|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 45 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Additional Depreciation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... red in the case holding that a tractor would not be covered as road transport vehicle and would only be covered as motor vehicle under section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act which defines the tractor. It would not be a transport vehicle under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The investment allowance would be admissible for tractors under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. After having heard learned counsel for the Revenue we hardly find any good reason to take any different view in the matter from that which has been taken by the Division Bench of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1997 (CIT v. Nandlal Parshuram 1999 239 ITR 497) referred to above. Both the questions thus referred are answered in the affirmative to the effect that the Tribunal was justified in holding that tractors used as agricultural machinery would be entitled to additional depreciation and investment allowance as well. The reference is answered accordingly and stands finally disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Writ, Attachment And Sale Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... chased the property after the property had already been attached by the Income-tax Department. So far as the question of grievance of the petitioner against the proclamation of sale by the Income-tax Department is concerned learned counsel for the Department pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against such an order under rule 86 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not have any right of appeal under the said rule because the petitioner was not a party to the assessment proceedings. On this aspect learned counsel for the Department concedes that the petitioner will also have a right of appeal under rule 86 as he is an aggrieved person. In view of this, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned proclamation. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The same is dismissed. Interim orders passed in the petition are hereby vacated. No costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Allowability, Rectification, Debatable Issue ... ... ... ... ..... ase of securities by the assessee-bank is not a permissible deduction in the computation of its total income in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank s case mentioned above. 19. I am of the view that there is no mistake, much less any mistake apparent from the record in the original assessment orders for 1979-80 and 1980-81 in allowing deduction of the interest paid for the broken period on the purchase of Government securities by the assessee-bank in the computation of its total income from business. I agree with my learned brother Mohammed J. that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the rectification orders issued by the assessing authority and the question of law referred to this Court has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I answer accordingly. ORDER OF THE COURT (MAJORITY) The question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... the time of examination by the Commissioner but it meant the record as it stood at the time of the order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works 1998 231 ITR 53, has held that the Commissioner of Income-tax can take into consideration the record relating to the proceedings available at the time of examination by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the record is not confined to the material available to the Income-tax Officer. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we hold that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of assessment and directing the Wealth-tax Officer to redo the assessment taking into consideration the relevant proceedings available at the time of examination. The order of the Tribunal is not justifiable. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1999 (3) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ould be paid speedily and in case of delay the interest has to be paid. There is nothing penal in the interest payable under this section and it is like interest paid by a businessman on any purchase on credit. A Full Bench of five judges of this court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax 1983 144 ITR 732, while dealing with the interest payable under section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act 1961 held that the interest payable on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax is a part of the liability of purchase tax and is not a penalty for an infraction of the law. In the case before us the interest is not paid on the amount of any tax but is paid for delay in the payment of purchase price of raw material i.e. sugarcane and is clearly an expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act 1961. We therefore answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative i.e. against the Commissioner of Income-tax and in favour of the assessee-respondent.
-
1999 (3) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ) of the Act. The Tribunal further held that the objects of the assessee are for general public utility and did not involve the carrying on of any activities for profit and the office bearers of the company are not entitled to get their salary. On winding up or dissolution of the company if there remains after satisfaction of the debts and liabilities any profit whatsoever the same shall not be distributed amongst the members of the company but shall be given or transferred to such other company having objects similar to the association to be determined by the assessee on or before dissolution. In that view of the matter we hold that the assessee-company is a charitable institution. As question No. 1 referred by the Tribunal to this court is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Decided By Three High Courts, Interest Tax ... ... ... ... ..... assessee-bank has entered into an agreement with the A. D. R. C. and the I. D. B. I. in accordance with the agreement that was entered into between the Agricultural Development Refinance Corporation and the Industrial Development Bank of India. The transaction commencing from the IDBI to the ultimate borrower is in the circumstances an integrated transaction. The Tribunal has therefore in that background held that the interest received by the lending bank from the constituents for the monies lent by the bank from and out of the monies made available to it by the A. D. R. C. and the I. D. B. I. did not in its entirety accrue to the lending bank. It was in that sense the lending bank was functioning as an agent for that part of the interest that had to be paid to the A. D. R. C. and the I. D. B. I. and the sum of Rs. 1,01,301 referred to in the first question is the amount so paid. We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to call for a reference. Tax case petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deductions, Cost Of Improvement ... ... ... ... ..... acating the land was an allowable expenditure within the meaning of section 48 read with section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The answer to this question will depend on whether the expenses incurred by the assessee and other co-owners constitute cost of improvement under section 48(ii). The said point is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal 1991 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 1996 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
1999 (3) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Business Expenditure, Commission ... ... ... ... ..... uki Auto India, as was admitted by Shri F. C. Singhal, the managing partner of the aforesaid buyer, before the Assessing Officer. The manager of the assessee-firm also confirmed in his statement before the Assessing Officer that the orders for the supply of goods were received on account of the services rendered by the members of the Kanakia family. Yogesh K. Kanakia, husband of Asha Y. Kanakia, had made a request to the assessee to make payment of commission to his wife on the ground that he had made efforts for securing orders for the supply of goods on her behalf. In these, circumstances, payment of commission to Asha Y. Kanakia cannot be said to be ingenuine, fictitious or impermissible, payment of commission is not disputed. Looking to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, evident that respondent No. 1, the designated authority, has failed to exercise the statutory jurisdiction vested in him in not processing the applications of the petitioners upon a wrong premise and, therefore, we are satisfied that the prayers made by the petitioners in these two petitions are justified. In the result, respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider and pass appropriate orders determining the amount payable by the declarants in accordance with the provisions of the KVS Scheme and consider to grant certificate in the prescribed form to the petitioners stating the particulars of tax arrears and the sum payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears in both the petitions in accordance with section 90(1) of the KVS Scheme, 1998 and consider the question of issuance of necessary certificate under section 90(2) of the Scheme. The petitions are, accordingly, allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liability for meeting which the collection was made. When the liability is a statutory liability, which the assessee was required to meet and for meeting which it was by the statutes or authorities permitted to collect the amount required from its customers, the true character of the collection is a trading receipt. By calling a portion of the amount as deposit, it cannot be said that the assessee had constituted itself as a trustee, and therefore, the amounts received were not required to be regarded as part of its trading receipt. Had the assessee been unsuccessful in its claim that his goods were not to be treated as chemicals there is no doubt that the amounts though collected as deposit, would have been paid over to the State Government as the amounts had been collected for payment to the State Government as sales tax in the event of the goods being treated as chemicals. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1999 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Purposes, Charitable Trust, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee and against the Revenue. Following the aforesaid decision of this court and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the first question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs. 82,516 of the present assessment year. When similar questions came up before the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 1987 164 ITR 439 and CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal 1995 211 ITR 293, respectively, both the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court have answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts, we answer the second question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Attachment And Sale Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner opens his objection by saying that the tax authorities had attached the house property and mentioned as follows We come to know that you have attached my house property No. 58, Thalatheru, Karaikal. It would clearly mean that even the petitioner had a clear idea as to which property was attached and, therefore, even on this ground the petitioner s challenge cannot be entertained. Last but not the least, it no point of time the petitioner has raised any objection regarding the identification of the property and his objections have been in respect of the ownership alone. Since the petitioner has not raised the question of identification of property earlier, now he would not be allowed for the first time to raise that question. This would be apart from the fact that lie his no locus standi to raise the same. In short, the petition has no merit and must be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 1523 of 1990 is also dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... t disclosed to the Department. We do not find any question meriting reference and the tax case petitions deserve to be dismissed. We must record our displeasure at the manner in which these petitions have been prosecuted by the assessee. The order of the Tribunal was passed more than 20 years ago in May, 1978. The assessee lodged his petitions in this court on December 5, 1978. However, the assessee did not comply with all the procedural requirements for almost 20 years and the petitions came to be numbered only on July 15, 1997. This is hardly the manner in which the applications for reference under the provisions of the Income-tax Act are required to be prosecuted. We heard counsel for the assessee on the merits of the matter, even though the assessee is no more, as the assessee s legal representatives had not been brought on record in spite of time having been granted and counsel directed to pursue the assessee s case. The petitions have abated and are also without merit.
-
1999 (3) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reference, Business, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ssioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the enhancement in the Value of closing stock would be only to the extent of 2/3rds share as relating to the other two partners, and in sustaining the addition made by the assessing authority ? It is contended by the assessee that when its proprietary business was converted into partnership business, there is no dissolution of the business and, therefore, the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to and relied on by the Tribunal are not applicable to the facts of this case. We heard learned counsel for the assessee as well as learned counsel for the Revenue. After hearing the arguments of both sides and after going through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that questions of law referred to above do arise in this case. We therefore direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the above-mentioned questions of law for the opinion of this court. The original petitions stand disposed of as above.
-
1999 (3) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Legal Representative, Retention Of Seized Assets ... ... ... ... ..... under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The loss has occurred in the discharge of sovereign functions of the State. Then the petitioner is not shown to have offered that the certificates be returned to her to enable her to encash them and purchase new ones and to substitute the new ones in their place. Lastly, she has come to this court very late. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated September 29, 1997, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to return the jewellery and the National Saving Certificates referred to above and seized during the aforesaid search to the petitioner forthwith and in any case within a period of 15 days from the date the petitioner presents a certified copy of this judgment before respondent No. 1. We also direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the costs of this writ petition that we assess at Rs. 2,500 (rupees two thousand five hundred only).
-
1999 (3) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Investment Allowance, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... egral part of the filtration plant, hence they had to be treated as plant. The question as to whether the foundations for installation of machinery and plant in the factory of the assessee-respondent and the water storage tank will constitute plant or not is a mixed question of fact and law. Learned counsel for the parties, however, agree that there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court or this court on this point. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (C), New Delhi, to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that civil work expenses on foundations and water storage tank amounting to Rs. 6,16,963 were plant and machinery to be eligible for the claim of investment allowance ? In view of the divided success, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Capital Or Revenue Loss ... ... ... ... ..... oca Cola company withdrew from India, being plant in its true character, the assessee would have been entitled to claim depreciation thereon in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. The assessee, however, was not entitled to treat the value of those bottles as a business loss. The question referred to us must therefore be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee did not have the occasion to raise before the Income-tax Officer its claim with reference to depreciation, as it had been misled by the fact that the Department itself had in some years, accepted that the amounts spent on acquiring the bottles and the value of the bottles not returned or broken were to be treated as part of the revenue account. We leave it open to the assessee to claim the benefit under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of those bottles for this assessment year and to the extent as permitted by law for the earlier assessment year as well.
-
1999 (3) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Reference, Valuation Of Assets, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... for invoking the aid of rule 2B(2) would not be satisfied. The same question was again considered by this court in the case of CWT v. Kanchan Bai Bader 1994 206 ITR 285 and therein it was held that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the valuation of the closing stock given in the balance-sheet was not the true value and that the market value of the closing stock exceeded the valuation disclosed by more than 20 per cent. This court further held that a finding recorded on the above question was purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises from such findings. Following with respect the consistent view of this court on the question sought to be got referred we hold that the answer to the above question stands covered and concluded by the abovementioned decisions of this court, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, we decline to direct the Tribunal to refer the above question to this court for its opinion. The application is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... fe Insurance Corporation had allowed an exemption on ad hoc basis without considering the provisions of section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act. It is no doubt true that the Income-tax Officer was entitled to make prima facie adjustment in the assessment without any notice to the assessee. However, in the present case, it was not a mere prima facie adjustment that he had made. In fact, a definite claim made by the assessee was being negatived. This could not have been done without the grant of an opportunity. If an opportunity had been granted, the assessee may have been in a position to show that the conveyance allowance had been actually used for the purpose for which it had been given. In such a situation, the assessing authority would not have been entitled to make any addition to the declared income. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any ground to ask the Tribunal to refer the question to this court for opinion. The application is, accordingly rejected. No costs.
....
|
