|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Notice Of Reassessment, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... d any reason to form the necessary belief which was a condition precedent to his issuing the notice under section 34(1)(a). He had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and the proceedings taken by him had to be quashed. Keeping In view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel and after perusing the relevant documents on record and the propositions of law laid down on the subject by the apex court, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Income-tax Officer had no justification for issuing the impugned notice dated February 6, 1985 (annexure 2) to the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81, since no reasons were disclosed by the Revenue for arriving at the conclusion that the amount was due from the assessee and in the absence of disclosure the notice dated February 6, 1985 (annexure 2), per se is illegal and is without jurisdiction and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.
-
1994 (9) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Market Value, Tax Evasion ... ... ... ... ..... d not have been in the mind of any one at all. Be that as it may, the Income-tax Officer is obliged to record his satisfaction that the transfer of the assets was for reducing the liability to pay income-tax. But, in this case, the Income-tax Officer has not recorded any such satisfaction. Under the circumstances, it was open to the appellate authorities to consider the matter to ascertain whether Explanation 3 to section 43(1) was attracted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department could not hope to satisfy the appellate authorities that the transfer was for reducing the tax liability. The facts, as they are, could not lead to the said conclusion. Under the circumstances, Explanation 3 to section 43(1) was clearly not attracted. There is, therefore, no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the questions are answered in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 (one set).
-
1994 (9) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t we know is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not pass any order in respect of depreciation and development rebate. Can it be said on these facts that he did not consider and decide the two items ? We are clearly of the opinion that these two items will be deemed to have been considered and decided in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated January 23, 1968. Was it the subject-matter of an appeal ? This is the question. If the answer is yes , the matter ought to be held as having been considered and decided. (See also Rajputana Mining Agencies v. ITO 1979 118 ITR 585 (Raj)). Therefore, the impugned notice for this reason also cannot stand and is set aside and quashed together with any proceedings which may have been taken thereunder. Let a xerox copy of this judgment, duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this court, be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and on payment of usual charges.
-
1994 (9) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Debatable Issue, Foreign Exchange, Rectification Of Mistakes, Writ Petition
-
1994 (9) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... it has not offered the gains arising from the sale of agricultural lands for tax. The Income-tax Officer held, in view of the provision contained in section 54B of the Income-tax Act, the Hindu undivided family is not entitled to the exemption. However, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Learned standing counsel for the Department brought to our notice a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. G. K. Devarajulu 1991 191 ITR 211, wherein it is clearly held that the exemption under section 54B is not available to the Hindu undivided family, but is available only to an individual. In view of the abovesaid decision of this High Court cited supra, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
HUF Income, Inclusions In Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... reme Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question and state the case to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act. In such circumstances, the above-said question arising in CIT v. Dharampal Ram Kumar 1994 207 ITR 543 was not finally decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, we have CIT v. Anand Sarup 1993 204 ITR 361 (SC), where the question arising in this reference was finally heard and decided. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion that the income arising out of the shares belonging to the minors in the firm is not includible in the hands of the father, who is also a partner of the firm in his capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family in his individual assessment in the status of individual. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department in respect of all the assessment years under consideration. No costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000 (one set).
-
1994 (9) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... nsideration was adequate. The opinion of this court was that the consideration was a good consideration, but not adequate consideration. We are not concerned with the adequacy or otherwise of the consideration. Indeed, the finding that the consideration was adequate has become final and has got to be accepted as such. This decision would, therefore, indicate that the discharge of liability for maintenance and marriage of unmarried daughters would be a consideration. Whether that consideration would be adequate or not, will depend upon the facts of each case. This case would, therefore, not support the submission of learned standing counsel for the Department that the consideration in the instant case was not a consideration at all. Indeed, this would support the contrary proposition and justify the view taken by us earlier. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (9) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... is court, therefore, held that the whole cost of the shares, including the bonus shares being a known figure, it would be unnecessary to ascertain the individual cost of each share because by getting at the average cost of the bonus shares the average cost of original shares must inevitably get reduced pro tanto. The Tribunal has admittedly followed this very method in the present case and has not valued the bonus shares separately because the entire shareholding of the company had been acquired by the Government. In this view of the matter, the method adopted by the Tribunal is the method prescribed by this court in the aforesaid judgment. In this view of the matter, it is the considered view of this court that the answer in the aforesaid case would govern the answer in the instant case. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the question referred to this court is answered against the assessee and in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (9) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... er to accept the said objection without any proof thereof. Under the circumstances, the notice must be held to be fully legal and justified and no interference is called for. It was, however, brought to our notice that during the pendency of the proceedings, the defaulter taxpayer has filed a civil suit against the petitioner claiming possession of the property and the said suit is pending. This being a subsequent event would not, in the opinion of this court, affect the impugned order in any manner. Learned counsel then submitted that he should be permitted to bring it to the notice of the respondent/ Tax Recovery Officer this subsequent fact and all such documents as he may deem fit and proper. It is not necessary for this court to give any direction in this behalf. Such a course is always open to the petitioner before the authority. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we find no substance in the writ petition, which fails and is dismissed. No costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (9) TMI 17 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Reference To Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... nformity with law and are fully fragile on account of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Accordingly, in the absence of impugment against notices under section 17 of the Act, I sustain the validity of the notices (annexure D), issued under section 17 of the Act, in all these petitions but quash the references to the Valuation Officer and his notices to the petitioner as impugned in these petitions holding the same as invalid and illegal, but leaving the Assessing Officer free to proceed further and reassess in terms of section 17 of the Act. Sine ira et studio in conformity with law as expeditiously as possible. Ex consequenti, this petition as also the abovequoted nine petitions are thus allowed only in part as indicated above with no order as to costs. Security costs, deposited in each petition, shall be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification. A copy of this order shall be retained in the record of the aforesaid petitions for ready reference.
-
1994 (9) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Annual Value ... ... ... ... ..... at a concessional rate of 55 per cent. But, according to the Department, the assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing activities. In view of the decisions relied on in CIT v. Union Carbide India Ltd. 1987 165 ITR 550 (Cal) and CIT v. Marwell Sea Foods 1987 166 ITR 624 (Ker), we have already held that the assessee is a manufacturing company engaged in the business of selling sea foods. Therefore, when the assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of sea food, they are entitled to the tax at the rate of 55 per cent. in view of the provisions contained in section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in granting the concessional rate of tax at 55 per cent. is in order. In that view of the matter, we answer question No. 3 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (9) TMI 15 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... tion. In our opinion, whether the settlement application filed under section 245C of the Act is to be admitted or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Commission has given cogent reasons and in its opinion, to quote, . . . . most of the controversial issues about ownership of business have already been settled. There is no pending investigation of such a complex nature as would require the intervention of the Settlement Commission. If the Commission reaches this finding, we see no reason to disagree with the said finding. Learned counsel further urged that the order is based upon a report which itself was not accepted by the Commission. Be that as it may, admittedly, the appeal is pending before the appellate authority and it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the issues which he wants to be settled in the application under section 245C of the Act. There is no substance in the writ petition. Writ petition to stand summarily rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Market Value, Shares And Securities ... ... ... ... ..... nd, therefore, this judgment will not help the assessees. In the instant case, the resolution is clear and specific and permits refund of Rs. 790 per share to the shareholders. It is true that this amount can be returned either in cash or in kind. But, this would not extend the value of the amount to be returned. In case the amount had been returned in cash and not in kind the assessees could not have claimed interest in the company equivalent to Rs. 790 per share and would have remained satisfied only by getting Rs. 790 per share only. This really has happened in the instant case in so far as the cash amount given to them is concerned. In such a situation, the interpretation given by the House of Lords cannot be applied in the instant case. In view of our discussion aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the method of assessment adopted by the authorities including the Tribunal. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and against the assessees. No costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... said application was rejected and, therefore, this petition under section 27(3) of the Act has been made for directing the Tribunal to state the case and to make a reference. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have referred the first question to this court under section 27(2) of the Act, as it does give rise to a question of law. The second question proposed does not give rise to any question of law and, therefore, needs no consideration. Accordingly, this application under section 27(3) of the Act is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the two partial partitions dated January 19, 1976, and October 16, 1978, are valid in law and satisfy the requirements of section 171 ? There shall be no order as to costs of these proceedings.
-
1994 (9) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bank Deposits, House Property, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... utation of net assets and the computation of net wealth in accordance with the provisions of the Act while rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal was right in affirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing the claim of the assessee for exclusion of the two assets, namely, the bank deposit and the house under sections 5(1)(xxvi) and 5(1)(iv) of the Act, respectively, for computing the value of the assessee s interest in the partnership-firm for the purpose of computing the net wealth of the assessee, taxable under the Wealth-tax Act. It may further be noticed that this position is clear from the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 5 with effect from 1989, which is clarificatory in nature rather than amending the law. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Income Tax Act, Movable Property
-
1994 (9) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... in question were completed by the Wealth-tax Officer without making proper enquiry as to the value of land prevailing at Jaipur at the relevant time particularly when the subsequent return was filed in 1981, where the value of land was declared by the assessee himself at Rs. 3,63,000 in 1981 as against the earlier value of Rs. 35,000 for the very property. This case is again distinguishable on the facts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Gift-tax, patently lacked jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, since none of the conditions precedent to the invocation of the said section were satisfied in this case. The petitioner, accordingly, succeeds in this writ petition. Accordingly, the said proceedings, decisions and order passed by the Commissioner of Gift-tax under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act stand quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Annual Value ... ... ... ... ..... nch of Varghese Kalliath and P. A. Mohammed JJ., in their judgment in W. A. No. 65 of 1990 rendered on February 22, 1994. The default contemplated by the section is non-payment of the tax admitted to be due before or along with the return, and not non-payment on the due date for the filing of the return. True, the Act prescribes the date before which the return is to be filed, but on the language of the provision, the penalty is not leviable for default in payment on that day, but for default in payment before or along with the return. The terminus a quo for calculating the amount of penalty is the actual date of filing the return and not the date on which it should have been filed. We are, therefore, in agreement with the ratio of the above two decisions. There is no reason to take a different view having regard to the language of section 17A(3). The decision of the learned single judge is, therefore, correct. The writ appeal entails dismissal. It is accordingly, dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Annual Value ... ... ... ... ..... ion 20. In view of the aforesaid decisions one of which stands confirmed by a Division Bench, the impugned orders imposing penalty on the petitioner from June 1, 1980, and June 1, 1981, respectively, under section 17A(3) are not sustainable. At the same time the petitioner is liable for penalty for the period subsequent to the date of filing of the returns for the two years, viz., March 26, 1983, and September 20, 1983, in respect of the balance amount due from him as on these dates till the date of payment of the amount due. The orders exhibits P-5, P-6 and P-7 are, therefore, set aside and the matter remitted back to the first respondent-Agricultural Income-tax Officer to impose penalty on the petitioner for non-payment of the amounts due on the date of filing of the respective returns for the two years. The first respondent shall pass orders after notice to and hearing the petitioner in the matter. The writ petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... r the above reasons, we hold that the impugned order is vitiated by the denial of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is the owner of the property proposed to be sold and the same has to be quashed. In view of the above finding, we do not think it necessary to go into the question as to whether the appropriate authority was right in coming to the conclusion that the fair market value of the property in question was high by more than 15 per cent. than the apparent consideration. Section 269UD prescribes a period of two months from the end of the month in which the statement referred to in section 269UC was received by the appropriate authority. That period has already expired and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is not a fit case in which we should remit the matter back to the appropriate authority. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated March 24, 1993, is hereby quashed.
....
|
