|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 68 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... referred to us for our consideration will have to be answered as follows Question No. 1.-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2.-In the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. At this stage, Mr. K. C. Patel, learned advocate for the assessee, makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under s. 261 of the I.T. Act. Having heard Mr. Raval for the revenue, we find that this is a case in which a substantial question of law does arise, particularly in view of the fact that both the sides rely upon different judgments of the Supreme Court in support of their rival contentions and in view of the further fact that there is a conflict of decisions between the Madras, High Court and the Kerala High Court. We, therefore, certify this case to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Orders accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 67 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... s liable to be treated and assessed as an unregistered firm. Undoubtedly, the assessee had the right to prefer an appeal before the AAC against the said assessment order and in such an appeal it was perfectly open to the assessee to canvass the correctness of every finding entered by the assessing authority in the order of assessment. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the contention, raised by the revenue that the appeal filed by the assessee before the AAC complaining against the firm being treated as an unregistered firm on the ground that the declaration required to be filed under the proviso to s. 184(7) of the Act had been filed beyond time was incompetent. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1980 (9) TMI 66 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Firm, HUF, Partnership, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... r held that an individual who is referred to in s. 64(1)(ii) can only be an assessee who is being assessed in his individual capacity and not one who is being assessed in a representative capacity, such as the karta of a HUF. It is, therefore, clear that qua the HUF, Budhalal Amulakhdas was representative and he must account to the HUF for whatever share of profits he received from the partnership firm in his capacity as representative of the HUF and that money which he received was the income of the HUF and must be assessed separately as HUF income. In the light of the above observations, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1)-In the affirmative, that is in favour of the and against the revenue. Question No. (2)-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (3)-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (9) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n retrospective effect So, on that date with retrospective effect, it revived the claim. The result of the retrospective operation is not that it made the accrual of any liability as prior to that date. The claim of the lessor to get the royalty was revived with retrospective effect by the coming into operation of s. 5(2) of the amended Act. If that is the correct position, then, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case., it is not the question of really changing the payability or liability. Legal liability cannot be in vacuum. The right of the State to receive royalty accrued with the coming into operation of the amended Act of 1964. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in the conclusion that it reached and the question, therefore, must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 64 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... Expln. II to r. 1D. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the wealth-tax authorities were not justified in seeking to add back the amount of advance tax paid under the provisions of the income-tax law by M/s. Mehta Parikh and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for arriving at the market value on the basis of the break-up value of the shares of the company. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in coming to its conclusion that in determining the break-up value of the shares the amount of advance tax paid by the company in the relevant year and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet has not to be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for taxation is in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (9) TMI 63 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e statute, we must hold that de regular assessment did not cover assessments under s. 147. Therefore, the appellate authorities were correct in their conclusion that s. 273 could not be invoked for levy of penalty in this case. The view of the Kerala and the Patna High Courts has also been followed by a later Punjab and Haryana decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 248. Though the reasonings given in these cases are somewhat different, we are inclined to hold that their conclusion is correct. We would accordingly answer the question against the revenue by holding On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under s. 273(b) of the Act on the ground that the proceedings had not been initiated in the course of regular assessment within the meaning of s. 273, read with s. 2(40) of the Act. Assessee shall have his costs. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at rupees two hundred. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Refund, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... h mainly revolved round the language of s. 214 but also because it seems to us that the conclusion we have arrived at may appear incomplete without an understanding of the process by which we have come to place what may appear strained interpretation of ss. 214(2) and 244(1A). That apart, the discussion will still be of relevance for purposes of s. 215 and for other situations. So we have decided to let the whole discussion remain and to express our thoughts and conclusion on a problem of interpretation that has given rise to such a conflict of judicial decisions. In the end, we would like to record our appreciation of the assistance given to us by Shri Bishamber Lal and Shri Verma who presented the issue in all its aspects and argued the matter with objectivity and fairness. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. But, having regard to the conflict in judicial decisions on the subject and the intricacy of the issue involved, we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... eal. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee had deposited advance tax of Rs. 1,06,702 against the demand of Rs. 1,06,828, which figure was arrived at during the regular assessment. Regular assessment has been defined in s. 2, sub-s. (10) of the Act. It is thus apparent that the provisions of s. 214 of the Act deal with the grant of interest for the period from 1st April next following the financial year during which the tax was paid up to the date of regular assessment and for no other period. In the present case, the assessee did not pay advance tax more than what was determined to be payable at the regular assessment it would, therefore, be apparent that the provisions of s. 214 of the Act will not entitle the assessee to get interest on an amount of Rs. 18,880, which amount became returnable in, view of the reduction of tax in quantum in appeal. The second question is, therefore, answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favour, of the revenue. No costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aspect whether the act or the conduct of the agents in matters like these could be attributed to deduce criminal intent of a corporate body requires closer examination in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court. We entertain grave doubts on this aspect. But in the view we have taken on the first aspect we need only say that mens rea is an essential element and whether a limited company is capable of conscious concealment, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion except grave doubts. We answer the second question accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. On the oral application of the learned advocate for the revenue for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, inasmuch as the question in our opinion, is of great importance, we certify that it is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Let the order for issue of certificate be drawn up separately and expeditiously. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 59 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee in Form No. 11A for the grant of fresh registration in compliance with the instruction issued to the assessee by the ITO as per his letter dated December 30, 1975. An order rejecting an application filed in Form No. 11A for the grant of fresh registration can be passed by the ITO only under s. 185 of the Act and such an order is clearly appealable under s. 246(j). Hence, this is a case where the order is in purport as well as in fact one passed by the ITO only under s. 185(1)(b) of the Act. The conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the appeal filed by the assessee against the said order before the AAC was maintainable in law, is perfectly correct. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1980 (9) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Family Property, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Passing Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... o pass under the appropriate provisions of the E.D. Act and, hence, the question referred to us for our consideration has to be answered in the affirmative, that is, against the accountable person and in favour of the revenue. The accountable person shall pay the costs of this reference to the Controller. Orders accordingly. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the accountable person, at this stage applies orally, under s. 65 of the E.D. Act, for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. While deciding the present case, we have relied upon the earlier decisions of this court in Suketu Jayantilal s case 1975 100 ITR 439 as well as Goswami Vrajraiji s case 1978 112 ITR 851. In both these decisions, we have granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to the concerned accountable persons. As the question involved in this case is also a substantial question of law, we grant such a certificate and certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1980 (9) TMI 57 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation And Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... eased and, under these circumstances, in substance and in fact there has been a cessation of this liability of the assessee to the Swiss suppliers. In these circumstances, the Division Bench held that there was a cessation of liability. But in this case, there is no question of cessation of liability. In the Gujarat High Court s case no payment was made towards the defective machinery, and the liability of the foreign supplier was shown in the books of account and the balance-sheet of the assessee and, subsequently, the liability was treated to have ceased. In those circumstances, it might possibly be true that there has been a meeting of the cost indirectly, though we do not intend to express our final view in the matter. The point of meeting the liability and the cost of the cessation is not before us. In the premises, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ited jurisdiction of this court under s. 256 of the Act, we cannot make a general inquiry and answer the question in a way different from the one which has been posed and referred to us by the Tribunal. The cases cited by Shri Bagadiya are not in point because in both the above cases all the necessary facts had already been referred to in the Tribunal s order and the court had merely to decide the law applicable which incidentally had been misquoted by the Tribunal in the questions referred to the court. That is not the case here and, therefore, we are constrained to confine our opinion to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the Tribunal s order and the question arising therefrom as referred to us. Our answer to the question, as already observed, is that on the facts found by the Tribunal, s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act was not applicable and the amount of Rs. 76,578 as sales tax refund could not be brought to tax under the above provision. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 55 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... usually furnishes an explanation the correctness of which can be tested on the basis of some outside evidence. So far as the failure to file a return is concerned, the fact whether this failure was on account of some sufficient cause or not, is known to the assessee himself. In the latter case, when the explanation tendered by the assessee is found to be unacceptable, it was open to the authorities under the Act to come to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to file the delayed return. In that event, a penalty could validly be imposed on him. This view finds ample support from a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 248 (P and H) which, as a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, we are bound to follow with respect. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the aforementioned two questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs. BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this stage, but the assessee would be at liberty, to urge before the Tribunal when it disposes of the matter under s. 260(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in seeking to urge this contention before the Tribunal because these are questions of fact. On behalf of the revenue, Mr. Pal sought to urge, as these questions were not urged before, that the assessee could not be allowed to agitate this point afresh before the Tribunal. Whether this question not being urged before could be allowed to be agitated by the assessee before the Tribunal is a matter which the Tribunal will take into consideration in disposing of the appeal in accordance with law under sub-s. (1) of s. 260 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The principles which are normally applicable in these matters have been mentioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Esthuri Aswathiah v. CIT 1967 66 ITR 478. Bearing the above principles in mind, the Tribunal will dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... rgument because this does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. A particular contention as reproduced earlier was canvassed before the Tribunal and in answering the same the Tribunal held that it was open to the Asst. Controller to value an isolated asset in the partnership firm for the purpose of charging estate duty. Our answer, therefore, must confine to this finding of the Tribunal and the question arising therefrom. We hold that the Tribunal was wrong in its view that the Asst. Controller was at liberty to revalue only one of the assets, namely, the closing stock, and make an addition of Rs. 4,890. In our opinion, the interest of the deceased could be determined only after valuing the assets and liabilities of the firm and the share of the deceased therein at the time of his death. We, therefore, answer the issue in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. Questions referred by the Tribunal are answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Change Of Opinion ... ... ... ... ..... on of the entire extent of the plantation subsequent to October 14, 1968. The question is purely one of fact and valid reasons have been stated by the Tribunal for upholding the conclusion concurrently arrived at by the assessing authority and the AAC that the lease deeds in question were absolutely sham and fraudulent documents and they were created only for the purpose of evading tax liability. 9. In the result, in the light of what we have said in relation to the validity of the reassessment proceedings taken for the year 1970-71, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We answer question No. 2 by holding that the Tribunal was right in upholding the assessments made against the assessee for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. the parties will bear their respective costs. 10. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1980 (9) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s not by way of income but by way of damages for the loss of a good bargain which the assessee had to forgo because the vendors were not prepared to execute the deed of conveyance. The balance of Rs. 1,000 was towards the costs of the suit. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 24,431 did not represent income of the assessee but was damages for the loss of the bargain and hence the Tribunal was justified in not treating it as income of the assessee. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us as follows Question No. 1.-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 2.-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 3.-In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (9) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Profits, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... ons to believe that the consideration has been understated with the object of reduction, evasion or concealment of taxes and/or assets by the parties to the transfer and this part of s. 269C would become absolutely redundant if we accept the contentions of the revenue. For the reasons as aforesaid, we hold that all the necessary conditions precedent for initiation of acquisition proceedings in the instant case did not exist and/or were not satisfied. Learned counsel for the respondents did not seriously press the point whether the initiation of the impugned proceedings was bad also on the ground of non-publication of the notice under s. 269D in the Official Gazette and, accordingly, it is not necessary for us to adjudicate on the same. We only note that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in U. S. Awasthi 1977 107 ITR 796 (All) is not of much relevance on this question. For the reasons as aforesaid the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Company ... ... ... ... ..... ssment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. As regards the second question, learned counsel for the parties conceded that, in view of our answer to the first question, the second question does not arise and, hence, it was not necessary to answer the second question. We, therefore, decline to answer that questions. As regards the third question, it was not disputed before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee that the bonds in question, which on surrender, resulted in a gain of Rs. 9,000 to the assessee, were capital assets of the assessee. The Tribunal has, accordingly, found that the bonds in question were the capital assets of the assessee. In view of this finding, the profit earned by the assessee on the surrender of the bonds was rightly held by the Tribunal as liable to be taxed as capital gains. Our answer to the third question is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs in this reference.
....
|
