|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 189 of 189 Records
-
1989 (10) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature.
3. Constitutionality of the amendments under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A.
4. Validity of the circular dated December 9, 1988, issued by the Inspector-General of Registration.
5. Interpretation of Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act.
6. Legislative competence under Entry 44 of List III.
7. Implications of the amendment on the business of flat building.
8. Applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.
9. Nature of agreements under Article 5(i) and their registration requirements.
Summary:
1. Validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987:
The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987, amending the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, arguing it was ultra vires, unconstitutional, and void. The court upheld the amendments, stating they were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
2. Legislative Competence:
The court examined the legislative competence under Entry 44 of List III and found that the State Legislature had the authority to enact the amendments. The assent of the President of India was obtained on September 24, 1987, making the amendments valid.
3. Constitutionality under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A:
The petitioners argued that the amendments violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the amendments did not violate these constitutional provisions, as they were reasonable and within the legislative competence.
4. Validity of the Circular dated December 9, 1988:
The circular issued by the Inspector-General of Registration was challenged as illegal and invalid. The court found that the circular was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and declared it illegal and invalid.
5. Interpretation of Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act:
The court interpreted Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, stating that it deals with agreements for constructing buildings by the vendor on land sold by such vendor. The court clarified that the article applies to agreements where the vendor of the land also acts as the building contractor, agreeing to deliver possession of the constructed building to the vendee.
6. Legislative Competence under Entry 44 of List III:
The court held that the State Legislature had the competence to enact the amendments under Entry 44 of List III, which deals with stamp duties other than those collected by means of judicial stamps.
7. Implications on Flat Building Business:
The petitioners argued that the amendments affected their right to carry on the business of flat building, violating Article 19(1)(g). The court held that the amendments were reasonable and did not violate the petitioners' right to carry on business.
8. Applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act:
The court clarified that Section 47A applies to instruments where the market value of the property is not truly set forth. The Registering Authority must register the document and refer it to the Collector for determining the correct market value.
9. Nature of Agreements under Article 5(i) and Registration Requirements:
The court held that agreements under Article 5(i) are building contracts and not agreements to sell immovable property. Such agreements are compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act. The court emphasized that the Registering Authority cannot compel parties to register these agreements but can prosecute for non-registration under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the amendments to the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, declared the circular dated December 9, 1988, illegal and invalid, and clarified the interpretation and applicability of Article 5(i) and Section 47A. The court also provided guidance on the registration requirements and the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
-
1989 (10) TMI 8
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise.
2. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding pre-deposit.
3. Request for extension of ad interim relief by the petitioner.
4. Consideration of interest payment on delayed deposit.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics, faced a show-cause notice for excise duty recovery amounting to Rs. 32,43,576.09 due to irregularities found during a surprise check. The Collector directed payment of the duty along with a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal challenging the order, which imposed a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 20,00,000 instead of the total amount. The challenge was solely against the Tribunal's order, not the Collector's order.
2. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's order was unjust, arguing that a lower pre-deposit amount should have sufficed. However, the court found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts, including the petitioner's balance-sheet, and had reasonably dispensed with a significant portion of the required deposit. The court held that interference under Article 227 was unwarranted, rejecting the petition and vacating the earlier granted ad interim relief.
3. The petitioner requested an extension of the ad interim relief to challenge the order before a superior forum. The court recognized the need to balance such requests, especially in fiscal matters impacting tax collection. Despite the petitioner's payment of Rs. 4,00,000, the court emphasized the need to prevent undue financial gains from delayed payments, considering the societal impact of tax evasion and the court's role in protecting public interests.
4. In light of the petitioner's request for time to make the remaining payment, the court imposed a condition for calculating and depositing interest at 15% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs. 16 lakhs for two months. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the calculated interest with the Tribunal by a specified date, maintaining the vacated ad interim relief until December 18, 1989, subject to compliance. Failure to pay the interest would automatically vacate the extended relief, emphasizing the non-refundable nature of the interest payment and its separation from the duty amount.
Overall, the judgment addressed the challenges to the Tribunal's order, the petitioner's request for relief extension, and the imposition of interest payment conditions to prevent undue financial benefits from delayed payments, emphasizing the societal impact of tax evasion and the court's role in safeguarding public interests.
-
1989 (10) TMI 7
Issues:
- Whether the incentive bonus received by the assessee can be treated as part of the salary?
- Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure claimed from the incentive bonus received?
Analysis:
The case involved Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, with the main issue being the entitlement of the officers to claim expenditure deduction from the incentive bonus received. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the plea for claiming 40% of the incentive bonus as expenditure, considering it part of the salary. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed a 20% deduction. The Appellate Tribunal later held that 40% of the incentive bonus could be considered a reasonable deduction for the expenditure incurred in earning the amount. The court noted that the Tribunal failed to address the core issue of whether the incentive bonus formed part of the salary or was separate income. The nature of the payment and the reason for the incentive bonus were crucial factors that were not adequately evaluated.
The court highlighted that understanding the nature of the income received by the Development Officers was essential to determine the validity of claiming expenditure deduction. It was emphasized that the fundamental question of whether the incentive bonus formed part of the salary needed to be clarified before considering any deduction claims. The lack of information regarding the basis and purpose of the incentive bonus payment, as well as the absence of details about the employment contract, hindered a proper assessment of the situation. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's reliance on a previous order without a comprehensive analysis of the conflicting decisions from various Tribunal Benches.
In conclusion, the court declined to provide a definitive answer to the questions raised, directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to reevaluate the case with a larger Bench. The court stressed the importance of considering all relevant documents, including the Development Officers' appointment orders, duties, salary details, and the rationale behind the incentive bonus payments. The need for a more thorough examination of the facts and a resolution of the controversy based on a comprehensive evaluation of the circumstances was highlighted for a fair and just decision.
-
1989 (10) TMI 6
The Revenue moved an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to direct the Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding the valuation of Prem Prakash Cinema for the assessment year 1979-80. The High Court allowed the application and directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law for consideration. The question was whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the valuation of Prem Prakash Cinema at Rs. 34,07,839 for determining the assessee's interest in the firm.
-
1989 (10) TMI 5
Issues:
1. Whether conditional subsidy received under a housing scheme forms part of actual cost for depreciation deduction.
2. Whether messing expenses for providing meals at a guest house are allowable as deduction under section 37.
3. Whether expenses incurred for providing tea, cold drinks, etc., to constituents visiting business premises are allowable as deduction under section 37.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Tribunal had to decide if the conditional subsidy received by the assessee under a housing scheme should be considered as part of the actual cost for claiming depreciation deduction. The Income-tax authorities held that the subsidy did not form part of the actual cost and, therefore, depreciation could not be claimed on that amount under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court, based on a previous decision, ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the amount received as a subsidy did not qualify as part of the actual cost for depreciation purposes.
Issue 2:
The question arose regarding the allowability of messing expenses incurred by the assessee for providing meals at a guest house under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue contended that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment expenses and should not be allowed as a deduction. However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that the expenses being disallowable under a different subsection of section 37 was not raised or considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the messing expenses as a deduction.
Issue 3:
The third issue involved the deductibility of expenses incurred in providing tea, cold drinks, etc., to constituents visiting the business premises under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue argued that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment expenses and should not be allowed as a deduction. The court, following the same reasoning as in issue 2, found that the question of disallowance under a different subsection of section 37 was not raised or considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing these expenses as a deduction.
In conclusion, the court answered question 1 against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, while questions 2 and 3 were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
-
1989 (10) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of sealing the petitioner's shop.
2. Validity of the search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternative remedy.
4. Examination of procedural compliance and allegations of mala fide action by the Income-tax Department.
Summary:
1. Legality of Sealing the Petitioner's Shop:
The petitioners contested the sealing of their shop and the subsequent notice pasted on it. They argued that the sealing was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that "there is no provision for sealing of the business premises either u/s 133A or u/s 132 or any other section of the Income-tax Act." The sealing was deemed a malicious act in violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. Validity of the Search and Seizure u/s 132:
The petitioners challenged the search and seizure conducted by the Income-tax Department. The court scrutinized the authorisation order and found it to be vague and general, lacking specific information about the petitioner's shop. The court noted, "The authorisation order was not an authorisation order in the eyes of law and no proceedings on the basis of such an order could have taken place." Consequently, the search and seizure were declared illegal and void.
3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. However, the court observed that "Non-entertainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction." Given the gross violations of law and the fundamental rights involved, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.
4. Examination of Procedural Compliance and Allegations of Mala Fide Action:
The petitioners alleged that the Income-tax Department acted with mala fide intentions and violated procedural norms. The court found that the "proceedings for search and seizure themselves being illegal and void, the same could not have been made the foundation of any order u/s 132(5) of the Act." The court also noted discrepancies in the reports and authorisation orders, further supporting the petitioners' claims of procedural violations and mala fide actions by the department.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 6218 of 1987 as infructuous and allowed Writ Petition No. 22 of 1988, quashing the order u/s 132(5) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the Income-tax authorities could still proceed in accordance with the law but condemned the unlawful actions taken in this case. "There will be no order as to costs."
-
1989 (10) TMI 3
Issues:
1. Competency of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Interpretation of the term 'profit' in rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Competency of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:
The case involved a dispute regarding the competency of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner raised by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee related to the computation of profit for deduction purposes under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed an increase in capital, and the assessee later sought to challenge the appeal's competency. The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot challenge the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after inviting the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that a party cannot raise objections to jurisdiction after allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate in the hope of a favorable outcome.
Interpretation of the term 'profit' in rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
The second issue revolved around the interpretation of the term 'profit' in rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, concerning the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 84 of the Act. The Tribunal held that 'profit' in rule 19(5) should signify profit as per the profit and loss account of the assessee without adding back depreciation. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, citing a Supreme Court decision that 'profit' in similar provisions refers to taxable profit after permissible deductions. Therefore, the term 'profit' in rule 19(5) should be construed to mean taxable profit, and depreciation should not be added back for determining profit under this rule.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on both issues, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The questions referred by the Tribunal were answered in the affirmative. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1989 (10) TMI 2
Husband and wife are partners in a firm when wife's share is included in husband's total income under s.64(1)(i) - Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward to subsequent years not only his share of loss but also the share of loss of his wife from the firm - question answered in the affirmative
-
1989 (10) TMI 1
Orders made by the CBDT, declining to waive the demand of interest made by the ITO, u/s 220(2) - Notice was issued in the special leave petitions confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the Board declined to exercise its power - personal representation before Board is not necessary - Since SLP was pending for more than two years petitioner would be prejudiced, if it was required to move HC first - therefore SLP is dismissed
....
|
9911796707
