|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 303 Records
-
1995 (9) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ection 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is confined to the declarant alone and is not extended to the assessment of a third party assessee in relation to the income disclosed by the declarant. It was further held that there is nothing in section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act which prevents the Income-tax Officer, if he is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of sources of amounts found credited in his books to add them to the assessee s income amount in spite of these having already been made the subject-matter of the declaration made by the depositors/creditors. He is entitled to include them as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In view of the said decision, the appeal is allowed. The question shall be deemed to have been referred to the High Court, which we withdraw to this court and answer the same in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sums of ₹ 4,12,780 and ₹ 5,50,000 are liable to be excluded under rule 1(xi)(a) of Schedule I to the Surtax Act, 1964, in computing the chargeable profits in surtax assessments for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 ?
Held that:- None of these circular letters sent by the Reserve Bank of India nor the letters written specifically to the assessee-bank go to show that the Reserve Bank of India had directed the banks or the assessee-bank to transfer a larger amount than what was required by section 17(1) of the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, this argument that the assessee had been directed by the Reserve Bank of India under section 35A to contribute a larger amount to the reserve fund than what was required by section 17(1) is misconceived. The question referred to the High Court was correctly answered by it. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings would take. Further, the appellant is not the only accused in the criminal court. There are as many as nine accused in the said proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification for accepting the prayer of the appellant and stopping the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the proceedings in the criminal court. It goes without saying that in the disciplinary proceedings, evidence has to be adduced and the enquiry officer has to be satisfied that the charges are made out. If the enquiry officer finds sufficient evidence to prove the charges, then the further proceedings shall follow. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is an income-tax practitioner and that several clients of his will be depending upon him, the interests of justice require that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted as expeditiously as possible and finished at an earlier date. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Let Out, Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... under section 5(1)(iii) of the Act is available in regard to the entire building. The Tribunal also declined to make a reference under section 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application. An identical question has been considered and answered against the Revenue by this court in CIT v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo 1985 154 ITR 236. That was also a case of palace of an ex-Ruler, a portion of which had been let out. This court held that nevertheless the entire building is exempt for the purpose of the wealth-tax. It is held that the expression any one building has been used only to indicate that not more than one building can be exempt. The intention of the Legislature was not that if a building is in the occupation of the assessee, the value of part of the building, which has been rented out, could be reckoned for the purpose of assessing the wealth-tax. We, therefore, hold that no question of law, as suggested by the Revenue, arises for consideration. The applications are dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agricultural Produce, Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Sales Tax, Special Deduction
-
1995 (9) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act, Initial Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Question Of Law, Taxing Statutes
-
1995 (9) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... llation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of his business or deprive him of what in substance is his source of income, termination of the contract being a normal incident of the business and such cancellation leaves him free to carry on his trade (freed from the contract terminated), the receipt is revenue where by the cancellation of an agency the trading structure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee s income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency agreement is normally a capital receipt. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1964 53 ITR 261 and the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin 1979 117 ITR 26, we answer the question, referred to us, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... 1968 and the four owners paid Rs. 53,179 as composition fee. The Appellate Tribunal held that this payment was allowable while computing income from property, as it was a valid deduction under section 24(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The submission of learned counsel for the Department is that the payment was made by way of composition and as such should not be treated as legitimate deduction. We do not agree with this submission. Composition fee is often paid by a person because he wants to avoid harassment and unnecessary controversy in the matter, and it is not that the payment of composition fee means that the person has accepted that he committed some illegality. Hence, in our opinion, payment of composition fee was a legitimate deduction and it was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and we answer the reference in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... t, namely, Rs. 34,665. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority accepted the case of the assessee. The Department, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the sum of Rs. 34,665 paid by the assessee towards arrears of rent, in fact, was a capital expenditure. From clauses (1) and (4) of the agreement it is evidently clear that the assessee was required to pay the arrears of rent in lieu of goodwill purchased from the earlier firm. However, for the previous year the assessee was allowed deduction. After considering the matter, we find that in fact what was paid by the assessee was not towards the arrears of rent for the period prior to dissolution of the partnership firm but for acquiring goodwill. Thus, the amount spent was a capital expenditure. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... we are of the view that the following question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the salary paid to the assessee for the off period outside India was not chargeable to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in terms of section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 55 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... yer. The only contention urged before us is that a special leave petition has been filed against the aforesaid decision and is pending. Counsel was, however, unable to show that the pendency of a special leave petition can obliterate the impact of the decision on the question and can give rise to a question of law for a direction to state the case and make reference to this court. This court feels bound by the decision until it is reversed or overruled. A similar application (M. C. C. No. 16 of 1993) was rejected by this court on April 19, 1994. In the circumstances, we find that these applications are inutile and futile and should suffer summary rejection. Ex consequenti, we hold that there is no question of law apparent and reject the applications summarily without notice to the non-applicant. This order shall be retained in the record of Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1995 and copy thereof shall be placed in the records of Income-tax References Nos. 3 of 1995 and 4 of 1995.
-
1995 (9) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Question Of Law, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ciation of facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the question of law as proposed falls for consideration. Counsel for the applicant was unable to show as to how the benefit was not allowable in the face of the finding that the income offered by the assessee was not the subject-matter of search and seizure operations. The orders passed are on the linchpin of question No. 30 and reply thereto. It is thus clear that question No. 12 is required to be read along with question No. 30 for a harmonious construction of the scheme. The orders are, thus, passed on an appreciation of facts and features. No question of law, thus, arises and no case for reference is thus, visible. In the result, we decline admission and dismiss all the aforesaid six cases summarily without notice to the other side. This order shall be retained in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 322 of 1995 and its copies shall be retained in the other connected five miscellaneous civil cases as particularised above.
-
1995 (9) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Higher Rate, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. As has already been observed above, in the present case the totality of circumstances shows that the transactions were genuine for the reasons already mentioned above. In fact, the amount said to have been paid in cash by the assessee to certain parties has been verified by the certificates of those parties. Hence, the interest of the Department is protected because the Department can assess those amounts in the hands of the payee and it is not that these amounts will not be assessed at all. Thus, the Department will not suffer in any way. In view of the above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... re to be levied for the period of delay prior to April 1, 1969, in terms of the prescribed rates with reference to the unamended section 18 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1969, and for the period of delay subsequent to April 1, 1969, at the prescribed rates in terms of law under the amended section 18(1)(a)(i), as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1969. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the penalty should be worked out on the basis of law, as it existed on the date when the return was due and we are of the opinion that the penalty should be calculated for the period up to March 31, 1969, according to the law, as it stood on the date when the return was due and up to March 31, 1969, and the penalty for the period April 1, 1969, onwards should be calculated at the amended rate effective from April 1, 1969. The question is answered accordingly in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (9) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Land, Business Income, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Finality Of Findings Of Fact
-
1995 (9) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal Against Assessment, Penalty For Concealment, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ncome, as well as penalty for non-payment of penalty amount. It is the admitted position that the appeal of the petitioner against the assessment order including that of concealed income is pending before the first respondent, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. In the facts and circum stances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner s appeal expeditiously and preferably on or before December 31, 1995. The petitioner undertakes to produce the certified copy of this order before the first respondent within two weeks from today. Certified copy of this order be given to the petitioner on urgent cost within one week from today. Pending hearing and disposal of the appeal before the first respon dent, recovery of the penalty amount pursuant to the order dated June 8, 1995, annexure P-6 as also to the order dated January 18, 1995, is stayed. The writ petition to stand disposed of in the abovesaid terms.
-
1995 (9) TMI 49 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Being Heard, Fair Market Value, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property
-
1995 (9) TMI 48 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Assessee's Appeal, High Court, Powers Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... an industrial company. However, the Income-tax Officer, by following a decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1973-74, rejected the contention. However, the Special Bench constituted for the purpose set aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer as stated above and referred the matter back to the Income-tax Officer for a reconsideration in the light of the decision given by the Special Bench. As such, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of our foregoing observations, we answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, question No. 3 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no direction as to costs. V. D. GYANI J.--I agree.
-
1995 (9) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Law Applicable To Assessment, Medical Expenses, Provident Fund, Sales Tax
-
1995 (9) TMI 46 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Power Of Rectification, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings, Registered Firm
....
|
