Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 157 of 157 Records
-
1979 (9) TMI 18
... ... ... ... ..... d in the estate of the deceased under s. 10 of the said Act. If the accountable person wanted to establish that only a particular part of the rental income was withdrawn by the donor it was for him to establish that fact, as it was for him to establish as to how the amounts withdrawn by the donor had been utilised. The accountable person has failed to do this. In view of this, the value of the entire let out portion of the gifted property must be included in the property of the deceased donor for the purposes of the said Act. In our view, question No. 2 must be answered against the accountable person. In the result, the questions reframed by us are answered as follows Question No. 1--in the negative. Question No. 2--in the affirmative, it being clarified that the value of the entire portion of the gifted property which had been let out passed on the death of the deceased. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (9) TMI 17
Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... eing referred to this court for determination. That application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the findings of the Tribunal were findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence on record, and hence no question of law arose from the same. What Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought to argue before us is that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the commission paid by the assessee to Tata Exports Ltd. fell under the aforesaid sub-cls. (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii) and (viii) of s. 35B(1)(b) of the said Act and that the said expenses in fact fell under sub-cl. (iii) of the said provision. In our view, these submissions of Mr. Joshi are not reflected at all in the question which the petitioner has sought to raise, nor does the order of the Tribunal show that submissions to that effect were made before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the application is rejected and the rule is discharged with cost.
-
1979 (9) TMI 16
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... is without any merit. As already observed, the Tribunal did not record a finding that the debt owed by the assessee to M/s. Shiv Lal Kanaiya Lal was not in the nature of his personal expenditure, but the Tribunal fell in legal error when it started investigating the motive of the assessee and ignored the actual fact on the basis of which the decision, whether the claim can be allowed or not, was to be taken. In the process of reasoning, the Tribunal brought in irrelevant and inadmissible factors, such as the motive of the assessee, which, in law, could not be taken into consideration. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the claims made were not admissible under s. 37(1) of the Act, and the Tribunal fell in error in allowing the said deductions. The questions referred to us are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 15
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of income. In the absence of a clear finding on both these points and also not keeping in view the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) by the Tribunal, it is not possible to answer the question referred to this court. This court, while issuing the mandamus on 26th April, also observed that the matter rests on the determination as to on whom the onus lies to prove that the concealment was deliberate or not and on the true effect of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we send back this reference to the Tribunal without answering the question, with a direction that after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties, of being heard, the Tribunal shall decide afresh keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Karnail Singh s case 1974 94 ITR 505, whether any penalty was imposable on the assessee or not. This reference is accordingly disposed of without answering the question and without making any order as to costs. R. N. MITTAL J.-I agree.
-
1979 (9) TMI 14
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... years and it cannot be said to be an enduring advantage. Even if we consider it as an advantage which may last for a few years, yet it is difficult to hold that it was not made in the course of ordinary commercial trading activity. We may also point out that merely because the amount spent by the assessee was labelled as renovation , it could not lead to any conclusion, because renovation may mean repairs or substantial alterations or constructions depending upon the circumstances of each case. According to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, the so-called renovation carried out by the assessee in the present case has to be considered as repairs made for the upkeep of the cinema building. As such, the amount spent by the assessee on the so-called renovation was of the nature of revenue expenditure falling within s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act and is, therefore, an allowable deduction. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.
-
1979 (9) TMI 13
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... s. 22(2) of the Act to the assessees and the notices issued by him cannot be said to be void. The objection as to jurisdiction of the ITO, D Ward, to issue notices under s. 22(2) was, in fact and substance, an objection pertaining to the place of assessment. Consequently, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that what the assessee meant by raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the ITO, D Ward, was an objection as to the place of assessment. We are further of opinion that the issue of notices under s. 22(2) falls within the purview of the term assessment and since the assessees did not object to the place of assessment within the time allowed by the notice, the place of assessment (or, according to the assessees, the jurisdiction of the ITO, D Ward, to issue notices) cannot be called in question in the penalty proceedings. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 12
Business Liability, Deduction, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... sessee-firm had taken over the entire assets and liabilities of the erstwhile firm and as the suit had already been filed when the agreement of the 1st April, 1969, was reached, cl. 4 can, in the context, be interpreted so as to include this liability also, for, the parties must be assumed to be in the full know of the existing affairs of the erstwhile firm. Further, as the assessee-firm had taken over all the liabilities of the erstwhile firm and as the payment of the interest was the liability of the erstwhile firm, it is futile to urge that this liability fell outside the purview of cl. 4. Seeing the nature of the dispute which led to the civil court decree, the liability was undoubtedly one that had accrued in the course of the business of the assessee and, as such, was a trading liability. The Tribunal was right in the view that it took. The question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 11
Agricultural Income Tax, Failure To File Notice In Response To Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... nt made by the Agrl. ITO and confirmed by the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. was invalid in law. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P. No. 493 of 1977 is allowed with costs. Advocate s fees Rs. 150. W.P. No. 495 of 1977 has been filed, as stated already against the best judgment assessment dated January 4, 1975, in respect of the Samaya Improvement Trust, as confirmed by the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. in R. P. No. 279 of 1976 which was dismissed on November 8, 1976. Since no return had, admittedly, been filed for that assessment year, in spite of notice having been issued calling upon the trust as represented by Sambandamurthi, the Agrl. ITO, was obliged to resort to best judgment method of assessment and it is not open to the petitioner in W.P. No. 495 of 1977 to question that order. It may be stated that there was no petition for an extension of time to submit the return, which Sambandamurthi was required to submit. W.P. No. 495 of 1977 is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 75.
-
1979 (9) TMI 10
... ... ... ... ..... closure of income should, in the circumstances, be considered to have been made voluntarily. The parties also advanced arguments on the question as to whether or not the income assessed over and above the income returned by the assessee was of the nature as contemplated by s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. However, all these questions will have to be decided by the Commissioner when the matter goes back to him and he proceeds to deal with the application, for waiving the penalty, made by the petitioner. As we do not have the full facts to satisfactorily pronounce upon the aforementioned controversy, we refrain from expressing any opinion thereon. The petition, therefore , succeeds and is allowed. The order dated November 17, 1976, passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur, is quashed. He will now proceed to decide the application made by the petitioner, under s. 273A of the I.T. Act, afresh and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of this petition.
-
1979 (9) TMI 9
Firm, Reference, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... was not genuine and that the partnership deed was a sham transaction is based upon sufficient material. In the result, we answer the question as follows (1) In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was not genuine as six out of eight partners were name lenders. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the partnership is not genuine and that the deed of partnership is a sham document and the firm was not entitled to registration under s. 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the firm is not genuine and the instrument of partnership is a sham document on the ground that the partners have not withdrawn the amounts standing to their credit in the books of account by way of profits. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 300.
-
1979 (9) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... algamation, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and which is to the effect that the said scheme would take effect finally upon and from the date on which the last of the sanctions referred to therein was obtained, could not alter the legal effect of the order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation, passed by this court as aforesaid. Moreover, even as far as the scheme of amalgamation is concerned, cl. (3) of the said scheme makes it clear that with-effect from the appointed-date the transferor-company shall be deemed to have been and to be carrying on all business and activities for and on account of the transferee-company until the effective date referred to in cl. (15) thereof. In view of what has been stated above, we see no reason to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the aforestated questions to this court as applied for by Mr. Joshi. The application is, therefore, dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 7
Appeal To AAC, Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in his discretion direct that in addition to the amount of the arrears, a sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the assessee by way of penalty. The assessments in the instant case were completed long before the 1st April, 1962, and the ITO issued those notices under s. 46(1) of the 1922 Act as stated in the statement of the case therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it must be held that the Tribunal s opinion that those proceedings were initiated by the ITO under s. 221 of the 1961 Act and not under s. 46(1) of the 1922 Act is erroneous. Similarly, it must also be held that the appeals filed by the assessee before the AAC were hit by the proviso to s. 30(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, inasmuch as the assessee did not pay the relevant taxes before the filing of those appeals before him. In the premises we answer both the questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1979 (9) TMI 6
Jagir Succession, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ions of this court referred to above. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat all the reasons which have been set out in the aforesaid two decisions in support of the view that the wealth in question must be taken to be the wealth of the HUF and the assessee should be assessed with respect to it in his status as karta of the HUF. We may also mention that Bhairon Singh s case was sought to be taken to the Supreme Court by an application for grant of leave which was refused. The decision by this court in Bhairon Singh s case is reported to have become final. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that all the wealth of the assessee including the compensation received by him under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, 1952, and assessed in the year 1957-58 belonged to him in his capacity of the karta of the HUF. We answer the question accordingly. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 5
Assessee took a lease of the extensive zamindari and also took an assignment of movables - sub-lease was granted - taxability of certain amounts received by the assessee company as salami and premia and also compensations for lands compulsarily acquired - whether those amounts represented business income or receipts of a capital nature - assessee had dealt with the lease hold interests in the property as a land owner and therefore the receipts were of a capital nature
-
1979 (9) TMI 4
Interpretation of Article IV of the " Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Pakistan " - agriculture income - not taxable in Pakistan but taxable in India as foreign agricultural income - assessee is entitled to abatement of tax on the entire business income in Pakistan without setting it off against the agricultural loss, though the loss had to be taken into account and adjusted against the respondent's profits in India
-
1979 (9) TMI 2
Whether the receipts from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth were assessable to tax and if so, whether assessable under 'other sources' - It is a case where, although the stump and roots remained after the trees were felled and removed by the purchaser, the regeneration of the trees was not to be allowed and, therefore, a profit-making activity could not be spelled out - appeal of revenue is dismissed
-
1979 (9) TMI 1
Whether the distribution of assets of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a transfer of assets within the meaning of the expression " otherwise transferred" occurring in s. 34(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, having regard to the definition of " transfer " in s. 2(47) of the Act - held that s. 34(3)(b) of the Act was not applicable
....
|