|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 50 Records
-
1974 (6) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Valuation - Wholesale cash price - Determination of - Constitution - Articles 226 and 227 - Applicability to Central Excise - Percentage of sale at factory gate
-
1974 (6) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Article 14 Of The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... d under section 11A(1), Hence, it must be held that the present case falls within the rule laid down by this court in Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. Visvanatha Sastri. On the facts found it follows that section 11(4)(a) has become a discriminatory provision in view of section 11A(3). Hence, the same is liable to be struck down under article 14. But for the inclusion of sub-section (3) in section 11A, there would have been no discrimination between those dealt with under section 11(4)(a) and those under section 11A(1). The period of limitation prescribed in section 11A(1) would have attracted itself to proceedings under section 11(4)(a) as held by this court in Ghanshyamdas s case. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above, it has to be held in this case that action taken against the petitioner under section 35 of the 1922 Act is discriminatory. The impugned order, is, therefore, set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1974 (6) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity Fund, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... e Bombay Hospital had undertaken to reserve and provide a number of beds for the purpose in other words, as and when any member of the clerical staff of the assessee-company would be required to remain an indoor-patient in the hospital, the hospital authorities would make sufficient number of beds available for such members. Looking to the years in which this arrangement was made, viz., 1951, 1952 and 1953, it cannot be said that any particular reservation of number of beds was required to be made. Having regard to this material on record, it is not possible for us to accept the finding of the Tribunal and we are clearly of the view that the assessee-company would be entitled to claim deduction in respect of such payment made to the Bombay Hospital Trust as expenditure which had been wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of its business. We, therefore, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Revenue to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (6) TMI 27 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Fair Market Value, Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... r cent. of the value declared, so as to attract the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 52. Dealing with the contention of the assessee that the fair market value was not Rs. 16.90 per share as asserted by the Commissioner in his show-cause notice, this is what the Commissioner has stated in his order If the shares are not quoted in the market (which statement remains to be checked by the Income-tax Officer), it is open to the Income-tax Officer to value the shares at their fair price. The Commissioner has left open the question as to the fair market value of the shares to be decided by the Income-tax Officer without coming to the conclusion that the value declared was less than the fair market value. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (6) TMI 26 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... question is not of onus but a question of interpreting the relevant provisions of the section to see whether the interpretation can be such that it will deprive the assessee of the exemption enlarged and liberalized by section 11(2) of the Act. Mr. Bhan has also relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court first, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. R. Venkataswami Naidu and the second in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramakrishna Deo, but the facts of those cases and the circumstances there are quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case and the points which arise there were completely of a different nature. On a consideration of all these facts and circumstances, I am of opinion that the assessee was entitled to the exemption which was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the question which has been referred to this court is answered in the affirmative accordingly. S.M. F, ALI C.J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (6) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether Allowable Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... referred to us also includes a consideration of the question whether there was an accrued liability to the extent of the amounts provided for the assessment years, 1962-63 and 1963-64.For the foregoing reasons, we answer the reference holding that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the amounts in question represented liability of the assessee and, therefore, are an allowable deduction. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that if the amounts were not an admissible deduction in the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, it should be permitted to be deducted in the subsequent assessment years at least. Certainly, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of this amount in the subsequent years in which the liability has accrued or the year in which the amount is actually paid. But this is a matter to be taken into account by the assessing authorities in the appropriate assessment proceeding.
-
1974 (6) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemption Of Residential House ... ... ... ... ..... fe-interest in the house. That certainly is an interest within the meaning of the word property as contained in section 2(15) and adopted in the Act. Thus, when section 33(1) is read in the light of the definition contained in section 2(15), the question referred for our answer becomes easy and in fact poses no difficulty. No duty would be payable at all in respect of any interest in the property which belonged to the deceased and which passed on his death if it comes within the scope of any of the clauses in section 33(1). Accordingly, we answer the reference by saying that, in the circumstances of the case, the house property in which the deceased was residing at the time of his death and of which he was only a life-tenant is entitled for exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The answer is thus in favour of the accountable person and against the revenue. The accountable person will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (6) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the words received by it by the Finance Act, 1968, with retrospective effect. While deleting the provisions of section 99, Finance Act, 1968, by section 31(3) omitted the words received by it with effect from 1st April, 1962. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to rebate under section 99(1)(iv) as amended by the Finance Act, 1964, on the entire gross amount of Rs. 4,91,470. The assessee is also not liable for surtax on this dividend income under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. This rule has employed a similar language as contained in section 99(1)(iv) as amended by the Finance Act and for the reasons stated above the dividend income is also exempt from surtax. Accordingly, in respect of the assessment year 1964-65, we answer both the questions relating to super-tax and surtax in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs in both these tax cases. Counsel s fee is Rs. 250 in each case.
-
1974 (6) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... being claimed because this amount was a loss in the business in the relevant year. The loss is stated to have arisen as a result of the death of Shri Doshi because of the death of Shri Doshi this amount became irrecoverable and was a loss to the assessee. There is, however, no definite finding that Doshi died in the relevant year but no oblique motive is being suggested to the assessee. It has not been suggested by the revenue and there is no finding relied on by the revenue that Shri Doshi had died long prior thereto. The fact that there was no improper motive in treating this as being lost to the business in the year in question has not been challenged and disputed. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion and the question referred must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to the costs of the reference. JANAH J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (6) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... mstances in the instant case. In the circumstances, we hold that the present case so far as it relates to the sum of Rs. 25,000 clearly comes within the scope of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act and the penalty proceedings were validly initiated regarding this income of Rs. 25,000. But, since the appellate authority has found that the source of income of Rs. 11,700 has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee, the final order in levying the penalty of Rs. 8,500 which was made in consideration of the two items of income as from undisclosed sources has to be revised. In the result the impugned order of penalty of Rs. 8,500 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong Range, Shillong, for disposal of the penalty proceedings iln the light of the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. D. PATHAK J.--I agree. D. M. SEN J.--I agree.
-
1974 (6) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Change In Constitution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... arily follows that there should be only one assessment and not two separate assessments for the different periods of the previous year. The form in which the question has been framed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the reference is not happy. We reframe the question thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a single assessment has to be made as contemplated under section 187(1) or two separate assessments under section 170 of the Income-tax Act ? We answer the reframed question in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the department. That is to say, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a single assessment has to be made under section 187(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the firm as constituted at the time of making the assessment and not two assessments under section 188 and section 170 of the Act. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (6) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... ell founded in his contention that by the mere power taken under other objects to carry on business will not be sufficient to say that the company was carrying on business. But it is admitted that the company was carrying on kuries and it is not contended that conducting kuries is not business. The decision in Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax can, therefore, have no application. It is the principle of that decision that is laid down in Wilson Box (Foreign Rights) Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Brice (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) , another case relied on by counsel for the assessee, and that decision too is not helpful. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1974 (6) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... as not in a position to explain the source for the monies deposited in his name in the assessee s account. From that fact alone the conclusion cannot be arrived at that the money belonged to the assessee. In this view we have to uphold the view of the Tribunal in this regard. The question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee. Now that we have held that the sum of Rs. 1,15,000 as well as Rs. 6,633 is not assessable as the assessee s income, the question whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to direct the assessment of these two sums only as income from other sources cannot arise, and we, therefore, consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on this question. We, therefore, refrain from answering the second question in T. C. No. 294 of 1970. The revenue will have its costs from the assessee in T. C. No. 125 of 1968 and the assessee will get its costs from the revenue in T. C. No. 294 of 1970. Counsel s fee is Rs. 250 in each case.
-
1974 (6) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Activity For Profit, Charitable Purpose, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... isions in Mohammad Ibrahim Riza Malak v. Commissioner of Income-tax and in East India Industries (Madras) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax must apply. In view of the statutory provision it was not suggested before us that business is not property and cannot be held under trust not was it suggested by counsel for the assessee that what is carried on in the form of chit funds or by lending money is not business. In the light of the above, we have to answer the questions referred to us for the first four years in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee and the question referred to us for the subsequent years 1966-67 to 1968-69 also in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We do so. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1974 (6) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Business Expenditure, Gratuity Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... n Income-tax Act, 1922. In the instant case we find that in the beginning of the accounting year there was a reserve to an extent of Rs. 6,876. From the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account produced before us it appears that no provision was made during the year towards this reserve. Though payment was made towards charity to an extent of Rs. 7,405 as per the profit and loss account only a sum of Rs. 7,050 was claimed for deduction under section 88. Out of this Rs. 7,050, Rs. 6,876 had come from the reserve. The balance of Rs. 174 alone could have come from the income derived during the year. Therefore, the assessee would be entitled to rebate in respect of only this sum of Rs. 174 and not to the entire sum of Rs. 7,050. We, accordingly, answer the second question to the effect that the assessee is entitled to a relief under section 88 only to the extent of Rs. 174 and not to the extent of Rs. 7,050. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee is Rs. 250.
-
1974 (6) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Companies Profits Surtax, Management Expenses, Question Of Law, Reserve For Bad Debt, Super Profits Tax
-
1974 (6) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ingly taxed the value of the reasonable gifts. We are unable to agree with this contention. The gifts effected by the father should be considered as a whole. Whether the gifts so made by the father were reasonable or not has to be considered with reference to the properties that have been gifted under the concerned instruments and the total assets. The gifts made by such instruments cannot be split up and new gifts created by the Tribunal or the assessing authorities to consider them for taxability. We, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal in its order. In view of the answer that we have given to the above question, the second part of the question whether there was any value to such gifts does not arise. We, accordingly, answer the first part of the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner of Gift-tax. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the reference to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Financial Year, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court has taken the view that it is now well-settled that the only possible way in which income from an undisclosed source can be assessed or reassessed is to make the assessment on the basis that the previous year for such an income would be the ordinary financial year. The ratio of this case is directly applicable and the accounting year in view of the declaration made will be April 1, 1945, to March 31, 1946, and such income from undisclosed sources can only be assessed for the assessment year 1946-47. That being the position it is patent that there is no evidence or material on record to show that this income from undisclosed sources was assessable for the assessment year 1947-48. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the negative. In view of answer to question No. 1, questions Nos. 2 and 3 do not survive. As the question on behalf of the assessee was raised for the first time before us justice of the case requires that each party will bear its own costs.
-
1974 (6) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Hundi Loans, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Writ Petition
-
1974 (6) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, On The Occasion Of Marriage ... ... ... ... ..... on the occasion of the marriage of such a relative. The absence of the word such before the word relative makes absolutely no difference in so far as the meaning of the clause is concerned. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that the first part of clause (vii) to any relative dependent upon him for support and maintenance is distinct and separate part from the other part on the occasion of the marriage of the relative . The clause is not susceptible of such an interpretation. It is not a case where any importance can be given to punctuation in the interpretation of clause (vii). When there is no ambiguity in the language, the comma used has no particular significance. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in laying stress upon the use of the comma at the end of the first part of the clause. We therefore, answer the reference in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
|
