Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 281 to 300 of 312 Records

• 1998 (5) TMI 32
  
  Issues:
  - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income particulars.
  - Claim for deduction under section 80T based on judicial pronouncements.
  - Justification for penalty imposition based on bona fide belief and legal precedents.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income particulars, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80T based on a total long-term capital gain. However, the AO reduced the deduction, citing changes in the law. The penalty was imposed after the AO found the claim inaccurate, leading to the appeal challenging the penalty.
  
  2. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse for inaccurate income particulars. The assessee argued that the claim was made in good faith, relying on specific court judgments. The counsel highlighted that the assessee's belief was genuine, supported by legal precedents like Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT and others. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions.
  
  3. The Tribunal reviewed the case and noted that the assessee had transparently claimed the deduction under section 80T, based on judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee acted in good faith and did not conceal income particulars. Referring to legal precedents, including the case law of Cement Marketing Co. of India and CIT vs. Anand Water Meter Mfg. Co., the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 31
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for assessment year 1987-88.
  - Claim of deduction under section 54B and inaccurate computation of income.
  - Estimation of the value of land for tax purposes.
  - Grounds for initiating penalty proceedings.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), claimed a deduction under section 54B for a piece of land acquired by the Government of Gujarat. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, leading to penalty proceedings based on alleged incorrect computation of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the land's value estimation.
  
  2. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings citing three grounds: incorrect claim of deduction under section 54B, incorrect computation of income, and furnishing inaccurate particulars of the land's value estimation. The assessee contended that the claim was made under a bona fide belief, relying on a High Court decision. The Assessing Officer estimated the land's value at Rs. 15 per sq. yard, considering various valuation submissions by the assessee and comparable sale instances.
  
  3. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's valuation was upheld by the CIT(A) and Tribunal. The assessee's varying valuation submissions were considered, but no finding indicated inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal emphasized that a wrong claim or incorrect computation, without deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).
  
  4. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents emphasizing the need for deliberateness in non-compliance with legal requirements for penalty imposition. It highlighted that a bona fide belief in a claim's validity precludes penalty initiation. The Tribunal also addressed the CIT(A)'s rationale regarding the assessee's reliance on a High Court judgment, emphasizing that mistakes made by the assessee's representative, even if pointed out during assessment, do not warrant penalty imposition.
  
  5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, indicating that the circumstances did not warrant penalty imposition. It concluded that the representative's mistake, made with a bona fide belief, and the reliance on legal precedents supported the decision to overturn the penalty. The Tribunal highlighted that penal provisions should be invoked only in cases of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which were not evident in this case.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 30
  
  The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a petition challenging an order by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt. The Tribunal partially allowed the application stating that the deposit was not causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner's contention of having a strong prima facie case was not considered sufficient to exempt from the deposit. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was given time to comply with the Tribunal's order by 15th June 1998.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 29
  
  Issues:
  Classification of plastic storage tanks under Entry 145 or 217 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
  
  Analysis:
  The core issue in this tax revision case was whether plastic storage tanks should be classified under Entry 145 or Entry 217 of the First Schedule appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision-petitioner argued that plastic tanks, being articles of plastic, should fall under Entry 145, while the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that they should be classified under Entry 217 as plastic water tanks related to the water supply system.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal found that the plastic tanks sold were indeed plastic water tanks, which are articles made of plastic, thus indicating they should fall under Entry 145 which specifically refers to articles made of plastics. The Tribunal's reasoning that water tanks are related to the water supply system and therefore should be classified under Entry 217 was challenged.
  
  The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's reasoning in light of a Supreme Court decision regarding a similar issue with G.I. pipes. The Supreme Court had clarified that the words "water supply" in Entry 217 should be interpreted in conjunction with "sanitary fittings." It was determined that items related to water supply system do not automatically qualify as sanitary fittings unless they are specifically for use in lavatories, urinals, or bathrooms.
  
  Based on this interpretation, the High Court concluded that water storage tanks made of plastic, being articles of plastic, should fall under Entry 145 and not Entry 217. The reasoning that any item related to the water supply system would be considered sanitary fittings was deemed flawed. The inclusion of plastic pipes under Entry 145 further supported this conclusion, indicating that not all items related to the water supply system are classified as sanitary fittings under Entry 217.
  
  Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revisions, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's decision that water storage plastic tanks should be classified under Entry 217 of the First Schedule, affirming that they should be categorized under Entry 145 instead.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 28
  
  The Supreme Court granted special leave in appeals against the Karnataka High Court's order. The appellants challenged penalties imposed by the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal had granted waiver of pre-deposit of penalty subject to certain conditions. The appeals were dismissed for failure to deposit the required amounts. The Court directed specific amounts to be deposited by appellants by June 30, 1998, for their appeals to be allowed. Failure to deposit would result in dismissal of appeals.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 27
  
  Issues:
  1. Claim for refund of Excise Duty.
  2. Applicability of limitation period.
  3. Payment of duty under protest.
  4. Mistake of law in claiming refund.
  5. Legal position on refund claims based on another party's case.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Claim for refund of Excise Duty:
  The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of an amount collected as Excise Duty, along with the quashing of the Assistant Collector's order rejecting the refund claim. The petitioner's application for refund covered the period from October 1975 to June 1983. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing it as barred by time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
  
  2. Applicability of limitation period:
  Section 11B of the Act provides for a refund of excise duty with a fixed period of six months from the relevant date. The proviso to the section exempts the limitation of six months if the duty was paid under protest. The petitioner's application for refund did not mention payment under protest, leading to the rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector as time-barred.
  
  3. Payment of duty under protest:
  The petitioner later claimed in the Writ Application that the duty was paid under protest. However, the Assistant Collector rejected this claim due to the absence of such pleadings before the departmental authorities. The documents provided by the petitioner did not sufficiently support the claim of payment under protest, leading to the rejection of this argument.
  
  4. Mistake of law in claiming refund:
  The petitioner argued that the refund claim could be made within three years of discovering a mistake of law, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the claimant must fight their own battle and cannot base a refund claim on another party's case or decision.
  
  5. Legal position on refund claims based on another party's case:
  The judgment referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that a claim for refund cannot be made based on another party's case or court decision. The Court reiterated that all refund claims must adhere to Rule 11/Section 11B and cannot be initiated based on external legal rulings. The application was ultimately dismissed by the Court based on these principles.
  
  In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application for refund of Excise Duty, emphasizing that refund claims must be based on individual circumstances and cannot rely on external legal precedents or other party's cases.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 26
  

  Whether appellants should not have been asked to issue a detention certificate or to bear demurrage and container detention charges?

  Held that:- Looking to the totality of circumstances pertaining to the import of the consignments under the four Bills of Entry and the inordinate delay of about six years for their release, the High Court has passed the impugned orders directing the appellants to issue a detention certificate and bear the demurrage and container detention charges. They are obviously orders passed in the special circumstances of the present case, and particularly the conduct of the Customs authority in not releasing the goods even after the order of unconditional release dated 11-8-1995 passed by their own Chief Commissioner. The conduct of the Customs officers concerned is also under investigation. We do not think that this is a case were any intervention at our hands is required. The apprehension of the appellants that this will constitute a precedent is not justified because it is clearly an order which is meant to do justice to the respondent looking to the totality of circumstances and the conduct of the appellants. Obviously, for any delay on the part of the respondent in taking delivery of the goods after 5-4-1997, the respondent will have to bear the consequences. For the period prior to 5-4-1997, however, the order of the High Court does not require any intervention from us. The appellants shall file a progress report relating to the departmental inquiry by 30th November, 1998. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 25
  

  What is meant by revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due ? Does the word "due" refer merely to the liability to pay such taxes, etc., or does it refer to a liability which has crystallised into a legally ascertained sum immediately payable ?

  Do the taxes (in clause (a) of s. 11(2)) refer only to taxes relating to a specific period or to all taxes due from the notified person ?

  At what point of time should the taxes have become due ?

  Does the Special Court have any discretion relating to the extent of payments to be made under s. 11(2)(a) from out of the attached funds/property?

  Whether taxes include penalty or interest ?

  Whether the Special Court has the power to absolve a notified person from payment of penalty or interest for a period subsequent to the date of his notification under s. 3. In the alternative, is a notified person liable to payment of penalty or interest arising from his inability to pay taxes after his notification?

  Held that:- In the present case, the words "taxes due" occur in a section dealing with distribution of property. Taxes which are not legally assessed or assessments which have not become final and binding on the assessee, are not covered under s. 11(2)(a) because unless it is an ascertained and quantified liability, disbursement cannot be made. In the context of s. 11(2), therefore, "the taxes due" refer to "taxes as finally assessed".

  Every kind of tax liability of the notified person for any other period is not covered by s. 11(2)(a), although the liability may continue to be the liability of the notified person. Such tax liability may be discharged either under the directions of the Special Court, under s. 11(2)(c) or the taxing authority may recover the same from any subsequently acquired property of a notified person or in any other manner from the notified person in accordance with law. The priority, however, which is given under s. 11 (2)(a) to such tax liability only covers such liability for the period 1st April, 1991 to 6th June, 1992.

  Since we have held that tax liability under s. 11(2)(a) refers only to such liability for the period 1st April, 1991 to 6th June, 1992, it would not be correct to hold that the liabilities arising during this period should also be finally assessed before 6th June, 1992 (the date of the Act), or the date of the notification. It must refer to the date of distribution. The date of distribution arrives when the Special Court completes the examination of claims under s. 9A. If on that date, any tax liability for the statutory period is legally assessed, and the assessment is final and binding on the notified person, that liability will considered for payment under s. 11(2)(a), subject to what follows.

  Although the liability of the assessee for the balance tax would subsist, and the taxing authorities would be entitled to realise the remaining liability from the assessee, the same will not be paid in priority over the claims of everybody else under s. 11(2)(a). If the Special Court so decides, it may direct payment of the balance liability under s. 11(2)(c). Otherwise the taxing authorities may recover the same from any other subsequently acquired property of the assessee or in any other manner in accordance with law. The Special Court must have strong reasons for doing so. In fact, the IT authorities have also accepted that exorbitant tax demands can be ignored, applying the Wednesbury principle.

  Similarly, under s. 156, it is provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any of other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the AO shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand as prescribed. The provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from the provisions for imposition of tax. The learned Special Court judge, after examining various authorities in paras 51 to 70 of his judgment, has come to the conclusion that neither penalty nor interest can be considered as tax under s. 11(2)(a). We agree with the reasoning and conclusion drawn by the Special Court in this connection.

  The Special Court is required to consider this question only from the point of view of distributing any part of the surplus assets in the hands of the Custodian after the discharge of liabilities under ss. 11(2)(a) and 11(2) (b). The Special Court has full discretion under s. 11(2)(c) to decide whether such claim for penalty or interest should be paid out of any surplus funds in the hands of the Custodian.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 24
  

  Whether section 4 of Act 22 of 1950 as amended by Act 9 of 1974 is applicable for the assessment of the tax for the accounting year 1973-74 ?

  Whether since the object of the trust being propagation of Jain religion and the service of its followers, the trust is not entitled for the claim of exemption from tax under section 4 as it stands after the amendment of the Act by the Act 9 of 1974 ?

  Whether even the amount spent in this State in furtherance of the objects of the trust cannot be treated as allowable items of expense ?

  Whether is it justified in entering a finding that the object of the trust is only to spend money for the propagation of a particular type of religion and for the services of its followers ?

  Held that:- The authorities under the Act including the Appellate Tribunal minutely examined various terms of the trust deed and found that for all intents and purposes the object of the trust was to propagate a particular religion and to render service to the followers of that religion, particularly, with reference to the families who created the trust. The assessee, therefore, could not be considered for exemption, being a private trust, set up to promote a particular religion whose agricultural income does not enure for the benefit of general public. It was also found that most part of the agricultural income was spent for several purposes outside the State of Kerala. The exemption is allowed to the extent to which such agricultural income is applied to such purposes within the State of Kerala, if it is a public trust. The High Court decided the questions referred to it only in the abstract without considering as to how much agricultural income of the trust was spent in Kerala. We have also examined the trust deed which was produced at the time of arguments. The deed of trust and the rules run into more than thirty pages out of which six pages of the trust deed narrate the philosophy of the Jain dharma. The objects of the trust clearly show that the trust is meant for propagation of the Jain religion and rendering help to the followers of the Jain religion. Even the medical aid and similar facilities are to be rendered to persons devoted to the Jain religion and to non-Jains if suffering from ailments but the medical aid could be given to them only if any member of the families managing the trust, shows sympathy and is interested in their treatment. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in its conclusion that the dominant purpose of the trust in the present case was propagation of the Jain religion and to serve its followers and any part of agricultural income of the trust spent in the State of Kerala also could not be treated as an allowable item of expense.

  Set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and answer questions Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee-trust.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 23
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act regarding withdrawal of approval retrospectively.
  2. Validity of withdrawal of approval granted to a society for deduction under section 35CCA with retrospective effect.
  3. Applicability of the principle against retrospective operation of statutes in the context of withdrawal of approval.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act concerning the authority's power to rescind notifications or orders. The question raised was whether the Tribunal's observation on the absence of provisions for withdrawal of approval retrospectively was justified when Section 21 confers such power to the concerned authority. The court delved into the power to vary, amend, or rescind a notification and specifically examined if such withdrawal could have retrospective effect.
  
  2. The case involved the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 35CCA due to the withdrawal of approval granted to a society for donation purposes with retrospective effect. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim, citing the absence of provisions for retrospective withdrawal of approval in the Income-tax Act or related rules. The court analyzed the implications of retrospective withdrawal on the basic rules of construction and the conditions for deduction under section 35CCA.
  
  3. The judgment extensively discussed the principle against the retrospective operation of statutes, citing legal precedents such as Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India and Colonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd. v. Irving. The court emphasized that altering substantive rights through retrospective effect should not affect pending proceedings unless a clear intention for such operation is evident in the statute. Referring to Garikapati Veeraya v. Subbiah Choudhry, the court highlighted the golden rule of construction that statutes should not alter the law applicable to claims in litigation at the time of enactment. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that withdrawing approval with retrospective effect would be on a weaker legal footing due to the principle against retrospective application of statutes.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the intricate legal considerations surrounding the interpretation of statutory provisions, retrospective effect of administrative actions, and the overarching principle against retroactive application of laws in the context of tax deductions and approval withdrawals.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 22
  
  The High Court of Allahabad dismissed a writ petition by an informer seeking a final reward from the Income-tax Department for information provided during raids resulting in recoveries of Rs. 36 crores. The court stated that the reward is based on quality of information, risk incurred, and additional tax involved, as per the Search and Seizure Manual. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of a fundamental right to the occupation of an informer and ruled that such matters are governed by a confidential code of conduct with the department, not enforceable by the court. The writ petition was deemed misconceived and dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 21
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Existence of material for forming a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment.
  3. Allegation of roving and fishing enquiries by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The petitioner challenged the notice dated May 3, 1993, issued u/s 148 for the assessment year 1990-91, claiming it was without jurisdiction as the pre-conditions for exercising power did not exist. The respondents contended that there was sufficient material for the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief that the income had escaped assessment.
  
  2. Existence of material for forming a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment:
  The reasons for reopening the assessment included a letter dated February 17, 1993, from the ACIT, Investigation Circle 19(1), New Delhi, indicating that the petitioner was earning income in benami names and had received money totaling Rs. 15 crores through bank drafts from four Sikkim companies. The Assessing Officer had perused the appraisal report and relevant annexures before issuing the notice. The court found that the material, including the letter and appraisal report, constituted relevant material for forming the requisite belief.
  
  3. Allegation of roving and fishing enquiries by the Assessing Officer:
  The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer was making roving and fishing enquiries, which is not permissible. However, the court held that the material relied upon was not irrelevant or vague and had a rational connection for forming the opinion. The court referenced the Supreme Court decisions in ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur and ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd., which supported the view that the information from the letter and appraisal report could be relied upon for forming a reasonable belief.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no illegality in the issue of the impugned notice and that the material available was sufficient for forming a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 20
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A.
  2. Entitlement to Deduction u/s 80-I.
  3. Validity of Reopening Assessments u/s 147/148.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A:
  The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing photosensitive film, claimed investment allowance u/s 32A for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, citing that colour film rolls were included in the prohibited list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later observed that after the exclusion of "cinematographic films" from the Eleventh Schedule, there was no justification for including colour film rolls in the same list. However, the Commissioner held that the petitioner was not entitled to investment allowance for the current year but could claim it in the next assessment year.
  
  2. Entitlement to Deduction u/s 80-I:
  For the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, the petitioner initially did not claim any deduction u/s 80-I. After the Commissioner's order, the petitioner claimed deduction u/s 80-I, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer for all three years. The Assessing Officer noted that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of section 80-I and was entitled to the deduction, relying on the Commissioner's finding that colour roll film was not an item specified in the Eleventh Schedule.
  
  3. Validity of Reopening Assessments u/s 147/148:
  The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 147/148 to reopen the assessments for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, claiming that income had escaped assessment because the deduction u/s 80-I was wrongly allowed. The petitioner argued that all relevant facts were disclosed, and the reopening was merely a "change of opinion," which is not permissible. The court held that the Assessing Officer had no new material or information and merely re-evaluated the same facts, constituting a change of opinion. This does not provide jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 147. The court quashed the notices issued u/s 148 for all three assessment years, stating that the absence of new material meant the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessments.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the petitions, quashing the notices u/s 148 for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, due to the absence of new material and the reopening being based on a mere change of opinion. No order as to costs was made.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 19
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi for setting aside orders of income-tax authorities in Haryana.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner challenged three assessment orders and a rejection under section 154 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Gurgaon, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Haryana. The petitioner argued that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India as the cause of action partly arose within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the court examined the concept of cause of action and concluded that no cause of action had arisen within Delhi's jurisdiction concerning the impugned orders issued by authorities in Haryana.
  
  The petitioner relied on legal precedents like State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties and Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., but the court found that these cases did not support the petitioner's claim. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction for the publication of orders under section 126 of the Act by the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The court noted that such orders were already published in the Government Gazette and tax law journals, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, issued orders within their jurisdiction, which was beyond the territorial reach of the High Court of Delhi.
  
  Ultimately, the court held that the petition did not fall within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's attempt to stretch the facts or relief sought to bring the case under Delhi's jurisdiction was dismissed. Consequently, the petition was rejected due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's examination of the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction, the concept of cause of action, reliance on legal precedents, and the dismissal of the petition based on territorial jurisdiction.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 18
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Interpretation of tax laws regarding gifts received by various individuals from abroad.
  2. Assessment of genuineness of gifts and compliance with tax regulations.
  3. Judicial review of Tribunal's decisions on tax assessments.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of tax laws regarding gifts received by various individuals from abroad
  
  The case involved multiple petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking mandamus to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer questions of law to the High Court. The assessees, all belonging to the Suri group, received significant amounts from abroad, claimed as gifts. The Tribunal initially rejected applications under section 256(1), deeming the questions as factual rather than legal. The gifts were divided among different assessees, with the source being claimed as Shri Arjun C. Waney, a non-resident Indian. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about the genuineness of the gifts, leading to a detailed investigation into the transactions.
  
  Issue 2: Assessment of genuineness of gifts and compliance with tax regulations
  
  The Assessing Officer sought evidence regarding the source of gifts, donor's identity and capacity, bank account details, documents exchanged, and previous gift history. The assessees attempted to establish a familial relationship with Shri Arjun C. Waney to justify the gifts as acts of love and affection. However, the Assessing Officer was unconvinced and treated the gifts as income from undisclosed sources under section 69A of the Act. Subsequent appeals reversed the Assessing Officer's decision, with the Tribunal accepting the gifts as genuine and deleting the additions made.
  
  Issue 3: Judicial review of Tribunal's decisions on tax assessments
  
  During the hearing, arguments were presented by the Revenue and the assessees' counsel regarding the legal nature of the questions raised. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decisions were erroneous and unsustainable due to various reasons, including insufficient consideration of facts, lack of specificity in donor details, and discrepancies in the evidence provided. Ultimately, the High Court found that the questions raised by the Revenue did constitute questions of law arising from the Tribunal's orders. Consequently, all applications were allowed, directing the Tribunal to formulate statements of cases and refer the questions to the High Court for opinion.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment addressed complex issues related to tax assessments, the authenticity of gifts received, and the interpretation of legal provisions governing such transactions. The High Court's decision emphasized the importance of proper documentation, clarity in evidence, and adherence to tax regulations in determining the tax implications of gifts received from abroad.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 17
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of rejection of the assessee's offer under the amnesty scheme.
  2. Determination of the assessee's income, including the addition of "on money."
  3. Disallowance of commission payments to various parties.
  4. Deduction of freight and demurrage expenses.
  5. Levy of interest under sections 215 and 216.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Rejection of the Assessee's Offer under the Amnesty Scheme:
  The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the rejection of the assessee's amnesty offer was valid. The assessee had filed a revised return under the amnesty scheme, declaring an additional income of Rs. 30 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to earning this additional income and did not retract this admission. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the income could not be assessed lower than what was declared in the revised return. The Tribunal found the Revenue's plea untenable as the additional income represented the assessee's business income, not from a different source.
  
  2. Determination of the Assessee's Income, Including the Addition of "On Money":
  The Assessing Officer (AO) had made several additions to the assessee's income, including Rs. 19,79,240 and Rs. 21,88,320, based on the alleged charging of "on money" on cement sales. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted these additions, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the evidence on record established that the assessee was receiving "on money" over and above the accounted price. The Tribunal found the kacha cash day book to be a fabricated document and upheld the AO's findings of unaccounted cash receipts.
  
  3. Disallowance of Commission Payments to Various Parties:
  The Tribunal reviewed the disallowance of commission payments to several parties:
  - Fort William Co. Ltd. (FWCL): The Tribunal found that FWCL did not play an active role in the cement transactions and reversed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 16,52,629 and Rs. 47,20,000.
  - Ashirwad: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 2,20,000, finding the payments genuine for services rendered.
  - Moradabad Syntex Ltd. (MSL): The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 6,84,000, stating that mere production of documents was insufficient proof of services rendered.
  - Various Other Parties: The Tribunal allowed deductions for some commission payments but disallowed others, based on the lack of evidence for services rendered.
  
  4. Deduction of Freight and Demurrage Expenses:
  The assessee claimed deductions for freight (Rs. 19,28,327) and demurrage (Rs. 40,83,445). The Tribunal allowed the freight deduction, directing the AO to verify if it had been allowed in subsequent years. For demurrage, the Tribunal found that the liability was not contingent and directed the AO to allow the deduction based on arbitration awards and agreements. The Tribunal restored the matter of demurrage for "Wanda" and "Kherea" to the AO for determination based on shipping documents and arbitration proceedings.
  
  5. Levy of Interest under Sections 215 and 216:
  The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under sections 215 and 216, finding it correctly invoked in the fresh assessment.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions of law to the High Court for its opinion, while declining to refer a factual question. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 16
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding the application of rule 1BB by the Wealth-tax Officer.
  2. Validity of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax's direction to reframe assessment and application of rule 1BB for property valuation.
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding the application of rule 1BB by the Wealth-tax Officer:
  The case involved a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, regarding the application of rule 1BB by the Wealth-tax Officer for property valuation. The Tribunal directed the Wealth-tax Officer to apply rule 1BB for valuing a property owned by the assessee, which was self-occupied. The Tribunal held that rule 1BB, being procedural and mandatory, should be applied to all pending proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was based on the argument that the property being self-occupied, valuation should be made in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. The Tribunal further directed the Wealth-tax Officer to apply rule 1BB and decide on the need for a reference to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents and the Supreme Court's interpretation of rule 1BB as a rule of evidence applicable to all pending proceedings.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax's direction to reframe assessment and application of rule 1BB for property valuation:
  The Commissioner of Wealth-tax found errors in the original assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 regarding the valuation of a property owned by the assessee. The Commissioner set aside the original assessment orders and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to refer the case to the valuation cell and reframe the assessment based on the valuation cell's report. In an appeal, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the assessment and accepted the assessee's argument that rule 1BB should be applied for property valuation. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by legal precedents and the Supreme Court's interpretation of rule 1BB as procedural and applicable to all pending proceedings. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Wealth-tax Officer should reframe the assessment based on rule 1BB for the relevant assessment years.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the application of rule 1BB by the Wealth-tax Officer for property valuation and dismissing the Revenue's contention against the invocation of rule 1BB. The judgment emphasized the procedural nature of rule 1BB and its applicability to all pending proceedings, as established by legal precedents and the Supreme Court's interpretation.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 15
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of tax law regarding protective assessment on an assessee-trust.
  2. Determination of income attribution from a partnership firm to an assessee.
  3. Validity of protective assessment made by the Income-tax Officer.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The first issue pertains to the interpretation of tax law regarding protective assessment on an assessee-trust. The Tribunal referred a question to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, questioning the correctness of the protective assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee-trust. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer's decision was contrary to the settled legal position that a trustee can join a partnership firm in a representative capacity. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the trust deed authorized the trustees to engage in business activities as partners, and the partnership deed clearly indicated that the partners had joined the firm in a representative capacity for the trusts. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the protective assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was unwarranted, ruling in favor of the assessee-trust.
  
  2. The second issue involves the determination of income attribution from a partnership firm to an assessee. The Tribunal considered whether the income from the partnership firm, Jayshankar B. Upadhyay, should be assessed as the income of the assessee-trust. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had previously held that the share of income from the firm was assessable in the hands of the assessee-trust for the relevant assessment years. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, noting that the partnership deed explicitly stated that the partners had joined the firm as trustees of the assessee-trust, representing the trust. Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the income from the partnership firm belonged to the assessee-trust and not to the individual partners, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
  
  3. The final issue concerns the validity of the protective assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer's decision to assess the income on a protective basis against the individual partners was incorrect, given that they had joined the partnership firm in a representative capacity for the trusts. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the trustees were authorized to conduct business activities as partners, and the partnership deed clearly reflected their representative capacity for the trusts. Consequently, the High Court ruled against the Revenue, holding that there was no justification for a protective assessment against the individual partners and disposed of both references in favor of the assessees.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the legal principles governing the assessment of income from a partnership firm in the context of a trust, affirming that trustees can join partnerships in a representative capacity, and income attribution should align with the terms of the trust and partnership deeds.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 14
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 43A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding development rebate entitlement due to realignment of currency.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a question referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the entitlement of the assessee to development rebate in relation to the increase in the cost of assets due to realignment of currency. The assessee had paid additional amounts to a foreign company on account of fluctuation in the exchange rate. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for treating this amount as revenue expenditure, while the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed it as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the alternative contention of the assessee, stating that the assessee was entitled to development rebate treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure, relying on a previous decision of the court.
  
  In the case of Arvind Mills Ltd., the court had held that additional liability incurred as an integral part of the original transaction could be taken into account to enhance the cost of machinery purchased, for the purpose of allowing development rebate under section 33. However, this decision was challenged before the Supreme Court and reversed. The Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd., clarified that once section 43A(1) is attracted, its application regarding development rebate is excluded by virtue of section 43A(2). The Supreme Court emphasized that any increase or decrease in the actual cost due to fluctuation in exchange rate should not be considered for development rebate.
  
  Applying the Supreme Court's decision to the present case, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate despite the provisions of section 43A(2). The court answered the referred question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, thereby denying the development rebate claim based on the increased cost of assets due to realignment of currency. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (5) TMI 13
  
  Issues:
  1. Taxability of refund of electricity charges in a subsequent year under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Impact of a Supreme Court decision on the right to claim refund and its taxability.
  3. Interpretation of the word 'obtained' in section 41(1) and reliance on judicial precedents.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Taxability of Refund of Electricity Charges
  The case involved a dispute over the taxability of a refund of electricity charges received by the assessee in a subsequent year. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the refund is taxable for the relevant assessment year under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the judgment of the Supreme Court establishing the rate of duty created a vested right for the assessee, making the amount taxable in the year under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the accrual of income was not dependent on the actual receipt of the refund in the same year.
  
  Issue 2: Impact of Supreme Court Decision
  The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the Supreme Court's judgment granting the right to claim refund affected the taxability of the amount. The assessee contended that only the quantified amount should be assessed, citing judicial interpretations emphasizing the actual receipt of cash or income as crucial for tax liability under section 41(1). The Tribunal's view was that the mercantile system of accounting required the refund to be fixed on an accrual basis, irrespective of the year of receipt.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Obtained' in Section 41(1)
  The interpretation of the term 'obtained' in section 41(1) was a key point of contention. The assessee argued that the word 'obtain' implied physical possession, necessitating actual receipt of the refunded amount. Judicial precedents were cited to support the position that the term 'obtained' should be construed in a literal sense, requiring tangible possession. The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court's ruling in CIT v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries Ltd. was pivotal in determining that the term 'obtained' could not be equated with 'capable of being obtained,' irrespective of the accounting system followed by the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the Revenue, holding that the refund of electricity charges was not taxable for the assessment year 1977-78. The judgment emphasized the importance of actual receipt of income for tax liability under section 41(1) and rejected the notion of 'capable of being obtained' as a basis for taxation. The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of key legal terms and highlighted the significance of judicial precedents in resolving tax disputes.

  ---

1 ....111213141516