|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 78 of 78 Records
-
1974 (11) TMI 18
Issues: Interpretation of agreement for technical services, Tax liability on payments made under the agreement, Applicability of section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Interpretation of agreement for technical services:
The case involved an agreement between a foreign company and an Indian company for the provision of technical services related to the manufacture of rayon yarn in India. The agreement included provisions for technical skill, advice, machinery selection, training of personnel, and continuous information sharing on manufacturing processes. The foreign company was to receive payments based on the total cost of construction and a percentage of the yarn manufactured. The Tribunal found that the services provided were continuous and not limited to the initial setup of the factory. The Indian company was obligated to pay the foreign company for the services rendered under the agreement.
Tax liability on payments made under the agreement:
The Income-tax Officer treated the payments received by the foreign company as royalties for know-how accrued in India and taxed the entire amount. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with this approach, stating that the payments were based on the agreement terms and not specifically for services rendered in India during the relevant year. The Tribunal concluded that the profits liable to be taxed in India and abroad should be apportioned equally at 50% each. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the payments were made under the stipulations of the agreement and were not solely linked to operations carried out in India.
Applicability of section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary legal question was whether the income from the agreement was liable to be apportioned under section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The revenue contended that section 42(1) applied as all operations related to the payments were conducted in India. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying that section 42(3) pertained to the operations of the foreign company, not the Indian company. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the payments were made under the agreement terms and were not solely dependent on production in India. Therefore, the income was subject to apportionment under section 42(3) of the Act.
In conclusion, the Court answered the legal question in the affirmative, stating that the income from the agreement was liable to be apportioned under section 42(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to apportion the profits equally between India and abroad.
-
1974 (11) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement and actual absorption of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of certificates issued under Section 197(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope and Ambit of Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolves around whether shareholders are entitled to relief under Section 80K if the company is entitled to relief under Section 80J, irrespective of the actual absorption of such relief. The court noted that the shareholders are entitled to a deduction under Section 80K and Rule 20 in respect of such portion of the dividend as is attributable to the profits and gains of the company in respect of which the company is entitled to deduction under Section 80J. The court emphasized that the crucial question is whether the relief to which the shareholders will be entitled under Section 80K is dependent not only upon the entitlement of the company for relief under Section 80J but also upon the actual absorption of such relief in the company's assessments.
2. Entitlement and Actual Absorption of Relief under Section 80J:
The court examined whether the company's entitlement to relief under Section 80J is sufficient for shareholders to claim relief under Section 80K, or if the actual absorption of the relief is necessary. The revenue contended that shareholders are not entitled to the benefit under Section 80K if the company itself is not in a position to actually obtain relief under Section 80J due to paucity of profits or backlog of development rebate. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. S. Sivan Pillai, which held that shareholders were not entitled to exemption under Section 15C(4) if the company had no taxable profits due to unabsorbed depreciation. However, the court distinguished the current provisions of Sections 80J and 80K from the earlier provisions of Section 15C, highlighting that under the present provisions, the relief under Section 80J can be carried forward and set off against future profits, thus allowing for a different interpretation.
3. Validity of Certificates Issued under Section 197(3):
The court addressed the validity of the Income-tax Officer's refusal to issue certificates under Section 197(3) for the year 1970 and the cancellation of certificates for the years 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1970-71. The court held that the company is entitled to the certificates under Section 197(3) as the shareholders are entitled to relief under Section 80K if the company is entitled to relief under Section 80J, irrespective of whether the relief was actually absorbed by the company. The court emphasized that the company's entitlement to relief under Section 80J should be sufficient for shareholders to claim relief under Section 80K, and the Income-tax Officer should determine the appropriate proportion of the dividend to be deducted under the provisions of Section 80K.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the rule nisi was made absolute. The court concluded that the company is entitled to the certificates under Section 197(3), and the shareholders are entitled to relief under Section 80K based on the company's entitlement to relief under Section 80J, irrespective of the actual absorption of such relief. The petitioner was awarded costs in W.P. No. 1636 of 1971, with no order as to costs in the other writ petitions.
-
1974 (11) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the surety under the security bond.
2. Applicability of Section 220(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the Surety under the Security Bond
The petitioner, who executed the security bond, contended that his liability arises only if the assessee defaults on the monthly instalments. The bond stated: "In the event of any default on the part of Shri SP. Viswanathan Chettiar to pay the monthly instalment of tax arrears as mentioned above, I shall duly carry out any order that may be made against me with regard to the payment of the tax arrears." The court found that the tax clearance certificate was issued based on the specific undertaking by the assessee to pay arrears in instalments and provide a security bond. The petitioner had agreed to be liable for the arrears in case of default, and this bond was intended to be acted upon irrespective of the applicability of Section 220(7).
2. Applicability of Section 220(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The petitioner argued that the assessee could not be treated as a defaulter under Section 220(7) because he could not repatriate funds from Ceylon due to the Exchange Control authorities' refusal. However, the court held that Section 220(7) was not applicable for enforcing the security bond against the petitioner. The court noted that the tax clearance certificate was issued based on the assessee's promise to pay in instalments and provide security, thus contracting out of Section 220(7). The court concluded that the petitioner could not claim that the assessee was not in default under Section 220(7) to avoid liability under the bond.
3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
The court invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on a promise that was intended to affect legal relations and was acted upon by the other party. The court cited precedents, including Union of India v. Anglo-Afghan Agencies, where the Supreme Court held that assurances intended to be acted upon and actually acted upon are enforceable. The court found that the assessee's promise to pay in instalments and the petitioner's execution of the security bond were intended to be and were acted upon by the Income-tax department, which issued the tax clearance certificate based on these undertakings. Therefore, the assessee and the petitioner could not repudiate their promises or act inconsistently with them.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was liable under the security bond and could not invoke Section 220(7) to avoid this liability. The court also applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, preventing the petitioner and the assessee from reneging on their promises. The respondent was entitled to costs, and the rule nisi was discharged.
-
1974 (11) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the levy and demand of penalty u/s 273(b) of the 1961 Act based on reassessment u/s 34 of the 1922 Act after giving deduction for penalty levied u/s 18A(9) of the 1922 Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Legality and Validity of Penalty u/s 273(b) of the 1961 Act Based on Reassessment u/s 34 of the 1922 Act
The High Court of Patna addressed the question of whether the levy and demand of penalty u/s 273(b) of the 1961 Act, based on reassessment u/s 34 of the 1922 Act, after deducting the penalty levied u/s 18A(9) of the 1922 Act, is legal and valid. The relevant facts of the two tax cases involved the assessees being penalized twice for the same default of not filing an estimate of income u/s 18A(3) of the 1922 Act, once during the original assessment and again during the reassessment.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the assessees that the rule of double jeopardy applied, preventing them from being penalized twice for the same offence. However, the High Court clarified that the rule of double jeopardy applies to criminal cases and not to penalties under taxation statutes.
The Court examined the provisions of the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act, noting that penalties for non-furnishing of the estimate of advance tax can only be imposed in connection with regular assessments under section 23 of the 1922 Act or sections 143 or 144 of the 1961 Act. Since reassessment u/s 34 of the 1922 Act or u/s 147 of the 1961 Act is not considered a regular assessment, no penalty can be imposed for non-furnishing of an estimate of advance tax in such cases.
The Court referenced the Kerala High Court decision in Gates Foam & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and distinguished the Supreme Court decision in N. A. Malbary and Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, noting that the latter involved penalties under section 28(3) of the 1922 Act, which has a different scope.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessees and against the revenue, stating that the levy and demand of penalty u/s 273(b) of the 1961 Act based on reassessment u/s 34 of the 1922 Act is not legal and valid. There was no order as to costs since the assessees did not appear in the references.
Separate Judgment:
S. K. Jha J. concurred with the judgment.
-
1974 (11) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the adoption by Ramathilakam.
2. Right of the adopted son to the properties under the will of Gopalasami Chettiar.
3. Applicability of sections 5 and 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the estate of Ramathilakam.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Adoption by Ramathilakam:
The court examined the validity of the adoption of the respondent by Ramathilakam. The Division Bench in A.S. No. 80 of 1960 had previously held that the adoption was legally and validly made by Ramathilakam. This finding was crucial as it established the respondent's status as the adopted son, which had implications for the inheritance of the estate.
2. Right of the Adopted Son to the Properties under the Will of Gopalasami Chettiar:
The will of Gopalasami Chettiar bequeathed a life estate to his wife, Seshammal, and subsequently to his daughter, Ramathilakam. Upon the death of Ramathilakam, the estate was to devolve to her "putra pouthrathi santhathi" and in default of such heirs, to her female descendants, and failing that, to her husband, Sethu Chetty, and his descendants. The Division Bench had interpreted that the term "putra pouthrathi santhathi" did not include the adopted son. However, the adopted son could inherit the estate under the bequest made to "Sethu Chetty and his descendants." Thus, the adopted son, as a descendant of Sethu Chetty, could inherit the estate of Gopalasami Chettiar.
3. Applicability of Sections 5 and 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953:
The court analyzed whether the estate duty was leviable on the estate of Ramathilakam under sections 5 and 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Section 5:
Under section 5, estate duty is levied on the principal value of all properties that pass on the death of a person. The court cited Greene's Death Duties to explain that "passing on death" denotes an actual change in the title or possession of the property at the death. Since Ramathilakam had a life estate, and upon her death, the adopted son (descendant of Sethu Chetty) became entitled to possession of the estate, there was a clear passing of the property on her death, attracting the provisions of section 5.
Section 7:
Under section 7, if a life interest created in favor of a deceased person ceases upon their death, and a corresponding benefit accrues to another person, estate duty is levied. The court held that the life interest of Ramathilakam ceased on her death, and the adopted son became entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the estate. This cessation of life interest and accrual of benefit to the adopted son attracted the provisions of section 7.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that both sections 5 and 7 of the Estate Duty Act were applicable, and estate duty was leviable on the estate of Ramathilakam. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the adoption divested Ramathilakam of her life interest, and thus no property passed on her death. The court restored the assessment order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and allowed the appeal, awarding costs to the appellant.
-
1974 (11) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Legitimacy of penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Whether the accretion to wealth could be deemed as evidence of concealed income.
4. Proper allocation and estimation of accretion to wealth across assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 34(1)(a):
The Income-tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The reassessment was based on discrepancies found in the assessee's wealth statement and contradictory explanations regarding the source of funds. The reassessment orders were made on March 23, 1960, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal both addressed the reassessment, ultimately leading to a revised assessment based on accretion to wealth.
2. Legitimacy of Penalty Proceedings under Section 28(1)(c):
The Income-tax Officer levied penalties for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars under section 28(1)(c) for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings should be under the new Act (Income-tax Act, 1961) as the revised assessment orders were made on October 29, 1963. However, the Tribunal upheld the department's contention that the penalty proceedings were rightly taken under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act, as the original assessment orders were made before April 1, 1962, and the revised orders were merely to give effect to the Tribunal's earlier order.
3. Accretion to Wealth as Evidence of Concealed Income:
The Tribunal initially held that the accretion to wealth was the proper method to estimate the income, fixing the accretion at Rs. 75,000 and allocating it across the assessment years. The Tribunal later observed that the savings between 1928 and 1944 and certain loans were not considered in the accretion calculation, and some items included were from periods prior to the assessment years in question. Despite these observations, the Tribunal did not conclusively determine whether the accretion to wealth indicated concealed income for each assessment year.
4. Allocation and Estimation of Accretion to Wealth:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially set aside the reassessment orders and directed the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessment by spreading the increase in wealth equitably over nine years. The Tribunal modified this, fixing the accretion at Rs. 75,000 and allocating it over four years (Rs. 18,000 each for 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1953-54, and Rs. 21,000 for 1952-53). The Tribunal's approach was criticized for being ad hoc and not considering all relevant factors such as prior savings and outstanding loans.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the reference technically in the negative and in favor of the revenue, indicating that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that section 28(1)(c) was not applicable merely based on ad hoc additions. The Tribunal was directed to reassess whether there was any accretion to wealth warranting a finding of concealed income for each assessment year and to pass orders accordingly. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a detailed examination of the evidence to determine the applicability of section 28(1)(c) for each assessment year in question. There was no order as to costs.
-
1974 (11) TMI 12
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the treatment of loss arising from currency devaluation in an insurance company's accounts.
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay dealt with a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of a loss claimed by an insurance company due to the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee. The company claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,045 as a loss arising from the devaluation, specifically related to an advance tax amount of Rs. 4,646. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, considering it as capital in nature and not falling under allowable expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not an allowable expenditure under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
The company then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the loss should stand under rule 6 of the Act and could not be added back as disallowable expenditure. The Tribunal acknowledged the loss as allowable under section 10 but disallowed the Rs. 4,646 claimed as loss due to currency devaluation, considering it an imaginary loss. The Tribunal allowed the company to claim a reduced sum of Rs. 16,399.
The Court analyzed the provisions of section 10(7) of the Act and rule 6, emphasizing that the balance of profits as per the annual accounts filed with the Controller of Insurance should be binding on the Income-tax Officer. Referring to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Court concluded that the loss claimed by the company due to currency devaluation could not be considered as expenditure. The Court held that the Income-tax Officer had no power to add back the amount of Rs. 4,646 in arriving at the company's total income, and the Tribunal's decision to sustain the addition was deemed erroneous.
In a concurring opinion, another judge agreed with the decision, and the Court answered the question in the negative, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the distinction between business loss and expenditure, emphasizing that a loss arising from currency devaluation cannot be treated as expenditure under the Income-tax Act.
-
1974 (11) TMI 11
Issues:
1. Validity of a gift made through entries in the books of account.
2. Interpretation of findings of fact by the Tribunal regarding a gift made by the assessee to his son.
Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay dealt with two questions referred to them. The first question, set out in paragraph 12, was resolved in favor of the revenue based on a previous judgment. The second question, outlined in paragraph 11, concerned the validity of a gift made by the assessee to his son through entries in the books of account. The business initially belonged to the assessee as a sole proprietary concern, and he credited half of the capital to his son's name, who later became a partner in the business. The Tribunal found that the gift was valid as the donor consented to it, and the donee accepted and utilized the amount as his capital in the partnership. The question before the court was to determine if these findings constituted a valid gift.
In the case of Chimanbhai Lalbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the court established that a gift through entries in account books is valid if evidence shows the donor's intention, acceptance by the donee, and action based on the gift by both parties. The court rejected the argument that physical possession transfer was necessary for a valid gift. The court distinguished this case from Virji Devshi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the absence of evidence of the gift being made or acted upon led to the gift being deemed invalid. Another case, Paliram Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, was deemed inapplicable due to findings that the entry in question was not made in the regular course of business. Based on the facts and the precedent set in Chimanbhai Lalbhai's case, the court held that the gift made by the assessee to his son was valid, answering the question in paragraph 11 in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay affirmed the validity of the gift made by the assessee to his son through entries in the books of account, based on established legal principles and previous judgments. Both judges concurred, and the questions in paragraphs 11 and 12 were answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (11) TMI 10
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Competence of the Tribunal to disallow remuneration under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Justification for the disallowance of Rs. 60,000 under Section 37.
4. Validity of the Tribunal's inference that the remuneration was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal examined whether Section 40(c)(i) was applicable to the remuneration paid to Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. (B.L.), a corporate entity. The Tribunal concluded that Section 40(c)(i) could not apply to the allowance or remuneration paid to a corporate entity. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the section was intended for individuals, such as directors or shareholders, and not for corporate entities. Consequently, the Tribunal did not disallow the remuneration under this section.
2. Competence of the Tribunal to Disallow Remuneration under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal found that the entirety of the remuneration paid to B.L. was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Tribunal disallowed a part of the remuneration under Section 37. The assessee contended that the Tribunal was not competent to disallow the remuneration under Section 37 since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had only relied on Section 40(c)(i). However, the Tribunal held that it was within its jurisdiction to examine whether the remuneration was wholly and exclusively for business purposes under Section 37. The Tribunal's competence to disallow the remuneration under Section 37 was upheld by the court, citing the principle that the Tribunal can pass such orders as it thinks fit on the subject matter of the appeal.
3. Justification for the Disallowance of Rs. 60,000 under Section 37:
The Tribunal disallowed Rs. 60,000, noting that the remuneration paid to B.L. was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Tribunal's findings included:
- The payment was made to a company that was the assessee's holding company.
- The services rendered were purely secretarial.
- The services rendered had no direct and immediate impact on the company's trade or extent of business.
- The managing agents were doing much heavier work but did not derive such a large remuneration.
- There were no secretaries in the first two years of the company's working.
- B.L. had been engaged as secretaries in the third year of the company's work while they were on the point of losing their managing agency.
The Tribunal concluded that the entirety of the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and disallowed Rs. 60,000.
4. Validity of the Tribunal's Inference that the Remuneration was not Wholly and Exclusively for the Purpose of the Assessee's Business:
The court examined whether the Tribunal's inference was valid. The Tribunal had relied on several factors, including the nature of the services rendered and the relationship between the assessee and B.L. The court found that the Tribunal's inference was a possible one and that the primary facts found by the Tribunal were valid. The court held that the Tribunal's conclusion that the remuneration was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business was not perverse or unreasonable.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions as follows:
1. The Tribunal was competent to disallow a portion of the remuneration under Section 37.
2. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire remuneration was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and in determining the allowable amount at Rs. 60,000.
3. The question regarding the applicability of Section 40(c) was not competent in the application by the assessee at the instance of the revenue, and the court declined to answer it.
Each party was ordered to pay and bear its own costs.
-
1974 (11) TMI 9
Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 8 for granting extra shift allowance on machinery and plant.
2. Validity of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Controversy regarding the application of rule 8 to a seasonal factory for calculating extra shift allowance.
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Rule 8: The case involved the interpretation of rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules for granting extra shift allowance on machinery and plant. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed 50% of normal depreciation as extra shift allowance. However, upon rectification, it was held that the allowance should be calculated proportionately to the actual days the machinery and plant worked, based on a normal working year of three hundred days. This interpretation led to a significant reduction in the allowance granted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted a difference of opinion between different Tribunal Benches on the interpretation of rule 8, creating a controversial and conflicting situation.
2. Validity of Rectification under Section 154: The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to rectify the extra shift allowance granted to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the rectification, emphasizing that the controversy surrounding the interpretation of rule 8 made it unsuitable for rectification under section 154. The Tribunal further dismissed the appeal by the Income-tax Officer, stating that the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record and that the Income-tax Officer had erred in reopening the debatable question of the applicability of rule 8.
3. Controversy Regarding Rule 8 Application to Seasonal Factories: The Tribunal highlighted the conflicting interpretations of rule 8 by different High Courts, including the Punjab High Court. The Allahabad High Court's decision in a previous case was cited to show that the Income-tax Officer's calculation of the extra shift allowance was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the question of applying rule 8 to seasonal factories was not free from controversy and that reopening this debatable issue through rectification was erroneous. The Supreme Court's precedent in T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers was cited to emphasize that a decision on a debatable point of law does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.
In conclusion, the High Court affirmed in favor of the assessee, stating that the rectification under section 154 was unwarranted due to the debatable nature of the issue. The judgment highlighted the importance of a mistake being obvious and patent for rectification under section 154, emphasizing that debatable points of law do not qualify as apparent errors. The assessee was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200.
-
1974 (11) TMI 8
Whether the status of the assessee was correctly determined as HUF for the income-tax, wealth-tax and gift-tax - Whether the sum transferred to the account of Muthukaruppan and Palaniappan (sons of Periakaruppan Chettiar) in the previous year was liable to assessment under the Gift-tax Act - there is no evidence on record to support this case of blending which seems to have been argued for the first time in this court - assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1974 (11) TMI 7
Constitutional validity of the Taxation Laws by which the Indian Income-tax Act was extended - held that the second proviso to clause 2 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2 of 1970, is ultra vires the Central Government when exercising the powers under clause (7) of Regulation III of 1963, and the revenue authorities are not entitled to levy tax on the basis of the depreciation allowance computed in accordance with the said proviso in the Order
-
1974 (11) TMI 6
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on new diesel engines fitted to vehicles - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that development rebate was not allowable on the new diesel engines installed on road transport vehicles - question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1974 (11) TMI 5
Whether the sum representing the managing agency remuneration for the period April 1 1956, to June 30, 1957, was deductible in the computation of the income of the previous year ending on 30th June, 1958, relevant for the assessment year 1959-60 - assessee's liability to pay remuneration arises only when the Government conveyed its approval - appeal is accordingly allowed, the answer given by the High Court to the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1974 (11) TMI 4
Whether the declaration filed by the assessee under section 17(1) in respect of the assessment year 1958-59, was operative in relation to the reassessments in respect of the previous year ending on December 31, 1954, December 31, 1955, and December 31, 1956, corresponding to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 - assessee's declaration under s. 17(1) was operated also in relation to reassessment for the earlier years
-
1974 (11) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 7,14,398 was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Rs. 7,14,398 in Total Income:
The primary issue revolves around whether the sum of Rs. 7,14,398, collected as sales tax, should be included in the total income of the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Background:
The assessee, a limited company, sold jute to M/s. McLeod & Co. Ltd. and charged sales tax on the sales. The sales tax was shown separately in the bills and was included in the liabilities for expenses in the balance sheet. However, the amount was not paid to the Orissa Government, as the sales were considered inter-State sales. The Income-tax Officer added the amount to the assessee's total income, treating it as part of the sale price.
Appellate Proceedings:
- Appellate Assistant Commissioner: Reduced the amount to Rs. 7,14,398, rejecting the contention that sales tax did not form part of taxable receipts.
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): Held that the sales tax collected did not form part of the sale price and should not be included in the total income.
High Court Judgment:
The High Court held that the tax realised, if used in business, forms part of the sale price and thus becomes part of the trading receipts. The court emphasized that the assessee did not earmark the sales tax separately or deposit it with the Government, treating it as its own money.
Supreme Court Analysis:
- Reference to Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. Case: The Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where sales tax collected by an auctioneer was treated as trading receipts. The court highlighted that the true nature of the receipt, not its entry in the account books, determines its character.
- Section 9B(3) of Orissa Sales Tax Act: The court noted that the provision requiring the deposit of collected tax does not alter the nature of the receipt as trading income.
- Refund and Deduction: The court clarified that if the assessee refunds the sales tax to the purchaser or pays it to the Government, it would be entitled to claim a deduction for the refunded amount.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the amount of Rs. 7,14,398 should be treated as trading receipt and included in the total income of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Summary:
The Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of Rs. 7,14,398 in the total income of the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court emphasized that the sales tax collected formed part of the trading receipts, as the assessee did not segregate or deposit the amount with the Government, treating it as its own funds. The court referred to the precedent set in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. and clarified that the true nature of the receipt determines its character, not the entry in the account books. The court also noted that the assessee could claim a deduction if the amount was refunded to the purchaser or paid to the Government. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1974 (11) TMI 2
Status of an individual for the assessment - Expression "Hindu undivided family" - Whether an unmarried male Hindu on partition of a joint Hindu family can be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family even though no other person besides him is a member of the alleged family - HELD THAT:- It is well-settled that a Hindu joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family: it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. The plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity has no force. Under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members.
The expression "Hindu undivided family" in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is under stood under the various schools of Hindu law (see Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [1957 (7) TMI 36 - PRIVY COUNCIL] and Gowli Buddanna [1966 (1) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT]).
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1969 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], this court observed that under the Hindu law it is not predicated of a Hindu joint family that there must be a male member. It was accordingly held that so long as the property which was originally of the joint Hindu family remains in the hands of the widows of the members of the family and is not divided among them, the joint family continues. One thing significant which follows from the above is that the assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the Hindu undivided family.
There is admittedly no female member in existence who is entitled to maintenance from the above-mentioned property or who is capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener. Even if the assessee-appellant in future introduces a new member into the family by adoption or otherwise, his present full ownership of the property cannot be affected. Such a new member on becoming a member of the coparcenary would be entitled to such share in the property as would remain undisposed of by the assessee. In order to determine the status of the assessee for the purpose of income-tax we have to look to the relatives as they exist at present and it would not be correct to project into the matter future possibilities which might or might not materialise. This would indeed amount to speculation and the same is not permissible. Excursions to the realm of speculation may be legitimate and justified when one is engaged in the study of philosophy and metaphysics; they are wholly unwarranted when one is dealing with the mundane subject of the status of the assessee for the purpose of the income-tax assessment. For this purpose we have to look to facts as they exist and emerge from the record and not to what they may or may not be in future. As things are at present in the instant case, there can in our view be hardly any doubt that the assessee is an individual and not a family.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant should be assessed as an individual rather than a Hindu undivided family for the specified assessment year.
-
1974 (11) TMI 1
Whether the income derived by the respondent, Indian Sugar Mills Association, from its sugar export division is exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i) - Whether on a proper construction of the rules and regulations of the association, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the association derived from the business of export of sugar and interest from current and fixed deposits were not exempt u/s 4(3) - question is answered in favour of the revenue
|
9911796707
