Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 187 of 187 Records
-
1988 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... navoidable. An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. Although the appeal was preferred on October 9, 1975, the right of the assessee to prefer an appeal accrued when the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued or in any event when the assessment was made on July 31, 1975. The right of appeal having accrued to the assessee prior to October 1, 1975, when the amendment came into force, the date of filing of the appeal is neither relevant nor material. Law as it stood prior to October 1, 1975, shall, therefore, govern this case. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act cannot be applied to the facts of this case. We do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The question in this reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1988 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... ssment was valid and legal under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if not under section 147(a) of the said Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,10,100 paid by the assessee for the purchase of loom hours was a revenue expenditure deductible in the computation of its business income ? Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the assessee is entitled to succeed on merits. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to answer the question referred to this court regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 1, the third question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In that view of the matter, we decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 2. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J. - I agree.
-
1988 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... r that neither the Revenue is put to unreasonable loss nor is the assessee subjected to unreasonable hardship. It is not a case of deviation from the regular method of accounting adopted by the assessee. The practice which has been followed by the assessee year after year in treating the expenditure and the reimbursement from Coal Board in its account has in fact become the regular method of keeping its accounts. There has been no deviation from such method. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative. In view of the answer to the first question in the negative, the second question does not call for any answer. Even otherwise, we are of the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses should be allowed to be deducted to the extent indicated by the Tribunal in computing the profits and gains of business for the assessment year in question. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1988 (6) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... tion 32 or section 33 and section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was part of the computation of the total income and, therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 13,11,059 was deductible from the profits of the current year in computing the total income and also the gross total income of the assessee for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 80-1 of the said Act ill respect of the profits of the assessee from its priority industry ? It is not in dispute that the questions in this reference are concluded by, the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. North Koshalpur Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 756. The question which was referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and the question referred at the instance of the assessee in the reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF. J.-I agree.
-
1988 (6) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction ... ... ... ... ..... early come within the ambit of the expression any other person occurring in sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Ordinance. Therefore, the suit, at the instance of the appellant, purchased from the first defendant who is claimed to be the real owner and defendants Nos. 2 and 4 are claimed to be the benamidars, is not maintain able and the issue cannot be gone into. In that view, the suit for specific performance does not lie as it has been prohibited by operation of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Ordinance. In this view, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter. However, the decree of the trial court against the first respondent granting refund of the earnest money paid, is confirmed. The suit does not lie for specific performance. The decree of the trial court is accordingly confirmed. It is open to the appellant to withdraw the amount which is deposited in the court below. In the circumstances, each party is directed to bear its own costs in this appeal.
-
1988 (6) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Anticipatory Bail, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... t the petitioner, Subhash Chand, is a Government servant. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, on or before September 21, 1987. The accused-petitioner shall, however, notify the date of surrender 48 hours in advance to learned counsel for the Department and meanwhile the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall not be executed. Similar order deserves to be passed in the present case also. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient to touch on the merits of the case. Consequently, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, on or before July 21, 1988. The accused-petitioners shall, however, notify the date of their surrender 48 hours in advance to learned counsel for the Department and till then the warrants of arrest issued against them shall not be executed. With these observations, the bail applications are disposed of.
-
1988 (6) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... and plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. A single person, male or female, cannot constitute a family. Assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the Hindu undivided family. The continuity of the assessment of the family can come to an end by the disappearance of the family as such. If there is no family as such, then there is nothing in section 171 of the Act to create a legal fiction as to the existence of the family. Secondly, the question of the assessment of a family which is not existing cannot arise. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition has to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned notice dated June 25, 1981, issued under section 18 read with rule 24 of the Act is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
....
|