|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 384 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 64
Issues involved:
The issue involves the valuation of unquoted shares u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, specifically focusing on the appropriate method for valuing shares in two companies, Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and Messrs. Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Valuation of Shares in Messrs. Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.:
The value of shares in Messrs. Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. was determined based on the balance sheet, as they were unquoted.
Valuation of Shares in Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd.:
Initially, the face value was taken as the break-up value for shares in Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the profit earning method should be used for valuation, which was accepted on appeal.
Discrepancy in Valuation Methods:
A question of law arose regarding the valuation method for shares in M/s. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd., with the Tribunal holding that the yield method should be used, contrary to the petitioner's appeal.
Legal Interpretation of Rule 1D:
The debate centered around the nature of rule 1D, with conflicting views from different High Courts on whether it is mandatory or directory. The petitioner argued for the mandatory nature of the rule, citing relevant case law.
Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal upheld the valuation on the yield method basis for unquoted shares, considering previous judgments and the nominal tax effect involved. The High Court, taking into account the insignificant tax amount and the age of the assessment years, declined interference in the matter to avoid unnecessary litigation costs and efforts, aligning with the principle of proportionality in legal proceedings.
-
1990 (11) TMI 63
Issues involved: Determination of depreciation rate on trucks used in business.
Summary:
The High Court of Rajasthan considered a case where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding the depreciation rate applicable to trucks used in business. The assessee, engaged in quarrying and stone sales, claimed depreciation at 40% for the assessment year 1981-82. The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the initial allowance of 40% and directed it to be restricted to 30%. The Tribunal later allowed the appeal by the assessee, granting depreciation at 40%. The main contention was whether the trucks were used for hiring purposes or solely for the assessee's business.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Depreciation Table in the Income-tax Rules. It noted the distinction between vehicles used for hire and those used for personal business. The Central Board of Direct Taxes classified certain vehicles under specific entries for depreciation rates. In this case, since the trucks were primarily used for the assessee's mining business and not for hiring, they were entitled to depreciation at 30% under Entry No. III(ii)D(9) and not at 40% under Entry No. III(ii)E(1A).
The Court emphasized that the registration of trucks as "public carriers" did not alter their eligibility for depreciation, as the key factor was whether they were used for hiring. The judgment concluded that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 30% and not 40%, as the trucks were predominantly utilized for its own business activities. The decision favored the Revenue, holding that the assessee's case fell under Entry No. III(ii)D(9) and not Entry No. III(ii)E(1A). The answer was returned to the Tribunal accordingly, with no costs imposed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 62
Issues involved:
The interpretation of section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act and rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules regarding expenses incurred by an assessee on account of its employees attending to its business from outside its headquarters.
Summary:
In this income-tax reference case, the Appellate Tribunal declined to refer the first question required by the appellant-assessee but referred the second question regarding the expenses incurred by employees under section 37(3) of the Act read with rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules.
The assessee, a manufacturing company in Bangalore, claimed expenses under rule 6D and section 37(3) for travelling and stay of its employees and directors away from headquarters. The assessing authority added back the claimed amount, considering both directors and employees covered under rule 6D. The appellate authorities upheld this decision, leading to an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal rejected the contention that directors or employees were entitled to full cost of stay even on days when no work was done during travel. It distinguished a decision of the Delhi Bench and emphasized that only circulars issued by authorized authorities under section 119 of the Act are binding.
Referring to a decision of the Kerala High Court, the Tribunal held that stay connected to travel for company work outside headquarters, regardless of work done on a particular day, is allowable. The stay was deemed to be in connection with the work undertaken, leading to the conclusion that the expenses were justified under section 37(3) and rule 6D.
Ultimately, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, aligning with the Tribunal's reasoning that the expenses incurred on stay during travel for company work outside headquarters are allowable under section 37(3) and rule 6D.
-
1990 (11) TMI 61
Issues:
Interpretation of permissible deduction of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with respect to income computed under different heads.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a reference case where the Tribunal referred a question regarding the permissible deduction of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue revolved around whether the limit of permissible deduction should be applied with reference to income computed under section 28 and also taking into account income computed under the head 'Interest on securities' if the securities are held as stock-in-trade. The assessee, a bank, claimed that the deduction under section 37(2A) should be determined based on income under both heads. The Income-tax Officer allowed a lower deduction, which was challenged by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the deduction should be determined solely based on income under the head "Profits and gains from business." The Tribunal, after setting aside the Commissioner's order, referred the question to the High Court for clarification.
The High Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the classification of income under different heads as per the Income-tax Act. It emphasized that each source of income must be assessed based on the provisions governing the computation of that specific income. The Court highlighted that section 37 relates to "income of profits and gains from business or profession," while income from interest on securities falls under a different section with specific allowances. Therefore, the bank could not claim the benefit of classifying its income under two different heads to avail the deduction under section 37(2A).
The Court distinguished the case relied upon by the assessee, where the Supreme Court discussed the total taxable income under various heads but did not address the specific allowance under relevant provisions for claiming relief. It also referred to a similar case decided by the Madras High Court, where it was held that the deduction under section 37 should be apportioned based on the income arising from different heads, and only permissible allowances under relevant heads should be considered.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference question in the negative, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. It affirmed that the deduction under section 37(2A) should be determined based on the income under the specific head of "Profits and gains from business" and not combined with income from other sources like interest on securities.
-
1990 (11) TMI 60
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 182(4).
2. Whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 182(4) was maintainable in law.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved the interpretation of section 182(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the retention of a portion of a partner's income by a firm for tax liabilities. The firm, Messrs. Sannanna Chetty and Sons, contested the Income-tax Officer's directive to retain 30% of the partner's share income due to outstanding tax liabilities. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the appeals maintainable, stating that the essential condition for invoking section 182(4) had not been satisfied as the tax recoverability from the partner was not established. The Revenue contended that the appeals were not maintainable under section 246(c) of the Act. However, the Tribunal upheld the maintainability of the appeals, considering the firm as an assessee denying liability under section 246(c) due to the order under section 182(4). The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the firm could appeal against the tax demand under section 182(4) as an aggrieved assessee denying liability, as per the provisions of the Act.
Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the validity of the Income-tax Officer's order under section 182(4) against the firm. The court highlighted the conditions for invoking section 182(4), including the irrecoverability of tax from the partner. The court observed that the Income-tax Officer did not establish the partner's tax as irrecoverable, a crucial requirement for holding the firm liable under section 182(4). The court emphasized that mere difficulties in tax recovery did not justify invoking section 182(4) and that the statutory transformation of liability to the firm only occurs upon the partner's tax irrecoverability. The Revenue's argument for further investigation by the Income-tax Officer on tax recoverability was dismissed as belated, as it was not raised earlier in the proceedings. Consequently, the court held that the Income-tax Officer's order under section 182(4) was not maintainable in law due to the absence of tax irrecoverability from the partner.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the maintainability of the appeals filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and declaring the Income-tax Officer's order under section 182(4) as not maintainable in law. The court awarded costs to the assessee and emphasized the importance of fulfilling the statutory conditions before holding a firm liable for a partner's tax liabilities under section 182(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1990 (11) TMI 59
Issues:
Interpretation of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption for assets forming part of an industrial undertaking belonging to a firm or association of persons.
Analysis:
The judgment involved four cases with a common question of law regarding the interpretation of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The cases revolved around whether the value of land and building forming part of an industrial undertaking can be exempted under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The assessee, a partner in a firm owning an industrial undertaking, claimed exemption for the value of his interest in the assets, including land and building. The Tribunal allowed the exemption, but the Revenue contended that the exemption does not extend to land and building. The key issue was the interpretation of the clause and whether the exemption covers land and building.
The Revenue argued that the phrase "referred to in any other clause of this sub-section" excludes land and building from the exemption under clause (xxxii). They contended that the exemption is not admissible for the partner's interest in lands and buildings, owned by the firm, unless not referred to in any other clause of section 5(1). On the other hand, the assessee argued that if the clause allows exemption, it should not be negated based on intricate rules of interpretation. The assessee contended that the phrase also qualifies land and building, and the exemption can be excluded only if availed in another clause of section 5(1).
The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing that the rule of interpretation in taxing statutes should lean in favor of the taxpayer. The court cited precedents stating that any doubt in interpretation should benefit the taxpayer. It rejected the Revenue's contention based on the maxim expressio unius, emphasizing a liberal construction of exemption clauses. The judgment highlighted that even if there were repetitions in the clause, they were cautionary and should not curtail the exemption. The court also dismissed the argument that the Legislature did not intend to extend the exemption to land and building, emphasizing that if the taxpayer falls within the plain terms of exemption, they should benefit from it.
In conclusion, the court held that the Tribunal correctly allowed exemption to the assessee for the value of land and building forming part of the industrial undertaking. The answer to the questions in all four cases was in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption clauses liberally in favor of the taxpayer in taxing statutes.
-
1990 (11) TMI 58
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law regarding conveyance allowance exemption and deduction on incentive bonus for a salaried employee of L.I.C. The case was allowed with no costs. (Citation: 1990 (11) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court)
-
1990 (11) TMI 57
The High Court of Allahabad issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tax Recovery Officer not to recover a specified amount from the petitioner until the disposal of the petitioner's application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, which was still pending. The court instructed that the Tax Recovery Officer should wait for the application's decision and that the application should be resolved within one month of the court's order. The petitioner was required to submit a certified copy of the court order to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax within one week.
-
1990 (11) TMI 56
The Revenue filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction for the Tribunal to state a specific question regarding the interpretation of the term 'concern' in a particular clause. The Tribunal had initially refused to refer this question, but upon review, it was found that the question had been argued and the Tribunal had expressed its opinion on it. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, directing the Tribunal to refer the question in connection with other related questions.
-
1990 (11) TMI 55
The High Court of Allahabad declined to answer a question regarding the exclusion of partner remuneration from firm income allocation, stating it was not relevant to the assessment of the firm. The firm had paid partners salaries, but the court found the controversy irrelevant to the firm's assessment. The court held that the question did not arise in the assessment of the firm and did not require an answer.
-
1990 (11) TMI 54
Issues:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 18(2)
2. Defect in the notice issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(2)
3. Imposition of penalty for default under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act
4. Affording an opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of penalty proceedings under section 18(2)
The case involved a delay in filing the return by the assessee, leading to penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the appeal, citing reasonable cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating unexplained delay from the beginning of the relevant year. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the delay of fourteen months remained unexplained, rejecting the assessee's contention that the delay was due to unresolved disputes in the firm.
Issue 2: Defect in the notice issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(2)
The second question raised was regarding a defect in the notice issued under section 18(2) as it did not specify the subsection of section 14 under which the default occurred. The High Court held that the notice was not invalid or void based on this ground, distinguishing it from a precedent where multiple grounds were not clearly specified. The court found no prejudice to the assessee due to the notice's content and ruled in favor of the Revenue.
Issue 3: Imposition of penalty for default under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act
The court addressed whether a penalty could be imposed for default under section 14(1) despite proceedings initiated under section 18(2). It clarified that the default in not filing the return under section 14(1) remains even if a notice is issued under section 14(2). Citing relevant case law, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the default persists regardless of the stage of proceedings.
Issue 4: Affording an opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty
Regarding the requirement of affording an opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty, the court analyzed the language of section 18(2) of the Act. It clarified that the provision does not mandate a personal hearing but requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court held that the assessee had ample opportunity for a hearing during the appeals process and cited precedents where the absence of an opportunity for oral hearing rendered the order invalid. Consequently, the court answered question No. 4 in favor of the Revenue.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the validity of the penalty proceedings under section 18(2) and ruling in favor of the Revenue on all the questions referred for consideration.
-
1990 (11) TMI 53
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the depreciation claim for a cinema building, stating it constitutes a plant under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on a previous court ruling in S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 685.
-
1990 (11) TMI 52
The High Court of Allahabad ruled that capital gains tax should not be deducted from the market value of assets for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The decision was based on the precedent set in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 ITR 258. The judgment was delivered by B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. and V. N. MEHROTRA.
-
1990 (11) TMI 51
The High Court of Allahabad ruled that loans taken by the assessee must be deducted while computing its capital for determining relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the Supreme Court case Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308. The judgment favored the Revenue and went against the assessee.
-
1990 (11) TMI 50
The High Court of Allahabad held that there is no conflict between section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The court stated that arbitrators are bound to follow rule 1D even on a reference under section 24(6). The Revenue cannot rely on rule 1D if no objection was raised to the valuation made by the arbitrators based on that rule. The court declined to answer question No. 3 as it did not arise.
-
1990 (11) TMI 49
The High Court of Allahabad was asked to consider three questions of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. After hearing the parties, the court decided to refer questions 1 and 3 for opinion, as question 2 was implicit in these two. The Tribunal was directed to state these questions under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act.
-
1990 (11) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Determination of whether there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the promoters intended to float a company from January 1969.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's decision regarding the profit or loss of the promoters being considered as the profit or loss of the company for the relevant period.
3. Assessment of whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73.
4. Examination of whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee-company to claim development rebate and relief under section 80J.
5. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision regarding the entitlement of the assessee company to depreciation at the rate of 15% for manufacturing artificial silk.
Analysis:
1. The Tribunal had sufficient material to hold that the promoters intended to float a company from January 1969 based on documents such as a letter from J. K. Synthetics Ltd. and an agreement between the promoters. The Tribunal's inference was supported by legal precedents, and the decision was found to be reasonable and in line with past judgments. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding, citing the fiduciary relationship between promoters and the company.
2. The Tribunal's decision to require two separate assessments for the period in question, January 1, 1969, to December 31, 1969, and January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1970, was deemed correct. The court clarified the relevant assessment years and directed the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessments accordingly. This decision was accepted by the assessee and not contested.
3. The Appellate Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessments for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 was upheld, and the Income-tax Officer was directed to redo the assessments in compliance with the Tribunal's findings. The court affirmed this decision without any further modifications.
4. Once it was established that the promoters were conducting business on behalf of the assessee-company and the company adopted their actions, the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate and relief under section 80J. This entitlement was based on the alignment of business activities and the legal implications of the promoters' actions.
5. The Tribunal's determination that the assessee company, engaged in knitting nylon yarn into cloth, was conducting a business in artificial silk was supported by legal precedent. The court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, referencing a relevant decision under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and concluded that the activity qualified as a business in art silk. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 15%.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues, affirming the Tribunal's decisions and providing necessary clarifications for the assessments to be redone in accordance with the findings.
-
1990 (11) TMI 47
The High Court of Allahabad upheld the Tribunal's decision that interest payable on borrowings for construction was not deductible under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The Court also agreed with the Tribunal that the assessee was not engaged in banking business, so various claimed deductions as business losses were disallowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax Department can initiate proceedings under sections 221 and 140A simultaneously, leading to a double penalty?
2. Can the Department re-initiate penalty proceedings under section 140A after passing an order under sections 221 and 140A?
3. Does an Assessing Officer lose jurisdiction after concluding proceedings under the Income-tax Act, and can a successor Officer issue fresh notices?
4. What is the scope of section 129 of the Income-tax Act regarding initiating fresh proceedings and continuing pending ones?
5. Can an incumbent under section 129 issue fresh notices or grant opportunities suo moto?
6. Can an incumbent initiate fresh proceedings under section 140A after passing orders under sections 221 and 140A?
7. Was the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in 1983 under sections 221 and 140A?
8. Can the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal review its orders, and was the Tribunal's 1986 order justified?
Analysis:
1. The petitioner failed to pay advance tax or full tax for the assessment year 1982-83, leading to separate proceedings under sections 221 and 140A. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties, with the Tribunal upholding the levy despite the petitioner's argument that fresh proceedings couldn't be initiated under section 140A after the 1983 order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's delayed tax payments and was upheld.
2. The petitioner sought reference under section 256(1) challenging the penalty imposed under section 140A in 1985. However, the application was dismissed, and the subsequent petition under section 256(2) raised eight new questions not previously mentioned. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that only the original question could be raised in the application under section 256(2).
3. The High Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing that the 1983 penalty order was explicitly under section 221, with a reference to the notice under section 140A made to highlight the petitioner's non-compliance. The successor-officer was justified in issuing a fresh notice under section 140A, as section 129 allows continuation of proceedings at the same stage.
4. The Tribunal's decision on penalty imposition was factual, based on the petitioner's financial situation at the time of tax payments, and did not raise any legal questions. The High Court rejected the petitioner's argument that no hearing was granted after the second notice under section 140A, as the Tribunal's order indicated otherwise.
5. The Tribunal clarified its observations regarding the necessity of a hearing before imposing penalties, emphasizing the procedural correctness of the successor-officer issuing a fresh notice under section 140A. The High Court found the petitioner's arguments lacking in legal merit and dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
-
1990 (11) TMI 45
Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.
Validity of the reasons for reopening the assessment.
Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act.
Interference by the writ court in the decision-making process.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company owning a hotel, challenged notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The petitioner contended that there was no failure to disclose necessary facts during the original assessment and that the notices were based on a mere change of opinion. It was argued that the Income-tax Officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe there was underassessment. The petitioner asserted that the jurisdictional conditions under sections 147 and 148 of the Act were not satisfied.
In response, the respondents contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit with detailed reasons for issuing the notices. The court noted the formation of a private limited company by S. P. Jaiswal and his sons, observing the company's activities related to the construction of a hotel building. After analyzing the expenses and costs debited in the accounts, the court found discrepancies and upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to reopen the assessment under section 69B due to the understated investment value.
The court emphasized that it was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the statutory authority but examining the decision-making process. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court stated that interference by the writ court was warranted only if the reasons for initiating proceedings were prima facie perverse. The court found sufficient materials on record to support the belief that there was suppression or omission by the assessee, justifying the reopening of the assessment.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge. The court discharged the rule and vacated all interim orders, with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
