|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 258 of 258 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Interest Payable, Public Policy, Revenue Expenditure, Transport Business
-
1995 (8) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court, Levy Of Penalty, Revised Return, Transport Operator ... ... ... ... ..... ion. On the other hand, search was made and documents were seized and substantial omissions of collections were found and that is why the assessee filed a revised return. Thus, both the abovesaid decisions have no relevance to the present facts. However, we may also point out that in Addl. CIT v. P. Nammalvar Naidu and Sons 1979 116 ITR 863 (Mad), while referring to a settlement arrived at between the assessee and the Commissioner, and the assessee s claim that no penalty can be levied under section 271, this court has observed that this claim amounts to pleading of estoppel against a statute and such estoppel cannot be pressed into service against the terms of the statute. The net result is, in view of what is stated in paragraphs 16-A and 17 (see pages 167 and 168) above, the second and third questions referred to us do not actually arise, and, the first question referred to us, which is all comprehensive, is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Higher Rate, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... aw should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical meaning. We do not see any ambiguity in the provision. The word individual income has not been defined in the Act anywhere. What is referred is total income and it should be only referable to section 2(45) as computed in the manner specified under section 5 of the Act, including the income arrived under section 64. Therefore, we find no difficulty in rejecting the contention of the assessee. Again it is sought to be contended that in view of the ambiguity in the provision, support can be had from the speech of the Hon ble Finance Minister. Since we held that there is no ambiguity in the provision, reference to the speech of the Hon ble Minister or the preamble would be unwarranted. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change In Constitution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... as found that since the assessee was dealing in a very common article like glass-sheet, therefore, there is no question of transfer of any goodwill and thereby he has factually come to the conclusion that there was no good will and, therefore, transfer of the 20 per cent. share cannot be exigible to gift-tax. The Tribunal has found that there is a divergence of views on this issue of the various High Courts therefore, the Tribunal did not disturb the finding of fact and held that when two views are possible one view which is more reasonable and possible that which favours the assessee should be taken and accordingly affirmed the order of the first appellate court. We are of the view that the approach of the Tribunal does not appear to be erroneous and we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, is well justified that the firm had no goodwill and the assessee was not liable to pay any gift-tax. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1995 (8) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, In The Nature, Rent-free Accommodation ... ... ... ... ..... provision speaks of the total expenditure incurred by an assessee on travelling, etc., of the employee. The actual expenditure incurred on each trip has to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of rule 6D. The unit of expenditure for purposes of rule 6D is the trip but not the individual employee. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the expenditure incurred by the assessee will have to be taken into consideration with reference to each trip of an individual employee but not with reference to the totality of the trips made by an individual employee. In our view, the Tribunal is not correct in coming to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer has to compute the disallowance under rule 6D with reference to the expenditure incurred by each employee for the whole year as claimed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the third question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to answer the question. That was a case where the very basis of the question of which the Tribunal was called upon to submit a statement of the case did not exist. Therefore, under those circumstances, the Supreme Court made the above observations. In other words, the High Court need not answer the reference unless it arises from out of the order of the Tribunal or it is academic or irrelevant or unnecessary. We are of the view that also in cases where the amount of tax involved is not much as in the present case, when an application for withdrawing the reference is made by the party at whose instance the reference was made, in view of the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes referred to above, the court can refuse to answer the reference and permit the party concerned to withdraw the reference. In that view of the matter, we accede to the request of learned standing counsel for the Revenue and decline to answer the references and allow them to be withdrawn.
-
1995 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Academic Question, Business Expenditure, High Court, Insurance Premia, Medical Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... long been the view of this court that payment of cash allowance to an employee by way of medical expenses or house rent allowance is not a perquisite. Approving the view of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. 1979 119 ITR 431, in the case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. 1992 197 ITR 431, this court has further held that the payment in cash made by the employer to an employee by way of reimbursement does not fall under sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (b) of Explanation 2, and that being so the payment in question cannot be regarded as a perquisite at all. It is not disputed before us that the question raised in the present petition is concluded by the aforesaid decisions of this court. Accordingly, following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this court, we hold that the question sought to be referred in this petition is really academic and no referable question arises therefrom. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... s legally correct in holding that the income from leasing out of the cold storage and ice plant should be assessed as profits and gains of business in spite of the fact that such income was assessed under the head Other sources till the assessment year 1959-60 ? An identical question between the parties has been decided in Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1979 connected with Income-tax Reference No. 236 of 1979-CIT v. Allahabad Milling Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1992 195 ITR 325 (All), decided by the hon ble Chief Justice and hon ble Mr. Justice Sakha Ram Singh on April 2, 1991. In view of the above, we answer the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... 9UD and give a reasonable opportunity to the persons noticed to show cause against such an order being made. Having afforded such an opportunity if the appropriate authority considers it fit, it may hold an enquiry even though summary in nature and may pass an order for compulsory purchase by the Central Government of the property in question under section 269UD(1). The appropriate authority will have to decide whether an enquiry is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case after A the show-cause notice is issued. If an order for compulsory purchase of the property is made hereafter the Central Government shall pay to the intending seller the amount of apparent consideration plus interest at nine per cent. per annum from November 6, 1987, the date on which the impugned order was made. No order as to costs. All the five petitions stand disposed of. One copy each of this order shall be placed in the records of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3287 of 1987 and 3289 of 1987.
-
1995 (8) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Business Income, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ties and that the word owner referred to the owner of the property itself and not the owner of its annual value and that it would be immaterial whether the owner for the purpose of this section was in possession and enjoyment of the property or some one else was. The Division Bench relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in D. M. Vakil v. CIT 1946 14 ITR 298 AIR 1946 Bom 350. This decision is in favour of the Revenue. The contrary view is taken by the Calcutta High Court in Madgul Udyog v. CIT 1990 184 ITR 484 followed in CIT v. Western Estates 1994 209 ITR 343 (Cal). We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 570 does not deal with the question at issue. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the income-tax case. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to refer the two questions referred to in paragraph 1 for opinion of this court, at the earliest. The income-tax case is accordingly allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cold Storage Plant, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings
-
1995 (8) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... m the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 1, 1976. Thus, the fact remains that the concealment of income was found for the assessment year 1973-74 for which the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was empowered to impose penalty. The point in issue has been considered by the apex court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu 1993 199 ITR 610 where their Lordships reversing the view expressed by this court in Om Sons case 1979 116 ITR 215 and other decisions of the Karnataka High Court and other High Courts ruled that the amendment Act did not make any provision that the power and jurisdiction vested with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is taken, away. This being so, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was empowered to pass order of penalty. Thus our answer to the question is that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1973-74. The reference is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue.
-
1995 (8) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Association Of Persons, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... m to be assessed as tenants-in-common in this assessment year. But in the earlier years, since the assessee was assessed as association of persons definitely the assessee must prove that in this assessment year the assessee has changed his status from association of persons to that of the tenants-in-common . Under such circumstances, we consider that the proper course would be to set aside the assessment made by the authorities below and remit back the assessment for the purpose of reconsidering the status of the assessee. Accordingly, we do so. The Assessing Officer is directed to ascertain the status of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration afresh. The assessee is also entitled to produce evidence in support of his claim with regard to the status in which the assessment should be made. In that view of the matter, this tax case (revision) is allowed and the assessment remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with the directions given above. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... the respondents initiated proceedings there at Indore itself also in respect of cases of Gwalior, where the cause of action had arisen. As such, without further commenting on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is settled for good that so far territorial jurisdiction of this Bench is concerned, this Bench at Gwalior had jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. In view of the discussions made above and findings recorded, these petitions deserve to be allowed. These two petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are allowed and the notices/summons is sued against the petitioner, vide annexures P/10-A to P/10-E and the prosecution proceedings launched against the petitioners are hereby quashed, Criminal cases as against the petitioners in the present form shall not continue and be deemed to have been dropped. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1988 of 1992, which shall govern disposal of that case too.
-
1995 (8) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Special Audit Certificate, Export Business, Form No. 10Ccac, Omission, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... been done in this case. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer was not entitled in an intimation under section 143(1)(a) to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that no proof in respect of the claim had been filed with the return. For the reasons aforesaid this writ application must succeed. The orders passed by the authorities below are set aside, The Assessing Officer is directed to give deduction of income under section 80HHC of the Act to the writ petitioner if the special audit certificate as required to be filed under section 80HHC of the Act has already been filed by the writ petitioner or if it is filed within two months from the date of communication of this order. Orders impugned are therefore set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
1995 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proviso is not total agricultural income as defined in section 2(x) of the Act, which alone is charged to tax under the charging provision, viz., section 3 of the Act. Though total agricultural income may also include a minus figure (loss) the term agricultural income would not include a minus figure or loss. At any rate, as already stated, since learned counsel for the Revenue herself fairly submits that the abovesaid entire sum of Rs. 2,91,664 would be deductible under section 5(e) of the Act, the assessee must be fully satisfied and there could be no grievance on the part of the assessee. Even before giving the abovesaid deduction of Rs. 2,91,664 there is a loss which, it is said, could be carried forward in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Then, the abovesaid figure of Rs. 2,91,664 also could be carried forward in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the tax case revision is allowed. The order of the authorities below are set aside. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... should be treated as application of the income of the trust for charitable purposes ? 2. It is plain that when the assessee is a trust entitled to benefit under s. 11 of the IT Act, the only question that arises for consideration is whether that income or the accumulated income thereof is applied for charitable purpose. If investments have been made in the construction of a building which in turn would argument its income, it should also be held that the application of the funds is for the purpose of the trust. On this principle, we do not think there can be any quarrel. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT vs. St. George Forana Church (1988) 73 CTR (Ker) 23 (1988) 170 ITR 62 (Ker) TC 23R. 1209, which in turn relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities (1982) 133 ITR 779(Mad) TC 23R.1224. Hence, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Held that the assessee having failed to appeal against the intimation of the Income-tax Officer refusing to take cognizance of the loss returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55, cannot claim in the assessment proceedings relating to the subsequent years that the loss in the said earlier assessment years (1952-53 to 1954-55) be determined, carried forward and set off against the profits of the subsequent year or years, as the case may be
....
|
