|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 88 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Additional Grounds ... ... ... ... ..... d that there was no application for admission of an additional ground and the same had been rightly not considered by the Appellate Tribunal at that stage and that it could not be said that there was an apparent mistake in the order requiring amendment to the order passed earlier. Rule 11 of the rules speaks only of leave and the leave may be sought for either in writing or by an oral prayer. As the Tribunal did not disbelieve that leave was sought for, in our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the said additional ground. In view of the above, we answer the questions in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, we make it clear that if an additional ground is urged, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to give sufficient opportunity to the other side of being heard. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati.
-
1996 (8) TMI 87 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Expenditure Incurred, Income From Tea, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... ving the agricultural income. The petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. But before parting with the present application I make it clear that I express no opinion on whether the said amount could be treated as a donation nor am I expressing any opinion on the other claims made in the petition. There is an alternative remedy provided for under the provisions of the said Act. In the facts of this case, the petitioner should have availed of the alternative remedy which was not availed of by the petitioner and it rushed to the writ court in the matter. On the said ground also, the petition stands dismissed. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to avail of the alternative remedy, if still available, in accordance with law and the authorities on materials produced if satisfied may grant such deductions showing actual expenditure made on account of welfare schemes such as hospitals or schools for the tea garden workers as per my above judgment.
-
1996 (8) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tax At Source, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... a careful analysis of the relevant sections of the Act and the provisions of the allied Acts and of the decisions referred to supra, we are of the view, that the finding of the court below is not correct. Accordingly, we hold that no question of issuing notice under section 2(35)(b) of the Act to a partner arises at all. We are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by T. S. Arunachalam J. (as he then was), in Shital N. Shah v. ITO 1991 188 ITR 376 1990 L. W. (Crl.) 478 and K. Swamidurai J. in G. Anantharamiah v. ITO 1992 L. W. (Crl.) 173, since the said decisions do not lay down the correct proposition of law. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion we overrule both the above decisions. The reference is answered accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, all the revisions are allowed. The orders of the court below are set aside. The court below is directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order.
-
1996 (8) TMI 85 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... w. In CIT v. Mulchand Sukmal Jain 1993 200 ITR 528, this court also held that A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. It may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members or unmarried daughters. Considering the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the said Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla after his marriage could duly form a Hindu undivided family and the assessee can be recognised as an assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family and not as an individual. In this connection, the learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee got the status of a Hindu undivided family. In view of the above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Send a copy of this judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the signature of the Registrar of this court.
-
1996 (8) TMI 84 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, High Court, Industrial Company, Mercantile System, New Industrial Undertaking, Revenue Receipt, Special Deduction
-
1996 (8) TMI 83 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... of the three creditors it should go to mean that the amounts given by those creditors were also genuine. On going through the Tribunal s judgment, we find that the Tribunal observed thus Of course, confirmation letter was filed but in the instant case, the Income-tax Officer went further and verified the assessment records of that creditor from which he found various facts as mentioned in the assessment order and as discussed by us above. Thus, in our opinion, identity of the creditor alone is not sufficient. It has also to be shown that the creditor had the capacity to advance the loan and that the loan itself was genuine. The Tribunal, however, did not make any endeavour to give any cogent reason why the income-tax returns filed by the creditors and accepted by the Income-tax Officer should be ignored. In our view, the assessee had at least proved its case. Accordingly, we answer the three questions in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (8) TMI 82 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Retrospective Effect, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... assessee s exports. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel of the assessee on a decision reported in CIT v. Asiatic Sea Foods 1986 160 ITR 869, wherein the Kerala High Court held as under The expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for distribution and supply outside India of the goods would qualify for weighted deduction so long as such expenditure does not form part of that incurred on the carriage of goods to a destination outside India. When the goods are stored in the foreign agent s cold storage, the expenditure incurred as storage and handling charges would be expenses on distribution and supply of goods outside India qualifying for weighted deduction. In view of the above, we answer question No. 3 so far as section 35B(1)(b)(iv) is concerned in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as section 35B(1)(b)(ix) is concerned, we answer the question in the negative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (8) TMI 81 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Failure To File Return In Time, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... under section 148 and the complaint petition for all practical purposes is confined to the prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under section 276CC of the Act for not submitting the return of his income as required, vide notice issued to him under section 139(2) of the Act. The complaint petition does not contain the most important averment that the notice was issued and served on the petitioner before the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., by the 31st March, 1984. In its absence, the notice would not be a legal and valid notice under section 139(2) of the Act and the prosecution of the petitioner under section 276CC of the Act on that ground was thus not competent in the eye of law. The application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint as also the criminal prosecution of the petitioner on that basis are an abuse of the process of the court and they are accordingly quashed to secure the ends of justice.
-
1996 (8) TMI 80 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... of Income-tax, and so the basis of the prosecution is now no more in existence. In that view of the matter, in view of the decision of our own High Court in Banwarilal Satyanarain s case 1989 179 ITR 387, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. The authority cited by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that is of the Kerala High Court simply indicates that this may be agitated in the trial court itself. If that is so, and if it apparently appears and is also supported by the authorities of our own High Court that such prosecution is not maintainable, then certainly no useful purpose will be served in remitting the case to the trial court itself for consideration of the same fact. Under such circumstances this application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated January 4, 1993, and the entire prosecution as against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 3 of 1993 pending in the court of Shri B. K. Sinha, Special Court, Economic Offences, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 79 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, In Good Faith, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e the penalty. Whether the Commissioner should completely waive the penalty, or reduce the same, and if so, to what extent, is for the Commissioner to determine in the exercise of his judicial discretion when he deals with the petitioner s application on the merits. In our view, the rejection of the petitioner s application for the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that the pre-conditions were not fulfilled, is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, in part, and setting aside the impugned order dated December 29, 1983, copy whereof is contained in annexure- S to the writ petition, in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1975-76, we direct the Commissioner of Wealth-tax--respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner s application for waiver/reduction of the penalty for the assessment year 1975-76 on merits, in accordance with law within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 78 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Notice For Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ny principle of interpretation of statutes which would justify that contrary to its plain meaning a provision in that Act should be given a limited meaning on the basis of the explanatory note submitted before Parliament at the time of the presentation of the Bill. Moreover, we find that the explanatory note hardly supports the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The explanatory note uses the expression specially and it is in the following terms The Amending Act, 1987, has, therefore, made amendment in the provisions of section 147 and other connected sections to simplify the procedure which is kept for assessment specially in non-scrutiny cases. (emphasis added). Thus, even the explanatory note did not say that Explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act would apply only to the non-scrutiny cases or that cases picked up for scrutiny would not be covered by it. For the reasons stated above, we see no merit in these applications and they are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 77 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Additional Grounds, Business Expenditure, Current Repairs, Expenditure Tax, Power To Admit Additional Ground, Power To Remand Case, Powers Of Tribunal, Previous Year
-
1996 (8) TMI 76 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Rules, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... uantity and in massive scale as is necessary in the case of construction work like dams, canals, etc., drilling machinery or rigs would not come within the ambit of item No. III-D(4). We have already noted that that item was construed by the Division Bench of our High Court as not being exhaustive but merely illustrative. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given by the Division Bench of our High Court and we are unable to pursuade ourselves to accept the view expressed by the Madras High Court. For the above reasons, we are unable to uphold the contention of the Revenue that the rigs fall under general item No. III of Part I of Schedule I, which deals with depreciation of machinery and plant (not being a ship). In this view of the matter, following the judgment of our High Court in CIT v. Super Drillers 1988 174 ITR 640, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 75 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Income Tax, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... peals). Meanwhile the Tribunal cancelled the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the assessment order on account of the decision given by the Tribunal on this technical ground alone. Now, that order cannot survive because of the view taken by the Tribunal in the present case, and against that order, the Revenue has already preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which is pending. Therefore, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that his right to agitate the matter after this answer will be prejudiced. Since we have already answered the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, the Tribunal shall reconsider the matter in the light of the answer given by us and decide the matter in accordance with law. In the result, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. All other references are accordingly disposed of in the light of the above reference.
-
1996 (8) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Flat Rate, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... rities would have been saved to run after the Madras Tribunal decisions and other decisions in the context. The decision of the Madras Bench, though very exhaustive we have found, has not concentrated on the above statutory provisions. The statutory provision provides for the subject of depreciation and in regard thereto buildings, machinery, furniture and plant are emphasised separately. It is clear, therefore, that the contention would have to be understood as contrary to the statutory provisions referred to above. what is more surprising is that investment allowance has been granted almost automatically without even a look at the statutory provision of section 32A of the Act. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (8) TMI 73 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... x Act. Section 43A is a special provision consequential to changes in rate of exchange of currency. But the observations by the Division Bench of this court in that case are meeting the contention of Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the Department, that the assessee is not entitled to make the said entry for Rs. 5,18,237.31, when he has not actually spent the amount. Those observations at page 940 are as under In our opinion, when the assessee purchased assets at a price, its liability to pay the same arose simultaneously. Merely because the said liability was to be discharged in instalments, it cannot be said that the liability did not exist or accrue till the instalments became due and payable. Therefore, in view of all the above discussion and for the reasons recorded above, we answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Reference is thus answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of August, 1996.
-
1996 (8) TMI 72 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Deduction In Respect, House Rent, Interest On Securities, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... 1990 181 ITR 79 (SC) and Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120 (SC) and submitted that some of the judgments are of constitutional Bench. True, the expression attributable to the banking business has not been directly discussed, but none the less their Lordships of the Supreme Court have discussed the scope of section 80P and it is not for this court to say or comment about the aforesaid decision as that is the latest judgment in point of time. We are of the opinion that the judgments cited by Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the assessee, do not provide any assistance for answering this reference. In the result, we answer question No. (i) accordingly, as stated above question No. (ii) is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue question No. (iii) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question No. (iv) is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 71 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... or the purpose of section 32 of the Act, it was intended that the property in the machinery would pass to the assessee at the relevant time when the contract was entered into, but the right of ownership of the assessee was restricted by several conditions in order to ensure that due payment to the Government was made and the contract was fully implemented. Thus, the assessee was the legal owner of the plant and machinery and was entitled to claim depreciation and development rebate thereon. On the facts of this case, as discussed above, we find no support for the contention of learned standing counsel for the Revenue from this case. From the above discussion, it follows that the assessee was the owner of the trucks as it satisfied both the requirements of section 32 and was entitled to depreciation on the trucks. We, therefore, answer the question of law in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference cases are accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 70 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Expenditure On Maintenance, High Court, Power To Reframe Question, Weighted Deduction
-
1996 (8) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Interest On Refund, Provision For Payment ... ... ... ... ..... may come into operation. In the present case, there is no mention, either in the writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, whether any assessment was made and with what result. Therefore, the question whether the petitioners are entitled to any interest under section 244, as claimed by them, has also to be examined with reference to the assessment, if any, made and it cannot be said without examining the facts that section 244 of the Act did not come into play. We, accordingly, allow this writ petition with costs to the petitioners and quashing the impugned order dated July 25, 1984, we direct the Assessing Officer, respondent No. 1, or such officer, as may, at present, be the Assessing Officer of the petitioners, to re-examine the claim of the petitioners for grant of interest under sections 132B(4) and 244 of the Act and to dispose of the same by a speaking order after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing and keeping in view observations, made above.
....
|
