|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 211 Records
-
1979 (11) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Adoption, Estate Duty, Hindu Law, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... n the entire matter is under consideration on account of the appeal preferred by the department, there is no necessity for the accountable person to prefer cross-objections. Since the entire case was under the consideration of the Tribunal, it is open to the Tribunal to give the benefit of its decision that the accountable person is entitled to take the entire estate by virtue of the adoption and also the doctrine of relation back without subjecting the properties of the accountable person to any duty. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and findings, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. In view of our finding that the entire estate devolved on the accountable person by virtue of the adoption as well as the doctrine of relation back, the question of its passing wholly or partly on the death of the deceased, Narasamma, does not arise. Hence, the second question is answered in the negative. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1979 (11) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2th March, 1959. The Tribunal, however, has not referred to any material, nor any such material was pointed out to us on behalf of the department by the learned counsel, to indicate that the said overwriting was done by the assessee or under his authority. In these circumstances, it must be held that there was no material before the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the assessee had deliberately and consciously concealed a part of his income. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. In view of our answer to question No. 1, learned counsel for the parties agreed that it would not be necessary to answer question No. 2. For all these reasons, our answer to question No. 1 is that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to the instant case. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (11) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the statutory provisions contained in s. 13 read with Sch. II of the U. P. Estates Act, 1920, and s. 71 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. Apart from that it was also based on the special custom obtaining in the family. As for the other two ladies, viz., Smt. Laxmi Devi, sister, and Smt. Indramohini Devi, daughter of the late estate-holder, also the assessee was under a legal obligation to maintain them which obligation is based on special custom obtaining in this family. This being the position the Appellate Tribunal has been right in treating the sum of Rs. 15,737, representing maintenance allowance paid to these four persons as permissible deduction from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. We, therefore, answer all the three questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to her costs which we assess at Rs. 200 and counsel s fee in like figure.
-
1979 (11) TMI 48 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... partment could have relied on the facts and circumstances held established by the assessee s own record as highlighted by the ITO in his order. We thus consider that the following question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, frame the following question Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances found by the Tribunal, there was material to come to the conclusion that the contracts of the assessee-company with M/s. Dhartidhan (P.) Ltd., Bombay, and M/s. Madan s, Bombay, for leasing out of exhibition rights to cinema houses belonging to the assessee-company, were real and genuine and income arising therefrom did not belong to the assessee-company ? We, accordingly, allow these applications and direct that the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, be required to state a case on the question indicated above and refer it to the High Court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Escaped Assessment, Reason To Believe, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ith respect, lay down the correct law. Learned counsel for both the parties have cited a number of authorities on the point as to what constitutes information within the meaning of s. 147 of the Act, but we do not consider it necessary to discuss all of them, as, in our view, having regard to the state of law now settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, we have come to the conclusion that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the ITO had, in his possession, information in consequence of which he could have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment years.. In this view of the matter, the ITO cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The result is that we allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned notices issued by the ITO under s. 147 of the Act. But, in the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 46 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... the law-makers was that assessed tax should mean the difference between the tax assessed at the stage of reassessment and the tax originally assessed, the Explanation would have said so. Learned counsel for the assessee referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192, which is an authority on the construction of the words amount of tax, if any, payable as they occurred in s. 271(1)(a)(i) as it then stood. It was held in that case that the tax payable is not the same thing as tax assessed and that the tax payable is that amount for which demand notice is issued under s. 156. In fact, it was this ruling that led to the amendment of s. 271(1)(a)(i) by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, with retrospective effect in the present shape. For the reasons given above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (11) TMI 45 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ral places used the concept of held by him . The dominant purpose in sub-s. (3) was the requirement of the period prescribed therein and not incorporation of the requirement of the asset being held by the assessee. Here again, if by operation of the fiction the asset is taken as the assessee s, nothing turns on the use of the phrase held by him. We are inclined to agree with the AAC and not the Tribunal that, in the facts stated, the assessee was entitled to the exemption in respect of the asset under consideration. Our answer to the question, therefore, is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the meaning of the phrase held by him appearing in s. 5(3) of the Act did not extend to the asset held by the wife of the assessee and included in the total wealth of the assessee by virtue of s. 4(1)(a) of the Act. Assessee shall have Costs of this reference. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. N. K. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee was required to pay only Rs. 322 as tax while the penalty imposable would be Rs. 3,600 in the circumstances of the case. The interpretation of a statute does not depend upon its consequence, if the language of the statute is clear. We are of the opinion that the language of s. 271(2) of the Act is plain and is not capable of any other meaning. In our opinion in cases covered by s. 271(2) of the Act, in order to calculate the penalty, the tax payable by the assessee on the income assessed has to be determined on the basis that the assessee is an unregistered firm and the penalty has to be calculated on the tax so determined. The AAC has followed this method in determining the penalty and the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the AAC. As a result of the discussion aforesaid our answer to question No. 5 is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (11) TMI 43 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Fraud Or Gross Or Wilful Neglect, Penalty Notice ... ... ... ... ..... s for holding that the Explanation to s. 271 (1) of the Act is in the facts and circumstances of the case not applicable, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the revenue has failed to discharge the onus which lay upon it is correct in law. Upon the finding that it has not been established that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income within the meaning of the expression as used in s. 271(1)(c), the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of imposition of penalty must be regarded as correct in law even if the first contention put forward on behalf of the revenue is correct. In this view of the matter, I do not think it necessary to consider and decide the correctness of the first contention of Shri Rajgarhia. For these reasons, I would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in both the cases. The assessee shall be entitled to costs. Hearing fee rupees one hundred only. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 on the amounts spent towards Arya Vaidya Patasala out of the profits of the Arya Vaidya Sala (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 on the amounts spent towards Arya Vaidya Hospital out of the 40 profits of the Arya Vaidya Sala ? In the light of our discussion, we answer the question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, and question No. 2 again in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1979 (11) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ally in one respect the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8618/78. Here, the payment is one lump sum and not bifurcated in two categories of payments as specified in r. 37A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Of course, it has been pointed out in the judgment in W.P. No. 8618/78, that the mere bifurcation of the payment under two heads did not really affect the substance of the matter. The contention urged by the respondent that this petition is premature, cannot be accepted. The matter is one of jurisdiction and relating to the interpretation of the provision under s. 10(10A) and having regard to the facts and circumstances in the instant case, it is a proper case to interfere even at this stage. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The rule is made absolute and the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, Ex. C, is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 40 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Civil Servant, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the legislature has made specific provision in that behalf. For example, in s. 10(10A)(ii) provision is made in respect of payment in commutation of pension received under any scheme of any other employer and the extent to which the amount would not be included in the computation of total income is restricted. The payment of Rs. 1,31,749.80 to the petitioner was received by him by virtue of a scheme which was different from the scheme under the Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules and, therefore, the entire amount so received was not liable to be included in the computation of the total income by virtue of the provisions of s. 10(10A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The direction issued by the Accountant-General that two-thirds of the pension, viz., Rs. 87,833.20, was subject to income-tax, to be recovered by the Treasury Officer was clearly unwarranted by the provisions of s. 10(10A) of the Act. Accordingly, the direction contained in Ex. D is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... essable for the assessment year 1960-61. This liability cannot be affected by recourse to s. 68 by treating the cash credits as the income of the calendar year 1960, assessable for the assessment year 1961-62. Such a change affects substantive rights and obligations leading to change in total income, rate and quantum of tax. Such a change, in our opinion, cannot be allowed by recourse to sub-s. (2)(d) of s. 297 which is restricted to the application of the machinery provisions of the new Act. The Calcutta High Court in Damodar Hansraj v. CIT 1979 118 ITR 999 did not think it necessary to decide the point but it appears to be of the opinion that s. 68 in so far as it relates to the fixing of the previous year for income from undisclosed sources is a substantive provision. We are also of the same opinion. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... e, enough if there are receipts. Such receipts must be considered in the context of all the provisions of the Act. Section 11(4) provides that for the purpose of this section Property held under trust includes a business undertaking so held. Therefore, even if there is a business, which yields income, so long as the business is held under trust, its income would be exempt from tax. It is not suggested that the properties were held otherwise than under trust. Section 28(iii) would not apply, to tax income from such a business, as otherwise, the benefit sought to be conferred under s. 11 would be destroyed, and the exemption provision would be stultified. Having regard to all these aspects, we consider that the assessee was rightly held by the Tribunal as not being liable to tax with reference to the income under consideration. The second question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (11) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e balance-sheet of Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd. which had been filed before the WTO. That apart, the original assessment order also shows that the WTO had occasion to consider the market value of the equity shares of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. itself because the petitioner himself held a certain amount of equity shares in the said company. In other words all the material facts necessary for evaluating the shares held by the assessee in Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd. were available before the WTO at the time of the original assessment itself. There is no mention of any subsequent information which came into possession of the WTO. That apart, the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts at the time of original assessment and, therefore, the proceedings under s. 17(1)(a) were clearly without jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, we quash the notices issued under s. 17(1)(a) in each of the three matters. The writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... 73 90 ITR 323 and in the case of Bank of Cochin 1974 94 ITR 93. Shamshuddin s case directly applies here. In that case, the amount received represented the sale consideration of the goods in respect of which the assessee was carrying on a trade and the Kerala High Court held that the excess received by the assessee was a receipt arising from business and consequently a trading receipt. Similarly, in the case of Bank of Cochin, the bank which was dealing in foreign exchange purchased cheques, demand orders and other documents and in the process made an excess realisation on devaluation. That was also held to be part of the trading receipts of the assessee. The case of the present assessee is on all fours with those considered by the Kerala High Court in Shamshuddin s case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us by saying that the amount of Rs. 9,758 was a business profit which was rightly assessed to tax. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1979 (11) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... tood satisfied (b) the workmen have to make a claim from year to year (c) that such claim was made and it has either been settled amicably or by industrial adjudication and (d) if there is a loss or if no claim is made, no bonus will be permissible. The test laid down for the allowability of non-statutory bonus in that case, cannot be applied to the statutory liability created by ss. 10 and 11 of the Payment of Bonus Act which is analogous to a liability for payment of sales tax. The case of Kanpur Tannery Ltd. 1958 34 ITR 863 (All) is also not in point, for, in that case, the statutory liability arose only after ascertainment by an order passed by a competent officer. Here the liability is created by the statute itself, and no formal order is needed. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. The counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
-
1979 (11) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ently over a long period the tax authorities have made assessments on the basis of profits earned on or losses sufferred in completed contracts only. The position with regard to incomplete contracts was never taken into account. It is open to an assessee to change its method of valuation. Likewise, it is open to the revenue not to adopt a basis of valuation, which had been accepted by it consistently in the past, provided there are overriding reasons for effecting a change See Kanga and Palkhivala s The Law and Practice of Income Tax, 7th Edn., p. 879. The Tribunal, in the present case, has not found any overriding reason for effecting a change of method from the one consistently followed in the past. And, in the absence of non-availability of material facts, we are unable to state that the Tribunal has taken an erroneous view. For all the reasons aforesaid, our answers to both the questions referred to us are in the affirmative. We make no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1979 (11) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Writ Application, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... more than 4 1/2 years from the receipt of the notice under s. 148 of the Act and are of the opinion that this petition should also be dismissed on the ground of delay. In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to decide in this petition the further contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ITO committed an error of law in passing a draft order under s. 144B of the Act because according to him the provisions of s. 144B of the Act are applicable only to an original assessment and not to an assessment under s. 147 of the Act. The petitioner, if occasion arises, shall have an opportunity to, raise the said objections in appeal from the order of assessment that may be passed in the case. As a result of the discussion aforesaid this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit after deduction of the costs awarded shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1979 (11) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... after the prescribed time and, therefore, was liable to penalty on that ground. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee cannot be upheld. Whether the assessee in the circumstances of the case had a reasonable cause for filing the returns after the prescribed time is a question of fact. The Tribunal has considered the explanation of the assessee and has held that the assessee had no reasonable cause for the late filing of the return. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal being on a question of fact no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee because they are distinguishable on facts. As a result of the discussion aforesaid our answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2 referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
....
|
