|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 303 Records
-
1995 (9) TMI 45 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... a lower rate or for applying the other provisions of Explanation 2, there must be material that has nexus to hold an opinion contrary to what has been expressed earlier. The scope of section 147 of the Act is not for reviewing its earlier order suo motu irrespective of there being any material to come to a different conclusion apart from just having second thoughts about the inferences drawn earlier. According to learned counsel for the parties, this decision governs this petition as well. In the aforesaid circumstances, following the decision in Special Civil Application No. 6291 of 1994, decided on April 26, 1995 (VXL India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 1995 215 ITR 295 (Guj)), this petition is allowed by holding that necessary conditions for issuing notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act have not been satisfied. Hence, the notice dated March 31, 1995 (annexure--B), is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Tribunal that there was no evidence that telephone was installed at the residence of the managing directors to give benefits or amenities to the persons. In the face of this finding there cannot be any application of the provisions of section 40A(5) or section 40(c) resulting in direct provision of remuneration, benefit, amenity or perquisite in favour of the said category of persons. So far as the question whether by providing of telephone facility at the residence of the directors and the employees any indirect benefit has been made available to these persons, the Tribunal has not recorded any finding. Without any such finding in favour of the Revenue or against the assessee, the provisions of section 40A or 40(c), in our opinion, cannot be attracted. Accordingly, we answer the aforesaid questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Higher Rate, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... nder the aforesaid circumstances and in view of our conclusion that the petitioners for the purposes of their business of manufacture or production of writing, printing or craft papers have used the technology including the process and know-how developed by the Forest Research institute which is wholly owned and financed by the Government. We cannot, but further hold that the petitioners are entitled to be issued with a certificate as provided for to enable them to get the benefit of the provisions of section 32A(2B). In the result, this writ petition is allowed and we set aside and quash the impugned orders issued by respondent No. 3 refusing to issue a certificate to the petitioners in terms of section 32A(2B) of the Act and direct the concerned respondents to issue such a certificate in order to enable the petitioners to claim deductions as provided for under section 32A of the Act. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. We make no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hedging Transaction, Shares And Securities ... ... ... ... ..... o note that the transactions connected with the purchase and sale of the said shares which were settled by way of payment of dues ultimately did not exceed the total quantity of scrips handed over to the brokers and, therefore, the genuineness or otherwise of the said transaction cannot be doubted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that when the assessee had, as permitted by law under proviso (b) to section 43(5) of the Act, entered into hedging transactions to hedge against price fluctuations in the aforesaid two scrips, the assessee was entitled to claim hedging loss, and the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in upholding the claim of the assessee. We are of the opinion that on the facts found by the Tribunal, the aforesaid principle is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and the Tribunal was right in its conclusions. Accordingly, we answer the ques tions referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... titled to a notice under section 143 (2) even though the result of the hearing and consequen tial disposal may lead to the same result, as a consequence of this decision. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in the following manner (i) Prayer (i) for declaring the Circular dated November 17, 1994, as illegal, is rejected. (ii) The intimation dated March 31, 1995 (annexure C ), is set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to reconsider the return of the petitioner relating to the assessment year 1993-94 under section 143(2) of the Act in accordance with law. (iii) The sum of Rs. 15 lakhs said to have been deposited by the petitioner with the fourth respondent, in pursuance of the interim order dated June 26, 1995, shall be held on account, by the Assessing Officer, till completion of the assessment and shall be dealt with in the light of the order of assessment to be passed regarding the assessment year 1993-94. (iv) Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Partner, Capital Gains Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hat the two questions sought to be referred by the Revenue are questions of law and do arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to state the case and refer the following two questions to this court for its opinion, at the earliest 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the onus to prove that the transfer was not effected as a device or ruse to convert the personal asset into money and evade tax on capital gains lies on the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not remitting the matter back to the file of the Income-tax Officer to examine whether the transfer was a device or ruse to convert personal asset into money and evade tax on capital gains in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 509 ? The income-tax case is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Expenditure, High Court, Question Of Law, Sales Tax, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... d Tamil Nadu sales tax. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court, the possibility of levy of sales tax on the assessee on account of freight has revived. With the aforesaid decision, the liability to charge sales tax on the element of freight has not ceased. Subsequent to the said decision it is now open to the Sales Tax Department to modify the assessment in respect of the turnover of the assessee including the sales tax on account of freight. In view of the aforesaid position and changed circumstances pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue of levy of sales tax on freight element, in our opinion, no question of law arises out of the said question No. 3, and the same has more or less become academic at present. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to call for the said question for the opinion of this court. In the result, there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... cedural defect, if any, which is directory in nature. If we examine the matter from that point of view we are satisfied that in the present case, the claim made by the assessee though not admissible for want of the auditor s report on record, yet the same was allowed under a mistake by the Assessing Officer leaving no opportunity to the assessee to complete the requirements. The condition of non-fulfilment of the requirement under sub-section (6A) was made known to the assessee during the proceedings under section 263 although the assessee asked for an opportunity to produce the auditor s report to fulfil the requirements under section 80J(6A), the Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have afforded an opportunity to the assessee to furnish that proof and then examined the admissibility of the claim in the light of the proof furnished. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we answer question No. 1 also in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (9) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, High Court, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government
-
1995 (9) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ade in breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it is founded on grounds which were not disclosed to the petitioner and for which no explanation was called for. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned orders of the appro priate authority exhibits F and G dated May 30, 1995, are quashed. The respondents shall take all necessary consequential steps including issuance of NOC within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ or production of this order before the appropriate authority. In case possession of the property has been taken and payment has been made to the transferor, the petitioner shall pay the requisite amount to respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks and on return of such amount the possession of the property shall be delivered to the petitioners along with necessary certificates within two weeks of making the payment, required to be made by the petitioners if any. Rule made absolute as aforesaid. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 34 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Income Tax Act, Manufacture And Sale, Special Deduction, State Legislature
-
1995 (9) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... llified in view of the appellate orders, contends counsel. In these proceedings, we are not inclined to consider the effect of the various decisions cited before us. We also do not propose to express our opinion regarding the contentions raised by the petitioner in these proceedings. The complaints are pending before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. This is not the appropriate stage to consider the acceptability or otherwise of the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court. He may even file an application before the trial court inviting a decision on the points raised by him. The decision reported in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala 1992 1 KLT 1 AIR 1992 SC 2206 can be pressed into service by the petitioner, if he wants a consideration on the points before the closure of the trial. With these observations, the criminal miscellaneous cases are disposed of.
-
1995 (9) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Specification Of Shares Of Partners ... ... ... ... ..... al partners are not actually worked out in the deed, it is open to ascertain the shares by reading the entire instrument as a whole and giving it a reasonable interpretation, by looking into the accounts and other documents of the firm which would show how the profit or loss had been actually apportioned between the partners and also by having recourse to section 13(b) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Sri P. K. R. Menon (Senior), learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that since the original grant of registration to the assessee can no longer be treated as incorrect in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this court as referred to above, it is not necessary to go into the question now referred to this court. In view of the above, we decline to answer the question referred. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1995 (9) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... jurisdiction under section 263. In that view of the matter, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act. Further, the Commissioner, while passing the order under section 263 set aside the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer with regard to the sale consideration of the properties question and remitted back this issue to the file of the Income-tax Officer with a direction to reconsider this issue afresh on the merits in accordance with law. If that is so, it is open to the assessees to plead their case before the Income-tax Officer on the merits in order to make their claim a success. Therefore, the assessees are not prejudiced by the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer questions Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and against the assessee and question No. 4 in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revenue Expenditure, Revenue Receipt, The High Court ... ... ... ... ..... apital investment. That apart, it may also be noted that in CWT v. V. T. Ramalingam 1993 201 ITR 839 (Mad), this court referred to Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT 1990 183 ITR 1 (SC) and observed thus (page 849) In yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT 1990 183 ITR 1 (SC), it had been pointed out that the Board, by its circulars, cannot pre-empt a judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Tribunal, much less the High Court, is not bound by the circulars and that though such circulars might have departed from the tenor of the statutory provision and give benefits to the assessees, that is not the same as saying that such circulars either have a binding effect on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act or that the Tribunal and the High Court are supposed to interpret the law in the light of the circulars. The net result is, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Law Applicable To Assessment, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... on an application made by the assessee for the purpose and extending the date for furnishing the return. But, after the abovesaid amendment of 1970, that is during the period between April 1, 1971, and 1989, the law was, whether time extension for filing the return was granted or not, interest is payable. In such a situation, the presumption of time extension for filing the return, based on collection of interest by the Department, as held by CIT v. Chandra Sekhar 1985 151 ITR 433 (SC), in relation to the position prior to the abovesaid 1970 amendment, would not arise at all. It has also been held in Ravi Steel Corporation v. ITO 1991 187 ITR 684 (Mad) that in view of the abovesaid amendment with effect from April 1, 1971, the levy of interest in case of delay in filing the return is automatic. The net result is, question No. 1 referred to us, which is a comprehensive one, covering even questions Nos. 2 and 3, is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits ... ... ... ... ..... dends from another Indian company is entitled to the exclusion of only the net dividend amount received after reducing from the gross dividend relief granted under section 80M of the Income tax Act, 1961 ? should be answered in the affirmative, and that this case is covered against the assessee-petitioner by the judgment of this court dated June 19, 1986, made in T. C. Nos. 136 and 137 of 1979 (CIT v. Virudhunagar Textiles Mills Ltd.). Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commencement Of Business, Interest On Advance ... ... ... ... ..... e, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that hotel expenses during travel would not come under rule 6D at all, and only travel expenses would be covered under rule 6D. There is absolutely no merit in the abovesaid contention. Not only the above referred to rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, but the enactment itself in section 37(3) specifically says that notwithstanding section 37(1) with reference to expenditure incurred in connection with travelling by an employee (of the assessee) or any other person (including hotel expenses or allowances paid in connection with such travelling) shall be allowed only to the extent prescribed. The abovesaid prescription is there in the abovesaid rule 6D, which is also worded in the same way. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the assessee could not argue anything seriously contra. Accordingly, the question, as we have formulated above, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Directors, Question Of Law, State Electricity Board, Trading Liability
-
1995 (9) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commencement Of Business, Interest On Advance ... ... ... ... ..... tant case was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the interest receipt of Rs. 25,532 before the commencement of its business does not have the character of income, liable to tax. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the interest payment of Rs. 2,666 to the State Bank of India and other expenses should be allowed as a deduction. According to learned counsel though this ground was raised before the Assessing Officer as well as before the first appellate authority, this was not considered by the Tribunal at, the time of hearing the appeal. While passing the consequential order in terms of the judgment rendered by us hereinabove, it is open to the assessee to agitate this ground before the Tribunal, and if such request is made, the Tribunal is directed to consider the same on the merits. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand).
....
|
