|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 2141 Records
-
1981 (12) TMI 143 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ht, packing charges and excise duty on packing materials are not liable to be included in the sale price for the computation of the sale tax. The assessees are not liable to pay additional sales tax on freight, packing charges and excise duty on packing materials in those cases arising under the T.N.A.S.T. Act. T.C. Nos. 206 to 210, 450 to 452, 470 to 474, 825, 581, 583 and 586 of 1979 which arise under the C.S.T. Act are dismissed. T.C. Nos. 31 to 37,45 to 52, 54 to 61, 826, 827, 582, 584, 585 and 587 to 589 of 1979 are allowed. In view of the mixed result in the tax revision cases there will no order as to costs. Learned counsel for both sides ask for oral leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in view of the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration. We are satisfied that in the circumstances of the case, substantial questions of law are involved which require to be necessarily decided by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances we grant leave for both sides.
-
1981 (12) TMI 142 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... severable. There is no reason why the entire notice should be quashed. We, therefore, quash the notice in so far as it relates to the sum of Rs. 53,08,954.83. The Commercial Tax Officer may complete the proceedings in accordance with law in respect of the turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01. It is declared that the impugned notice proposing to include Rs. 53,08,954.83 in the taxable turnover is clearly barred by limitation and the Commercial Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to proceed with the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Sri. J.V. Suryanarayana, the learned Government Pleader, makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are unable to certify that this matter involves such substantial question of law of general importance as requires the consideration of the Supreme Court or that it is otherwise a fit case for granting leave. The oral request is, therefore, rejected. Petition partly allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Share warrants and entries in register of members, Transfer of shares – Not to be registered except on production of instrument of transfer, Powers of Court to rectify register of members
-
1981 (12) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ty. The allegations must be attended with such particulars as will not only amount to a proper averment in law of fraud but also show a prima facie case of fraud requiring investigation. Even in the case of a charge of collusion it must be shown that the judgment was obtained by collusion. If the petition is allowed to stand over the respondent should undertake to bring an action to set aside the judgment . This case is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is already an award in favour of the company and, as already stated above, the non-payment of the amount by the company in compliance with the statutory notice is not on the ground that it has a large claim against the company on award is, in my opinion, a bona fide dispute. Refusal to pay the amount is a bona fide dispute and, therefore, it must be held that the company was not negligent in payment of the amount. In the result, the winding-up petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1981 (12) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and Proceedings - Representation of Corporation at Meetings of Companies & Creditors, Directors - Only individuals to be directors, Oppression and mismanagement –Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398
-
1981 (12) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... udgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the case of Atul Drug House Ltd., In re 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 352 (Guj.), decided by the Gujarat High Court, and Hind Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla 1976 46 Comp. Cas. 91 (SC), decided by the Supreme Court, are cases in which the court thought that an alternative remedy did exist. It was also found that the petitions were motivated by some other considerations. The court has power to stay a winding-up petition if it finds that resort to winding-up is for ulterior purposes. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the two cases which are far complex in the present case. We do not find any ulterior purpose in the present case. It is quite obvious that the parties are at loggerheads. So we agree with the learned single judge that this was a case in which the petition had to be admitted and citation issued. We would accordingly dismiss these appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (12) TMI 108 - ITAT PUNE
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ecision in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram is not applicable to the facts of the case before us. We need not go to the further distinguishing features, for example, that registered firms are taxed in the year under consideration before us (assessment year 1974-75) as distinguished from the fact that registered firms were not taxed in the assessment year 1948-49 and, therefore, observations of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case at page 180 regarding the non-taxability of registered firms would no longer be applicable to the year under consideration before us. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any valid ground for the ITO to cancel registration under section 186 after having initially granted continuation of registration to the assessee-firm. We would, accordingly, vacate the orders of the authorities below under section 186 and direct that the firm be allowed continuation of registration. 8. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 105 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... t correct to describe the amount as a provision. The credits to these employees created an obligation on the part of the assessee to pay the amount credited to them. This obligation cannot be ignored. In the light of this fact, it cannot be stated that this is a mere provision towards a contingent liability. We are therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to the deduction on the basis of the mercantile system adopted by it. Genuineness of the claim is not in dispute. Actual cash payment has also subsequently been made. In the light of the fact that the employees do not have the benefit of contributory provident fund, gratuity, leave and security, we have to agree with the argument of the ld. Rep. that what is called bonus is nothing more than a deferred wage in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been credited to them in the relevant accounting year itself. hence the amount has to be allowed as a deduction. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... t has said that the audit party is not authorised to do and there by furnish to the ITO information as to legal position on which he can make a revised assessment. The Commissioner also pointed out that the Revenue has not accepted this view of the audit party which seeks to do any credit for tax deducted at source when on the face of it is unjust and could not have been the intention of parliament by any stretch of imagination. We also notice that granting credit for tax deducted at source has not been deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment under Explanation 1 to section 147. In the circumstances, we are convinced that there was no escapement of income and in any case the ITO did not have valid information as to the escapement of income which could grant him the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The assessment was therefore rightly cancelled by the Commissioner and we have no hesitation in confirming his order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 101 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... ITO in the view that he took has determined the total income at higher figures in the fresh assessments made for both the years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the action of the ITO in resorting to s. 143(2)(b)(3) and making fresh assessment is valid in law subject to the adjudication on the merits of the addition. In the result the Revenue s appeals are allowed. 6. The assessee s contention in its cross objections is that the AAC should have also dealt with the merits of the ITO s addition. The AAC in his view that the assessments made by the ITO are invalid, had not gone into the merits of the addition. In the light of our finding above about the validity of the assessments, we would direct the AAC to give his decision regarding the merit of the addition, on which the assessee had appealed. The matter is accordingly restored to the AAC s file for disposal after giving due opportunity to both the parties. The assessee s cross objections are treated as allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 99 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... on the opinion that such interest cannot be construed as cost. AAC and consequently the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was merely a change of opinion and that the audit view of law cannot constitute information even as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern News paper Society vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 90 (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC). The reference application is filed in the view that the audit report in the facts of the assessee rsquo s case did not involve any interpretation of law. This is an apparently untenable argument as there is even a High Court decision in favour of the assessee rsquo s computation in the original assessment Audit view to the contrary cannot therefore be treated as anything more than a legal lsquo opinion rsquo . The Tribunal has merely followed the law as settled by the Supreme Court in holding that there is no jurisdiction. Hence there is no referable question of law and the reference application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 97 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... y. The assessee s case also receives direct support from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics. Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner 1976 105 ITR 344 (All.) wherein it was pointed out that what could come within the purview of the power of enhancement could not come under the jurisdiction under section 263 after an appellate order inasmuch as computation of capital gains had become the subject-matter of the decision of the AAC we should hold that there was no jurisdiction to revise it under section 263. As pointed out earlier another major flaw in the order of the Commissioner is that he had sought to set aside an order and direct a fresh assessment. In doing so he is unsettling the assessment even on matter which had been settled by the AAC and in effect revising the order of the AAC which he is not entitled to do. Even for this reason, his order cannot stand. 5. In the result, the order of the Commissioner stands cancelled as lacking in jurisdiction.
-
1981 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... as provided in the marginal notes and in the body of the provisions is Income-tax . So it becomes clear that the expression order of assessment is s. 244(1A) is used to denote all categories of orders under which Income-tax is to be paid. So under s. 104 what is paid is Income Tax. Therefore the order which compels payment is a order of assessment. There is also no reasons to think that the Parliament would have let out purposely the amounts paid under s. 104 from the scope of the benefit of interest when it is refunded. It is to be remembered that the Supreme Court has held that s. 104 is for certain purposes of assessment proceeds (CIT) vs. J.K. Commercial Corporation (1976) 105 ITR 219 (SC) and that for certain others not. So it is clear that order under s. 104 is assessment order for purposes of s. 244(1A). So the assessee is entitled to interest. 6. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. We direct the ITO to provide interest as provided in s. 244(1A) of the IT Act, 1961.
-
1981 (12) TMI 91 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Firm, Assessment Of Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... a direct assessment is also contemplated on the partners in sub-section (4) and so far as sub-section (3) is concerned, it provides for the collection of the tax on the share income of the partner, who is a non-resident, at the earliest opportunity and on a rough and ready basis at the rates applicable to the share income alone but with reference to the status and other things. The rate is mentioned to fix the quantum of tax that could be recovered from the firm and the fact that sub-section (4) also indicates ad hoc ceiling of 30 per cent of the share income as the liability of the firm in respect of the tax shows that the individual rate of tax of the partner has no relevance in fixing the liability on account of tax payable by the firm on behalf of the non-resident partner. For the reasons stated above, we uphold the assessee s claim and set aside the orders of the departmental authorities and direct them to re-determine the tax payable accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 88 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as 1981 132 ITR 466. The learned departmental Repersentative on the other hand has supported the order of the Commissioner. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. We find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. A plain reading of section 5(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act would reveal that deemed income accruing outside India is not income as the value of perquisite on account of rent free accommodation is deemed income and, therefore, it had rightly not been included by the ITO in the income of the assessee for both the assessment years. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the learned Commissioner that the orders of the ITO were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even on this account. 5. In view of the above discussions, we are unable to sustain the orders of the Commissioner and cancel the same. . In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 87 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s to who was the initial builder of the property. The initial builder may be any one, but if the building was constructed during the stipulated period, then Shri Ranka says that deduction will be allowable to the owner of the building on whom, who has to be assessed in respect of income from house property. I find substance in this submission. Section 23 (1), clause (b) to the second proviso does not warrant any restricted construction as has been put by the authorities below. They have failed to take note of the important fact that the tax under section 22 is in respect of the ownership and only the owner of a building has to be assessed under this section. Sec.23 has to be read with section 22 and, therefore it has to be borne in mind that it is the owner only and not the initial constructor, who is germane for the purpose of sections 22 and 23. I, therefore, hold that deduction, as claimed by the assessee, is allowable to him. . In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... chargeable under s. 215. Shri Sharma argues that it is immaterial as to under which section the interest is correctly chargeable. He argues that the only issue for consideration is whether the interest is chargeable under s. 217 or not. We agree with Shri Sharma that the finding of the AAC that interest is chargeable under s. 216 instead is of no relevance. The karta of the HUF having filed the estimate, the case certainly stands out-side the scope of s. 217 and no interest can be charged thereunder. Shri Chaudhary, ld. Deptl. Rep. argues that mere wrong labelling of section on the part of the ITO will not render the order charging interest to be invalid. This argument is beside the point. The question for consideration is not the one whether interest is chargeable or not from the assessee, but the question is whether the ITO was right in charging interest under s. 217. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we agree with the AAC. 3. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 83 - ITAT JAIPUR
Deemed Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... en clearly used for the noun son s wife and that shows that the donee should not only be the son s wife on the valuation date, but it the time of gift also. On analogous provision, viz., section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Supreme Court, in the case of Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT 1963 49 ITR 97, took the view that relationship of husband and wife must subsist not only at the time or accrual of income from the assets, but also when the transfer of asset is made. On the pari materia principle, the decision of the Supreme Court can be indubitably pressed into services for the purpose of instant case. We, therefore, hold that section 4(1)(a)(v) is not attracted to the instant case, as Smt. Manju Garg was not the wife of the assessee s son when the gift was made. The impugned value of jewellery, therefore, cannot be brought to tax on the basis of the deeming provision, viz., section 4(1)(a)(v), in the hands of the assessee. 3. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 82 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... case of Metha, Parkh and Co. Similar view taken by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dilipkumar Roy. The Hon ble Bombay High Court also followed the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mehta, Parikh and Co. 14. Looking to the aforesaid facts and entirety of circumstances including paper book it is proved that the assessee family is vary old and reputed. In this family silver utensils were used for taking and serving food. Even the ITO has accepted that the assessee family is old and well reputed. In the absence of other evidence on record the affidavits and other material produced by the assessee are sufficient to prove that the contentions of the assessee are correct. The assessee was able to prove satisfactorily that the family was having silver utensils weighing 56 kgs. in question. So the assessee proved the source of the acquisition of the said silver utensils. So the addition is uncalled for and the same is deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 81 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e G.P. shown by the assessee was not justifiable. We find no material on record to support the above conclusion of the ITO. In fact no finding was given whether the sales, purchases etc. were vouched for and whether there was any quantitative details of the stock etc. In fact the basis of the addition was only on the sole ground that the G.P. rate disclosed was not justified as the trading accounts lack quantities. In our opinion on those premises, the addition cannot be sustained. In fact there was no finding by the ITO that the book result or trading result could not be accepted on some cogent reasons. True, the AAC has stated that the proviso of s. 145 was applicable, but there is no material or fact having brought out by the AAC to support this observation. Having regard to the facts of the case. We are of the opinion that the addition has not been on proper materials of valid grounds. The same is therefore deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
........
|
