Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 190 of 190 Records
-
1985 (5) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Trading Loss ... ... ... ... ..... of the value of Rs. 80,400 and on its failure to lift the country liquor to that extent, it was under an obligation to make good the deficiency to the Government of Rajasthan. The liability to pay the deficiency was there in terms of the licence and arose directly from the carrying on of the assessee s business. The principles laid down in the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee are attracted. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference of Rs. 20,967 between the guarantee amount and the actual purchase of country liquor was allowable as trading loss in the computation of the assessee s total income for the assessment year 1968-69. The result is that the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal as required by section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (5) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ust be set -aside and quashed. In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. The impugned notices under section 148 for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 are quashed and the assessment orders and demand notices issued in pursuance thereof are also quashed. We may also note that the assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(3), although it has been recorded in each of the assessment orders that the assessee did not comply with the terms of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Another fact which also appears from the assessment order is that for all the assessment years involved in these proceedings, there were substantial losses carried forward from the earlier years. Therefore, in any event, there is no loss of Revenue even if the small income which has been added on reassessment is taken into consideration. The undertaking is discharged. The filing of paper book is dispensed with. There will be no order as to costs. SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (5) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court, Settlement Commission ... ... ... ... ..... fy our reasons by a full analysis of the various sections of the Act dealing with settlement. However, we are of the view that in case the Settlement Commission does proceed with the application, then the Settlement Commission will have full power to pass any order it deems fit regarding the settlement. The assessment order or orders if passed will be no impediment to the Settlement Commission in exercising its powers if it decides to exercise them. On the other hand, if the Settlement Commission decides not to proceed with the application, there is a distinct possibility of the Department not being able to realise the taxes in the circumstances of this case. So, we find that we are unable to interfere both on the ground of there being no statutory provision to justify a stay of proceedings before the income-tax authorities and also because the circumstances of the case would not justify such an act. We accordingly dismiss this petition and the connected petitions in limine.
-
1985 (5) TMI 7 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... fore September 7, 1972. They also observed that with effect from April 1, 1971, section 275 had been amended and, therefore, the proceedings as they were pending on April 1, 1971, would be covered in terms of the said amendment. The Tribunal was of the view that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ought to have kept in view the amended provisions of section 274(2) of the Act. In that view, there was no point in mentioning section 275 of the Act in the order of reference. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to levy penalty in view of the amended provision of section 274 of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was fully within his powers to impose such a penalty. For the reasons stated above, the reference may be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Explanation To S. 271(1)(c), Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e doubt . Thus mens rea must be ruled out. The Tribunal, therefore, appreciated the facts from a wrong view of the law. The Tribunal had to appreciate the facts keeping in view the obligation cast upon the assessee by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reference, therefore, must be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The above view of ours, however, does not conclude matters. The facts were appreciated from a wrong view of the law. The Tribunal was obliged to appreciate the facts keeping the correct law in view. That has not been done. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal which will reappraise the facts, come to its conclusion on the questions of facts after hearing the parties and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law laid down by us. We wish to make it absolutely clear that the revised return was filed in 1966. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) must have full play in its application to the facts of this case.
-
1985 (5) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Firm, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... The assessee in the appeal against the rectification order will not be entitled to challenge that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the assessee in an appeal against an order under section 154 of the Act could not challenge the validity of the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the provisions of section 154 of the Act were rightly applied for levying enhanced penalty by relying on the provisions of section 271(2) of the Act and the Tribunal was justified in holding that in an appeal against an order under section 154, the validity of the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(a) cannot be challenged. Under the circumstances, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (5) TMI 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ed that as a registered firm, advance tax paid was in excess of the assessed tax. Question No. 2 in the present case was question No. 3 in the case of Jamunadas Mannalal v. CIT 1985 152 ITR 261, which is a Full Bench decision of this court. The Full Bench held that the penalty calculated on the basis of tax as on an unregistered firm could be levied in this case when no tax was payable by it as a registered firm. Question No. 3 was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, for the reasons discussed by the Full Bench of this court. 1, therefore, hold that on the facts of this case, penalty calculated on the basis of tax as on an unregistered firm could be levied in this case when no tax was payable by it as a registered firm. In view of my findings above, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (5) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... case under the Income-tax Act must apply to a case under the Wealth-tax Act as well. In that view of the matter, the return of wealth having been filed on July 24, 1968, the law applicable on that date was the law which was in force on that date. It may be stated that the law underwent a change from April 1, 1968. The law, therefore, which was in force on July 24, 1968, would govern the case. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was thus absolutely justified in the order that he had passed and the Tribunal erred in applying the law which existed prior to April 1, 1968. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the quantum of penalty imposable in this case was to be governed by the law which was in force on the first day of the assessment year 1967-68 and not by the amended law which came into force with effect from April 1, 1968. The reference is thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... assessment year were merely directory in character and the approval accorded by the Central Government in the present case subsequent to that date on the application filed by the assessee prior to that date was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statutory provision ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, although the approval of the Central Government for the agreement between the assessee-company and the foreign company was not accorded before the 1st day of October of the relevant assessment year ? These two questions are concluded by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee, CIT v. Birla Bros. P. Ltd. 1982 133 ITR 373. Following the said decision, we answer both the said questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree
-
1985 (5) TMI 1 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Licence Contract ... ... ... ... ..... whether there was a partnership between Shri W. L. Kohli and his son. This is question which can only be answered in relation to the facts of the case. There is a partnership deed and there is a gift to the son. The requirements of entering into a partnership are not very elaborate. There is no restriction on any one taking a partner. So, the only question that requires examination was whether there was no genuine partnership. This would depend on the facts. As the Tribunal has held that the original order accepting the genuineness of the partnership is not wrong, this seems to us to be a pure conclusion on facts, though arrived at by an extremely elaborate examination of the material. A question of fact does not become a question of law only because it is elaborately examined. We have, therefore, to hold that no question of law arises in the circumstances of the case and we reject this application and the connected applications but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
....
|