|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 202 Records
-
1994 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... is based on facts. Hence the present application. Mr. Rajendra, learned counsel for the Revenue, has contended before us that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that (1) a balance of Rs. 1,76,853 remained due from the assessee to Chandran, (2) in the suit the assessee has not denied its liability to pay commission under the agreement to Chandran and (3) the liability has otherwise not been disputed by the assessee, are incorrect and, therefore, the proposed question, being a mixed question of fact and law, a reference should be called for. We do not agree. Having failed to raise a specific question about the aforesaid findings of fact in its application under section 256(1) of the Act, the Revenue is not entitled now to urge before us that the said findings are vitiated for any reason. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal declining reference to this court. As noted above, there is no merit in the application Dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, High Court, Power To Recall Order, Reference Application, Writ Petition
-
1994 (5) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court, Search And Seizure, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... seeks leave to file reply to the C. M. in the court. The same be taken on record. From the above order, it is clear that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had to complete the enquiry by July 11, 1991. Instead, the enquiry got prolonged till the middle of December, 1992. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not even seek extension of time to complete the enquiry. In the circumstances, I am constrained to hold that there has been an unexplained and unreasonable delay in concluding the enquiry by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The need to expeditiously conclude the enquiry after an order of restraint under section 132, is implicit in the very provision, to dilute its harsh implications. I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to their costs, though otherwise, the writ petition has become infructuous. Consequently, I dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. However, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 shall pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,500 as costs. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (5) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Transfer Of Property
-
1994 (5) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... to the facts of this case. The assessee in that case relinquished her right to acquire certain right shares in a company of which she was a shareholder, and made a capital gain of Rs. 45,262.50 in the process. She sought deduction from this amount, of the capital loss suffered by her by the diminution in value of her shares by reason of the enlarged shareholding consequent on the new issue. This was accepted and the capital loss was directed to be deducted from the capital gains. As I stated earlier, this decision holds no analogy for the case on hand. I, therefore, hold in concurrence with Ambat Echukutty Menon s case 1978 111 ITR 880 (Ker), that the amount spent for discharge of the mortgage is not liable to be deducted in the computation of the capital gains under section 48. For the above reasons, the Commissioner of Income-tax was right in passing the order, exhibit P-6. The writ petitions are bereft of any merit. They are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... ayable towards duty, the question of paying interest under section 70 during the period of operation of the Appellate Controller s order does not arise, as there was no further amount payable as per the order, exhibit P-1. The assessee paid the small further amount due as soon as it was demanded after the Appellate Controller s order. I am, therefore, of the view that no interest could run during the period the order of the Appellate Controller was in force. The demand for interest made on the petitioner by the revised order, exhibit P-3, requires modification to this limited extent. The original petition is, therefore, allowed in part. I direct the first respondent to modify the order, exhibit P-3, in so far as it claims interest from the petitioner, by deleting that part of the interest which relates to the period when the Appellate Controller s order was in force, upto September 29, 1989, and confining it only to the rest of the period. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Writ Petition
-
1994 (5) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Foreign Company, Income Tax, Such Employee, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... the conditions of the licence issued thereunder. The above being the position in law, what do we get out of the Tribunal? It is that the Tribunal while looking into the agreement and more particularly its clause 29 had come to the conclusion that all tax liabilities with regard to the salaries of the expatriate employees were of the Indian Railways and that for that purpose it is the Indian Railways which is to be taken to be the employer and that for all purposes it is the Indian Railways which is responsible for payment of the income-tax due. There is no need to be reminded again that the finding has attained finality. Under the circumstances, is not the very bedrock of the prosecution knocked out? In any case, under the circumstances, would it not be, to borrow the expression from Ramesh Kumar s case 1985 Crl. LJ 681 (Delhi), utterly unjust and unfair to prosecute the petitioner? I think it would be. And, this being my view, I allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
-
1994 (5) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. Sub-section (6) states that where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. In other words, after the rectification order is issued, it is necessary to issue such further order of demand. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The rectification order dated November 12, 1992, showing Rs. 11,83,631 as due towards interest under section 220(2) is hereby set aside. It is, however, open to the respondents to demand interest from the petitioner under section 220(2) in case of non-payment of the fresh amounts (a) and (b) referred to therein, i.e., Rs. 56,41,956 and Rs. 56,30,724, respectively.
-
1994 (5) TMI 13 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Being Heard, Delay In Filing Return, Failure To File Return, Levy Of Penalty, Public Interest, Public Policy, Reasonable Cause, Wealth Tax Penalty
-
1994 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... poration to Messrs. Eljay Consultants Inc., in the London bank ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that while acting under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not right in holding that due enquiry had not been made by the Assessing Officer in the share application money/deposit allegedly received from Messrs. Eljay Consultants Inc. ? 5. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the contracts dated August 30, 1984, and November 5, 1984, read with various letters were clear and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in holding that enquiry on the point of accrual of interest on the amounts deposited in the specified account of London Bank should have been made by the Assessing officer ? We would accordingly direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions for the opinion of this court. The Revenue will be entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (5) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Act, Movable Property, Proposed Transfer
-
1994 (5) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, High Court, Income Tax Act, Supplementary Statement ... ... ... ... ..... urselves to the consideration of the abovementioned question, which has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. Having reached this conclusion, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai s case 1985 156 ITR 509, wherein the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kartikey V. Sarabhai 1981 131 ITR 42, relied upon by the Tribunal has been partly reversed, the answer to the reframed question has to be that the Tribunal was right in holding that the handing over of the capital asset to the firm by the assessee did amount to transfer but no capital gains chargeable to tax accrued to the assessee. The reference is accordingly answered. Before parting we may also note that under identical circumstances, a similar view has been expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of another partner of the same firm, since reported as Ved Parkash Aggarwal v. CIT 1989 179 ITR 378. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, High Court, Income Tax Act, Prima Facie Case, Wealth Tax Act, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax
-
1994 (5) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... iew, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the show-cause notice issued in the present case is a mere empty formality observed by the appropriate authority and the statement made in the show-cause notice is absolutely vague which does not give any opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves and to point out to the authority that the apparent consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell was the market value of the property, requires to be accepted. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, annexure A , passed by the appropriate authority on February 24, 1994, is quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified that it would be open to the appropriate authority to issue a fresh notice and initiate proceedings under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act and to finalise the proceedings and to pass an appropriate order within three months from today, i.e., on or before August 5, 1994. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Valid Notice, Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... to serve on any person a notice requiring him to furnish a return of his net wealth on the valuation date in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth the necessary particulars. By annexure A notice, the Assessing Officer required the petitioner to submit a return. The petitioner takes the stand that he does not have taxable net wealth for the assessment year 1993-94 and, therefore, he has not submitted the return. Whether he has taxable net wealth or not is a matter for decision by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner has been assessed for 1991-92. His assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 is pending. There can be no prejudice caused to him by filing a return. If he thinks that the value of his net wealth is below the exemption limit, he may indicate so in his return so that the Assessing Officer may examine the same. Annexure A notice is not illegal or beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (5) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Depreciation, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... dation, including any accommodation in the nature of a guest house. Additional depreciation will also not be admissible in respect of any machinery or plant the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as deduction, whether by way of depreciation or otherwise, in any one previous year. All these provisions make it clear that the additional depreciation was allowable only for one year. The allowance could be made in respect of any new machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1980, but before April 1, 1985. Therefore, having regard to the purpose of the statute and also the clear wording of section 32(1)(iia), the additional depreciation allowance is to be calculated on the basis of what is admissible normally under section 32(1)(ii) and not what is actually allowed in a special case over a span of eighteen months. Both the questions, therefore, are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. C. AGRAWAL C. J. -- I agree.
-
1994 (5) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Set Off, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... he Income-tax Act, 1961, for its new container unit at Mathura without setting off past losses of the said unit ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be determined considering the working of the new unit only without reference to the profits of other units not eligible for deduction under this section ? The assessee is a resident Indian company and the assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1985. In view of the judgment and the order passed today by this court in Income-tax Reference No. 53 of 1993 (CIT v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 215 ITR 249) both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. K. C. AGARWAL C. J. - I agree.
-
1994 (5) TMI 4 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... he surrounding circumstances, considerations of the nature of business, its exigency and other related facts while exercising his discretion held that there cannot be an exhaustive list of such circumstances falling within the purview of clause (j) of rule 6DD which can be uniformly applied. Lastly, attention was invited to Circular No. 220 dated May 31, 1977, issued by the Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Of course, this circular is binding on the authorities as it provided a, guideline, and paragraph 4 thereof enumerated the circumstances in which the conditions laid down in rule 6DD(j) would be applicable. The crucial question is whether the very record and findings in the instant case in all these circumstances are spelt out, the Income-tax Officer as well as the Tribunal negate the contention advanced by the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, the question as referred, is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against, the assessee.
-
1994 (5) TMI 3 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... l not be fair and reasonable inasmuch as the assessment made for the period in question had already been set aside by the learned Central Income-tax Tribunal and, consequently, the recovery becomes bad for the said period. At the same time assessments are for different periods. Further, since the recovery has been held to be bad, it appears to allow this money to be held by the Department will not be in the best interest of justice. In the result, in the light of the facts and circumstances that I have narrated above on the basis of record and submissions made on behalf of the parties, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,41,142.85 (rupees eight lakhs forty-one thousand one hundred forty-two and paise eighty-five) only with interest at the rate of ten per cent. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
....
|
