a director - sitting fees and commission received by the director - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,348 are liable to be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1965-66 ? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 14,750 and Rs. 11,348 are liable to be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1966-67 ? "
-
1973 (10) TMI 6
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the value of cash gifts of Rs. 10,000 each made by the deceased in favour of the minor daughters, by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of Rs. 15,000 which was a deposit made by the donee in the firm of Messrs. T. Govinda Rao and Sons as property belonging to the deceased by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ? " - question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person
-
1973 (10) TMI 5
Commercial expediency - Assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the purchase and sale of motor vehicles, spare parts and accessories and agricultural implements besides having a number of workshops where servicing and repairs to vehicles as well as body building is done - assessee-company bought land in the name of District Collector for construction of houses for company's workers by Government under a scheme. Similar expenditure was to be incurred for a few years. Whether the amount spent for the purchase can said to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and whether assessee acquired a capital asset or advantage of an enduring benefit
-
1973 (10) TMI 4
The assessee had business loss in India and dividend income from Pakistan company, the dividend income was taxable 100 per cent. in Pakistan - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the net dividend income of Rs. 2,27,472 received from a Pakistan company and the capital gains of Rs. 50,829 were not deductible in arriving at the total world loss under section 24(1) ?
-
1973 (10) TMI 3
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty was leviable in this case under section 271 (1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto and in deleting the penalty of Rs. 50,000 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner - Whether the cash found in the possession of the assessee can be treated as belonging to him rejecting his explanation that it did not belong to him
-
1973 (10) TMI 2
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding liability of directors of a private company in liquidation.
2. Whether the tax due from a private limited company struck off under section 560(5) of the Companies Act can be recovered from its past director under section 179 of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner, a former director of a company, challenged the recovery of tax under section 179 of the Income-tax Act. Section 179 imposes liability on directors of private companies in liquidation for unpaid taxes. The conditions for liability include the company being a private limited company, being wound up after April 1, 1962, and the tax being unrecoverable from company assets. The ex-director can avoid liability by proving no gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty. The court noted that the company was struck off under the Companies Act, not wound up, and held the petitioner not liable under section 179.
Issue 2:
The court delved into the meaning of "wound up" in the context of the Companies Act to determine if a company struck off under section 560(5) could trigger liability under section 179 of the Income-tax Act. Winding-up involves realizing assets and paying liabilities, while striking off a company's name results in its property vesting in the Crown as bona vacantia. The court emphasized strict construction of fiscal statutes and held that section 179 applies only to companies wound up under the Companies Act, not those struck off the register. Citing precedents, the court concluded that the petitioner cannot be held liable under section 179, deeming the tax recovery action illegal and unauthorized.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to refrain from recovering the tax from the petitioner. The judgment clarified that liability under section 179 applies to companies wound up under the Companies Act, excluding those merely struck off the register. No costs were awarded in the circumstances.
-
1973 (10) TMI 1
Outstanding tax liability of another concern paid by the assessee on taking over assets and liabilities of the other concern - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,01,095 was not allowable as deduction by reason of the provisions contained in section 40(a)(ii)
|
9911796707
