|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 234 Records
-
1982 (3) TMI 54 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operty. Now, applying the law as laid down in the various authorities referred to above, it is clear that the notice under s. 269D(1) of the Act was issued by the competent authority on the directions of the Commissioner which is clear from the letters referred to above. The grounds recorded by the competent authority are also of no use to the respondents because the same grounds were available to the competent authority when he had decided to drop the proceedings. The proceedings have obviously been initiated at the instance of the Commissioner and as such are void ab initio. The letter dated July 12, 1979, itself shows that the Competent Authority has asked the Commissioner for instructions as to how the reasons were to be recorded and had not acted on his own. For the reasons recorded above, I make the rule absolute and quash the notice dated July 26, 1979, and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (3) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ealth of the assessee. In the case of Smt. Satyabati Goswami v. CGT 1978 113 ITR 228 the Gauhati High Court had to deal with a similar question. But this aspect was not adverted to by the Gauhati High Court as to whether, in a case where, the share certificates were delivered and the transfer deed was executed before the particular date but the registration took place subsequently, the gift so far as the donee or donor was concerned was complete on the happening of the first two events or had to wait till the actual registration of the transfer in the name of the donee. Therefore, in our opinion, the observations of the Gauhati High Court would not be of much assistance in this case. In the view we have taken, we are of the opinion, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion and, therefore, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (3) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... se observations are not relevant because it is nobody s case that the delay ill the performance of the contract was either deliberate or fraudulent. It is no doubt true that the amount, of which deduction is sought, is described by the Tribunal as a penalty but in effect it is really a compensation payable by the contractor to the Government and the nature thereof is wholly different from a penalty which arises from a breach of a statutory provision. The said liability must, therefore, be construed as having arisen on account of a delay in performance and on account of compensation payable to the Government and not strictly in the nature of a penalty as in the case of a breach of a penal provision of the law. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 30,800. Accordingly, the question referred has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee to get costs of this reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ctured were brought to the factories of the firms and were heated in an oven for a short time. These biris were then packed in bundles and wrapped in papers bearing the trade marks and labels of the firms. The Allahabad High Court held that though the actual manufacture of the biris was done through contractors. The firms were processing the goods and were industrial undertakings within the expression assigned to the term under the Explanation to s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the W.T. Act. The Appellate Tribunal in the case referred to us found as a fact that though ginning and pressing was got done by the firm, M/s. Mehta and Company, through other parties, rest of the job was carried out by the firm itself. This activity amounted to a processing of goods within the meaning of the Explanation to s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the W.T. Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Costs of this reference will be born by the department. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1982 (3) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeals, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... uld have quashed the assessment instead of remanding the case to the GTO with the direction to make a fresh computation. It is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the jurisdiction, under s. 22(5) of the G.T. Act, to pass such order as he thinks fit which will include an order of remand. It was not obligatory on his part under the scheme of the Act and the powers conferred on him to quash the order of the GTO. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to show in what manner the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case was contrary to law. We, therefore, hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Commissioner (Appeals) had the power as well as justification to set aside the GTO s order and remand the case to him instead of quashing his order. Costs of this reference will be borne by the assessee-applicant. Advocate s fee Rs. 150, if certified.
-
1982 (3) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Loans Or Deposits, Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... reement to pay the balance of consideration due by the purchaser does not in truth give rise to a loan. A loan of money undoubtedly results in a debt, but every debt does not involve a loan. A Division Bench of this court (Sabyasachi Mukharji and Sudhindra Mohan Guha JJ.) in the case of Oil India Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 156 held in a judgment delivered on 17/18th December 1980, that in a case involving a foreign exchange transaction where the assessee had to incur a loss in order to carry on its business or to facilitate the carrying on of its business the additional liability due to devaluation would certainly be an expenditure or a liability to be allowed in computing the revenue profits. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid cases and in view of the findings of fact made by the Tribunal, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1982 (3) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... urisdiction to impose the penalty. In the instant case, as stated in the supplementary statement of the case, the references were made by the WTO on 12th January, 1977, when the provisions of s. 18(3)of the Act requiring the WTO to refer the case to the IAC were substituted by the aforesaid provisions of s. 18(3) of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the IAC had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act after the amendment of s. 18(3), with effect from 1st April, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. Our answer to the first question referred to this court, therefore, is against the Department. In view of our answer to the first question, learned counsel for the parties conceded that it would not be necessary to answer the second question referred to this court. We, therefore, decline to answer that question. Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 47 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st April, 1976 jurisdiction to levy penalty was with the WTO only. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal holding that the IAC had jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Other objections were also raised about the jurisdiction of the IAC but they are relevant for question No. 2, and, at this stage, we do not propose to answer that question because we find that certain more facts have to be obtained for deciding question No. 1. On similar facts in Indrasen Bhoot v. CWT (M.C.C. No. 116 of 1979, dated July 11, 1980) and Anil Kumar Tody v. CWT (M.C.C. No. 117 of 1979, dated March 13, 1981), we have directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case. In view of this, we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding the imposition of penalty was referred by the WTO to the IAC in the instant case. After receipt of such a statement the reference shall be fixed for further hearing.
-
1982 (3) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Non-resident Company, Refund, Revision Of Jurisdiction Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... or a direction to refund the sum of Rs. 57,500 is concerned, we are not inclined to give Any such direction. The assessee never made a claim for the refund of this amount. In the revised return there was no claim made for it. In the revision before the Commissioner there was no claim for it. In the appellate proceedings also this claim does not figure, and now, at the stage of art. 226 proceedings, we do not think that the assessee can be allowed to take up this plea. In view of what has been stated above, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part and the order of the Commissioner dated 29th April, 1978, is quashed and the petitioner s claim for a refund of Rs. 11,500 is allowed. For the rest of the claim, the petition is dismissed. In so far as the reference is concerned, it has become infructuous and the question referred is returned unanswered. In the circumstances, both in the writ petition and in the income-tax reference, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, New Industrial Undertaking, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... the assessment year 1963-64 or in the assessment year 1964-65, is a debatable question. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under s. 154 of the Act. Our answer to questions Nos. 2 and 3 qua assessment years 1967-68 and 1970-71 and questions Nos. 2 and 3 qua assessment year 1971-72 referred to this court, is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue was debatable, not capable of rectification under s. 154 of the Act and hence the Tribunal was justified in upholding the AAC s order cancelling the order under s. 154 of the Act passed by the ITO. Our answers to these questions are, therefore, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we decline to answer question No. 1 qua assessment years 1967-68 and 1970-71 and question No. 1 qua assessment year 1971-72 referred to us. Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... ty. Having taken the entire course of events, the Tribunal has not put much credence on the services and the letters of the concerns, produced subsequently by the assessee, whose businesses were procured. We cannot say that the Tribunal acted improperly. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal in this case cannot be said to be erroneous. In that view of the matter question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and question No. 3 we answer by saying that the Tribunal was right in not putting much weight on the subsequent letters produced before the AAC. This is also answered in favour of the Revenue. As the questions are similar for all these years, the questions are answered in the manner indicated for all these years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (3) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessed Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 962, as the Amendment Order did not exist when the reference was made. We do not propose to discuss this case in detail. In the first place, it appears to us to turn on its own fact. In that case, the retrospective amendment was made not by a statute passed by Parliament, as in the case before us, but by a Presidential Order and, apart from this, if the said decision of the Allahabad High Court is construed as having taken the view that even if the amendment is retrospective and applicable to the relevant period for which the assessment has been made if the amendment is made after the Tribunal had decided the matter, it should be ignored iii answering the question referred, in that event, we respectfully dissent from that view and we accept the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case to which we have referred earlier. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s mind any escaped income for the years prior to 1950-51, and the aggregation of such income exceeded rupees one lakh. As we have noted above, the ITO himself observed that after looking into the records the concealment for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1960-61 amounted to more than rupees one lakh. Any alleged escaped income for an year subsequent to 1950-51 could not have been taken into consideration and, therefore, it was only a futile attempt on the part of the department to seek the production of the confidential record at the stage of the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, there could have been no controversy in regard to the facts of the case. In other words, there was no disputed fact involved so as to take out the case from the ambit of s. 154 of the Act. In view of the discussion above, we answer both the questions referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The respondent-assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... e light of the whole of s. 124 including sub-s. (7) and giving a direction as above. (5) On the facts of the present case, however, there was no necessity, justification or scope for giving any such direction. An examination of the question whether Ward-D or Ward-E Officer had any territorial jurisdiction over the assessee, even if answered in the affirmative, will not be sufficient to uphold the assessment under consideration as, admittedly, the income of the assessee accrued or arose or was received in various territorial jurisdictions. The Act does not contemplate a piecemeal or partial assessment of income nor has any such assessment been made or purportedly made in this case. (6) In this view of the matter, the Tribunal should have annulled the assessment as being without jurisdiction and should not have remanded the matter to the AAC for disposal. The reference is disposed of accordingly. But having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deemed Profit ... ... ... ... ..... incidental to the transfer must be deducted in computing the amount of capital gains whether it was expenditure, incurred in that previous year or not. The concept of the expenditure being relatable to the year in which it was incurred will not be quite appropriate in the context of computation of the capital gains in view of the language of s. 45 read with s. 48. That being so, the Tribunal, while holding that the capital gains were taxable should have also held that the entire expenditure in relation to the transfers in question would be deductible in computing the capital gains. We, therefore, answer the fourth question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. To sum up, we answer questions Nos. (1) and (2) and (4) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. (3) is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. The reference is disposed of accordingly. As neither side has succeeded fully, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction, Developement Rebate, Income From House Property, Priority Industry, Urban Land Tax
-
1982 (3) TMI 38 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... empt from income-tax and, therefore, under s. 192 of the I.T. Act the assessee company was bound to deduct tax at source and pay the same within the prescribed time under s. 200 of the Act. The fact that the assessee-company did not do so made it a deemed assessee in default in respect of the tax under s. 201 of the I.T. Act and it was a person responsible to pay the tax of its employee. This amount of tax could not be allowed as deduction under s. 37 of the Act. For this reason also the claim of the assessee for allowance of Rs. 26,728 as business expenditure was not tenable. Thus, we are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 26,728 paid by the applicant-company on account of Mr. Pol was not for its business purposes and, therefore, not allowable as business expenditure. The reference is answered against the assessee. Costs of this reference will be borne by the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 150.
-
1982 (3) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nce-sheet shall not be treated as assets, namely -.... (b) any amount shown in the balance-sheet including the debit balance of the profit and loss account or the profit and loss appropriation account which does not represent the value of any asset ...... It would normally appear that as far as M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. are concerned, the shares of M/s. Pibco Ltd. are shown as assets and those assets are shown as involving an investment of Rs. 17,85,600. But that amount does not represent the value of any asset because the assets has become valueless. So far as this case is concerned, the Tribunal was right in its analysis and no question of law arises it being a factual question as to how the shares were to be valued and there being a special rule which allowed valueless assets being excluded from the balance-sheet of the company whose shares were being evaluated under r. 10. We would accordingly decline to call for a reference. but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... determining the market value. As we see it, the rule in question, namely, r. ID, cannot be used de hors in its essential assumption and object. A practical example will serve to illustrate the point. There is a company with a share capital of Rs. 10,000, whose assets as determined under the rule are Rs. 20,000, then the break-up value of each share will be Rs. 200 against its face value of Rs. 100. If a further capital of Rs. 10,000 is issued, then the share capital will become Rs. 20,000, but the assets will become Rs., 30,000, so that the break-up value of each share will become Rs. 150 as against the previous value of Rs. 200. The value of the new shares can only be determined by examining the balance-sheet in which they are shown because only then can the value of Rs. 150 be determined. It is on this reasoning that we find that the proposed question of law does not arise in this case. We accordingly dismiss the application, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ion is against the assessee, so there can be no objection to the question as framed. However, the questions as framed by the Department are not the ones that arise from the Tribunal s order. The first question was decided on the view that if Rs. 70,000 is to be added, then the loss is also to be subtracted as a loss resulting from the seizure and confiscation of the watches. The second question was left open by the Tribunal, so it does not arise. And the third question was also not dealt with by the Tribunal in the manner proposed in the question. The following question would represent the real question which arises and which we think should be referred In the facts and circumstances in which the Tribunal has decided the appeal before it, whether the assessee was entitled to any set-off adjustment on account of the confiscation of the watches ? We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to submit a statement of the case regarding the above question. Parties to bear their own costs.
....
|
