|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 509 of 509 Records
-
1998 (8) TMI 9
The High Court of Madras ruled that insurance premium paid under the Married Women's Right to Property Act by an individual is not assessable to gift-tax as it is considered a discharge of obligation, not a gift. The decision was based on previous court rulings and the question was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.
-
1998 (8) TMI 8
Issues involved:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The petitioner claimed to be a society for religious and charitable purposes, involved in running orphanages, training widows, and unemployed individuals, as well as establishing churches. The society was formed in 1985 and applied for registration under section 12A in 1986. The first respondent raised objections related to the belated application, religious nature of the society, investment modes, dissolution provisions, and amendment approval requirements. The Commissioner's view was that due to the religious nature, the society could not claim exemptions under relevant sections of the Act.
The petitioner argued that section 12A is procedural and does not require consideration of the society's nature for registration. The High Court held that the Commissioner overstepped by insisting on amending bye-laws to exclude religious aspects before registration. Referring to a precedent, the court emphasized that at the registration stage, only compliance with application requirements and charitable nature assessment is necessary, not examination of income application. The court directed the Commissioner to process the application without requiring changes related to religious aspects and to dispose of it within a month.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the petitioner, stating that objections related to the religious nature need not be complied with, and directed the Commissioner to process the application promptly.
-
1998 (8) TMI 7
Issues:
1. Deductibility of sales tax penalty as a liability under rule 1D in the balance sheet.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in determining valuation of shares.
Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the deductibility of a sales tax penalty as a liability under rule 1D in the balance sheet. The Tribunal had to determine whether the penalty imposed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be considered a deductible liability even if it was not shown as such in the balance sheet. The case involved shares in a company not listed on the stock exchange, with conflicting valuations presented by the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, considering the amount shown as a liability for sales tax in the balance sheet notes, even though it was not reflected in the profit and loss account or the body of the balance sheet.
2. The second issue pertains to the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment in determining the valuation of shares. The Tribunal declined to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. K.S.N. Bhatt [1984] 145 ITR 1. The assessee argued that a prospective share purchaser would only consider the balance sheet of the company, and any subsequent events should not affect the liabilities shown in the balance sheet notes. The assessee also relied on another Supreme Court case, Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED [1980] 122 ITR 21, to support their position.
3. The court, however, emphasized the principle established in CWT v. K.S.N. Bhatt [1984] 145 ITR 1, which required liabilities crystallized on the valuation date to be deducted, regardless of finalization after the valuation date. The court clarified that uncertainties in liabilities without finality through pending appeals or assessments should not be considered. Even if the company succeeded in challenging the penalty post-valuation date, it could not be treated as a liability if it had ceased to exist from the beginning. The court also referenced a similar decision in CWT v. M. V. Arunachalam [2000] 241 ITR 686 to support its ruling.
4. The court rejected the assessee's attempt to distinguish the case based on individual versus company liabilities, stating that the principle remained the same. If a liability was determined to be nil, it remained nil regardless of whether it was for an individual or a company. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the sales tax penalty could not be considered a liability for valuation purposes.
-
1998 (8) TMI 6
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the entitlement of exemption under sections 11 and 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, regarding payments made to office bearers and expenses incurred for charitable and religious purposes.
Entitlement to Exemption under Section 11:
The society, registered before April 1, 1962, claimed exemption under section 11 for the assessment year 1982-83, citing expenses for educational, medical, and charitable purposes. The Commissioner of Income-tax granted exemption based on expenses incurred for religious ceremonies and charitable activities, which was upheld by the Tribunal. However, the High Court held that the society's payments to office bearers and other interested persons did not meet the requirements of section 13(1)(c)(ii), denying exemption under section 11.
Interpretation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii):
The society argued that all payments made were approved by resolutions passed by the board of directors, seeking exemption under the first proviso of section 13(1)(c). The High Court, following the decision in CIT v. Rattan Trust [1997] 227 ITR 356, emphasized that the trust deed must contain mandatory provisions before April 1, 1962, for payments to interested persons. As the society's mandate for payments was made after this date, the High Court upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to invoke section 13(1)(c) and deny exemption under section 11.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled against the society, stating that the Income-tax Officer correctly applied section 13(1)(c) regarding payments to office bearers, thereby rejecting the claim for exemption under section 11. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the society was deemed unjustified, leading to both questions of law being answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.
-
1998 (8) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 62 to 68 of the Finance Act, 1997.
2. Interpretation of Section 297 read with Sections 147 to 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of declarations under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, for income relating to the assessment year 1961-62.
4. Issuance of certificates under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Sections 62 to 68 of the Finance Act, 1997:
The court examined the specific provisions of Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 1997, which pertains to the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997. Section 63(b) defines various terms, Section 64 outlines the method for charging tax on voluntarily disclosed income, Section 65 enumerates the particulars to be furnished in the declaration, Section 66 specifies the time for payment of tax, Section 67 requires the payment of interest, and Section 68, which is declaratory in nature, states that voluntarily disclosed income shall not be included in the total income of the declarant for any assessment year, subject to certain conditions. The court emphasized that these provisions only refer to income chargeable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and do not include income chargeable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Interpretation of Section 297 read with Sections 147 to 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contains repealing and saving provisions. Subsection (2)(a) states that proceedings for assessment in respect of any income return filed before the 1961 Act were to be continued under the old Act. Subsection (2)(b) deals with returns filed after the commencement of the 1961 Act for the assessment year ending on March 31, 1962, or earlier years, which are to be assessed under the 1961 Act. Subsection (2)(d) pertains to assessment years after March 31, 1940, where proceedings initiated under the old Act are to be continued under the old Act, while new notices under Section 148 of the 1961 Act can be issued for escaped income. The court concluded that the provisions of the 1961 Act apply to proceedings initiated under it, but do not extend to income chargeable under the 1922 Act unless explicitly stated.
3. Validity of Declarations under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, for Income Relating to the Assessment Year 1961-62:
The court analyzed whether declarations made under the Scheme for income related to the assessment year 1961-62 are valid. The Scheme, as outlined in Sections 64 and 68 of the 1997 Act, applies to income chargeable under the 1961 Act. The court noted that the 1961 Act became effective from April 1, 1962, and thus, the Scheme's applicability is confined to the assessment year 1962-63 and onwards. Consequently, income chargeable under the 1922 Act does not fall within the Scheme's scope, and declarations for the assessment year 1961-62 are not valid under the Scheme.
4. Issuance of Certificates under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997:
Section 68(2) of the 1997 Act mandates that the Commissioner shall grant a certificate setting forth the particulars of the voluntarily disclosed income and the amount of income-tax paid. However, the court found that since the Scheme does not apply to income chargeable under the 1922 Act, the petitioners' declarations for the assessment year 1961-62 are invalid. Therefore, the respondent's decision not to issue certificates under Section 68(2) was upheld as legally correct and justified.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, cannot be availed by the petitioners for income related to the assessment year 1961-62. The declarations made by the petitioners under the Scheme were invalid, and consequently, the certificates under Section 68(2) of the 1997 Act could not be issued. The writ petitions were dismissed accordingly.
-
1998 (8) TMI 4
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 regarding wealth-tax on closely held companies.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a closely held private company dealing in land, challenged the constitutional validity of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, which levies wealth-tax on closely held companies. The petitioner argued that the provision discriminates against closely held companies and that they are not the intended targets of the provision. However, the court held that provisions enacted by Parliament are presumed to be constitutional. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging unconstitutionality unless the statute clearly shows discrimination. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support its contentions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The court emphasized that Parliament has the authority to select a specific class for taxation as long as all members of that class are treated equally. The levy of wealth-tax on closely held companies aims to prevent individuals from transferring assets to avoid tax, and the provision applies uniformly to all closely held companies. The court noted that closely held companies have been recognized as a distinct class for taxation purposes, and taxing them does not constitute discrimination as long as all companies within the class are treated the same. The court cited a similar view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a previous case.
In conclusion, the court found no merit in the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1998 (8) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Repairs and maintenance of vehicles
2. Rent
3. Advertisement charges
4. Postage, telegram, and telephones
5. Contribution to superannuation fund
6. Rates and taxes
7. Repairs and maintenance of buildings, roads, and drains
8. Repairs and maintenance of vehicles (estate expenses)
9. Telephone charges (estate expenses)
10. Legal and professional charges
11. Professional tax
12. Printing and stationery
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Repairs and maintenance of vehicles:
The assessee-company claimed Rs. 1,05,960.48 for repairs and maintenance of vehicles. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed 25% of the expenses due to lack of a logbook to verify usage, suspecting personal use. The Tribunal confirmed this disallowance. However, the court found no substantial evidence of personal use and set aside the disallowance, allowing the full claim.
2. Rent:
The assessee claimed Rs. 28,800 as rent for the managing director's residence. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed this, stating the managing director was not an estate employee. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance. The court, however, recognized the managing director as an employee rendering services to the company and allowed the expenditure as necessary for running the estate.
3. Advertisement charges:
The assessee claimed Rs. 12,580.20 for advertisement charges. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed the entire claim, stating it had no nexus with agriculture. This decision was confirmed by the Tribunal. The court agreed, stating that publishing financial results and popularizing products were not connected to agricultural operations, and upheld the disallowance.
4. Postage, telegram, and telephones:
The assessee claimed Rs. 43,336.84 under this head. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed 25%, suspecting personal use. The court referred to a precedent (Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO) and allowed the full expenditure, recognizing it as necessary for estate agricultural purposes.
5. Contribution to superannuation fund:
The assessee claimed Rs. 15,444 for the superannuation fund. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer allowed only Rs. 6,000, disallowing Rs. 9,444. The Tribunal upheld this. The court found the entire amount allowable as it was for the managing director, an estate employee, and set aside the disallowance.
6. Rates and taxes:
The assessee did not press this issue.
7. Repairs and maintenance of buildings, roads, and drains:
The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed 19% of the expenses for non-plantation areas, stating repairs should be done by the lessor. The Tribunal confirmed this. The court found the disallowance reasonable, as the buildings and roads were in the plantation area, and upheld the decision.
8. Repairs and maintenance of vehicles (estate expenses):
The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed 19% of these expenses, considering the comprehensive use of vehicles in both plantation and non-plantation areas. The Tribunal upheld this view. The court agreed with the authorities' findings and upheld the disallowance.
9. Telephone charges (estate expenses):
The authorities suspected personal usage due to the absence of a register and disallowed part of the expenditure. The court, recognizing the necessity of the expenditure for the estate, allowed the full claim.
10. Legal and professional charges:
The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 10,110 out of Rs. 53,395 claimed, citing lack of details and nexus with agricultural operations. The court referred to precedents (Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.) and upheld the disallowance due to insufficient proof of connection with agriculture.
11. Professional tax:
The authorities disallowed Rs. 475 out of Rs. 2,500 claimed, attributing it to non-plantation areas. The court found the payment of professional tax a statutory obligation connected with the business and allowed the full expenditure.
12. Printing and stationery:
The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed 19% of this expenditure for non-plantation areas, confirmed by the Tribunal. The court, following a precedent (Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO), allowed the full expenditure, recognizing it as necessary for the firm.
Conclusion:
The tax case was allowed in part, with specific disallowances set aside and others upheld based on the evidence and legal precedents. No costs were awarded.
-
1998 (8) TMI 2
Penalty for concealment of income - Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c)? - 2. Whether having regard to the quantification of income on the basis of accretion to wealth computed on the basis of the seized material and other incriminating evidence, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that revised returns filed by the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence of admission of concealment of income? - 3. Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the materials seized and the statement given have to be disregarded in considering whether the penalties imposed were justifiable? - 4. Whether having regard to the filing of the revised return which is admission of the correct assessable income, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the penalty if held to be leviable, would be only that calculated in accordance with the law as it stood on the date when the penalty was imposed, viz., taking the tax avoided as the measure of penalty as per the law which stood at the time of filing the original return? - 5. Whether, in any event, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal cancelling the penalties under section 271(1)(c) is not unreasonable as being based on irrelevant consideration ignoring material and relevant facts and for that reason unsustainable in law?" - Our answer to the questions referred to us are, therefore, in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.
-
1998 (8) TMI 1
Acting under the lease agreement, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 1,62,835 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 50,937 during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said land - Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of Rs. 1,62,835 are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 - Impugned expenditure are revenue expenditure
....
|
9911796707
