|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction For Priority Industry U/S 80I, Development Rebate At Higher Rate ... ... ... ... ..... the cars for the purposes of business and non-business purposes and that, in our opinion, would make all the difference to the applicability of the decision in Punjab National Bank v. CIT 1983 141 ITR 886 (Delhi). We are of the view that the decision in Punjab National Bank v. CIT 1983 141 ITR 886 (Delhi) would not, in any manner, help the assessee to contend that the depreciation on cars should be allowed in toto. Applying, therefore, the principles laid down in CIT v. Sobharam Jokhiram 1960 39 ITR 299 (Pat), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT 1981 131 ITR 223 (Mad) and CIT v. K. L. Bhasin and Co. 1986 158 ITR 623 (Pat), we hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee would be entitled to full depreciation in respect of the cars used by it. We, therefore, answer the third question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of the partial success of the Revenue and the assessee in these references, we do not make any order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... dy as and by way of export incentive is taxable as a revenue receipt and this information which came into the possession of the Income-tax Officer led him to believe that income has escaped assessment so far as the cash subsidy is concerned. In the case of expenses allowed under section 35B, it would also appear that some of the items have been held not to be allowable by different High Courts as well as the Special Bench of the Tribunal. We need not go into the allowability of each item of expenditure allowed in the original assessment. Suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer, on the facts of this case, had information within the meaning of section 147(b) that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. For the reasons aforesaid, the conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We, therefore, answer all the questions in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e, of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 84 and deduction under section 80J of the Act, during the assessment years in question, is erroneous. A similar view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Rohtas Industries Ltd. 1979 120 ITR 110, 123 and by the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 111, 114. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am clearly of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had set up new industrial unit which is eligible for relief under section 80J of the Act. Accordingly, the question as referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... etitioner, Mr. C. M. Devan, as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue. At the time of hearing it was agreed that Bench of this court in CIT v. T. K. Sarala Devi 1987 167 ITR 136 dissented from the decision of the Bombay High Court and has held that capital gains tax is exigible even in the case of agricultural lands. The decision in Sarala Devi s case 1987 167 ITR 136 (Ker) was followed subsequently in more decisions than one the latest decision is reported in CIT v. Glory Paul 1990 186 ITR 496 (Ker), wherein, besides the above decision in Sarala Devi s case 1987 167 ITR 136 (Ker), the amendment made by section 3 of the Finance Act, 1989, to section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also referred to, to show that the plea that no capital gains tax is leviable on the acquisition of agricultural lands is without substance. In the light of the above Bench decisions of this court, the original petition is without merit. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... other angle also. A person can purchase the property under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act benami in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter but the right of the real owner to recover the property from the benami holder has been eliminated by section 4 of the Act. Earlier, there was a right to recover or resist the claim of the real owner against the benamidar but now that remedy stands barred and the right rendered unenforceable as has been held by the apex court in Mithilesh Kumari s case 1989 177 ITR 97. It is a disabling statute and all the real owners are equally affected by the disability provision provided in section 4 of the Act. Hence, I find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. In view of my finding recorded above, I would not go into the factual merits of this case. The appeal is accepted, judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 24 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... of the different sections of the Act, we are unable to agree with this conclusion. Further, while considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar 1982 136 ITR 379, it has been observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that (at p. 779 of 169 ITR) With respect, we agree that where in a case, there is a change in the constitution of the firm by the taking of a new partner and the old firm is succeeded by a new firm then, in such a case, there might be succession and there could be two assessments as contemplated under section 188 of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, I answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Act. G. G. SOHANI C. J. - I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Unexplained Hundi Credits ... ... ... ... ..... nt to the remit order passed by the Tribunal. We may observe in this connection that, in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. IAC of I. T. 1986 157 ITR 342 (Mad), it has been pointed out that even a wrong order has a finality and, unless that finality is disturbed by a process known to law or by a process authorised by law, the rights of the assessee and the Revenue will continue to be governed by the order. We are, therefore, of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in having cancelled the penalty levied for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. We may also observe that, depending upon the outcome of the pending assessment proceedings, it would be open to the Revenue to initiate proceedings for levy of penalty, if so warranted. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs in these references. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1990 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... e purposes of this Act, representative assessee means .... (iii) in respect of income which the Court of Wards, the Administrator-General, the Official Trustee or any receiver or manager (including any person, whatever his designation, who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under any order of a court, receives or is entitled to receive, on behalf or for the benefit of any person, such Court of Wards, Administrator-General, Official Trustee, receiver or manager. Since, admittedly, the receivers were not in receipt of the income in respect of the assessment years concerned herein, no assessment could be made upon them under the said provision. For the above reasons, we answer the first question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since we have answered the first question in the affirmative, the second question does not arise and need not be answered. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant, Scientific Research, Special Deduction
-
1990 (12) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... y the Income-tax Officer in his official capacity and the complainant has to attend to duties as Income-tax Officer, the personal appearance of the complainant is dispensed with till further orders , rather applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case embodied in the complaint. Thus, there is no option but to quash the above referred order summoning the accused to face trial for the above referred offence in all these petitions. The trial court shall, however, pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due application of mind. The accused petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all these pleas which they have taken in these petitions before the trial court, in support of their defence, if need be. These petitions stand disposed of accordingly. This view is also supported by a decision of a single Bench of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1104 of 1986, delivered on November 2, 1987, Pran Nath v. Chief Judicial Magistrate 1991 192 ITR 70 (P and H).
-
1990 (12) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... limitation is procedural and it has nothing to do with the substantive right of the assessee. In this case, as we have already noticed, time to rectify the order even under the unamended law did not expire when the proceeding for rectification was initiated. Accordingly, during the pendency of the proceeding, the time limit to pass the order having been enlarged, the Income-tax Officer was justified in taking recourse to such extended period of limitation. In our opinion, therefore, section 154(7), as amended with effect from October 1, 1984, would be applicable in this case with the result that the rectification order dated September 10, 1985, passed within four years from the end of the financial year in which the assessment order dated May 30, 1981, was passed is well within limitation. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"Assessed Tax" In S. 215(5), Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... although the assessee received interest of Rs. 75,094 from the banks, no tax was deducted on such interest and, accordingly, the question of any benefit of tax deductible under sections 194 and 195, so far as the interest income from the bank is concerned, could not arise. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the assessee s contention in that behalf. For the reasons aforesaid, the first question in this reference is answered by saying that tax deductible at source and deducted within the financial year under sections 194 and 195 has to be taken into consideration in computing the assessed tax as defined in section 215(5) of the said Act. The second question is answered in the negative inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer computed the quantum of penalty correctly after allowing credit for the tax deducted at source under sections 194 and 195 in respect of interest and dividend income from Tata Finlay Ltd. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Application For Reference ... ... ... ... ..... tatement of facts and to frame any question. We are only concerned with the application under section 256(2), as such it is not necessary to pass any order relating to the submissions made by any of the parties, may be for a different year.
-
1990 (12) TMI 16 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... f Rs. 83,849 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 32A of the Act ? The question has already been answered by this court in 1. T. R. C. Nos. 217 and 218 of 1985 (Shankaranarayana Construction Co. v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 463 (Kar)), disposed of on November 8, 1990. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the negative and against the Revenue.
-
1990 (12) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cultural Market Committee, which is a local authority, was not a tax or duty, but only a fee and it was therefore not disallowable under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? for the decision of this court. It was held by this court in the above decision that the fee paid by an assessee to the Agricultural Market Committee was allowable under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. In view of that decision, the I.T.C. is dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other as karta of Hindu undivided family. For the immediately preceding year also, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted relief in favour of the assessee directing continuance of registration of the firm. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to refer the question for the decision of this court. We are in agreement with the Tribunal and, therefore, the I. T. C. is dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... question came to be considered in the decision in CWT v. S. Ram 1984 147 ITR 278, and it was held that, where a gratuity provision is based on a scientific or actuarial valuation and it truly reflects the discounted present value of the assessee s future liability, such a provision must be deducted in arriving at the value of the shares of the company for the purpose of computation of the net wealth of the shareholders. The principle of that decision would apply to these references as well. We may also point out that the decision in CWT v. S. Ram 1984 147 ITR 278 formed the subject matter of special leave petitions in S. L. P. (C) Nos. 14051 to 14287 of 1989 and 1116 of 1986 and the Supreme Court also upheld the view taken by this court in CWT v. S. Rant 1984 147 ITR 278 and dismissed the special leave petitions on January 22, 1990. In view of this, the common question referred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ch are not enunciated in sub-clauses (i) to (viii) of section 35B(1)(b). If the contention is accepted, it will create an anomaly. If an assessment was completed on August 2, 1981, the assessee would get the benefit of the rule whereas, if another assessment was completed on July 31, 1981, although for the same assessment year, that assessee would be denied the benefit. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Rule 6AA has not been given any retrospective effect by implication or otherwise. Dr. Pal has not seriously contended that he supports the views of the Tribunal that, inasmuch as the assessment was completed on September 11, 1984, after the introduction of rule 6AA, the benefit of sub-clause (ix) would be available to the assessee, and that such a view is sustainable. For the reasons aforesaid, the second question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gerneral Principle Of Interpretation Of Wills, Prperty Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... ad), if the interest possessed by the deceased extended to the whole of the income from the property, then the value of the benefit would be the principal value of that property and, if the interest extended to the whole of the income, then the valuation could be rightly made under section 40(a) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that, tinder section 7(1) read with section 40(a) of the Act, the entirety of the mill assets is liable to be included in the dutiable estate of the accountable person and not the one-eighth share only as determined by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the only question referred to us in T. C. No. 270 of 1980 in the negative and against the accountable person and the two questions referred in T. C. No. 271 of 1980 in the negative and in favour of the Controller of Estate Duty. There will be no order as to costs in T. C. No. 270 of 1980, while in T. C. No. 271 of 1980, the Controller of Estate Duty will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (12) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... rebate on ancillary equipment necessary for installation of generators. It is common ground that this ancillary equipment was not ordered before December 1, 1973. Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, clearly provided that development rebate would not be admissible in the case of machinery or plant which is installed by the taxpayer, after May 31, 1974, unless such machinery or plant was purchased by him before December 1, 1973, or the taxpayer had entered into a contract for the purchase of such machinery or plant with the manufacturer or owner or a dealer in such machinery or plant before that date. In view of the admitted position that the ancillary equipment was neither purchased nor ordered before December 1, 1973, the assessee is not entitled to any development rebate on these ancillary items. In view of this, the second question referred at the instance of the assessee is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
....
|
