|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 213 Records
-
1982 (7) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... valuer. Learned counsel urged that an assessee who had not got his agricultural assets valued by a qualified valuer, was not entitled to claim the benefit of the extension granted under the said circular. Copy of the circular of CBDT has been filed at annex. 14 of the paper book. Perusal of this circular clearly indicates that the extension of time was not loaded with any condition precedent. It was a general extension in respect of all assessees who held agricultural assets. The circular only mentioned a reason for granting general extension when it referred to the fact that assessees holding agricultural lands may be required to get their agricultural assets valued properly by a qualified valuer. This was not condition precedent for claiming the benefit of extension mentioned in the circular. We, therefore hold that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties placing reliance on the circular of the CBDT dated October 30, 1972. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... facie, the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return within the time specified. If we examine the facts in the instant case in the background of this decision, we find that the applications for extension of time made on behalf of the assessee were not disposed of by the ITO. Under the circumstances, the assessee could have reasonably entertained the belief that his applications were granted by the ITO. If, under such belief, he did not file the return till November 7, 1968, could it be said that the assessee had, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return within the prescribed time? The answer is obviously no . In our opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act cannot be sustained. In the result, we answer all the three questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly with costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1934, the compensation enures for the benefit of the members of the passenger s family and had nothing to do with the estate of the deceased and as none of the ingredients of s. 5 of the E. D. Act is satisfied, estate duty cannot be levied on such compensation. A similar view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Motia Rani Malhotra s case 1975 98 ITR 42. In view of these two decisions, the learned counsel for the Revenue could not canvass that the sum of Rs. 43,846 received under the provisions of the Indian Carriage by Air Act was dutiable under the E.D. Act, 1953. Question No. 2 will, therefore, have to be answered against the Revenue. The questions are accordingly answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the accountable person. Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the accountable person. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assets, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the decree. Had it been merely an inchoate right and not property, it could not have passed on to the heirs before its adjudication and quantification. Before parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that the valuation of the right to recover mesne profits on the valuation date will not be necessarily the amount of mesne profits which the court later adjudicates. Normally, it would be much less having regard to the unpredictable course that a litigation may take in future. The Tribunal has not dealt with the question of valuation as it came to the conclusion that the right is not an asset. It will have to go into that question now. For the reasons given above, we answer the question as follows The right to receive or recover mesne profits existed as an asset belonging to the assessee on the relevant valuation dates in this case even before the passing of the decree of the district judge quantifying the amount of mesne profits. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ending the order of assessment of a partner with a view to inclusion of the share of the partner in the income of the firm, in the assessment of the partner, lays down that the provisions of s. 154 shall, so far as may be, apply to these proceedings. Sub-s. (3) of s. 154 provides that the amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, no such notice was given. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the order passed by the ITO under s. 155(1) of the Act was vitiated. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Department. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Receipts From Imparting Know-How ... ... ... ... ..... centage by value and that this volume of business with India represented the assessee-company s largest export market outside the countries where it maintained its own branches. If this business was given up as a part of the arrangements arrived at tinder the agreements in question, in our view, the case would be covered by the ratio of the decision in Evans Medical Supplies Ltd. s case 1959 35 ITR 707 (HL). Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the value of the shares must be treated as a capital receipt cannot be said to be contrary to law. Accordingly, the question referred is answered by holding that the value of 3,625 shares in the Indian company, Ralliwolf Ltd., of Rs. 100 each issued to the non-resident assessee-company in consideration of supplying the drawings and information is of capital nature and not of revenue nature. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... twice over because it has already recovered the tax from the Bangalore firm and would then proceed to recover the tax from the Surat firm since the income of the Bangalore branch has already been added as income of the assessee-firm on protective basis. In order to allay this fear, Mr. S. N. Shelat, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has placed on record the following statement Taxes paid by the Bangalore firm in the status of U.R.F. for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 will be given credit, in case the income of the Bangalore firm is added as income of a branch in the hands of M/s. Ishwarlal and Brothers of Surat. For the purpose of any interest or penalty the Surat firm shall be deemed to have paid the taxes on the date of payment by the Bangalore firm. This statement made by Mr. Shelat is sufficient to allay the fear of Mr. J. P. Shah, the learned advocate for the assessee. In view of the above, the reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ji and Company and crediting the said amount to the account of his son, Kantilal, in M/s. Jayantilal Navnitlal and Company as aforesaid. There is enough material to show that this gift was acted upon because the said amount had been transferred to the credit of Kantilal in the firm of M/s. K. M. Suchak and Company when the firm of M/s. Jayantilal Navnitlal and Company was dissolved and the firm of M/s. K.M. Suchak and Company was constituted. There is no finding to the effect that even after the aforesaid gift was made, the assessee controlled the said amount of Rs. 51,000 or had anything to do with it. In view of this, it must be held that the assessee validly made a gift of the said amount to his son, Kantilal. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative. Question No. 2 In the negative. It is clarified that both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... compensation and a debt has come into existence in favour of the assessee-company and the income has, therefore, accrued to the assessee-company. An argument was also advanced that in the question raised, the Tribunal itself recognised the fact that the rents were receivable by the assessee and, therefore, it was argued that the answer to that question should be given accordingly. But we are of the view that this question has to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case. The expression rent receivable by the assessee has been used by the Tribunal in the context of the facts found by the Tribunal and that has been made quite clear in the question itself. In that view of the matter, we answer the question by saying that the decision of the Tribunal was Tight and the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1982 (7) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... revented from availing. The Accountant Member, while agreeing with the judicial Member, added that Rs. 62,121 and Rs. 10,233 were not allowable because the liabilities arose at the closure of the business and did not represent any pre-existing liability and it was for that reason that he was agreeing that these amounts stood to be disallowed. A copy of the order of the Tribunal forms part of the statement of the case. We are of the opinion that so far as the Tribunal held that as the payment was made on the closure of the business, such a payment could not be considered to be a payment necessary for carrying on the business, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation 1967 65 ITR 643, the decision arrived at by the Tribunal was correct. In that view of the matter the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (7) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Notice U/S 7, Practice, Precedents, Provisional Assessment, Provisional Assessment Under Surtax Act, Reserves, Surtax
-
1982 (7) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debts And Incumbrances, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... er only 12 lines stated that he could not improve on the language of Lawrence J., who had given reasons for the view which he took. Section 44 was also considered by the Mysore High Court in CED v. R. R. Srinivasa Murthy 1974 95 ITR 388. While construing s. 44, the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court held that it was clear from s. 44 of the E.D. Act that, in regard to certain debts, no allowance can be made and in respect of debts and incumbrances for which allowance has to be made, they should be deducted from the value of the property liable thereto. Apart from the fact that we are supported in the view which we have taken by the Court of Appeal in England and a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court, even on a plain construction we are unable to see how any different view can be taken. In the view which we have taken, the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the accountable person. The accountable person to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... at, the price realized on the sale of the goodwill or the value of the goodwill must be brought into the hotch-potch for the purpose of applying it in the manner provided in cl. (b) of s. 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, for calculating the shares of the partners on the dissolution of the firm. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 The Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased s share in the goodwill of M/s. Universal Dyeing and Printing Works was not liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal was, however, not justified in holding that the deceased s share in the goodwill of the firm of M/s. Shiv Shakti Mills was not liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the divided successes which the parties have achieved in this reference, there will be no order as to the costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Gratuity, Payments Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... essee that the liability of the assessee, if any, under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, had arisen in the assessment year 1973-74 or that any provision was made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of any gratuity, which had become payable during the relevant previous year. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee on account of provision for gratuity as the conditions prescribed by that provision were not fulfilled and as the provisions of cl. (b)(i) of s. 40A(7) of the Act were not attracted. As regards the second question referred to this court by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out that the view taken by the Tribunal in that behalf was erroneous. For all these reasons, our answers to the questions referred to this court are in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... l of a new business. The decision in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294 (SC) is, therefore, distinguishable on facts and cannot be pressed into service in support of the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains were chargeable to tax in the year of transfer of the capital asset, i.e., the assessment year 1974-75. Our answers to the first three questions referred to this court by the Tribunal are in the affirmative and against the assessee. As regards question No. 4, that question does not really arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the question, as to whether the assessee is or is not entitled to the reliefs available under the Act, on the analogy of reliefs in the case of enhancement of compensation, has not been decided by the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to answer that question. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e of the original assessment the ITO was aware of the fact that the borrowings and the interest payments thereon partly related to the purchase of shares which earned income and partly related to his personal expenses. The instructions given by the IAC did not bring in any new fact or material which was not before the ITO at the stage of the original assessment. The instruction given by the IAC is in essence an intimation to the ITO that he has given an excessive allowance in the original assessment than what was due to the assessee. Such an intimation cannot constitute information as it does not bring to light any new material. Hence, we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the fact that we have answered the first question in favour of the assessee, the second question referred does not call for any answer. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will have his costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1982 (7) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax, Closely Held Company, Company ... ... ... ... ..... s no relevance nor any connection with the declaration of dividend is clear from the fact that this was not one of the reasons disclosed to the ITO for which a larger amount was not declared by way of dividend. As a matter of fact, having made a positive appropriation of the profits by making a provision for taxation of Rs. 4,00,000, there could hardly be any occasion to consider whether any amount should be retained out of the profits for the intended purchase of the cane farm, because after providing for Rs. 75,000 for proposed dividend, only a small amount of Rs. 18,274-13-0 was left, which was carried to the balance-sheet. Both the contentions were, therefore, rightly rejected by the tax authorities as well as the Tribunal. In the view that we have taken, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ted during the relevant previous year. In fact the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid decision has held that where the mercantile system of accounting is being followed by an assessee, he would be entitled to debit sales tax liability in the year in which that liability arose. But before such an entry can be made, the liability must be a legal liability and not mere hypothetical one. Mr. Sajnani next placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 153/73, decided on 26th April, 1982, (Deccan Hydes and Skins Co. v. CIT 1983 142 ITR 175). Reliance on that case is equally misplaced, because in that case also the assessee disputed his liability to pay the sales tax right till the time when the proceedings were disposed of by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In view of what we have said above, the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay costs of the reference.
-
1982 (7) TMI 35 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... result on account of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. On the contrary, the Tribunal decided the question raised before it as if the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) did not exist on the statute book. In any case the Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to place the burden on the assessee as envisaged by the Explanation to s.271(1)(c) of the Act and placed the burden of proving concealment on the Department. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the burden was upon the Department to prove fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. We answer the question-accordingly. The case be now sent back to the Tribunal for passing an appropriate order in the light of our observations as regards the effect of the Explanation to s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act and the burden of proof under the said Explanation. The Appellate Tribunal will hear the parties again and dispose of the appeals. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... ement of capital. The capital of the company had been raised from Rs. 3 crores to Rs. 10 crores and this has nothing to do with the issue of bonus shares. The value of the bonus shares was only Rs. 70 lakhs. The Tribunal has allocated expenses allowable in connection with bonus shares as one-tenth, the proportion not being in dispute. For the reasons for which the earlier two amounts have been held to be not of capital nature, in our view, the sum of Rs. 5,250 was also rightly allowed as Revenue expenditure by the Tribunal. Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will, therefore, have to be answered against the Revenue. Having regard to what we have said earlier, questions are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
