|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 189 Records
-
1989 (10) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 144B of the Income-tax Act in reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147(b).
2. Whether the reassessment completed on September 20, 1979, is barred by limitation.
Summary:
1. Applicability of Section 144B in Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147(b):
The assessee argued that section 144B can only be invoked in assessments made u/s 143(3) and not in reassessments initiated u/s 147. The Revenue contended that once section 147 is invoked, the assessment proceedings start afresh, and any assessment can be made u/s 143(3) or 144, making section 144B applicable. The court held that reopening an assessment u/s 147 results in the proceedings starting de novo, thereby attracting section 143(3) and necessitating a reference u/s 144B if the intended addition exceeds Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal's decision that section 144B was applicable was upheld.
2. Limitation for Reassessment:
The assessee claimed the reassessment was time-barred as it should have been completed by March 31, 1979, under section 153(2)(b). However, the court noted that if section 144B is applicable, the reassessment completed on September 20, 1979, falls within the extended period allowed by clause (iv) of Explanation I to section 153. Consequently, the reassessment was deemed to be within the time allowed by law and not barred by limitation.
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, confirming that the reassessment completed on September 20, 1979, was valid and within the prescribed time limit.
-
1989 (10) TMI 48
The High Court of Kerala ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the non-taxability of rubber replantation subsidy as income. The court declined to answer the question about the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147(b) in light of the decision on the second question.
-
1989 (10) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Interpretation of allowable expenditures under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
2. Determination of revenue versus capital expenditure for tax purposes.
3. Application of legal principles in assessing expenditure claims by a plantation company.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an original petition filed by the Revenue under section 60(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, concerning various expenditure claims by a plantation company. The Revenue sought the referral of six questions of law to the High Court for decision by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court examined each question individually.
Regarding questions 1 and 2, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure for advertisement in magazines, souvenirs, and new year compliments was justified. The Court relied on previous decisions and held that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court declined to direct the Tribunal to refer these questions.
In relation to question 3, concerning the claim for loss on revaluation of loose tools, the Court noted that the Tribunal treated it as an accountancy practice without any actual expenses incurred. As the decision was based on factual considerations, the Court concluded that no question of law arose.
Regarding question 4, concerning expenditure on stamp and stamp paper, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as it determined the expenditure to be a routine revenue item based on the specific facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the nature of expenditure, whether revenue or capital, depends on the circumstances of each case, and hence, no legal question was found to arise.
Lastly, question 5 involved the allowance of expenses for interplanting of cardamom by the Tribunal. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the expenditure was revenue in nature, as it involved replacing dried-up plants to maintain a uniform planted area. Consequently, the Court declined to refer this question as well.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the original petition, declining to refer the questions to the Tribunal and emphasizing that one of the questions was not even formulated before the Appellate Tribunal. The judgment highlights the importance of factual considerations and legal principles in determining allowable expenditures and distinguishing between revenue and capital items for tax purposes.
-
1989 (10) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Taxability of surplus amount realized by the assessee due to the devaluation of the rupee as a revenue receipt.
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay involved a case where the assessee was engaged in the business of copper bars and had imported two consignments from the United States. The consignments were seized by Pakistani authorities during hostilities between Pakistan and India. The assessee had paid a significant amount towards the price of the copper bars, which were later reimbursed by the insurers after the rupee was devalued. The main issue was whether the surplus amount of Rs. 1,13,745, resulting from the devaluation, was taxable as a revenue receipt. The Income-tax Officer initially brought the amount to tax as a trading receipt, which was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
The court considered relevant precedents, including the case of CIT v. Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd., to determine the taxability of the surplus amount. The Tribunal found that the copper bars were trading assets, and the amount received from the insurers was part of the payment for the seized goods. It was established that the loss incurred was incidental to the business of the assessee and was therefore a trading receipt. The court emphasized that the nature of the asset involved in the loss determined whether it was a trading loss or a capital loss.
In contrast to the case cited by the assessee's counsel, where the loss was considered a capital asset due to different circumstances, in this case, the loss resulting from the devaluation was deemed a trading receipt. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the surplus amount was taxable as a revenue receipt. Therefore, the question posed was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 45
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40%?
2. Whether the claim based on a rule that came into force on July 24, 1980, for the assessment year 1980-81 is not a debatable issue?
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the application of the assessee under section 154 of the Income-tax Act?
Issue 1: Depreciation Rate
The assessee, a bus operator, claimed depreciation at 40% under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81, which was initially allowed at 30% by the Income-tax Officer. The amendment to the Income-tax Rules in 1980 allowed for 40% depreciation on motor vehicles from July 24, 1980. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the amendment could only have prospective operation and that the assessment should be based on the law as of April 1, 1980, resulting in 30% depreciation. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the amended rules should apply to assessments completed after July 24, 1980, allowing for 40% depreciation on the stage carriages owned by the assessee.
Issue 2: Debatable Claim
The Tribunal held that the intention of the amendment regarding depreciation rate cannot be debated by income-tax authorities, making it a non-debatable issue. It further stated that relief to the assessee cannot be denied when applying for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that where a provision expressly states the date from which it is effective, it must be given effect accordingly, in this case, from July 24, 1980.
Issue 3: Application of Law
The High Court emphasized that the law to be applied for assessment is the law in force during the assessment year unless changed. Amendments after April 1 of a financial year do not apply to assessments for that year, as clarified by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The Court rejected the Tribunal's decision, stating that the rules cannot have retrospective operation and that the law relating to depreciation as of April 1, 1980, should be applied. Consequently, the questions were answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, disposing of the income-tax reference accordingly.
-
1989 (10) TMI 44
The petitioner filed a petition to quash income tax assessment orders for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Tribunal upheld the orders based on previous profit percentages. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating the petitioner should use statutory remedies available.
-
1989 (10) TMI 43
Issues: Interpretation of penal provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act before and after amendment on April 1, 1968.
Summary:
The High Court of BOMBAY considered two questions raised by the assessee regarding the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The case involved assessments for the years 1959-60 to 1962-63, where no concealment was found during the original assessment proceedings. However, upon reopening the assessments, it was revealed that there was concealment of income, leading to a dispute over the applicable penal provisions post the amendment on April 1, 1968.
The Tribunal initially reduced the penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, prompting both the assessee and the Department to file miscellaneous applications due to discrepancies in the data presented. The Tribunal then revisited the issue, determining that the penal provisions post the April 1, 1968 amendment were applicable, leading to the current legal challenge.
The assessee argued that penalties should be based on the law in force at the time of filing the original returns, citing relevant case law. Conversely, the Department relied on a different court decision supporting the application of post-amendment provisions.
After thorough analysis, the High Court concluded that penalties should be imposed based on the provisions in place at the time of filing the original returns, i.e., before the April 1, 1968 amendment. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case and the detailed analysis conducted by the Delhi High Court.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, answering both questions in the negative and holding that penalties should be imposed as per the pre-amendment provisions of section 271(1)(c). No costs were awarded in this judgment.
-
1989 (10) TMI 42
Issues:
- Validity of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on assessments for specific years
- Exclusion of time for limitation purposes based on opportunity of rehearing
- Interpretation of section 144B of the Income-tax Act
- Impact of change in Income-tax Officer during proceedings
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the validity of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on the assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76 and 1978-79, specifically focusing on whether they were barred by time. The Income-tax Officer had given the assessee an opportunity for rehearing, leading to a dispute on whether the time taken for rehearing should be excluded for limitation purposes. The standing counsel for income tax argued that the time for rehearing should be excluded under the proviso to section 129 of the Income-tax Act. Conversely, the counsel for the assessee contended that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's offer for rehearing did not necessitate further inquiry by the Income-tax Officer, and thus, time should not be extended. The court considered the relevant facts, including the sequence of events leading to the assessments, to address these contentions.
The court analyzed the provisions of section 144B of the Income-tax Act to determine the necessity and implications of offering a rehearing opportunity to the assessee. It was highlighted that section 144B did not mandate a fresh opportunity for rehearing when the matter was pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, except in cases where prejudicial directions were to be issued. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer was bound to follow the directions issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and thus, further hearing by the Income-tax Officer was deemed unnecessary. Referring to a previous decision, the court held that a change in the Income-tax Officer during proceedings before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not warrant a rehearing by the succeeding officer. Consequently, the court concluded that the time taken for rehearing by the Income-tax Officer should not be excluded for limitation purposes, rendering the assessments completed on October 16, 1981, as barred by limitation.
In conclusion, the court answered the reference in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, indicating that the assessments for the specified years were indeed barred by limitation. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, procedural aspects, and precedents to arrive at a decision that upheld the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of time for limitation purposes based on the opportunity of rehearing.
-
1989 (10) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Assessment of undisclosed income for the assessment year 1970-71.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Appeal against the penalty levy.
4. Dispute regarding domestic expenses and contributions to a chit fund.
5. Interpretation of findings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Legal principles governing re-examination of Tribunal's findings.
Analysis:
The case involves the assessment of undisclosed income for the assessment year 1970-71, where the assessee initially reported a loss but later revised the return to show income. The Income-tax Officer found discrepancies in domestic expenses and contributions to a chit fund, treating them as undisclosed income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition of Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 5,000 towards chit fund contributions and domestic expenses, respectively.
A penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed based on the undisclosed income. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the domestic expenses were met through earnings from races and the chit fund contributions were made by another individual, not the assessee. The Tribunal found that the penalty could not be sustained as there was no concealment of income, setting aside the levy of Rs. 23,000.
The Tribunal's decision was challenged, with the Revenue arguing that the findings on chit fund contributions required reconsideration. Legal principles were cited regarding the re-examination of Tribunal findings based on factual appreciation. The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's findings and concluded that there was no scope for interference, upholding the decision to set aside the penalty levy.
In summary, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court found no grounds for re-examining the Tribunal's findings, leading to the dismissal of the penalty imposition and awarding costs to the assessee.
-
1989 (10) TMI 40
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the application under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. (Case citation: 1989 (10) TMI 40 - Punjab and Haryana High Court)
-
1989 (10) TMI 39
Issues:
1. Whether roads within the factory premises constitute 'plant' for depreciation allowance.
2. Whether provisions made for deferred annuity policies on the lives of directors fall under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The court referred to a previous judgment and held that roads within the factory premises are entitled to depreciation allowance as "building." The decision was based on the interpretation of the term "plant" in relation to factory infrastructure.
Issue 2:
Regarding the provisions made for deferred annuity policies on the lives of directors, the Income-tax Officer initially treated the sum paid as salary, falling under section 40(a)(v). However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the provision for annuity policies was to meet the assessee's obligations for payment to directors upon retirement or death. The Tribunal emphasized that the directors had no present right to the sum, and it did not represent a present benefit to them, as it was receivable only upon the termination of their service.
The court considered the definition of "perquisite" and the Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, emphasizing that the obligation to make payments for annuity policies rested with the assessee, not the directors. It was concluded that the directors had no vested right to the sum until the contingency occurred, aligning with the principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgment.
Therefore, the court answered the second question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the provision for deferred annuity policies did not constitute a perquisite under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
No costs were awarded in this judgment.
-
1989 (10) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of authorities under Section 10(22) vs. Sections 11 to 13.
3. Justification of Tribunal's conclusion on Sections 11 to 13 applicability.
4. Impact of Section 10(22) on the jurisdiction of Sections 11, 12, and 13.
Summary:
Issue 1: Applicability of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act
The primary question was whether Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act applied to the assessee, a public charitable trust, or if Sections 11 to 13 were applicable. The Income-tax Officer assessed the trust's income and allowed partial exemption, leading to a taxable income of Rs. 4,360. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed this, granting full exemption under Section 10(22), stating the trust's primary objective was running educational institutions. However, the Tribunal found that the trust's income was derived from non-educational sources like shandai leases and cinema theatre leases, and only a small portion was spent on education. Thus, it concluded that Section 10(22) did not apply as the trust did not exist solely for educational purposes.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Authorities under Section 10(22) vs. Sections 11 to 13
The Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in applying Section 10(22) without considering Sections 11 to 13. The Tribunal directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to examine the compliance with Section 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, noting that the trust's objectives included religious purposes, which disqualified it from claiming exemption solely under Section 10(22).
Issue 3: Justification of Tribunal's Conclusion on Sections 11 to 13 Applicability
The Tribunal's decision to apply Sections 11 to 13 was based on the factual finding that the trust's income was not solely for educational purposes. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the trust's income was used for both educational and religious purposes, thus necessitating the application of Sections 11 to 13 to determine the extent of tax exemption.
Issue 4: Impact of Section 10(22) on the Jurisdiction of Sections 11, 12, and 13
The High Court concluded that the applicability of Section 10(22) does not oust the jurisdiction of Sections 11, 12, and 13. Since the trust did not exist solely for educational purposes, the income had to be assessed under Sections 11 to 13. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to reassess the income under these sections.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that Section 10(22) did not apply and directed the assessment under Sections 11 to 13. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Revenue, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
-
1989 (10) TMI 37
Issues:
1. Deduction of expenses incurred on the sale of building and lift while computing income under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Allowance of sale expenses under section 37(1) or under section 28 read with section 29 as a deduction from profits under section 41(2).
3. Entitlement to set off sale expenses against capital gains under section 70(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Bombay dealt with the case of an assessee, a limited company, who sold its factory along with machinery, plant, and fittings at the end of the previous year. The assessee incurred expenses in connection with the sale, including registration and stamp fees, and solicitors' fees. The Revenue contended that the expenses should not be deducted while computing income under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision.
The questions before the court were whether the assessee was entitled to deduct the sale expenses from the sale proceeds of the building and lift under section 41(2), whether the expenses could be allowed under other sections, and whether the assessee could set off the expenses against capital gains from the sale of other fixed assets. The court referred to previous judgments and legal provisions, including section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the treatment of excess sale proceeds over the written down value of assets used for business.
The court considered the expenses incurred by the assessee, mainly registration and stamp fees and solicitors' fees, as directly related to the sale. It relied on previous judgments and a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to support the deduction of such expenses from the sale price for the purposes of section 41(2). The court emphasized that expenses directly related to the sale, such as commission, brokerage, and legal costs, should reduce the sale price for calculating the balancing charge.
In conclusion, the court held in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of sale expenses from the sale price for computing income under section 41(2). The court found that expenses like registration and stamp fees and solicitors' fees, being directly related to the sale, should be admissible as deductions. The court rejected the Revenue's argument and emphasized the importance of reducing the sale price by expenses directly related to the sale for determining the balancing charge.
-
1989 (10) TMI 36
The High Court of Gujarat considered a special civil application requesting waiver of interest due to delays caused by a strike in the Income-tax Department. The court recommended the tax authorities to treat the application as a representation and address the genuine grievances of the affected assessees. The application was withdrawn by the petitioners and disposed of as not pressed. Notice was discharged. (Case Citation: 1989 (10) TMI 36 - GUJARAT High Court)
-
1989 (10) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of expenditure and investments in Government securities by a charitable institution for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71.
Summary:
The reference made u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raised the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the entire expenditure and investments in Government securities should be considered as made out of the assessable income of the assessee before being treated as made out of income from subscriptions. The assessee, a charitable institution entitled to exemption u/s 11, had income from property held under trust and received subscriptions, which were not taxable. The Income-tax Officer treated the expenditure and investments as made on a pro rata basis from the income and subscriptions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, deeming the expenditure and investments to have come from the taxable income of the trust.
The court considered relevant case laws but found them inapplicable to the present case. Referring to the prudent assessee standard, the court held that the expenditure for the trust's purposes and investments in Government securities were made from the taxable income to avail of the exemption u/s 11. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's view that the expenditure and investments should not be deemed to have been made on a pro rata basis from the income derived from property held under trust and subscriptions.
In conclusion, the court answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure and investments were made from the taxable income of the trust to obtain the benefit of the exemption u/s 11. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1989 (10) TMI 34
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to make two separate assessments for the two periods on the basis of the two returns filed by the assessee.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Tribunal's Decision on Separate Assessments:
The core issue revolves around whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's direction for two separate assessments based on the two returns filed by the assessee. The assessee, a partnership firm, claimed two separate assessments for the periods from April 1, 1980, to June 30, 1980, and from July 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981, under section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm was dissolved on June 30, 1980, and reconstituted with an additional partner on July 1, 1980.
2. Income-tax Officer's Rejection:
The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim, treating it as a mere change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2)(b) of the Act. He observed that the business, assets, liabilities, creditors, and debtors remained unchanged, and thus, it was a reconstitution rather than a succession. Consequently, he made a single assessment for the entire period, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nandlal Sohanlal v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 170.
3. Appellate Authority's Decision:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, not on the grounds argued by the assessee, but based on the Full Bench decision in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad v. Addl. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 858. The appellate authority held that section 187 does not create a fiction that the income of the old firm becomes the income of the reconstituted firm. Therefore, two separate assessments were necessary.
4. Tribunal's Affirmation:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the appellate authority's decision without addressing whether there was a dissolution of the old firm followed by succession.
5. High Court's Consideration:
The High Court noted that the appellate authorities did not examine whether there was a dissolution of the previous firm, which is crucial for determining the applicability of section 188. The High Court emphasized the distinction between dissolution and reconstitution, citing Tyresoles (India) v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 515, and reiterated that section 187 applies only to reconstituted firms, while section 188 applies to succession cases.
6. Supreme Court's View:
The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's approval of the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar [1982] 136 ITR 379 in Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 761, which held that section 187 applies only to firms with continued existence, not to cases where one firm ceases to exist and another comes into existence.
7. Need for Factual Investigation:
The High Court concluded that the question of whether the previous firm was dissolved requires factual investigation by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal or other tax authorities. Without this investigation, the High Court found it inadvisable to record an answer to the referred question.
Conclusion:
The High Court returned the question unanswered, directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to rehear the appeal and decide afresh, considering whether there was a dissolution of the previous firm. The Tribunal may remand the matter to the first appellate authority if necessary. No order as to costs was made.
-
1989 (10) TMI 33
Issues:
Constitutional validity of entry 19 of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 - levy of flat rate of tax of Rs. 2,500 per annum.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioners, companies engaged in hire-purchase and automobile parts businesses, challenged the constitutional validity of entry 19 of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976, which imposed a flat rate tax of Rs. 2,500 per annum. The grounds of attack included the contention that the tax base being profession, trade, or calling, the classification of companies without considering the nature of their activities was discriminatory. The petitioners argued that the flat rate without classification based on activities, standing, or number of employees was discriminatory, citing a Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty Naha, AIR 1969 SC 378. The charging section of the Act provided for the levy on professions, trades, callings, and employments, taking into account the person carrying on the profession. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M. K. Kandaswami [1975] 36 STC 191 emphasized the need for a charging provision to specify the subject, object, and quantum of tax, allowing for different tax rates based on relevant considerations.
The court noted that while individuals were classified based on their professions, for companies and firms, a flat rate of tax was applied due to their composition and status in the business world. The court upheld the classification of companies as a separate class, considering their distinct legal status and capacity to pay tax. The argument that there should be no distinction between individuals and legal entities like companies based solely on the profession was dismissed. The court referred to precedents such as S. Kodar's case, AIR 1974 SC 2272, and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals' case [1985] 154 ITR 64 (SC) supporting the principle that economically superior entities can be taxed at higher rates.
Regarding the petitioners' argument on classification, the court cited Murthy Match Works' case, AIR 1974 SC 497, and emphasized the wide latitude given to the legislature in tax matters. The court highlighted that a broad classification, as in the present case with a flat rate tax for companies, could be upheld without the need for extensive micro-classification. Precedents such as Avinder Singh's case, AIR 1979 SC 321, and Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd.'s case, AIR 1980 SC 286, were referenced to support the validity of flat rate taxes based on broader classifications. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and rejected the petitions challenging the tax levy.
-
1989 (10) TMI 32
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the original petition of an assessee in an income tax case for the assessment year 1984-85. The court upheld the addition of Rs. 1,65,000 as income from undisclosed sources, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of cash credits from six persons. The Appellate Tribunal's finding that the cash credits were not genuine was deemed binding as a question of fact, and the court declined to refer the case for further decision.
-
1989 (10) TMI 31
The High Court of Allahabad issued a mandamus directing the Tax Recovery Officer, Agra, to decide applications for refund and adjustment of tax recovery within six weeks. The petition was disposed of with this direction. The petitioner is to receive a copy of the order within two days.
-
1989 (10) TMI 30
Issues:
Validity of notice of advance tax under section 210 and sustainability of penalty under section 273(c) based on the notice.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding the validity of a notice of advance tax and the imposition of penalty under section 273(c) to the High Court. The assessee had initially filed a return for the assessment year 1974-75, showing an income of Rs. 1,00,870. Subsequently, a notice under section 210 was issued by the Income-tax Officer, leading to a penalty imposition for non-compliance with section 212(3A) provisions. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,720, which was challenged by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the notice under section 210 was invalid as it was based on an incorrect income figure. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which ruled that a small inaccuracy in the income figure on the notice did not invalidate the notice under section 210. The Tribunal emphasized that the notice was based on the correct assessment year and the inaccuracy could be rectified without rendering the notice void. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and upheld the penalty imposition.
The High Court, after considering arguments from both parties, concluded that the question of whether the notice of advance tax under section 210 was invalid did not encompass the argument regarding the jurisdiction of issuing a revised return notice. The Court noted that this specific point was not raised or addressed before the Tribunal, and thus, it did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The Court highlighted that the question framed for consideration was limited to the validity of the advance tax notice under section 210 based on the facts presented. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue. The judgment reaffirmed the Tribunal's decision that a minor inaccuracy in the income figure on the notice did not invalidate the notice under section 210, emphasizing that rectification could address such discrepancies without nullifying the notice or the penalty imposition under section 273(c).
....
|
9911796707
