|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 233 Records
-
1987 (10) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, were not included in the return. The Tribunal endorsed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Cornmissioner that it was the common belief at the relevant time that the income earned by the minors prior to October 1, 1975, was not to be included in the total income by invoking the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) and acting under this belief, this explanation of the assessee was accepted. It was further found that since the income of the minors was being assessed separately, there could be no intention on the part of the assessee to conceal the income. In view of these findings, the question of law raised by the Department does not arise. The application consequently fails and is rejected.
-
1987 (10) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Appeal To Tribunal, Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... statement ought to be called for from the Tribunal. We, however, find no merit in this objection. We have perused the supplementary affidavit filed in this reference by the assessee as well as the written submissions filed before the Tribunal and are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the questions referred to us for our opinion, the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal is complete in all respects. All there relevant facts have been incorporated in the statement. There is hence no need for calling for a supplementary statement from the Tribunal or to accept the documents referred to in the supplementary affidavit at this stage. In the result, we answer the first and the third questions in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, that is, the Tribunal has committed no error in refusing to entertain the additional evidence.
-
1987 (10) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest, Waiver Or Reduction ... ... ... ... ..... tice by the assessee or the Income-tax Officer. In the instant case, as indicated above, a mistake apparent from the record had been committed by the Tribunal. This mistake was brought to its notice within four years from the date of the order by the assessee and was rectified by the Tribunal by making necessary amendments in the earlier order. The case, therefore, squarely fell within the purview of rectification of mistakes as contemplated by section 254(2) of the Act and it was not a case where the Tribunal could be said to have reviewed its earlier order. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that the decision of the Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 6 (jab) of 1982, dated September 2, 1982, will not amount to a review of its order dated December 8, 1981, but it was an order of rectification of mistake which is permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest, Waiver Or Reduction ... ... ... ... ..... or payable under sub-section (8) of section 139 of the Act was not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had not simultaneously deposited the amount of tax along with the return whereby voluntary disclosure was made. Before parting with the case, we may point out that learned counsel for the parties cited certain decisions laying down rules of interpretation of a provision such as section 273A of the Act but, in our opinion, on the view which we have taken on the facts of the instant case, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated August 30, 1982, passed by respondent No. 1, Cornmissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur, is quashed and he is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner for waiver/reduction of interest paid or payable under section 139(8) of the Act on merits afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... s not that. The question referred is about the justifiability of addition of the deceased s share in the bad debt reserve in the total value of his estate. In view of the argument urged before the Tribunal, the said finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. We may also mention in this regard that the order of the Assistant Controller shows that the share of the deceased either in the capital account or in the stock-in-trade was taken into account. It is probably for this reason, the Appellate Controller was of the opinion that even if a fresh exercise was done as required by law, the result would be the same. At this distance of time, therefore, we are not prepared to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the accountable person. For the above reasons, in the particular circumstances of the case, we answer the questions referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable persons. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... he very same properties and the very same assessee and more particularly when the appeal against the said decision is pending in the Supreme Court, we do not think it advisable and proper to reconsider the correctness of the view expressed in CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan 1974 Tax LR 90. For the above reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the assessee, makes an oral request for grant of a certificate under section 261 of the Income-tax Act with respect to our opinion on the first question. Inasmuch as the appeal is already pending against the decision in CIT v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan 1974 Tax LR 90, following which we have answered the said question against the assessee, we are inclined to grant a certificate to the assessee in so far as the first question referred is concerned.
-
1987 (10) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he law relating to such inclusions and exemptions is applied only when the liability is determined. Therefore, the law applicable for the determination of net wealth and consequent tax liability is the one in force on the, first day of the assessment year. When clause (vi) sub-section (1) of section 5 is applied for the purpose of allowing exemption specified therein, the extent to which the exemption is to be allowed has to be determined with reference to the proviso thereunder which is effective from April 1, 1975. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the proviso is applicable in determining the net wealth of the assessee as on the relevant valuation date. The question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (10) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... the expression books , the emphasis is on the word assessee . In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee maintained no books of account. The cash credit entry of which the sum in question forms part, was found in the books the account of the partnership firm which in its own right is an assessee. In the above view of the matter, the books of account of the partnership firm herein cannot be considered as those of the individual assessee herein and, therefore, section 68 of the Income-tax Act would not be attracted to the present case. The above view receives support from Laxmi Narain Gupta v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 94 (Pat). No decision taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice at the Bar. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and dispose of the reference accordingly. No costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 25 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... y correct. (ii) In regard to question No. 2, our opinion is that the finding that in view of the fact of death of the partner, Gopiram, on October 2, 1974, the firm was dissolved and the order refusing to grant continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Act till October 2, 1974, and holding that there was a change in the constitution of the firm is legally correct. (iii) In regard to question No. 3, our opinion is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as pointed out above and the ground on which condonation of delay in making the application in Form No. 11A was sought, the finding of the Tribunal that the delay could not be condoned was legally correct. (iv) In regard to question No. 4, our opinion is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed no error of law in holding that only one assessment had to be made for the entire previous year. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Academic Question ... ... ... ... ..... ver, moved an application for rectification of the said appellate order of the Tribunal Which was ultimately rejected by the Tribunal. It is against this order rejecting the application under section 254(2) of the Act that a reference application was moved by the assessee before the Tribunal and the same was rejected by an order dated July 16, 1986. That is how the matter is before us under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. After hearing learned counsel for the assessee and on a perusal of the various orders passed in the case, we find that in the present case in view of the loss of Rs. 1,06,995 as determined by the Income-tax Officer, there is no liability to tax. As such, the contention of the assessee regarding exemption raised by the assessee as far as the present year in dispute is concerned is purely academic. It is settled law that the High Court will not call for a question on academic matters. In the circumstances, the present application is rejected. Costs easy.
-
1987 (10) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... ve been no need for the Commissioner to enter into the merits of the case. Upon perusal of the order of the Commissioner (annexure 4 to the writ petition), it appears to be correct that the Commissioner has omitted to record any finding on the ground that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erroneously rejected the medical certificate. It is, therefore, clear from the facts of the case that the Commissioner failed to record a finding on a vital point and, therefore, the matter deserves to be sent back to the Commissioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The Commissioner s order dated August 12, 1986 (annexure 4 to the writ petition), is quashed and the case is sent back to the Commissioner with a direction that he will record a finding on the vital ground whether or not the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erroneously rejected the medical certificate and thereafter re-decide the case according to law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
High Court, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... are governed by the law established in the overruling decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards matters that are res judicata or accounts that have been settled in the meantime. The above passage itself adverts to matters that are res judicata as an exception to the general rule mentioned therein. This court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution give a direction to the first respondent-Tribunal to decide the appeal contrary to section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act. Counsel relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, AIR 1979 SC 1144, in support of the proposition that the State or the Revenue should not take up technical pleas to defeat the just rights of the citizens. That may be a good answer against a technical plea if the petitioner seeks appropriate remedies available at law. This original petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income, Mutual Concern ... ... ... ... ..... vation came to be made which only shows that the objects of the club should be immune from every taint of commerciality and this also applied to the transactions of sale and purchase which were being incidentally undertaken for the attainment of the main object of the club. The buying, preparing and selling of provisions which were incidental to the main object of the club was also limited to the members of the club and not extended to outsiders. This incidental activity was also, therefore, immune from the taint of commerciality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above observation on which considerable reliance was placed by counsel for the assessee cannot go to the aid of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that all the three questions formulated by the Tribunal and referred to us must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 6 of the Constitution. The petitioner in 0. P. No. 2826 of 1987 gets only five days time under the notice of demand, exhibit P-2, served on him on March 13, 1987. The assessing authority was not justified in granting such a short time for payment and in imposing a penalty for non-compliance with the demand. The order imposing penalty amounts to a clear abuse of power vested in the assessing authority. Exhibit P-5 order cannot, therefore, be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. In all other cases, no steps have been taken treating the respective assessees as in default. I need only state that the assessees are entitled to a reasonable time for payment of the tax assessed and it is the duty of the assessing authority to fix a reasonable time in the notice of demand for payment of the tax assessed. O. P. No. 2826 of 1987 is allowed to the extent indicated above. O. P. Nos. 2531, 4567, 4788, 7955 and 7959 of 1987 are dismissed. The parties will suffer their respective costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference To Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ), clause (b), when read with rule 3B, ibid, mandatorily require the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference. With due respect to Kripal J., in our opinion, the Wealth-tax Officer was not required to convey his estimated value to the assessee and wait for his reaction. In our opinion, the moment the estimated value exceeded the returned value of the asset by more than what is envisaged by rule 3B, then he had no option but to make a reference and he is not to wait for a request from the assessee to make a reference. It would be a different matter if the assessee, on coming to know about the estimated value, whether as a result of the communication from the Wealth-tax Officer or on his own and, in writing, accepts the estimated value to be the correct value. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and remit the case back to the Tribunal to deal with it in accordance with law.
-
1987 (10) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dge denied jurisdiction. We see no error in the said reasoning of the learned single judge. The order under Schedule II, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act was passed on March 16, 1985. The petitioner was released even earlier on February 28, 1985. He undertook to appear after 15 days. The order passed under Schedule II, rule 76, is an appealable one. Under Schedule II, rule 86(1)(c), the said order, exhibit P-5, should have been appealed against instead of being assailed in this court, in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single judge took the said view. It is not possible for us to say that the said view is either perverse or illegal. If the petitioner failed to advance any valid or proper reason for not filing the statutory appeal that is available to him against exhibit P-5 order, that itself was sufficient to deny jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ appeal is without merit. The writ appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
1987 (10) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... s in error in the exercise of their jurisdiction or whether they had acted illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice. Rule 45 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, is also of no avail to the Revenue. It has used the word may , i.e., it is the discretion of the Tribunal whether to forward the statement of the case to the High Court without the annexures required to be sent along with the statement of the case. Moreover, we cannot examine the question whether the discretion was exercised judiciously and justly while exercising jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. We could have examined this aspect only if the Revenue had filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, we are inclined to hold that this petition is not maintainable under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and the same is hereby dismissed but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... it means the corporate activity of the society, that is to say, the combination of operations undertaken by the co-operative society whether or not they amount to a business, trade or profession in the ordinary sense. Clause (c) of section 80P(2) is intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business but attributable to an activity which results in profits or gains. Letting out of surplus space in the building owned and used by the assessee is not such an activity falling under clause (c). The rent thus received by the assessee is not eligible for the exemption provided thereunder. In this view, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee s claim. We accordingly answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (10) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ll Bench of this court in Parthas Trust v. CIT 1988 169 ITR 334 (Ker) has held that the deduction under section 32(1)-depreciation cannot be claimed by someone without any real connection with the asset and that the claimant must be one with much more than some threads of rights. It was held that depreciation is claimable by the owner who uses the assets in question. In this case, as per the finding of the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee is not the owner of the building. If so, it follows that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation put forward by the company. The reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal are justified in law. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The income-tax referred case is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1987 (10) TMI 14 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Life Insurance Premium ... ... ... ... ..... oper nor is it intended by the provisions of section 80C(1) of the Act. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of the final court in Chandulal Harjiwandas v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 627 (SC), is misplaced. In that case, the Revenue had disallowed the claim for deduction of life insurance premia on a strict interpretation of the contract of insurance. The final court held that the claim of the assessee was admissible. It was observed that the object of enacting section 15(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to section 80C of the Act, is the encouragement of thrift and the section should hence be interpreted in such manner as not to nullify that object. The interpretation sought to be placed on the said provision by the Tribunal would in fact nullify its object and thus cannot be sustained. Consequently, we answer the above question in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to Costs.
....
|
