|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 319 Records
-
1990 (7) TMI 79
The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice issued under section 281B of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the attachment under section 281B cannot last beyond August 19, 1989, as the total period for extensions had expired. The petitioner was allowed to encash or withdraw the amounts attached, subject to any outstanding tax demands. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs. The order was to be communicated to the Allahabad Bank, Tejgarhi, Meerut, and a certified copy was to be given to the petitioner's counsel within three days.
-
1990 (7) TMI 78
The High Court of Orissa dismissed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax's exercise of power under section 263. The Court held that the Commissioner was justified in exercising the power under section 263 for further inquiry based on available materials. The petition was dismissed with no costs. Judge S. C. Mohapatra and J. M. Mahapatra concurred with the decision.
-
1990 (7) TMI 77
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the wealth-tax applications in part. Question No. 1 regarding the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee was directed to be referred. Questions 2 and 3 were not referred. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 1990 (7) TMI 77 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1990 (7) TMI 76
The Revenue filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the assessee, a Project Engineer, claimed deduction for National Savings Certificates. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for certificates purchased from the assessee's funds but not from gifts to his children. The High Court held that investments from income of the year attract deduction under section 80C(2)(d). The Court declined to call for a statement of the case, stating that the negligible amount involved did not warrant further enquiry. Application rejected.
-
1990 (7) TMI 75
Issues involved: Interpretation of limitation period u/s 154(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for rectification of orders.
Summary:
The High Court of Orissa was required to address the question of whether the Tribunal's decision on the rectification order being barred by limitation u/s 154(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified. The case involved a partnership firm that had assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, with subsequent rectification of errors by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the rectification orders due to lack of following natural justice principles. The Income-tax Officer then passed a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the rectification was barred by limitation, leading to the Revenue filing applications u/s 256(2) for reference of the legal question.
The limitation period for rectification u/s 154(7) of the Act was crucial. The provision stated that no amendment shall be made after four years from the date of the order sought to be amended. The orders in question were dated July 16, 1971, and October 26, 1971, making the limitation period expire on July 16, 1975, and October 26, 1975. However, the Income-tax Officer's orders challenging these were dated November 18, 1976, clearly falling outside the limitation period.
The argument that the orders were passed within the limitation period from October 16, 1971, was refuted, as the amendment to the July 16, 1971 order was still time-barred. Additionally, the contention that orders set aside for natural justice violations were exempt from the limitation period u/s 154(7) was dismissed. The High Court emphasized that any order passed without following natural justice principles is void, and the subsequent order cannot save it from the limitation period. The Tribunal's decision on the rectification being time-barred was upheld, affirming that the order was justified in its conclusion.
-
1990 (7) TMI 74
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the application for intervention in a tax reference case under the Income-tax Act, stating that third parties have no right to intervene in assessment matters. The court cited a previous decision that disallowed intervention in reference applications under taxing statutes. The application for intervention was deemed not sustainable and was dismissed without costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Whether demurrage paid to non-resident shipowners or charterers is exigible to income-tax under sections 44B and 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the petitions are premature and should be dismissed in limine.
3. Validity of the circular instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India requiring income-tax clearance for remittances of demurrage payments.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Demurrage under Sections 44B and 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The petitioners argued that income from shipping of non-resident shipowners or charterers is exclusively covered by sections 44B and 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that demurrage paid to foreign shipowners or charterers is not exigible to tax under these sections. Section 44B deals with non-resident assessees engaged in the business of operation of ships and section 172 pertains to the levy and recovery of tax from ships belonging to or chartered by non-residents carrying goods from Indian ports. The court noted that demurrage, defined as compensation for the detention of a vessel, does not constitute income from the carriage of goods, passengers, livestock, or mail from Indian ports under sections 44B and 172. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Gosalia Shipping (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 307, which held that demurrage does not fall within the ambit of income "on account of" carriage of goods under section 172(2). Therefore, demurrage paid to non-resident shipowners or charterers is not taxable under sections 44B and 172.
Issue 2: Prematurity of the Petitions
The court rejected the contention that the petitions were premature. It held that the petitions could not be dismissed in limine without deciding whether demurrage is income falling under sections 4, 5, or 9 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the need to determine the initial jurisdiction and the applicability of the relevant sections before dismissing the petitions.
Issue 3: Validity of Circular Instructions Requiring Income-Tax Clearance
The court examined the circular instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which required exporters to obtain income-tax clearance for remittances of demurrage payments. The court found that the circulars, annexures B and C, were based on the opinion formed by the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Annexure B referred to Indian charterers, which did not affect the petitioners as they were not charterers. Annexure C dealt with foreign vessels chartered for the carriage of goods exported from India. The court held that the procedure required by the circulars was without the authority of law, as demurrage paid is not income exigible to tax under sections 44B or 172. The court declared that the circulars could not prescribe a mode of recovery and payment for demurrage paid by exporters when the ship falls within the ambit of section 172.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the contention that demurrage is not taxable under sections 44B or 172 of the Income-tax Act. The circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India requiring income-tax clearance for demurrage payments were declared without authority of law. The petitions were disposed of with the hope that the respondents would not cause undue hardship to exporters. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 72
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to allowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of loss on the sale of U.P. Development Loan as business loss.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entitlement to allowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The primary issue across the three references (Income-tax Reference Case Nos. 895, 896, and 912 of 1978) was whether the assessee-company was entitled to allowance of interest amounts for various assessment years (1963-64 to 1967-68). The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of sugar, had been advancing loans to its directors at a lower interest rate (2.5%) compared to the interest rate it paid on its borrowings from banks (8%).
The Income-tax Officer disallowed the interest difference, arguing that the interest paid on borrowed capital was not for the purposes of the assessee's business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view for some years but allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1964-65. The Tribunal, however, sided with the assessee, stating that the borrowings were for business purposes and the difference in interest rates alone was not sufficient to disallow the interest paid.
The High Court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the substantial advances to directors at low interest rates did not serve any business purpose of the assessee. The court noted that the directors/shareholders were exploiting the company for their private benefit, and the interest burden was unfairly shifted to the assessee. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer was correct in disallowing the interest difference u/s 36(1)(iii).
Issue 2: Treatment of loss on the sale of U.P. Development Loan as business loss
In Income-tax Reference No. 895 of 1978, the second question was whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the loss on the sale of U.P. Development Loan as a business loss. No arguments were advanced on this issue, and the court answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the first issue in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, disallowing the interest difference u/s 36(1)(iii). The second issue was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. No order as to costs was made.
-
1990 (7) TMI 71
Issues:
Valuation of shares held by the assessee in Peninsular Plantations Ltd. for assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60.
Validity of the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to adopt the purchase price of shares as the market value.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to wealth-tax proceedings concerning the valuation of shares held by the assessee in Peninsular Plantations Ltd. for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60. The Wealth-tax Officer reopened the assessments to include the value of an asset termed "controlling interest" due to the assessee purchasing shares at rates higher than those quoted in the stock exchange, indicating a potential controlling interest acquisition. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the reassessments, directing the adoption of the enhanced purchase price paid by the assessee as the market value of the shares. The Appellate Tribunal later set aside this direction, leading to subsequent appeals and a common order dated October 15, 1984, where the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals and dismissed those of the assessee.
The first issue revolves around confirming the valuation of the shares, with the Appellate Tribunal ultimately deciding to restore the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer, rather than confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's valuation. The second crucial issue involves the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to adopt the purchase price of shares as the market value. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order clearly directed the Wealth-tax Officer to consider the enhanced purchase price paid by the assessee as the market value for the entire block of shares, a direction that was carried out by the Wealth-tax Officer in the revised proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes that the parties proceeded on the common ground that they were bound by the findings in the appellate orders dated December 31, 1975. The Appellate Tribunal correctly held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had directed the adoption of the purchase price of the shares as the market value. Consequently, both questions posed were answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, affirming the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer. The judgment concludes by disposing of the references and directing the forwarding of a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (7) TMI 70
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the Department's application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Questions 1 and 2 were directed to be stated, while question 3 was deemed explanatory and question 4 was considered argumentative and not referred. The judgment was delivered by B. P. Jeevan Reddy C. J.
-
1990 (7) TMI 69
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question regarding the deletion of cash assistance from taxable income under the Income-tax Act. The appeal was allowed in part with no costs. (Case citation: 1990 (7) TMI 69 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1990 (7) TMI 68
Issues involved:
The judgment involves determining whether a transaction of purchase and sale of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade and if the resulting profit was taxable as business income in the hands of the assessee.
Summary:
The High Court of BOMBAY heard a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the purchase and sale of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980. The original question framed was reframed to focus on whether the transaction constituted an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee bought the bonds on April 3, 1980, and sold them on October 1, 1980, making a profit of Rs. 33,500. The assessee claimed this profit as capital gain exempt from tax, but the Income-tax Officer treated it as income from an adventure in the nature of trade, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.
The Court considered whether a single transaction like this could be deemed an adventure in the nature of trade, citing precedents from the Supreme Court. It was noted that even an isolated transaction could meet this description if certain trade features were present. In this case, the Department had to prove that the transaction was indeed an adventure in the nature of trade.
The Court analyzed the facts, highlighting that the assessee's income primarily consisted of salary and other sources, with no significant business income apart from the bond transaction. It was emphasized that the Department failed to establish that the sole motive behind the bond purchase was quick profit, as the bonds were held for several months before sale. The absence of key indicators of a business venture led the Court to conclude that the Department had not met the burden of proving an adventure in the nature of trade.
Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was reiterated that certain business-like features must be present for a transaction to be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. Since these features were not evident in this case, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the transaction did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade.
In conclusion, the Court answered the reframed question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1990 (7) TMI 67
Issues:
1. Inclusion of property in wealth assessment.
2. Ownership and valuation of property disputes.
3. Exclusion of property from net wealth.
4. Rejection of additional grounds by Tribunal.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad addressed various issues raised by the applicant under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The questions raised pertained to the inclusion of a specific property in the wealth assessment, ownership disputes, valuation discrepancies, and the rejection of additional grounds by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
Regarding the first two questions raised by the applicant, the Court found no need to refer them as the matter of including the asset had been remanded to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The Court clarified that the asset in question had not yet been included in the wealth of the assessee, and therefore, the questions were premature for reference.
However, the Court deemed the fourth question, concerning the classification of the property as a vacant plot, as a valid question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Hence, it was directed to be referred under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act.
The Court dismissed the relevance of the fifth question as the property had initially belonged to the assessee before being sold, making the question inconsequential. Questions six and seven were considered covered by question four and did not require separate referral.
Question eight, related to the valuation of a residential property, was deemed consequential to question four and thus directed to be referred. Question nine was not considered as it was not raised before the Tribunal.
Regarding question ten, which dealt with the exclusion of a property from net wealth due to it being gifted in January 1975, the Court noted that while the property had been excluded in certain years, it had not been excluded in others. Therefore, the question was referred only in relation to the assessment year 1976-77.
Questions eleven and twelve, concerning the rejection of additional grounds by the Tribunal, were not considered as questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, they were not referred for further consideration.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the applications in part, directing questions four, eight, and ten to be referred under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, while dismissing the applications in other respects.
-
1990 (7) TMI 66
The court rejected the application to refer seven questions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the questions related to facts and estimates, not points of law. The application was rejected with no costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 65
Issues:
1. Valuation of teak wood plantation for estate duty assessment.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala pertains to a matter under the Estate Duty Act concerning the valuation of a teak wood plantation. The case originated from the estate duty assessment of a deceased individual who had converted private forest lands into teak plantations. The accountable person initially valued the plantation at Rs. 69,100, while an approved valuer assessed it at Rs. 3,56,750. Subsequently, the Assistant Controller valued it at Rs. 24,67,500, which was contested in appeals. The Appellate Controller upheld the valuer's assessment, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal determined the value at Rs. 16 lakhs, considering only 15% of it due to an impending legislation.
The High Court criticized the Tribunal's valuation, stating that it was arbitrary and lacked a valid basis. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the value to Rs. 16 lakhs and then consider only 15% of it as the property's value was deemed unreasonable and unsupported. The Court highlighted that the approved valuer's assessment of Rs. 3,56,750, which was not disputed, should have been considered instead. The Tribunal's failure to provide a sound rationale for deviating from the valuer's report was a significant flaw in its decision-making process.
The Court emphasized that determining the market value of an asset is a factual inquiry, but the Tribunal's decision was arbitrary and not based on any established principles. Citing relevant case law, the Court underscored that such arbitrary findings are not binding. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal's valuation was erroneous and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the valuation based on the approved valuer's assessment.
In conclusion, the High Court found the Tribunal's valuation of the teak plantation to be flawed and directed a reassessment based on the approved valuer's report. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to established valuation principles and avoiding arbitrary decisions in matters of estate duty assessments.
-
1990 (7) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of the assessee's manufactured cranes as "priority industry" under the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of item No. 8A and item No. 8B under the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee-company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of heavy-duty cranes, claimed relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim for both years. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for the assessment year 1972-73, and this decision was upheld by the Tribunal. The Department referred the case to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of the Assessee's Manufactured Cranes as "Priority Industry":
The core issue was whether the assessee's activity of manufacturing heavy-duty cranes qualified as a "priority industry" under the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby entitling it to deductions under section 80-I. According to section 80B(7), "priority industry" includes the manufacture or production of articles specified in the Sixth Schedule. The Sixth Schedule references "Industrial machinery" under item No. 8A, which includes major items of specialized equipment used in specific industries.
3. Interpretation of Item No. 8A and Item No. 8B:
Item No. 8A of the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, lists major items of specialized equipment used in specific industries, such as textile machinery, jute machinery, sugar machinery, etc. Item No. 8B, on the other hand, deals with general items of machinery used in several industries, including cranes.
The court had to determine if the cranes manufactured by the assessee were specialized equipment under item No. 8A or general machinery under item No. 8B. The assessee argued that its cranes were specifically designed for industries listed under item No. 8A and not for general use across multiple industries. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal accepted this argument for the assessment year 1972-73, recognizing the specialized nature of the cranes.
The court noted that for equipment to fall under item No. 8A, it must:
(a) Be a major item of equipment.
(b) Be specialized equipment.
(c) Be used in specific industries listed in sub-items (1) to (11) of item No. 8A.
The court found that the assessee's cranes met these criteria as they were designed to meet the specific needs of individual plants in industries like sugar, chemical, textile, and cement. These cranes were not general items of machinery but specialized equipment integral to the plants of specific industries.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in granting the assessee relief under section 80-I for the assessment year 1972-73. The cranes manufactured by the assessee were specialized equipment used in specific industries, thus qualifying as a "priority industry" under item No. 8A of the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The court rejected the Department's argument that only the machinery explicitly listed in sub-items (1) to (11) of item No. 8A would qualify for the benefit under section 80-I.
The court emphasized that section 80-I should be liberally construed to encourage priority industries, aligning with the objective of the provision. As a result, the question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 63
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in cancelling the registration of an assessee-firm and subsequently modifying the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, it considers whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the legality of the assessee-firm under section 11 of the Companies Act and its entitlement to registration under the Income-tax Act.
Cancellation of Registration and Section 154 Modification:
The Income-tax Officer cancelled the registration of the assessee-firm due to exceeding the permissible number of partners, leading to assessment as an unregistered firm. Subsequently, under section 154, the Officer modified the order to assess the firm as an association of persons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed appeals against these actions, emphasizing that section 154 only allows correction of apparent mistakes, not a change in opinion. The Tribunal upheld this view, leading to the reference question.
Interpretation of Legality and Registration Entitlement:
The controversy stemmed from the Income-tax Officer's orders cancelling the firm's registration, which were later set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal referred questions to the High Court regarding the legality of the firm under section 11 of the Companies Act and its entitlement to registration under the Income-tax Act. The High Court answered these questions affirmatively in favor of the assessee, based on a previous decision in a related case.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed that under section 154 of the Act, rectification can only be made for mistakes apparent from the record, not for changing opinions or reviewing orders. As the Income-tax Officer's rectification was not based on an apparent mistake, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Department's appeals against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. The judgment favored the assessee in this matter.
-
1990 (7) TMI 62
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) was invalid as the assessee was not obligated to disclose gifts to his minor sons by a third party in the return. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the application.
-
1990 (7) TMI 61
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction of a debt related to taxable wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal allowed deduction of 4/5ths of the debt of Rs. 62,500 against the taxable value of the house property, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The judgment was delivered by Judges B. P. JEEVAN REDDY and R. A. SHARMA. (1990 (7) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1990 (7) TMI 60
The assessee requested the High Court to refer three questions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court decided to refer the first and third questions but not the second question. The first question was referred based on a decision of the Bombay High Court, while the third question was referred despite not being argued explicitly. (Case: 1990 (7) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
....
|
9911796707
