|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1160 Records
-
1975 (12) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... e of any right on the part of the Jai Bharat Construction Corporation to remove the building on a principle analogous to section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, even if any such principle was applicable to the same. That would be so, particularly because the building had been constructed with the moneys of the flat-owners who were in actual possession of the respective flats in the building. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that neither section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, nor any principle analogous thereto, can be of any assistance to the revenue for the purpose of contending that the assessee-company is the owner of the building standing on its land. I would, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee. S. K. DESAI J.---I agree, and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.---The question referred to us is answered in the negative, and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the assessee s costs of the reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... rent from the facts narrated it is not a question of the validity of the exercise of the discretion but it is a question of non-application of law to the facts of this case. If the interest that was liable to be charged under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act has not been charged then the order of the Income-tax Officer would be certainly prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and as such the Commissioner has jurisdiction. In aid of the aforesaid view reliance may be placed on the observations of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cochin Malabar Estates Ltd. 1974 97 ITR 466 (Ker). In the aforesaid view of the matter the second contention cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid view of the matter the application fails and is dismissed. The rule nisi is discharged. Interim order is vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of this order be stayed for a period of six weeks from the date.
-
1975 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Estimated Income, Income From Business, Income From Other Sources, Undisclosed Income, Unexplained Cash Credits
-
1975 (12) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Same Business ... ... ... ... ..... endence and unity were furnished in the case before the Supreme Court by the existence of common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund and a common place of business. If one turns to clauses 10 and 26 of the memorandum of association of this private limited company it is clear that clause 26 empowers the company to manufacture the items in which it is permitted under clause 10 to deal in merchandise, products, substances, commodities, articles and things of all kinds, and apart from the test of the Supreme Court regarding common management, common control, etc., we have here essentially the same type of business, the two activities being two separate stages of the same business. Accordingly, the question will be required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Per VIMADALAL J.-I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.-The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs of the reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Carry Forward, From Other Sources, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... Income-tax 1973 87 ITR 627 (AP), where the learned judges differing from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Metal Refining Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1968 67 ITR 771 (Cal) held that since the charge of tax is on the total income and income-tax is a single tax and not a collection of taxes, a loss from any source in a year may be set off against the income from any other sources in that year and there was no prohibition preventing a member of the association of persons from setting off his share of loss in the association of persons against his other incomes. That was also a case where an assessee claimed to set off the loss incurred by her as a member of an association of persons against her income from other sources. We are in entire agreement with this judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (12) TMI 26 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Account Books, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... on 188 of the Act. The facts of the Allahabad case are so different that the assessee in the present case cannot receive any support from it. It has already been found in this case that the assessee filed one return for both the periods which would go to show that there was no claim for making two separate assessments. The single return for the entire year on the other hand is indicative of the fact that the business continued till the end of the year in the same manner as up to August 31, 1968, when one of the partners died. In that view of the matter, the assessee s claim to be treated as a registered firm up to August 31, 1968, has no force and the Tribunal, in our conclusion, has come to the correct finding. We would answer the question referred to us in the negative, namely On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the continuation of registration for a part of the relevant previous year was not maintainable. We make no order as to costs. N. K. DAS J.--I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Best Judgment Assessment, Income Tax, Reassessment Notice, Substituted Service
-
1975 (12) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... e an enquiry as to the purpose of a fund in order to determine the meaning of the expression. He contended that in the instant case the amount shown in the accounts by way of a provision for taxation fulfilled all the tests of a fund as laid down in the judgment of Lord Greene and in the text book cited. It appears that the contentions on this question on behalf of the assessee are of some substance. To accept the alternative contentions of the revenue we would have to introduce and read into the relevant rules words which are not there. There is no reason why in construing a fiscal statute we should do so. We note that it was nobody s case that the item provision for taxation did not at all constitute a fund . We answer both these questions, viz., question No. 2 for the assessment year 1963-64 and the only question for the assessment year 1964-65, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the divided success, there will be no order as to costs. EB J.-I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts because, so far as the case under consideration is concerned, it is evident that the failure of the Income-tax Officer to make proper inquiry with regard to both the deductions during the course of his original assessment was clearly prejudicial to the revenue, because the deductions in question were quite substantial in nature. In our opinion, therefore, the decision relied upon by Shri Patel is of no help to the respondent-assessee. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in law in setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 on the ground that the Additional Commissioner had not come to a firm conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous. In other words, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the revenue in this reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Previous Year, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... we are of opinion that the amount payable towards gratuity for the years earlier to the year of account during which the Ordinance came into force and for the year of account should have been claimed in the year in which the liability arose under the Ordinance. In the assessment year in question the assessee is entitled to claim as an expenditure only such amounts in respect of which a liability towards gratuity arose during the relevant accounting year. The amounts for which the liability arose in the earlier years are not deductible in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72. In the result, we answer the two questions referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1975 (12) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ter of challenge that amount has been reduced to Rs. 7,911 but still interest has been claimed under sub-section (2) of section 220 for the sum of Rs. 885. This interest the assessee is not liable to pay inasmuch as there was no valid notice of demand under section 156 issued to the assessee. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appropriate order should be that the petitioner should pay Rs. 7,911 as also the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the said sum from 31st January, 1975, up to date. Out of the amount that has been directed to be deposited pursuant to an order of this court with Messrs. P. D. Himatsingka and Co., the said Messrs. P. D. Himatsingka and Co. is directed to pay Rs. 7,911 with interest at the rate of 9 per annum on the said sum to the Income-tax Officer by 7th January, 1976, and the balance, if any, P. D. Himatsingka and Co. will be at liberty to refund to the petitioner. The rule is disposed of on those terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend, Tax On Undistributed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ividend within the meaning of sec. tion 23A. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above-quoted observations should not be taken as of any help to the assessee in this case. Shri Shah relied upon some general observations made in Gore-Browne on Companies as regards the different modes of distribution of dividends in a closely-held company. We find that these general observations are of no help to the assessee in view of the peculiar provisions contained in section 23A of the Act. In view of what is stated above, our answer to the question, which is referred to us, is that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that deemed dividends under section 2(6A)(e) of the Act of 1922 are to be taken into account in determining the applicability of section 23A of the said Act. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Reference is accordingly disposed of. The respondent-assessee shall bear the costs of the revenue in this reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Primary Facts, Managing Agent, Notice For Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ny failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the basic or primary facts. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in view of the reasons that have been disclosed now for initiating the proceeding under clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it must be held that the conditions precedent for issuance of the notice were not fulfilled in the instant case. The impugned notice dated the 29th of July, 1970, is, therefore, set aside or quashed. The rule is made absolute. The respondents are restrained from giving effect to the same. If any assessment had been made pursuant to the impugned notice the same is also quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of this order remain stayed for six weeks from date. Civil Revision Case No. 426(W) of 1971 For the same reasons as mentioned in Civil Revision Case No. 425(W) of 1971, this application is allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... eturns were submitted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that, therefore, the law that was applicable on the date of filing of the return alone could be applied and not the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961. That decision related to an amendment of a particular provision and the applicability of that provision to an individual case when it was not in terms made retrospective. But the provision in section 297(2)(g) specifically mentions that the applicability of the penal provision is to be with reference to the date of assessment and not with reference to the date of filing of the returns. Therefore, the general principle decided in Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar s case 1975 98 ITR 540 (Mad) is not applicable and the decision of the Supreme Court is the direct authority against the contention of the assessees. We accordingly answer all the questions in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (12) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Disclose Materials Necessary For Assessment, Dissolved Firm, Failure To Disclose, Reassessment Proceedings, Service Of Notice
-
1975 (12) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866. Learned counsel has relied on the third category of cases mentioned by the Supreme Court where it was held that if there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the case of the prosecution or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge, the powers can be exercised. That stage, however, has not yet been reached. Learned counsel has admitted that no charge has yet been framed and evidence has not yet been led. It cannot, therefore, be held that there is no evidence in support of the prosecution case so that the proceedings may be quashed in exercise of the powers by this court under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the circumstances of the case, it would not be possible to hold that section 279(lA) of the Act bars the further proceedings of the case against the applicant. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Tax Deducted At Source, Tax Demand ... ... ... ... ..... s or the individuals comprising it. It is this choice that is referred to as option by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 1964 53 ITR 225. It is the same choice which is designated as an election again by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Bachu Lal Kapoor 1966 60 ITR 74, 79. If one of the two entities has already been taxed, it will not be open to the income-tax authorities to seek to tax the other entities so long as the tax has been collected from the first entity and is not returned to it by making an appropriate order for such return. In this view of the matter, the deduction of the Income-tax Tribunal that it was not open to the department to assess the individual member will have to be sustained, though for reasons different than the one given by it. BY THE COURT The question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessees. The Commissioner must pay the assessees costs of the reference.
-
1975 (12) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Previous Year, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... at the assets were transferred for adequate consideration. If the properties are understood to have been transferred to the wife only for her future security and maintenance, by no stretch of imagination, could they be considered as being for adequate consideration. In this view, the excluding provisions of section 64(iii) are not satisfied so as to entitle the assessee to claim benefit thereunder. In either view, the assessee cannot escape inclusion of these incomes from the assets transferred to his wife, in his own income. The firm answer to the question referred in this case is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these two sums of Rs. 3,944 and Rs. 8,127 were includible in the hands of the assessee for the two assessment years 1966- 67 and 1967-68, under section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will have its costs from the assessee. Advocate s fee is Rs. 250.
-
1975 (12) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Revised Return, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... r is bound to drop the proceedings where no super-tax is payable by the assessee and in this case it has been done by the Income-tax Officer. Further, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, expressly provides for initiation of subsequent proceeding in certain matters, to wit section 34 of the Act. There is no such provision in section 23A of the Act and, therefore, if an order passed by the Income-tax Officer under this section is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue it can be rectified only by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Act and, hence, it must be held that no such power is intended to be given by the legislature to the Income-tax Officer or his successor under section 23A of the Act. We, therefore, reject the submissions of Mr. Pal. Accordingly, question No. 2 does not call for any answer. We return our answer only to question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1975 (12) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... oner of Income-tax 1972 83 ITR 136 (Bom). It might, perhaps, have been possible to argue that the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate or unknown if the present case had fallen under sub-clause (c) of clause 3 of the deed of trust dated 12th September, 1964. In view, however, of the finding contained in the supplemental statement of case that during the relevant previous year Ashok had a male child, the case is taken out of sub-clause (c) of clause 3 of the trust deed, and there can be no doubt that, following the decision of this court in Pandit s case 1972 83 ITR 136 (Bom), the shares of the beneficiaries in the case before us must be held not to be indeterminate or unknown, and the question referred to us must be answered accordingly. S. K. DESAI J.--I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.--The question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We order that the Commissioner should pay the assessee s costs of the reference.
............
|
