|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 371 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 51
Issues:
1. Inclusion of retirement gratuity reserve in the computation of capital for surtax assessment.
2. Inclusion of dividend reserve in the computation of capital for surtax assessment.
3. Treatment of taxation reserve in excess of liability as a reserve for surtax assessment.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Retirement Gratuity Reserve
The court addressed whether the retirement gratuity reserve of Rs. 16,17,966 should be included in the computation of capital for surtax assessment. Counsel agreed that the treatment of this reserve should be in line with the Supreme Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 559. The court held that only the excess amount of the reserve over the liability of the assessee should be considered as a reserve. Therefore, the retirement gratuity reserve was not entirely treated as a reserve, but only the surplus amount above the liability.
Issue 2: Dividend Reserve
The court deliberated on whether the dividend reserve of Rs. 10,00,000 should be included in the computation of capital for surtax assessment. The Revenue argued that this question was resolved in their favor by the Supreme Court decision, while the assessee's counsel contended otherwise, citing CIT v. Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. [1990] 186 ITR 138. The court analyzed the facts and clarified that the dividend reserve should only include the excess amount over the dividend proposed and actually declared. As the actual dividend declared was Rs. 9,37,500, the excess amount of the reserve above this figure was to be treated as a reserve for surtax assessment.
Issue 3: Taxation Reserve
Regarding the taxation reserve in excess of the liability, the court decided that it should be treated as a reserve for the surtax assessment. The court emphasized that the actual tax liability should be considered in determining the taxation reserve to be included in the computation of capital. The treatment of this reserve was aligned with the principles established in previous judgments and the relevant provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
In conclusion, the court provided clarity on the treatment of reserves in the computation of capital for surtax assessment, ensuring consistency with established legal precedents and statutory provisions.
-
1991 (4) TMI 50
The petitioner sought interest on refunded surtax. The court directed authorities to communicate the order on the interest claim within two weeks if already passed, or dispose of it within one month if not yet decided. The writ petition was finally disposed of with no costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of payment to National Chemical Laboratory for research under section 37(1) or section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Claim for deduction of gratuity liability under section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1 - Payment to National Chemical Laboratory for Research:
The assessee paid Rs. 1,12,715 to the National Chemical Laboratory for research on manufacturing anhydrous aluminium chloride from bauxite. Initially claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) but also contended it was allowable under section 37. Income-tax Officer rejected the claim as the laboratory was not an approved institution under section 35(1)(ii). Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded for verification but rejected the claim under section 37. Tribunal found the contribution for research fell under section 35 and not deductible under section 37(1). Court held that if expenditure does not fall under sections 30 to 36, it can be considered under section 37. Without a clear finding that the expenditure falls under earlier sections, it cannot be denied under section 37. Answered the reframed question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, allowing further consideration by the Tribunal.
Issue 2 - Deduction of Gratuity Liability:
In light of the Supreme Court decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585, the question of deduction of gratuity liability under section 40A(7) is to be answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
-
1991 (4) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee converted individual property into that of their smaller Hindu undivided family by declarations in income-tax and wealth-tax returns.
2. Whether the assessee became a partner in a partnership firm in their individual capacity or representing their smaller Hindu undivided families.
Analysis:
1. The case involved three brothers who were part of an undivided Hindu family conducting business under a specific name. They decided to dissolve the family and form a new partnership firm on December 30, 1956. The capital of the family was negative, divided equally among the brothers. A claim for partial partition was accepted for the assessment year 1957-58.
2. The assessee filed returns for the years 1958-59 to 1970-71, declaring income from the partnership as belonging to their smaller Hindu undivided family. However, an audit objection led to the reopening of assessments for the years 1970-71 and 1973-74. The income was then assessed as individual income, leading to a series of appeals and tribunal proceedings.
3. The Tribunal found that the income derived from the partnership was individual income of the assessee. The main question was whether the assessee had converted their individual property into joint family property by consistently declaring income as belonging to the smaller Hindu undivided family over more than 12 years. The Tribunal held that the consistent conduct indicated an unambiguous intention to blend separate property with joint family property.
4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that clear intention is crucial for blending separate property with joint family property under Hindu law. The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct and declarations over 12 years demonstrated a voluntary and unambiguous intention to merge individual property with joint family property. No evidence was presented to contradict this intention.
5. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, stating that there was no reason to disturb it. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the consistent conduct and declarations indicated a clear intention to blend individual property with joint family property. As a result, the question was answered in favor of the assessee, and the reference was disposed of without costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 47
Issues Involved:
1. Whether trust properties passed on death under sections 5, 7, or 11 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
2. Inclusion of "Garden Reach" property in the principal value under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.
3. Inclusion of furniture value in the principal value of the estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.
Issue 1: Trust Properties Passing on Death
The primary issue was whether the trust properties, including movable assets and immovable properties like "Readymoney house," passed on the deceased's death under sections 5, 7, or 11 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal found that the deceased had transferred his life interest in the Baronetcy Trust properties long before his death, thus, his life interest did not pass on death under sections 5 or 7. However, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased continued to reside in "Readymoney house" not as a statutory tenant but as a baronet, making the value of "Readymoney house" includible in the estate's principal value. The High Court, referencing the judgment in CED v. Official Trustee, Maharashtra State, held that the deceased's life interest in the Baronetcy Trust, enjoyed as a holder of office, fell under section 7(4) and was not liable to estate duty under sections 5 or 7. The court concluded that the life interest, whether assigned or not, was not assessable to estate duty as it did not pass on death nor could be deemed to have passed by cesser of interest under section 7(1) or section 5.
Issue 2: Inclusion of "Garden Reach" Property
The Tribunal considered whether the "Garden Reach" property in Poona, transferred to the deceased's wife, was includible in the estate's principal value under section 10. The Tribunal found that the deceased had no beneficial interest in the property after 1957, and the deceased's wife had obtained the property through a reduction of capital in 1958. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased had not reserved any benefit for himself and had not resided in the property, thus, section 10 did not apply. The High Court affirmed this view, referencing the Supreme Court decision in CED v. Umesh Rudhra, which held that section 10 does not apply when a residential house is gifted to a wife and the donor continues to reside there with her.
Issue 3: Inclusion of Furniture Value
The Tribunal addressed whether the value of furniture in "Readymoney House" and the Poona property was includible in the estate's principal value under section 10. Given that the properties themselves were not includible in the estate, the Tribunal concluded that the furniture's value was also not liable to estate duty. The High Court affirmed this conclusion, stating that since the properties were not includible in the principal value, the furniture within them could not be liable to estate duty.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered all questions in favor of the assessee, concluding that the trust properties, including "Readymoney house" and "Garden Reach," and the furniture within them, were not includible in the principal value of the deceased's estate under the relevant sections of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. No order as to costs was made.
-
1991 (4) TMI 46
Issues:
Assessment of initial depreciation, Obligation to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, Validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a departmental reference concerning the assessee's assessment for the years 1962-63 to 1970-71. The primary issue revolves around the obligation of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, particularly in relation to the initial depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had initially disallowed the assessee's claim for depreciation and recalculated the depreciation, resulting in higher allowances than claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments under section 147(a) based on the belief that the assessee had been granted excess depreciation due to under-assessments.
The key contention was whether the under-assessments were a result of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, justifying the reopening of assessments. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal found that there was no obligation on the assessee to point out the initial depreciation granted in earlier years, as the Income-tax Officer had allowed higher depreciation based on his calculations. They concluded that the assessee was not at fault, and therefore, the reopening of assessments was deemed invalid.
The Revenue argued that the obligation was on the assessee to disclose correct income by claiming allowable depreciation under the Act. The interpretation of section 147(a) was crucial, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment. The court highlighted the Supreme Court's position that the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts, leaving the inference to the Income-tax Officer.
Further, the court analyzed the relevant provisions, including the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act, which limits depreciation allowances to the original cost of assets. It was noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation based on the written down value, and the initial depreciation was recorded in the tax documents. Referring to precedents like the Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case and the Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. case, the court reiterated that the obligation to disclose pertains to primary facts, not inferential facts.
Ultimately, the court concurred with the Tribunal's finding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Consequently, the question was answered in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded.
-
1991 (4) TMI 45
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the assessment of whether the distribution of tea samples by the assessee to its shareholders, directors, and friends should be considered as a business expenditure for the purpose of income tax assessment for the year 1977-78.
Assessment of Tea Distribution as Business Expenditure:
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea, distributed tea samples to its shareholders, directors, and friends. The Income-tax Officer added the value of the distributed tea as income of the assessee, not considering it as a business expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, rejecting the assessee's argument that the distribution was for the business's interest.
Arguments Presented:
The assessee contended that the distribution of tea samples was done to popularize the tea manufactured by the company for commercial expediency, making it an allowable business expenditure. The departmental representative argued that the assessee failed to prove the distribution was made in the business interest of the company, shifting the burden of proof onto the assessee.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal concluded that the distribution of tea samples was aimed at popularizing the company's product and creating goodwill among shareholders, thus being done for commercial expediency. Consequently, the addition of the value of the distributed tea was deleted, directing the Income-tax Officer to modify the assessment of the assessee and its partners.
Legal Interpretation:
The High Court clarified that since no sale was involved in the distribution of tea samples to shareholders and directors at the annual general meeting, the question of profit element or notional sale did not arise. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasized that such distribution, even if claimed as business expenditure, should be considered as necessary business expenditure, similar to expenses incurred for business meetings, and not as entertainment expenses.
Court's Decision:
The Court held that the distribution of tea samples without any sale involved could not be added as income of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made. The Court answered the raised question by stating that the amount in question was not taxable income of the assessee. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Separate Judgment:
Judge Shyamal Kumar Sen agreed with the decision presented in the judgment.
-
1991 (4) TMI 44
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves two references made u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to different assessment years, addressing the questions of whether the intention of the applicant in acquiring land was for a trading venture and if the profits should be taxed as business income.
Assessment Year 1962-63:
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and sale of pipes, acquired land over the years, with significant purchases from a sister concern. The court analyzed various land purchases, sales, and the nature of activities conducted on the land. Applying tests to determine if the land transactions were investments or trade ventures, it was concluded that the lands were acquired as investments, not for trading. The questions were answered in favor of the assessee.
Assessment Years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1966-67:
The court examined the history of land acquisitions by the assessee, including purchases from different parties and subsequent sales. It was noted that the Departmental authorities treated the surplus from land sales as business profits, contrary to the assessee's claim for capital gains taxation. By applying tests to assess the nature of land transactions, the court found that the lands were acquired as investments, not for trading purposes. Consequently, the questions were answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 43
The High Court of Allahabad upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding a Hindu undivided family's claim for exemption under section 80K of the Income-tax Act in relation to dividend income from J. K. Synthetics Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to verify the company's entitlement to deduction under section 80J before allowing the deduction under section 80K. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and declined to answer the specific question raised, stating that the Tribunal's direction was legal and justified.
-
1991 (4) TMI 42
Issues:
- Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in revising the quantum of reduction in rebate in super tax after the expiry of the 4-year period from the original assessment date.
Analysis:
The High Court of BOMBAY delivered a judgment in response to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question raised was whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in revising the reduction in rebate in super tax after the 4-year period from the original assessment date had expired. The case pertained to the assessment year 1963-64, where the assessee had issued bonus shares resulting in a reduction of rebate on super tax. The Income-tax Officer initially failed to reduce the rebate as required by the Finance Act, 1963, in the assessment completed in 1968. Subsequently, after appellate proceedings, the Tribunal's order in 1972 led to the Income-tax Officer revising the total income in 1974. The issue was whether this revision amounted to rectification of a mistake and if it was permissible under the law.
The Court noted that the Income-tax Officer's revision of the total income to give effect to the Tribunal's order did not constitute rectification of a mistake. The assessee argued that the failure to repeat the mistake of not reducing the rebate in the revised assessment was a rectification that should have been done within the prescribed time limit. However, the Court held that the Income-tax Officer was bound to calculate the tax based on the revised total income as per the Tribunal's order, which was correctly done. The Court emphasized that the Officer was not obligated to repeat the earlier mistake in the revised assessment. Reference was made to relevant case laws, which were found to be unrelated to the present issue.
Conclusively, the Court answered the referred question in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Income-tax Officer's order giving effect to the Tribunal's decision was lawful and not a rectification order. The judgment clarified that the revision of the total income and tax calculation based on the Tribunal's order did not amount to rectification of an earlier mistake, as contended by the assessee. Therefore, the revision made by the Income-tax Officer after the 4-year period was deemed valid, and the question was answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 41
Issues:
Interpretation of lease agreement and memorandum of association for income assessment under Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the treatment of income earned from leasing out a cold storage and ice plant. The primary issue revolves around whether the income should be assessed as profits and gains of business or under the head 'Other sources'. The assessee, a private limited company, had been leasing out the plant to a partnership firm since 1952. The income received from this arrangement was initially assessed under 'Other sources' until the assessment year 1959-60. However, in the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee contended that the income should be treated as business income. This contention was initially rejected by the Income-tax Officer but was later upheld by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal based its decision on the terms of the lease agreement and relevant circumstances. It noted that the assessee had never abandoned the intention of using the plant as a business asset. The lease was renewed annually for the relevant season only, indicating a temporary arrangement. Additionally, the lease deed specified that the plant was to be insured by the lessor, although at the lessee's cost. The lessor also agreed to supply necessary materials for running the plant, with any extra requirements to be borne by the lessee.
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's intention regarding the use of the asset was crucial in determining the appropriate classification of income. Citing established legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's intention to use the asset as a business asset during the relevant period was paramount. Given that the plant had been used for business purposes in previous years, the key inquiry was whether the assessee had abandoned the intention to utilize the asset for business. This determination was deemed a factual question, requiring an assessment of the relevant material before the authorities.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that unless the Tribunal's finding was tainted by specific defects such as non-consideration of relevant material or perversity, it should not be disturbed. As no such flaws were identified in this case, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the income derived from leasing the plant should indeed be assessed as profits and gains of business. The judgment concluded with no order as to costs, settling the matter in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (4) TMI 40
The High Court of Bombay addressed two questions of law in a Departmental reference related to the assessee's assessment for the year 1970-71. The first question was about the cancellation of the assessment order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Court found no issue with this decision and ruled in favor of the assessee. The second question, regarding the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee based on a Supreme Court decision. No costs were awarded.
-
1991 (4) TMI 39
Issues:
1. Deduction of expenditure incurred on the issue of prospectus for raising working capital.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference by an assessee-company regarding the deduction of expenditure incurred on the issue of prospectus for raising working capital. The company, engaged in textile and engineering goods manufacturing, faced disruptions due to a rift between managing agency groups, leading to a consent decree requiring the purchase of minority shares. To mitigate the adverse impact on working funds, the company decided to issue fresh equity shares. The dispute centered on whether the expenditure on the share issue was revenue or capital in nature.
The assessee argued that the additional capital raised was necessary to meet the payment obligations under the consent decree and did not confer any enduring benefit. Citing precedents like Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. and Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., the assessee contended that such expenditure should be treated as revenue. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on the Tribunal's order and contended that the expenditure was capital in nature, citing the Bombay Steam Navigation Co. case and distinguishing the Glaxo Laboratories case.
The Court analyzed the purpose of the share issue, which included listing on the stock exchange and financing the Reishaure Chucks Project, along with meeting the payment obligations from the consent decree. The Court referenced past judgments to distinguish cases where the expenditure was held to be revenue in nature due to a direct nexus with the business operations. Ultimately, the Court held that the expenditure in question was not of revenue nature, answering the question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
In conclusion, the Court found that the expenditure incurred on the share issue for raising working capital was not of revenue nature but capital in nature, based on the purpose and circumstances surrounding the share issue. The Court highlighted the importance of a direct nexus between expenditure and business operations in determining its nature, as established in past judgments.
-
1991 (4) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of compensation received as capital gains.
2. Taxability of interest received as income.
3. Assessment year for taxability of interest.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Compensation Received as Capital Gains
The primary issue was whether the compensation of Rs. 2,52,000 received by the assessee from the Central Government could be treated as capital gains. The court examined whether the right to get the deed of conveyance executed under the 1945 contract constituted a capital asset. The court concluded that the right was extinguished at least by September 20, 1961, when the court refused specific performance of the agreement. The court held that the amount received was not for the transfer of a capital asset but as damages for breach of contract. Thus, the amount of Rs. 2,52,000 was not taxable as capital gains for the assessment year 1970-71.
Issue 2: Taxability of Interest Received as Income
The second issue was whether the sum of Rs. 1,56,030 received as per the consent decree dated June 11, 1969, was liable to be taxed as income. The court noted that the consent decree clearly mentioned that the amount represented interest from January 30, 1959, to the date of the consent decree on the amount of damages. The court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151, held that interest on compensation is a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,56,030 was taxable as income.
Issue 3: Assessment Year for Taxability of Interest
The third issue was whether the interest amount was taxable for the assessment year 1970-71. The court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty [1987] 165 ITR 231 and Rama Bai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400, which held that interest in the case of an assessee following the mercantile system of accountancy must be taken to have accrued from year to year. Consequently, only the interest pertaining to the period from April 1, 1969, to the date of the consent decree was taxable as the income of the previous year.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the compensation amount of Rs. 2,52,000 was not taxable as capital gains, while the interest amount of Rs. 1,56,030 was taxable as income. However, only the interest accrued from April 1, 1969, to the date of the consent decree was taxable for the assessment year 1970-71. There was no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of proportionate tax liability under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965.
2. Right to receive compensation and interest as an asset for wealth-tax purposes.
3. Accrual of right to receive damages and interest thereon.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deductibility of Proportionate Tax Liability:
The Tribunal referred a question regarding whether the proportionate tax liability of Rs. 78,000, due to disclosure under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a debt owed under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and thus deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. Counsel agreed that, based on the Supreme Court decision in Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT [1981] 129 ITR 314, the question should be answered affirmatively and in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the court answered the question in the affirmative.
2. Right to Receive Compensation and Interest as an Asset:
For the assessment years 1963-64 to 1966-67, the Tribunal questioned whether the right of the assessee to receive compensation and interest from the Central Government, based on a consent decree dated June 11, 1969, constituted an asset for wealth-tax purposes. The Tribunal held that the right to receive compensation and interest did not amount to the assessee acquiring any right in immovable property to be treated as wealth. Consequently, it directed the Wealth-tax Officer to delete the amounts from the net wealth of the assessee for the respective years.
For the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, a similar question was raised regarding the amounts representing the assessee's right to receive compensation and interest. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the earlier years, holding that such amounts were not liable to wealth-tax.
3. Accrual of Right to Receive Damages and Interest:
The assessee's suit for specific performance of a contract, alternatively claiming damages for breach, was decreed by a single judge on September 20, 1961. The Union of India appealed, challenging the decree. The appeal was dismissed on July 16, 1965. Subsequently, the Commissioner determined compensation at Rs. 10,92,000, but both parties filed objections. Eventually, a consent decree was passed on June 11, 1969, settling damages at Rs. 2,52,000 plus interest.
The Wealth-tax Officer included the amounts received as damages and interest in the assessee's wealth-tax returns for the relevant years. However, the Tribunal held that on the relevant valuation dates, the assessee did not own any asset in respect of damages or interest within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Shri Jetley, counsel for the Revenue, argued that the right to receive compensation or damages constituted an asset from the date of the decree. He cited several precedents, including Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97, and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions, asserting that accrued amounts, even if not received, should be included in wealth.
Conversely, Shri Dastur, counsel for the assessee, argued that an asset only materializes when the right to receive damages becomes absolute and indefeasible. He referenced CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524, where the Supreme Court held that disputed compensation did not accrue as income until the dispute was resolved.
The court distinguished between statutory compensation rights and contractual damages, noting that a right to sue for damages is not an asset. Only when damages are established and quantified does the right to receive them become an asset. The court agreed with Shri Dastur, concluding that the right to receive damages and interest accrued only on the date of the consent decree, June 11, 1969. Thus, on the relevant valuation dates, no right to receive damages had accrued to the assessee.
Conclusion:
The court held that the proportionate tax liability under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was deductible in computing the net wealth. It also ruled that the right to receive compensation and interest did not constitute an asset for wealth-tax purposes until the consent decree was passed. The questions were answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. The Karnataka High Court decision in U. S. Nayak v. CWT [1968] 68 ITR 171 was deemed irrelevant to the present case.
-
1991 (4) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding additional income-tax on undistributed dividend attributable to secret commission.
2. Consideration of secret commission as a deductible expenditure for determining distributable income under section 104.
3. Validity of the order made under section 104 of the Act.
Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay addressed a departmental reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 1962-63. The primary issue revolved around whether additional income-tax is payable under section 104 for undistributed dividend linked to a secret commission paid by the assessee. The assessee claimed to have paid a secret commission to an individual, which was disallowed in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal considered whether this secret commission should be factored in while applying section 104. The court analyzed section 109(i)(g)(4) which allows deduction of expenditures not allowed in computing taxable income but related to business. The court concluded that the secret commission, though disallowed, was a business-related expenditure and should be deducted to determine distributable income under section 104, thereby eliminating any liability under the said section.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 176, emphasizing that unless proven otherwise, amounts in financial statements represent commercial profits. In this case, as no evidence suggested the secret commission was fictitious or not incurred for business purposes, the court upheld the deductibility of the secret commission for calculating distributable income. Consequently, the court answered the referred questions affirmatively in favor of the assessee, confirming the deductibility of the secret commission and the excess dividend distribution under section 104, while deeming the order made under section 104 as valid.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the treatment of disallowed business expenditures like secret commissions for determining distributable income under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It underscores the importance of proving the non-business nature of such expenditures to disallow their deduction. The court's reliance on established legal principles and precedents ensures consistency in interpreting tax laws and upholding the rights of taxpayers within the statutory framework.
-
1991 (4) TMI 35
Issues:
1. Validity of the assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment year 1971-72.
2. Interpretation of sub-section (2A) of section 153 of the Income-tax Act regarding the timeline for making fresh assessment orders.
3. Exclusion of the period during which an appeal was pending before the Tribunal in the computation of the two-year period for making fresh assessment orders.
4. Impact of Tribunal's directions on the timeline for making fresh assessment orders.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of power generation, sought a writ of prohibition against the assessing authorities under the Income-tax Act to halt assessment proceedings for the year 1971-72. The Commissioner of Income-tax proposed to revise the assessment order, leading to an appeal by the petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but provided directions that influenced the subsequent assessment process.
2. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of sub-section (2A) of section 153 of the Income-tax Act, which governs the timeline for making fresh assessment orders following a revision under sections 250, 254, 263, or 264. The petitioner argued that the two-year limit for fresh assessment orders should be calculated from the end of the financial year in which the Commissioner's order was passed, while the Department contended that the period should exclude the time during which the appeal was pending before the Tribunal.
3. The court examined the provisions of sub-sections (2A) and (3) of section 153 along with relevant explanations to determine the applicability of the timeline for making fresh assessment orders. It was held that the period during which an appeal was pending before the Tribunal should be excluded from the calculation of the two-year limit as per sub-section (2A), aligning with the Department's argument.
4. The Tribunal's directions played a crucial role in determining the timeline for making fresh assessment orders. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer was bound by the Tribunal's directions following the appeal, which nullified the need for a fresh assessment order based on the Commissioner's directives. Therefore, the timeline for assessment was extended based on the Tribunal's order, impacting the validity of any subsequent assessment actions.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Department's interpretation of the timeline for making fresh assessment orders and emphasizing the significance of Tribunal's directions in guiding the assessment process.
-
1991 (4) TMI 34
Issues:
Interpretation of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 regarding the inclusion of the value of shares allotted to foreign collaborators in the computation of capital.
Analysis:
The case involved a departmental reference related to the assessee's surtax assessment for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. The main question referred to the court was whether the amount representing the value of shares allotted to foreign collaborators in exchange for technical know-how should be included in the computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The assessee had entered into an agreement with two foreign companies, under which shares were issued to them in consideration of technical designs and know-how. The shares were shown as part of the fixed assets in the balance sheet. The issue was whether this constituted capital under the Act.
For surtax assessment, it was necessary to compute the company's capital as on the first day of each previous year. The relevant rule stated that the capital shall include paid-up share capital. However, an explanation provided that paid-up share capital brought into existence by creating or increasing any book asset is not considered capital. The department argued that issuing shares in exchange for designs and drawings created a book asset, thus reducing the share capital. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that when an asset is purchased from a third party and paid for by issuing shares, it does not constitute creating a book asset to bring capital into existence.
The court analyzed the explanation and the facts of the case. It noted that the shares were issued directly in exchange for the designs and drawings, without first paying cash and then receiving money for shares. The court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that when an asset is actually purchased for consideration, the shares issued for that purpose do not fall under the explanation's scope. The court emphasized that creating a book asset to bring capital into existence would mean creating an asset that is not truly an asset. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and ruled in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the court answered the question in the affirmative, stating that the shares issued for technical know-how did not constitute creating a book asset to bring capital into existence. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1991 (4) TMI 33
Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to depreciation allowance u/s 32 for assets previously deducted u/s 35(1)(iv)/35(2)(ia).
2. Computation of depreciation allowance without applying Explanation 1 to section 43(1).
3. Determination of whether the assessee carried on the business of manufacturing sugar and tea machinery.
4. Entitlement to relief u/s 80-1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Entitlement to Depreciation Allowance:
The High Court considered the questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessee's entitlement to depreciation allowance u/s 32 for assets whose cost was fully deducted in earlier years u/s 35(1)(iv)/35(2)(ia). Referring to a previous judgment, the court affirmed the entitlement of the assessee to the depreciation allowance for the relevant assessment years.
Computation of Depreciation Allowance:
The court also addressed whether the depreciation allowance should be computed based on the actual cost of the assets without applying Explanation 1 to section 43(1). Following the previous judgment, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
Business of Manufacturing Sugar and Tea Machinery:
Regarding the determination of whether the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar and tea machinery, the Tribunal found that the assessee engaged in activities such as canvassing orders, preparing designs, and supervising manufacturing under Turner Hoare. Despite utilizing Turner Hoare's facilities, the Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity and qualified for relief u/s 80-1.
Legal Interpretation and Decision:
The court examined the arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to be directly involved in the manufacturing process to be considered engaged in manufacturing activity. Based on the activities undertaken by the assessee, except for manufacturing through Turner Hoare, the court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was indeed engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar and tea machinery. Consequently, the court answered the third and fourth questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1991 (4) TMI 32
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law for its opinion regarding the rejection of a second appeal without deciding the case on merits. Other proposed questions were not considered relevant. The application succeeded in part with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
