|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 201 Records
-
1980 (3) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... xtraneous to the assessee s record or gathered by him behind the assessee s back. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice merely because he did not apprise the assessee of the exact basis on which he proposed to make the assessment and give him an opportunity to rebut it. There was, therefore, no justification to remand the matter to the WTO unless the Tribunal intended to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his wealth statements and if that was the intention, we think the remand was not warranted, for reasons already discussed. I, therefore, agree with my learned brother that in the present case, the Tribunal should have proceeded to consider whether the assessment under s. 46(5) was supported by the materials on record or not and that there was no occasion for necessity of sending the matter back for the WTO to give an opportunity to the assessee to explain anything before the assessment was completed. Question answered in the negative.
-
1980 (3) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Compulsory Acquisition, Land Acquisition, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... orceable amount of compensation payable to the assessee, the same was liable to be entered in the return under the W.T. Act when the assessee filed the same on 28th February, 1968. The fact that the learned Civil and Sessions Judge s order was passed on 3rd May, 1976, viz., much after the relevant valuation date, which was 27th October, 1963, is neither material nor relevant because the assessee, in fact, filed the return on 28th February, 1968, a date when the learned Civil and Sessions Judge s order had already come into existence. In our opinion, the assessee was bound to return the amount of compensation determined by the Civil and Sessions Judge s order, for the assessment year 1964-65. In the result, we answer the question referred to us by holding that the valuation of the property for purpose of wealth-tax should be taken as the valuation eventually fixed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (3) TMI 79 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Compulsory Acquisition, Expenditure On Litigation, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... ction with such litigation is, therefore, an expenditure within the meaning of s. 48 of the I.T. Act. For the purpose of this section, it is, in my view, immaterial that the expenditure was incurred subsequent to the award so long as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the compulsory acquisition. The amounts in respect of which deduction is claimed by the petitioner are stated to be moneys spent in litigation arising from a reference under s. 20 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is a matter which has to be determined by the Commissioner. Ex. P.3 is unsustainable in so far as the Commissioner held that the expenditure said to have been incurred as a result of a reference under s. 20 of the L.A. Act is not deductible under s. 48(1) of the I.T. Act. It is, accordingly, quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to determine the nature of the amount and pass appropriate orders in the light of what is stated above. The O.P. is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Legal Representative, Penalty Proceedings, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ircumstances of the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the Wealth-tax Act enabled continuance of penalty proceedings which were pending at the time of death of late Rameshwar Prasad ? (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that in spite of the clear omission of section 18 from section 19(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, penalty could be imposed on the legal representative for default of the deceased ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining the validity of penalty proceedings against the legal representative even when no specific notice in the name of legal representative was ever issued by the Wealth-tax Officer before imposition of penalty in spite of intimation of death of Sri Rameshwar Prasad having been conveyed to him ? In favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (3) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Partner In Firm, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... edly do so. The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT 1977 109 ITR 730. We were also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1975 101 ITR 776, where it was held that the self-acquired property thrown into the family hotchpot was still to be assessed in the hands of the owner in spite of being thrown into the family hotchpot. But, it is clear that that judgment was given on the basis that there was no son and, till a son was born, income from the property was to be assessed in the hands of the original assessee. As that is not the situation in this case, the judgment is not applicable. We would, therefore, answer the question as follows. The income derived from the share of Shri Kishan Lal in the partnership firm, M/s. Kishan Lal and Company, is taxable not in the hands of Shri Kishan Lal, individual, but in the hands of the joint family of Shri Kishan Lal. The assessee will get his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (3) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Executor, Wealth Tax, Will ... ... ... ... ..... son, Prakasam, and his minor sons, as ancestral properties with all the incidence and character of joint family properties. The executor, Prakasam, is also a legatee under the will. The testator, Swaminatha Mudaliar, died on March 26, 1971, about 18 days prior to the relevant valuation date, i.e., April 13, 1971. So the question to be considered is whether the executor either expressly or impliedly gave his assent and vested the properties in the legatees during the period March 26, 1971, to April 13, 1971. Since this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal, we are unable to answer the question referred to this court by the Tribunal. The reference is returned unanswered with a direction that the Tribunal in the light of the observations made above should go into the question whether there was assent, either express or implied, by the executor to vest the properties in the legatees during the period March 26, 1971, to April 13, 1971. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ed that the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. 1971 82 ITR 363 (SC) has hold that the liability for the sales tax is independent of the assessment order which only quantifies it and that it flows from the statute itself. In view of the amendments effected in s. 3D, no liability to pay purchase tax flowed at the time when the entries were made. The fact that the assessee has become liable to pay the amount on account of the assessment order cannot alter the legal position, and all that the assessment order does is to make the amount allowable in the year in which it was paid for which the assessee has already been given relief. The liability for payment of tax not having accrued in the relevant previous year, the Tribunal was justified in adding the amount of Rs. 49,768 to the assessee s income. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... e learned counsel is wholly misconceived. Although the terms and conditions of the transfer had not been proved on the record but it is evident from art. 18 of the articles of association of the assessee-company that it had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the transferor-company. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the liabilities of the said company form part of the consideration for the acquisition of group A transport of the transferor-company. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,77,360 representing the liability of Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Company (P.) Ltd. and discharged by the assessee, was in the nature of capital expenditure. Question No. 2, accordingly is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. As suggestion No. 2 has been answered against the assessee, question No. 3 has become redundant and need not be answered. No costs. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (3) TMI 73 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question of law referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Legislature has fixed the minimum and maximum penalty leviable in the case of concealment of income. The quantum of penalty has to be levied by the authorities under the Act keeping in view the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The finding of the Tribunal, that there is one mitigating circumstance that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was not totally concealed but was merely transferred from one year to another, is one of the relevant considerations for considering the quantum of penalty to be imposed. We do not consider that the Tribunal fell in error in taking into consideration this fact while reducing the penalty from 50 to 30 of the tax sought to be avoided. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to this court, accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ncome has escaped assessment, it can be brought to tax only by way of reassessment. In our view,therefore, the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that the assessee was not under an obligation to submit an estimate under s. 212(3) as he has been previously assessed. If the assessee who has been previously assessed has been taken erroneously to be a new assessee and penal interest has been charged on the basis that he had not submitted an estimate as required under s. 212(3), then it is clearly a mistake apparent from the record and no elaborate legal argument or factual investigation is necessary to find out the real position. In that view, we hold that in this case an application for rectification is maintainable for deletion of the penal interest charged in the regular assessment. For the foregoing reasons, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs from the revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1980 (3) TMI 71 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the tax assessed against the family. It is significant to note that s. 171 is silent as to the consequences, if any, flowing from a total or partial partition which, according to the finding recorded under sub-s. (3), may be held to have taken place on a date prior to the previous year, as was the claim made on behalf of the assessee in the instant case. For all these reasons, we find that the reference is misplaced, being based on a wrong view of the law that the assessment is to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by s. 25A of the old Act. We have already held that s. 25A is inapplicable and that instead the assessment is to be made after deciding the claim made by the assessee, according to the provisions of s. 171 of the new Act. The questions raised in the reference, will not help to decide the real dispute between the assessee and the department. We would accordingly decline to answer the reference.
-
1980 (3) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o him personally or to his family. But the fact is that besides him and his family no one else is getting any benefit out of it. The question of apportionment can only come into play where, of the total sum spent, a part can be identified as having been spent on something that was not a benefit or facility to the recipient concerned. Such was the view taken in Rendell v. Went 1965 58 ITR 73 (HL). Thus, the amount which has been spent in the purchase of the car would have to be treated as the value of the benefit. After all, it does not reduce the value of the present to say that the recipient could not or would not have bought it for himself. In our opinion, therefore, the entire value of the car is liable to be treated as the value of this benefit. Our answers to both the questions referred, therefore, are in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200 and counsel fee in the same figure.
-
1980 (3) TMI 69 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ile in the case of an appeal the matter is reopened as soon as the appeal is admitted. Thus, a power to review is a restricted power which authorises the court or the Tribunal which passed the order sought to be reviewed to look over through the order not in order to substitute a fresh or second order, but in order to correct it or improve it because some material which it ought to have considered had escaped its consideration. This court has already held in the impugned order that the court had the power to refuse to answer the question referred in the absence of the parties at whose instance the reference was made. Correctness of this order has not been challenged. I find no reason to review the order dated January 10, 1977, passed by this court. Because, even if it is held that this court had the inherent powers to recall the order dated February 6, 1976, then also, it could have recalled the order only when it would have felt that the impugned order was apparently wrong.
-
1980 (3) TMI 68 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... 7 (SC), on which reliance was placed by the Judicial Member and also by the Vice-President is a case under the 1922 Act. It was held in that case that a large amount of cash appearing on the very first day of the accounting year was not assessable in that year as it was not possible for the assessee to make such a huge income on the very same day on which the assessee started business for that year. Whereas, under s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, even in a case where an amount is credited on the very first day of the accounting year and the explanation offered by the assessee is not accepted such amount may be assessed as income of the assessee of the accounting year for which the books are maintained (See 7th Edn., Vol. I of Palkhivala s Income Tax Act, at page 610, s. 68 under the heading Cash credit on first day of accounting year ). In the premises, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1980 (3) TMI 67 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... by them they have purchased a land at premises No. 37/1, Jatindra Mohan, Avenue, and have built a house thereon which is being used by them as dharmashala and that they are also maintaining a charitable dispensary and applying the income for the maintenance and education of the poor and distressed persons. In the premises, the monies received by the trustees from the settlors and the partners of the assessee-firm were impressed with a trust for the aforesaid objects. The aforesaid land and also the house built thereon belonged to the trust estate and its income cannot, therefore, be assessed in the hands of the assessee. In the premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment will not, however, affect the earlier assessment as the assessee has conceded before the Tribunal that the income of this property in those earlier years was assessable in the hands of the assessee. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1980 (3) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ot include jute twines or jute ropes. There is no merit in the arguments of Mr. Bagchi. The word wholly has not been used in cl. (B)(i) although it has been used in s. 33(1)(a) and, therefore, this word cannot be read in cl. (B)(i). It is the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has installed the plant or machinery for the purposes of business of manufacture and production of jute ropes and jute twines. Jute ropes and jute twines are included in item No. 33 of the Fifth Schedule and, therefore, it must be held that the assessee was entitled to the development rebate under cl. (B)(i). The maxim de minimis non curat lex cannot be invoked in the instant case for the obvious reason that under cl. (B)(i) the question of allowability of development rebate does not depend upon the volume of production of any one of these products. In the premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1980 (3) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... t think that the facts of the above Supreme Court decision can be distinguished from those of the instant case before us. Accordingly, we hold that the said secret circular could not constitute a material so as to justify the formation of a reasonable belief by the ITO that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment years on account of its failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the learned judge is affirmed and these appeals are dismissed, but there will be no order for costs. Mr. Pal prays for a certificate for appeal under art. 133 of the Constitution. In our view, the case is covered by the above Supreme Court decision. In the circumstances, now, it cannot be said to involve substantial question of law of general importance, so that the same is required to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for a certificate is disallowed. SHARMA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (3) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal From Assessment Order, Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... ge of the second part of s. 246(c) is wide enough to lend itself to a reasonable and plausible construction which permits the agitation of the issue of interest in a valid and competent appeal from the order of assessment though an appeal may not lie against a separate order levying interest and nothing more. As pointed out already, in the present case, the assessee had presented before the AAC an appeal raising several contentions in regard to the disallowances and additions made in the assessment. There was, therefore, a valid and competent appeal before the AAC. In our opinion, in such an appeal, it was open to the assessee to raise the question of the leviability of interest as well as its quantum. For the above reasons, we are of opinion that the Tribunal took the correct view in the matter. We, therefore, answer the question which is referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... aforementioned responsibility by doing something outside the meeting of the board of directors for which seperate remuneration was paid to them. As stated earlier, the assessee had, before the I.T authorities, accepted that the remuneration paid by it to its directors for attending the meetings of the board was not inadequate. Accordingly, the annual remuneration paid by the company to its directors could not be linked with the responsibility undertaken by the members of the board either under the articles of association or other provisions of the Companies Act. So long as a particular remuneration is not linked or connected with any activity which is beneficial to the company, the payment of the same would be hit by s. 40(c) of Act. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us by the Tribunal in these references in the affirmative and in favour of the department. The Commissioner shall be entitled to one set of costs in these reference, which are assessed at Rs.200.
-
1980 (3) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... umstances and relevant factors such as the prevailing rent in the area and what a similar building of the same nature would fetch in that locality and then fixed the monthly rent at Rs. 1,500. The High Court observed that it is inconceivable that the authority who has as much interest in imposing as much legitimate tax as possible would have ignored this aspect before fixing the annual letting value. In the present case there is nothing to indicate as to what circumstances or factors were actually taken into consideration by the municipal authorities. That case is distinguishable on facts. However, in our opinion, the determination of the annual letting value on the basis of 7 per cent. of the investment was a just and a fair method of determining the annual letting value for the year 1971-72. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner would be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
....
|
