|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 290 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ted decision is not in doubt and the applicability of the decision is always to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. Regard being had to the materials as disclosed and looking to the recorded reasons, this court does not impart with the issuance of the impugned notice as an outcome of any perverse order or there is any exercise of the right beyond jurisdiction or that the impugned notice suffers from any inherent defect for which the interference of the writ court is necessary. Pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioner may very well place on record all the relevant facts for making a proper assessment in accordance with law. The recorded reasons are found all the more bona fide to proceed according to law and considering this aspect of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere with the matter any further. Thus finding no merit in the writ petition, the rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Attachment Of Property Of Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... hment. AR the same, the fact remains that the property was under attachment and the tax clearance certificate was obtained from an Income-tax Officer other than the Income-tax Officer who had jurisdiction over the vendors. In the facts of the case, in my judgment, the provisions of rule 16 are clearly attracted. The sale is, thus, void and the Tax Recovery Officer will be entitled to proceed to recover the taxes due from the vendors from the suit property. Since, however, in its writ jurisdiction, this court cannot go into facts which are disputed and there is no material on record justifying the allegations of the Department that the petitioner was in league with the vendors, it is considered fair and in the interest of justice to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to hear his appeal if he files it within 30 days hereof against the order of the Tax Recovery Officer as contemplated in rule 86 of Schedule II. In the result, the rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nment Pleader. 1, therefore, direct the first respondent to send by registered post to the third respondent a copy of the order for the year 1978-79 immediately. The third respondent, if so advised, will file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner under section 34 of the Act or other applicable provision of the Act. If the third respondent files a representation within one month of the receipt of a copy of the judgment, I am sure the same will be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner and appropriate orders passed in revision after hearing the third respondent. In the circumstances of the case, I quash exhibits P-3, P-4 and P-7 and as the third respondent has admitted his liability in this case for the year 1978-79, I direct that no further steps be taken against the petitioner to recover the agricultural income-tax for the year 1978-79 in respect of the property covered by exhibit P-1 sale deed in her favour. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Scientific Research Organisation ... ... ... ... ..... d not exist during the previous year, he has to independently consider whether the condition in the clause itself is satisfied or not. The Income-tax Officer can certainly form the belief that income had escaped assessment when even one condition is satisfied. Questions such as whether the Government can retrospectively cancel the approval, whether promissory estoppel applies, etc., are not relevant at that stage. They are also not relevant in the case of the present petitioners but only in the case of the institution whose approval is cancelled. In my judgment, the submissions are without any merit inasmuch as the petition herein is being allowed on a preliminary question, viz., whether the notification dated January 2, 1986, provided a sound basis for the formation of the belief that the assessee s income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The answer to the question being in the negative, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ted the court s attention to the fact that, even according to the petitioner, the return of income was not accompanied by the profit and loss account and the valuation report. The return was incomplete and thus an invalid return. To this, Shri Pandit s contention is that section 139(9) of the Act requires the Income-tax Officer in the case of an incomplete return to bring the said fact to the notice of the assessee so that the return to the extent it is deficient is completed. Nothing of the type was done. In the circumstances of the case, it has to be assumed that the return for the assessment year 1980-81 filed by the petitioner was pending. It is settled law that income cannot be said to have escaped assessment when the assessment proceedings are pending. The notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income-tax Officer is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The same is quashed. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income, Interest On Loans And Advances, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner. The respondent was, therefore, right in declining to grant any exemption certificate to the petitioner as prayed by it. It was pointed out by Mr. Jain, senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, that under section 160 read with section 163 of the Act, the petitioner could be regarded as an agent in relation to a non-resident and could submit a return of income as a representative assessee and, in case it succeeds, it will be entitled to the refund of the tax deducted at source and deposited to the credit of the Central Government as required under section 200 of the Act. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, we will direct that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as deposited by the petitioner in this court be paid to the respondent. We will make it clear that the petitioner will not suffer any liability on account of the fact that the amount in question was deposited in this court and not to the credit of the Central Government as required under the Act.
-
1990 (3) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te who was previously conducting the petitioner s income-tax cases. The suggestion is that the impugned notice is mala fide. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that there is any merit in this petition. We have perused the contents of the impugned notice under section 143(3) of the aforesaid Act and find that there is no point relevant for consideration for the present. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily.
-
1990 (3) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ission. On the facts an circumstances of this case, we direct the petitioner to file the return and the respondent shall, thereafter, disclose the material to the petitioner. In this, view of the matter, we do not find it proper to interfere with the notice issued by the respondent, under article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Certified copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
-
1990 (3) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... him within two days from today and the said authority on the basis of the representation shall also adjust the amount which the petitioner is entitled by way of refund which has been paid by him and further to adjust the recovery as per appellate order dated January 30, 1990, as well as to grant the consequential relief to the petitioner. The Income-tax Officer shall finally dispose of the said representation stating therein the correct amount of recovery within ten days thereafter. Till 15 days from today, neither shall the Department withdraw the amount of the seized bank account of the petitioner nor is the petitioner himself permitted to withdraw the amount from the said account. After disposal of the representation, the Department shall give a revised notice of demand to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today.
-
1990 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... while the Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the opinion that a diploma or degree was not necessary. The view of the Karnataka High Court is to the contrary. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 64(1)(ii) read with the proviso thereto were not applicable to the instant case ? The petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income, Interest On Loans And Advances, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... gh certainly applicable, must be applied with care and within well-recognised limits. Having regard to the fact, viz., that the previous year involved in this case is from April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, the only evidence indicated in the petition until January 2, 1977, is the petitioner s submission in paragraph 3 of the petition that there were disputes in the Kamani family in the year 1975 and that the matter was referred to arbitration in the year 1979. The chartered accountants letter dated November 21, 1977, is also based on no other material except instructions from the petitioner. On these two facts alone, the claim of the petitioner that income had not accrued could have been rejected, though it could also have been accepted. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept that the order of the Commissioner is palpably wrong even on the ground of concept of real income. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... rch 31, 1982. Since we have held that, in passing the common appellate order in I. T. A. Nos. 243 to 248/Coch of 1977-78 dated March 31, 1982, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to pose the proper question from a proper angle or perspective and has also directed the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeals afresh, the proper course, in the circumstances, would be to decline to answer the questions referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax References Nos. 481 and 482 of 1985 and also in Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1990. We decline to answer the questions in these referred cases as well, but at the same time, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the concerned appeals to file and consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (3) TMI 38 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal does not require any interference by this court and that there is no case for directing the Tribunal to make a reference to this court. The learned Tribunal has taken a view based on the Supreme Court case in Mayarani Punj s case 1986 157 ITR 330, holding that the questions of law raised by the Department have already been concluded by the Supreme Court in Mayarani Punj s case 1986 157 ITR 330. This court in an earlier decision in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 252 of 1987 (CWT v. Babulal Agrawal 1989 176 ITR 497) has also followed the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in its order dated July 11, 1988. As such, we are of the view that the matter having been already concluded by the Supreme Court in Mayarani Punj s case 1986 157 ITR 330 and having been followed by this court in the aforementioned cases, there is no case for admission of these applications for final hearing. The applications filed by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Return, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... to file the return. It is also not disputed that within the extended time, he did not file the return but actually filed the return on July 31, 1987. So, when time was extended on application made on July 31, 1986, it cannot be said that the application made on June 30, 1986, for the same relief under the same provision of law subsisted for consideration by the officer. By the subsequent application made, the assessee himself rendered the earlier application infructuous. Therefore, when the duty required to be performed has indeed been performed by the officer on the subsequent application made, it is needless to compel him to perform the same duty on an earlier application which, in the eye of law, does not exist. I may, however, observe that the application made under section 139(3) of the Act was before the amendment. That amendment has taken away the discretion of the Income-tax Officer earlier provided to grant extension. The petition is misconceived and it is rejected.
-
1990 (3) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Company, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... Friday, the 23rd instant and the judgment pronounced in that case was in favour of the petitioner. Both the issues, viz., publication of notice in the Official Gazette as well as retention of the words and/or in the notice between the two objects are covered by that judgment. Facts and rival contentions in this case being covered by the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 1095 of 1987 (Udharam Aildas Thadani v. IAC of IT 1990 184 ITR 439), for reasons given therein, it is held that, in the absence of an affidavit-in-reply, the proceedings under section 269D have to be treated as out of time. The Competent Authority s not indicating its mind clearly and precisely as to the object of understatement of consideration, if any, in the sale instrument amounted to non-application of mind. Both these issues are fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 269D. Accordingly, the petition is all owed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Company, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... been incurred by the company. It is only the case of one of the directors appropriating the income earned. We are of the view that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. s case 1965 56 ITR 1 is totally inapplicable herein. In this view, we hold that the amount appropriated by the director, Sri Yakub Sagar Abdulla, cannot be treated as business loss in computing the income of the applicant answer question No. 2 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. It follows from our discussion in answering question No. 2 that the assessee had not incurred, much less established that it had incurred, any loss. We, therefore, answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The references are answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (3) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interest, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nder section 139(2) but also before the issue of notice under section 148 and also before the expiry of the period during which section 139(2) notice could be issued. There is then a further requirement in condition (c) regarding payment of taxes. In the above view of the matter, the least that can be said is that the predecessor-Commissioner s finding that the conditions laid down under section 273A were satisfied is supportable and cannot be said to suffer from a mistake of law, far less a mistake apparent from the record. As laid down by the Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 1971 82 ITR 50 and this court in CIT v. K. Subnani Construction Co. 1989 177 ITR 219, a mistake about which there could conceivably be two opinions cannot be the subject-matter of rectification under section 154. The impugned order thus requires to be and is hereby quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer(a). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... , in this reference, does not reflect the real issue arising on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances arising in this case, we reframe the question comprehensively reflecting all facts as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct, while computing the capital gain under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69, in the case of the assessee, in deducting the cost of acquisition of shares held in various companies, from the full value of the consideration, viz., the second and final distribution made by the official liquidator in March, 1968, even though the assessee received the first distribution from the official liquidator in the year 1960? In the view that we have taken hereinabove, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ioner. Here again, the concerned employees admittedly working outside and not in India, to say the least, it is debatable whether the tax should have been deducted out of the salaries payable to them. In any event, all these questions are certainly not pure questions of fact. These are questions where law is to be applied to the facts. Therefore, the case squarely falls within the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996. The internal audit was not competent to express its opinion on such questions. Their opinion could not constitute information for the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment. It is not in the circumstances necessary to consider whether the other condition necessary for the purpose is satisfied. In the above view of the matter, the notice issued under section 148 was without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, quashed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... e of an affidavit-in-reply, the court has to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the petition. The petition is clear as to its contents. The necklace, though seized from the locker belonging to respondent No. 6, belongs to the petitioner. This fact has been accepted by the Department. That is why the assessment in respect thereof has been made in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner has paid all taxes due on account thereof. Messrs. Shakti Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. has, by means of the affidavit filed today in the court, clearly stated that it has no objection to the Department s handing over the necklace to the petitioner. The Department has not been able to show any material on the basis of which it could have any claim on the necklace. In the circumstances, the necklace requires to be and is hereby directed to be delivered to the petitioner forthwith. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) (iv). No order as to costs.
....
|
