|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1466 Records
-
1976 (12) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Capital Gains Tax, Fair Market Value, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... We are unable to agree. The arrangement of the contract to transfer, as evidenced by the record, shows that there was a voluntary effort on the part of one set of shareholders to transfer it to another set so as to adjust their differences inter se amicably. We have already referred to the two findings of fact given by the Tribunal that there is no material to show that the transaction was put through with the object of avoidance or reduction of liability under section 45. We have also referred, incidentally, to the finding that it cannot be said in the instant case, in the absence of any evidence, that the route rights which are the permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to buses which were transferred were actually intended to be sold and were sold as such. The first finding of fact referred to is sufficient to dispose of the question referred to us. We answer the question against the department and dismiss the tax case, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200.
-
1976 (12) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A Firm, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and what the basis was for such a conclusion. After indicating his reasons for such a conclusion, it would certainly have been open to him to remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer for such other investigation or enquiry as might be necessary. But that was not the course which the Commissioner pursued. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order of the Income-tax Commissioner. The learned counsel for the revenue urged that, while setting aside the order of the Commissioner, the Tribunal had purported to restore the order passed by the Income-tax Officer and this meant that the Commissioner was precluded from taking up the matter again. We do not want to express any opinion on this question, since our jurisdiction is confined only to answering the question referred to us. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (12) TMI 27 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Charitable Institution, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... , is exempted from tax, there is no reason why a donation made to a fund or trust or institution, which is started or founded with the same donation, will not have the benefit of exemption. There is no reason to exclude the first donation with which the fund or institution is started or founded when the benefit is given to the subsequent donation. We had that this view is supported by a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner o Gift-tax v. Yogendra N. Mafatlal. If reported in 1966 58 ITR 40. We respectfully agree with the reasons given for the decision in the Bombay case and we find that the Tribunal correctly held that the relief under section 88 was also admissible on the initial donation with which the fund or institution is started or founded. In the result, we answer the question of law referred in the affirmative and against the department. The reference is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.- I agree.
-
1976 (12) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Tax Evasion ... ... ... ... ..... e of Rs. 463 per square yard and rejected the other rate without recording any reason. The reason given for not applying the average price rate was also wholly misconceived. As stated above, both the plots are situate in the same commercial locality of sector 22 at Chandigarh. It could not, therefore, be said that the two plots were situate in different areas. The Tribunal, thus, refused to take into consideration the market price of plots Nos. 1070-1071 on wholly irrelevant considerations and preferred to apply the rate of the other two plot Nos. 1010-1011 without any rational basis while determining the fair market price of the plots in dispute. We have, therefore, no option but to gush the impugned order of the Tribunal. The case will now go back to the competent authority for determining the fair market price of the plots in dispute afresh after making proper enquiries in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1976 (12) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... er on the question of value of the share and, therefore, the levy of penalty was not justified. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax has sought a mandamus from this court to direct the Tribunal to state a case. We do not think it is necessary to direct the Tribunal to state a case on thee facts and in the circumstances of his case. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that there was a bona fide difference of opinion. It is true that under section the burden is on the assessee but that, the Tribunal said had been discharged by the assesee in the present case. No doubt, the Tribunal made some unfortunate references to the element of mens rea find so on. Despite the unnecessary references to the element of men rea, the clear finding of the Tribunal is that the plea of the assessee regarding the valuation of shares was a bona fide plea, whether or not there, was any merit in it. We do not, therefore, think that the reference would be justified. The application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1976 (12) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the respondent could be found. In the background of the instant case, in our opinion, it could not be said that the notices had not been properly served. Further, in view of the fact that the Income-tax Officer, who had issued the said notices, was satisfied after examining the process server and the Inspector that the notices were served in accordance with rule 19 of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondent has failed to establish that the notices under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1950-51 had not been served in accordance with law. In the premises, this appeal must be allowed and the judgment and the order of the learned trial judge are hereby set aside and the rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. As prayed for by the respondent, the operation of this order shall remain stayed till the end of the Christmas vacation. M. M. DUTT J.--I agree.
-
1976 (12) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Marketing Of Commodities ... ... ... ... ..... e marketing of commodities. We, however, find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. Clause (d) of section 24, which defines the functions of the State Warehousing Corporations, specifically provides that a warehousing corporation may act as an agent of the Central Warehousing Corporation or of the Government for the purpose of the purchase, sale, storage and distribution of agricultural produce and other notified commodities. Moreover, as held in U. P. State Warehousing Corporation s case 1974 94 ITR 129 (All), the word do marketing has been used in section 10(29) of the Act in the wider sense so as to include the various activities such as storage of commodities which generally go to form the trade of marketing. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to differ from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in U. P. State Warehousing Corporation s case 1974 94 ITR 129, and respectfully following the same, answer the question in the affirmative.
-
1976 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... curring in section 24(5) do not permit the exercise of power otherwise than in accordance with the principles of the Act, and the rule framed thereunder. Assessment, appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and further appeal to Tribunal are parts of an integrated process. It is well established that an appellate court or authority exercises the same power as the trial court or assessing authority. We do not agree that the use of the expression as it thinks fit in any manner takes away or whittles down the binding effect of rule ID. The Tribunal has to consider the orders passed by the authorities below in the light of the law applicable to those authorities. For the reasons stated above our answer to the question referred is The Tribunal was not justified in approving the assessee s method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares which was not in accordance with rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules. The department shall be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1976 (12) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Dues ... ... ... ... ..... he tax dues being the balance sum after taking into account the payments made to the income-tax authority under previous orders of this court and the balance dues of the tax authorities is to be paid first and, thereafter, if any surplus remains, that is to be divided or paid by the official liquidator amongst other creditors. There will also be an order in terms of prayers (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h). The official liquidator will retain the costs assessed at 7 GMs. of this application out of the fund in his hands. Payment to the income-tax authority to be made as directed by this order forthwith. The balance of income-tax dues which has become payable by this order is Rs. 77,330.13 and that has to be paid forthwith by the official liquidator. The matter is to be treated as on the day s list. The official liquidator, the income-tax authority and all parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes on the liquidator s solicitor s undertakings to complete and file this order.
-
1976 (12) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits, Inclusions In Total Income, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, So Included
-
1976 (12) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Provisional Assessment, Recovery Proceedings, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... dings on the ground that there was no valid recovery certificate under section 46(2) of the Act. Hence we are unable to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel that merly because the tax for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 was undoubtedly due from the petitioner and he had not paid such tax, we should decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, even though the procedure followed for recovering such arrears was without the authority of law. In the result, we allow this petition, quash the attachment of the petitioner s properties for recovery of income-tax for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering from the petitioner the arrears of tax for those two years by following the procedure under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this petition.
-
1976 (12) TMI 18 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... submission. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, after considering the materials on record, gave some relief to the petitioner but that would not mean that his order is bad for that reason. Mr. Baruah also submits that in paragraph 2 of the assessment order which deals with income from undisclosed sources , it has been stated in clause (a) as capital account deposited on various dates during 1963-64 assessment year-Rs. 29,041.08 and he points out if this deposit was in 1963-64 assessment year, then the assessment could not be made for that assessment year. We have examined the records and we find that this deposit in the balance-sheet was as on March 31, 1964, that is, the assessment year 1964-65, which is the assessment year under consideration. So, this submission also has no substance. In the result, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are accordingly rejected. The rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.- I agree.
-
1976 (12) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e taken into account. The Tribunal further held that the winding wires manufactured by the assessee came within the description of aluminium cables and that the description given to them and the use to which they were put by the purchasers were irrelevant. The department now seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the benefits conferred by the provisions of sections 33(1)(iii)(c)(A) and 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and urges that no question of law is involved as no new facts have been brought out. The Income-tax Officer has referred to considerable new material and we think that this is a fit case for us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question propounded to us for our decision. It is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1976 (12) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Cash Credits, Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Power To Admit Additional Evidence
-
1976 (12) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Activity For Profit ... ... ... ... ..... lief. But this is not so in the instant case. For the above reasons, I cannot accept the argument of Mr. Sen. It may be recorded in this connection that at the stage of reply to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee-company, Mr. Sen realised that the verification of some of the paragraphs of the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer affirmed on July 2, 1971, is not correct and the same should have been verified as true to his knowledge. He wanted leave of the court for allowing the Income-tax Officer to re-verify the same. We could not give leave to re-verify the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer at that stage of the appeal, as we decided to consider the appeal on merits and not on technical points, although there was great substance in the points taken by Mr. Pal in this respect also. In the above view of the matter, I will dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the court below. There will be no order as to costs. RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA J.-I agree.
-
1976 (12) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Marketing Of Commodities ... ... ... ... ..... of tax under cloak of different baffling propositions revenue administration maintains vigilance through numerous sources and gets information from such source. Anonymous petition is one such potent source of information and the administration is obviously benefited by such information when they are verifiable by enquiry or investigation or research into facts as contained therein. In the changing society of ours, where there is a tendency to avoid assessment to tax, anonymous petitions are always a potent source of information and utilisation of such information very often serves the purose of revenue administration. The learned judge, therefore, was justified to say that it cannot be said that there was no information upon which the Income-tax Officer could form his reason to believe that there was escapement of income from assessment to tax. All the points raised on behalf of the appellant-company, therefore, fail. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed as proposed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Litigation Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... red. Applying the same principle, it must be held that, in the light of this decision of the Gujarat High Court, with which we agree until the final determination of the amount of costs till the end of the trial court stage was reached, it could not be predicated what the amount of expenditure would be and, therefore, the assessee was justified in claiming the entire amount of Rs. 69,190 as a deductible expenditure in the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1966-67. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the whole of the expenses amounting to Rs. 69,190 incurred by the assessee was allowable as deduction in computing the assessee s total income for the assessment year 1966-67. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and as to the whole of the amount. We thus answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (12) TMI 12 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Cash Credits, Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Power To Admit Additional Evidence
-
1976 (12) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... in our opinion, that the wooden staging in the petitioner s cold storage (valued by the valuation officer at Rs. 64,352) cannot be regarded as a part of the building. If the value of wooden staging estimated by the valuation officer at Rs. 64,352 is excluded, the total investment on the buildings of the cold storage, even according to the valuation officer, would be only Rs. 82,178. Hence, there was no basis for any reasonable belief by the ITO that the petitioner s investment on buildings during the assessment year 1961-62 exceeded the amount shown by him, i e., Rs. 54,852, by more than Rs. 50,000. Hence, he could not issue a notice under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, beyond 8 years from the date of the close of the assessment year 1961-62. That notice is clearly beyond time and invalid. Hence, we allow this petition and quash the notice dated July 14, 1976, (annexure IV to the writ petition). In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1976 (12) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Business Income Or Capital Gains, Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... o the purchase of rights shares. Then there was the balance of Rs. 78,65,679. The assessee took an overdraft from the National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Taking all the facts together there appears to be no doubt that the purpose of the assessee in acquiring the rights shares was to retain controller the Indian company. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which the Tribunal has also accepted. The assessee has sold only those shares which it was necessary to sell for the purpose of liquidating the overdraft. The cumulative effect which these facts produce on our mind is that the sales were not part of business and the surplus is to be treated as capital gains only. Our answer to the question referred to is as follows The surplus realised on the sale of the rights, and the rights shares was assessable not as a business profit, not as a profit from an adventure in the nature of trade but as capital gains. There will be no order as to costs.
............
|
