|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 303 Records
-
1995 (9) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... tion 147 and it was held in the said decision (page 297) . . . howsoever wide the scope of taking action under section 148 of the Act, it does not confer jurisdiction on change of opinion on the interpretation of a particular provision earlier adopted by the assessing authority. For coming to the conclusion whether there has been excessive loss or depreciation allowance or there has been underassessment or assessment at a lower rate or for applying other provisions of Explanation 2, it must be material and it should have nexus for holding such 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. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned notice dated February 23, 1995 (annexure J ), is quashed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Appeal Against Assessment, Appeal To AAC, Penal Interest, Registered Firm, Total Income, Unregistered Firm
-
1995 (9) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Motor Lorry, Rate Of Depreciation, Special Rate ... ... ... ... ..... id motor lorries. The relevant observation therein is as follows (page 20) Merely because the rig and compressor are mounted on a lorry to facilitate easy and convenient transport from one place to another, it cannot be said that the rig and compressor either constitute integral parts of a lorry by themselves nor can they be appropriately called or known as a lorry , as understood in common parlance. Therefore, the rig and compressor used for drilling borewells, though mounted on a lorry, cannot be held to fall under motor lorry occurring in entry III(ii) D(9) of Part I of Appendix I to the Rules. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the Revenue, this tax case is covered by the said decision and the question referred to us has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Mr. V. S. Jayakumar, learned counsel for the respondent, also agrees accordingly. Hence, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Life Insurance, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... that wherever the term the wife has been used in relation to the expression person or individual , the person must be interpreted to mean only male and not female. From the language of section 5, it is clear that the word person has been used at two places. Firstly, it is used in the opening para and is prefixed by the words gifts made by the which makes the person referable to is the donor. Second time when the word person has been used in clause (ix) it is prefixed by the words to the denoting gift to the person , which makes it referable to the donee. The exclusion of person in the bracketed portion only qualified the second class of persons, namely, donees, and does not hold the key to interpret the extent of class of persons included in the category of donors who are the subject of the main provision governing all the clauses. Accordingly, we answer the question reframed by us above in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 20 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mines And Quarries, Mining Lease, Retrospective Operation, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... of such activity need not be performed, it would clearly defeat the very purpose of the rule. An interpretation of a statute will have to be given which advances the cause of public good and not otherwise. This court cannot merely look at the matter from a narrow angle, but interpret the contract as a whole with reference to the statute. Viewed from that angle we find no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the Department nor the view taken by the Tribunal is justified. Hence, we answer question No. 3 referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is unnecessary to answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the view we have taken. Now, after the matter goes back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may refer the matter to the original assessing authority to find the extent of deduction, whether the deductions are available to the assessee or not on the quantum and from what stage, on the basis of the interpretation given by us. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (9) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Cause Of Action, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Petition Against Order, Private Trust, Public Charitable Trust, Recovery Proceedings, Supreme Court, Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Petition
-
1995 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Assessment Year, Cash Credits, Income Returned, Law Applicable To Assessment, Retrospective Effect
-
1995 (9) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Growing Crops ... ... ... ... ..... question raised in the above tax case. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case before us and the question referred to this court, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee but in favour of the Revenue and hold that the entire coffee and tea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and the berries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression growing crops for exemption under section 5(1)(viii)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... 1966 60 ITR 52 (SC) thus It has to be held on the facts here that the sum was spent only for the purpose of business and that there is no capital element in the expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied on CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. 1965 55 ITR 707 (SC) to contradict the finding of the Tribunal that money cannot be considered stock-in-trade of the assessee, a leasing and financing company. No doubt, the Supreme Court, in the said case observed in the context of the actual question before it that cash was the stock-in-trade of a banking business. But, the context therein was whether loss of cash by dacoity was a trading loss. But that observation of the Supreme Court made in the above context, cannot refer to any cash raised by way of share capital. Certainly such cash raised by the assessee here is not his stock-in-trade. The net result is, we concur with the order of the Tribunal in the above reference application and dismiss the tax case petition. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... father. No doubt, if at least the said Ganga Bai stated the quantum of income got by her from the said land, it could have been considered whether the quantum of income realised every year from the said land could have been the source for acquiring any of the subsequent purchases in her name. But, there is no statement even by the said Ganga Bai in this proceeding in relation to the said, quantum of income. So, it has to be taken that the said income has not been a substantial one and could not have led to any of the later acquisitions in her name. We, therefore, hold that only the income from the said 50 cents of land should not be clubbed with the husband s income. The net result is, the revisions are allowed in part, that is, only with reference to the abovesaid income from the abovesaid 50 cents of land, got by Ganga Bai from her parent and to that extent the order of the Commissioner is set aside. In other respects, the order of the Commissioner is confirmed. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Growing Crops ... ... ... ... ..... question raised in the above tax case. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case before us and the question referred to this court, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee, but in favour of the Revenue and hold that the entire coffee and tea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and the berries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression growing crops for exemption under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Growing Crops, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... rop. Consequently, in our view, tea or coffee bushes or plants, apart from the two leaves and the bud of tea plant or the berries of the coffee plant, cannot be considered as growing crops within the meaning of section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act. The construction placed by us above is not only in conformity with the commonsense understanding of the words growing crops , but also accords with the intention of the Legislature as well and makes the provision in tune with the specific purpose and object of the recasting of section 2(e) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1969. For all the reasons stated above, we answer question No. (2) referred for our opinion in the negative and against the assessee, but in favour of the Revenue and hold that the entire coffee and tea bushes apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and the berries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression growing crops for exemption under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Individual Income ... ... ... ... ..... he decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter, our answer to the question referred to us is that in the facts of the case the Appellate Tribunal was not right in holding that the properties of Mayabhai on being inherited by his adopted son did not become the joint property of the Hindu undivided family of mother and son and income arising from that property comprising seven annas share was not income of the Hindu undivided family but was assessable in the hands of the aforementioned Hindu undivided family on the basis of the Tribunal s decision dated December 22, 1995, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Before parting we make it clear that since all the authorities have decided the question only on the basis of the earlier decision of the Tribunal and not by deciding the issues on the merits that aspect of the matter does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal for our consideration.
-
1995 (9) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Fair Market Value, High Court, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Tax Evasion
-
1995 (9) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, Principal Officer, Tax At Source, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... g also responsible for paying as laid down in section 204. It has also been held by the apex court in 1994 Crl. LJ 628 that by the introduction of section 278B of the Income-tax Act with effect from October 1, 1975, it has been enacted that where an offence under this Act has been committed by the company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It is, therefore, clear that everybody mentioned in this section including the company shall be liable for the offence committed by the company, and proceeded against. This revision accordingly fails. The interim order of stay of proceedings of the court below granted on July 6, 1994, is vacated. The learned court below will dispose of the proceedings before it as early as possible.
-
1995 (9) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application out of which the aforesaid questions are stated to have arisen. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal but the questions, as framed by the Revenue, appear to us to have not been properly framed. Therefore, in exercise of our powers we reframe the question of law that arises for consideration, which, in our opinion, is a question of law and is referable to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of Rs. 54,08,995 was allowable as revenue expenditure having been incurred after April 6, 1982 ? In the result, we direct the Tribunal to refer to this court the aforesaid reframed question of law along with a statement of case for its opinion. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
1995 (9) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Foreign Company, Indian Company, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e taxed under the Income-tax Act under the head of salaries. That being so, the pocket allowance which he received from the Indian company in India while discharging his duties as an employee of the foreign collaborator was income chargeable to tax from salaries and accordingly it will have to be computed under that head. It will also, therefore, be eligible for deductions as are permissible while computing Income from salary . We are of the opinion that while the Tribunal was right in holding that the pocket allowance was not paid to the assessee in his capacity as an employee of the Indian company yet it being remuneration forming part of salaries in the hands of the assessee, the Tribunal was not right in holding that standard deduction either of Rs. 3,500 or Rs. 1,000 was not allowable from the aforesaid income as deduction in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we answer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Both references stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (9) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... s 80HH and 80-I which have been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier order by the appellate authority in the assessee s own case and keeping that in view the assessing authority shall pass order under section 220(6) afresh in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Before we part with the case, we may note that learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the Department has not accepted the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Madhu Chemicals, Bhavanagar, for the assessment year 1987-88 and though an application under section 256(1) has been rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Department is taking steps to make an application under section 256(2). As the controversy about the merits of allowance of the claim under sections 80HH and 80-I is not the subject-matter of the petition before us, we may make it clear that this decision has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the claim of the assessee.
-
1995 (9) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agreement For Avoidance, Attributable To, Business Profits, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Foreign Company, Income Tax Act, Permanent Establishment, Tax At Source
-
1995 (9) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Doctrine Of Merger, Law Applicable, Original Order, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings
....
|
