|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... eps to adjust its decision under s. 260(1) of the Act, in the light of what we have stated in this judgment. We make it clear that we decline to answer the questions, because relevant materials are not before us and these were not available even before the Tribunal and without advertence to those materials, no conclusion could be reasonably or properly reached on the question of taxability of the amount. It will be open to the Tribunal to rehear the appeal and dispose of the appeal after getting the kurivaryola produced, in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations contained in this judgment. The Tribunal may, if it so considers necessary, remand the case to the AAC or the ITO and direct additional evidence being taken by them. The reference case is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no direction regarding 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 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ount of obligation of business arising as a result of an express or implied contract or arising on account of the long-standing custom of a trade cannot amount to entertainment . We, respectfully, agree with the view so taken. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court has been followed in CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi 1979 116 ITR 292 (Bom) and Addl. CIT v. Maddi Venkataratnam and Co. Ltd. 1979 119 ITR 514 (AP). Learned counsel for the department referred to two decisions in Brij Raman Dass and Sons v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 541 (All) and CIT v. Veeriah Reddiar 1977 106 ITR 610 (Ker) FB , taking a contrary view. But, in our opinion, the test that has been laid down by the Gujarat High Court is consistent with the commercial practice and custom of the trade and is not shown to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, the answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (9) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of interest. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee submitted an application for making a reference to this court, but that application was rejected. Hence, the assessee has filed this application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law arises in this case Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest paid by the assessee on borrowed capital was not separately admissible when profit was computed on a net rate basis ? The application is, therefore, allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... so the clear finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 70,000 per year was not the assessee s income directly or indirectly. These facts, according to Mr. Roy, have not been challenged. Apart from the above findings of the Tribunal, there cannot be any denial of the principle that when an expenditure is made with a view to bringing into existence an asset or advantage for an enduring benefit to the trade, such expenditure might be treated as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital. So even if we agree with Mr. Sen that the advantage in this case be treated as an income of the assessee, in the absence of proof, there would be no reason to hold that such advantage or income was the assessee s revenue income. Thus, the Tribunal, appears to be justified in coming to its conclusion. In view of the above premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We, however, propose to make no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Proceedings, New Industrial Undertaking, Tax Holiday For New Industrial Undertaking
-
1980 (9) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd are liable to be quashed on this ground. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the further question raised in the petition as to whether the valuation made by the Valuation Officer was or was not in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. We refrain from expressing any I opinion in that behalf. We would also like to make it clear that the WTO shall be at liberty to make a reference to the Valuation Officer afresh, in accordance with law, for the purpose of making an assessment on the petitioner for the assessment year 1975-76. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed with costs. The order of reference dated 12th December, 1977 (annex. R/1), the subsequent proceedings before the Valuation Officer and the order dated 17th November, 1979, passed by the Valuation Officer (annex. R/2) are all quashed. Counsel s fee Rs. 200 (two hundred), if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1980 (9) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y a change in the constitution of the firm provided one of the partners of the old firm becomes partner in the new or successor firm. In view of the discussion above, we hold that when a firm is dissolved due to the death of a partner, in view of the provision contained in s. 42(c) of the Partnership Act, the now Arm will be a successor firm and two assessments will have to be made under s. 188 of the I.T. Act. Oar answer to the referred question is that On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was not right in law in holding that it was a case of change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated, by section 187(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was not a case of succession of one firm by another firm as provided for in section 188 of the Act and that one assessment of the income of the assessee for the whole period was liable to be made. Our answer is in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... l cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse or such that no reasonable man could come to the same. The Tribunal in assessing the probabilities from ascertained facts could not be said to have proceeded only on conjectures or surmises or suspicions. In the view we have taken it is not necessary for us to go into the other contention of the revenue as to whether the question referred could be said to be a new question not asked for by the assessee. We, however, note that the said contention is not without substance. The findings and conclusion of fact by the Tribunal remain unchallenged by the assessee and only the ultimate conclusion is sought to be assailed in this reference. On that ground also the assessee is not entitled to succeed in this reference. The first part of the question referred is answered in the affirmative and the second part thereof is answered in the negative, both being in favour of the revenue. We make no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Profits, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... om, then it should be assessable. The same principle was more or less reiterated by the Mysore High Court in the case of Hindustan Aircraft Ltd. v. CIT 1963 49 ITR 471 (My). The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ibcon P. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 519 (Kar), also strengthens this conclusion. The Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Universal Radiators 1979 120 ITR 906 (Mad), more or less reiterated the same principle. In that view of the matter and in view of the findings of fact made by the Tribunal, in our opinion, as the sum was utilised in the U.K. for business purposes and the value of that sum had increased in the Indian rupee term, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount was a profit, even though it was not remitted to India. The question No. 2 must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Minor ... ... ... ... ..... ntative capacity was to be treated differently for the purposes of s. 64(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in these three judgments and need not express ourselves further in the matter. We would accordingly answer the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the case of Shri Prayag Dass Rajgarhia, I.T.R. No. 73 of 1971, we would answer the question in the negative and say that the share income is not to be included in the total income of the assessee. In the case of Shri Kanhaya Lal Rajgarhia, ITR Nos. 219 to 221 of 1976, also we would answer the question in the negative and say that the share of profits of the minor children from the various firms in which the assessee was partner representing his HUF could not be included in the personal assessment of the assessee. However, as there was considerable controversy about the questions, we would direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... . The question in the form presented before us did not arise for decision in that case. As expressed by the Allahabad High Court, there is no statutory bar that a profit and loss account once prepared cannot be later amended. It is, therefore, open to the assessee to amend the profit and loss account and to create a reserve account as required by s. 34(3)(a) before the assessment for claiming the rebate. This view is further supported by s. 139(5) which permits an assessee to file a revised return in case he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the return originally filed by him. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in deciding in favour of the assessee that he was entitled to claim the rebate. For the reasons given above, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. We must also record our appreciation for Shri B. L. Nema, advocate, who appeared as amicus curiae to assist us.
-
1980 (9) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... tial partition was agricultural land on the date of its sale and profits arising therefrom were not liable to be taxed as capital gains. In, the light of the aforesaid legal position and in view of the proved and admitted facts as emerging on the record of this case and to which we have made a detailed reference in the earlier part of this judgment, it appears clear to us that the assessee had sold agricultural lands on January 1, 1968. The Tribunal s finding to the contrary is unsustainable at law. Once this conclusion is reached, it must necessarily follow that on a combined reading of ss. 45(1) and 2(14) of the I.T. Act as it stood in 1968, gains arising to the assessee as a result of the sale transaction cannot be brought to tax as capital gains. In that view of the matter, the referred question has to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner to pay costs of this Reference to the assessee. Order accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... heard the learned counsel for the parties, we, have come to the conclusion that the question as to whether there was an existing liability of the estate of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000 and whether that liability should have been taken into consideration in the computation of estate duty is a question of law. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was an existing liability of Rs. 7,00,000 in respect of Obedullakhan Trust deductible in computing the amount of estate duty payable in respect of the estate of deceased Rashiduzzafarkhan ? The applications are, accordingly, allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the case referring the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
-
1980 (9) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... r s. 154 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee s appeals and dismissed the departmental appeals. The Appellate Tribunal held that a reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the assessee and also that the issues reopened by the ITO purporting to act under s. 154 of the Act, were debatable and there was no error apparent. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of opinion that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, a direction under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for stating the case and referring the proposed questions cannot be given. The finding that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the assessee is a finding of fact. Similarly, the various issues which the ITO reopened purporting to act under s. 154 of the Act were highly debatable and this aspect could not be disputed before us. We, therefore, reject the applications filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ls. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Lastly, we deal with the appeal preferred by the LIC Agents Association wherein Mr. Biswas contended that the legislation is a colourable piece and at least his clients are not liable to pay as they are employees of the LIC and as such they are not engaged in the profession. We are, however, not concerned with that part of the case. If they are employees of the LIC, they will be liable to pay at the rate stipulated in Serial No. 1. But whether they are employees or not we are not concerned to consider the same in this proceeding. We are, however, of the opinion, that neither the taxation is colourable nor does the tax imposed violate arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution and there is no vagueness about it. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, there is no merit also in the appeal preferred by Mr. Biswas clients. This appeal is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in all the appeals. MONOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dissolved Firm, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... parties (who have received the sum of Rs. 46 lakhs) in the status of AOP or body of individuals whether incorporated or not . There is thus no material whatsoever for holding that there was any failure or omission on the part Of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment as a result of which income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and that the ITO had formed any belief in that behalf. It is well settled that unless the requirements of cl. (a) or cl.(b) of s. 147 are satisfied, the ITO has no jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 148 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Department was unable to support the action of the ITO. The impugned notice, therefore, deserves to be quashed. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed with costs. The notice dated March 9, 1978 (annex. J), and the proceedings commenced in that behalf are quashed. Counsel s fee Rs. 200 (two hundred), if certified security deposit shall be refunded.
-
1980 (9) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... the commission received by the assessee could not be set off against the speculation losses, because there was no element of speculation whatever in the commission income received by the assessee the commission was independent of any fluctuation in the market and no risk was involved in earning it. The commission had to be treated not as a profit from the speculation business but as profit from the business as brokerage and the assessee was not entitled to have that commission receipt assessed under the head Speculation business . In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the question must be answered in the negative and in the favour of the Revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. Learned advocate for the assessee prays for oral leave for certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. We cannot entertain such application and grant such leave. We dismiss the prayer This order should be drawn up separately and expeditiously. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... trust, in other cases, it may become augmented by donations given by the public and in the case of an immovable property it would, in such cases, be maintained, repaired and extended out of the amounts donated by the public and to permit settlor thereof to revoke the trust and not, only get back to himself his own property but also the benefit which that property has enjoyed by reason of public donations or the accumulations which have come into being by reason of the public donations would be contrary to public policy. For the very same reason as mentioned above, we feel it equally unnecessary to give any finding on this aspect of the case. In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the accountable persons and against the Department. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of this reference. The Charity Commissioner will be entitled to recover his costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 600, out of the trust funds.
-
1980 (9) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... d the Revenue does not appear to have been successful in discharging the onus. Thus, as to the principle of law applied by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the profit motive even if it would be there, would be conclusive to find the transactions as an adventure in the name of profit, as found by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.K.N. Co. Ltd. 1966 60 ITR 65 and in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT 1965 57 ITR 21 (SC). It has been found by the Tribunal in the context of the matter that the motive of profit was not the dominant or sole objective of the assessee in entering into the transaction. Thus, the Tribunal was amply justified in holding that the transaction in question was not an adventure in the nature of trade. We accordingly, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, As we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, question No. 2 does not arise. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the profits and the rest was to go to the two sub-contractors. That contention was not accepted by the authorities. Merely on this account it cannot be said that he had concealed any income as such or furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income. All that can be said is that the assessee was unable to establish satisfactorily his plea that the sub-contracts were genuine and he was only entitled to a profit of three per cent. Because of such a failure, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed any income as such or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observation. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that penalty was exigible. For all these reasons, our answer to the questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
....
|
