Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 50 of 50 Records
-
1974 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... n the Government in consequence from the date of the publication of the notification, should be required to be included in the composition application. The answer should be clearly in the affirmative, because the proviso to section 10 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act is so clear. It says that no person, who held or holds land during any part of a financial year in excess of the exempted extent, shall be entitled to the exemption under that sub-section, even though the extent of the land held by him during the rest of that financial year may not be in excess of the exempted extent. This proviso was introduced by section 11(1) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, and is a complete answer to the objection raised by the assessee, that because the notification was in the middle of the financial year, the excess land was not required to be included in such composition application. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.
-
1974 (6) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Gift Tax, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... roperty more than six years before his death. So no estate duty can be levied thereon. In the result, the view of the Tribunal is affirmed in respect of the ten acres of land which is the subject-matter of the sale deed in favour of Seetharamamma dated September 11, 1954, and reversed in respect of the six acres of land agreed to be given to D. S. Reddy and his wife as per the terms of the settlement deed in their favour dated December 25, 1962, The question referred to us is answered accordingly. We may also take notice of the question of the value of the lands. The Tribunal did not go into this question as it was not inclined to treat this land as part of Krishna Reddy s property, While the accountable person contended that the value was only Rs. 3,000 per acre, the first two authorities assessed it at Rs. 5,000 per acre. The question of value should go back to the Tribunal and shall be decided by it. In the cicrumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1974 (6) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Dues, Provision For Payment ... ... ... ... ..... ase of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Singh Rampuria . We cannot go to the validity of the facts but it is not a question in the instant case whether the facts are correct or not but the question is whether, on the facts, the inferences drawn by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal were correct from the commercial and reasonable point of view on the basis of the principles indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Having considered this aspect from this point of view, we are of the opinion that in this context it could not be said that the larger dividend should have been declared and not having done so the directors of the company acted unreasonably. In the aforesaid view of the matter question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 is in the negative and also in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Limitation For Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings, Quantification Of Amount Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to us that it cannot be said that in this case no sum was payable. It is not possible to accept this position for two reasons. Firstly, under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, whenever a sum is reduced in an appeal by the order of the appellate authority provision is made that the sum which is payable would be the reduced amount. Therefore, it cannot be said that no sum was payable. Secondly in any event, in the facts of this case, this question has become academic because after the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the entire proceedings had been reopened and the old assessment order and the consequential reduction of the amount directed to be paid in that order have all gone and the sum that is payable now is the amount that is determined under the new reassessment proceeding. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not think that this decision to which our attention was drawn by the counsel for the assessee in any way affects the position. JANAH J.-I agree.
-
1974 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Of Income, House Property, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... t thinks fit . There is nothing in the Income tax Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of questions raised before the departmental authorities. All questions whether of law or of fact which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid view of the matter we hold that the Tribunal was competent to deal with the point and was justified in upholding the assessment under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Accordingly, we answer question No. (iv) in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, our answers to the four questions are as follows Question No. (i) Yes. (part not answered by the Supreme Court) Question No. (ii) Yes but only the half share of the income from house property should be included in the income of the Hindu undivided family. Question No. (iii) Yes. Question No. (iv) Yes. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. A. N. SEN J.-I agree.
-
1974 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Sales Tax, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... these could not form part of trading receipts. In view, however, of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 87 ITR 542 (SC) and in view of the manner in which sales tax was received by the assessee, we must hold that these amounts formed part of trading receipts of the assessee. However, the assessee was entitled to deduction inasmuch as the liability had arisen for payment of these sales tax for the relevant years, for the sum of Rs. 59,330 and Rs. 20,060, even though these amounts had not been paid to the sales tax authorities. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the answer to question No. 1 would be in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and we answer the first question by saying that these two sums are part of the trading receipts and we answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (6) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
As already stated, the partnership deed is clear and unequivocal, and according to the partnership deed, Shanthi Nainar has been admitted as a partner only in his individual capacity. The partnership deed dated May 30, 1958, has not been modified and the relationship between the two partners referred to, therein continued to be the same. Whatever be the relationship between Shanthi Nainar and his three sons is per the deed of partial partition or as per the partnership deed dated May 2, 1960, Shanthi Nainar's relationship with his partner under the partnership deed dated May 30, 1958, has not undergone any change. In our view, the renewal of registration in this case should be granted.
-
1974 (6) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee advanced money to finance picture production - A part of the amount due was remitted in consideration of lease rights for exploitation of future pictures - whether the remitted amount can be treated as bad debts - " Whether assessee is not entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in the computation of its business income under section 36(1)(vii) or section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 ? "
-
1974 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee which is a public limited company claimed deduction of the following reserves as on March 31, 1972, for determining the capital base for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - Whether provision for taxation, proposed dividends and depreciation reserves can be treated as reserves
-
1974 (6) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
" Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that no appeal lies from the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the assessee's application for registration as time-barred ? " - we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee
|