|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2242 Records
-
1982 (12) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Appellate Authority, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ference between credit and actual payment was alive to the minds of the Legislature, and word payment was intentionally used in section 195, for at least one reason, that in the case of non-residents, the mere placing of money at the credit of the party would not be sufficient, and some kind of sanction or authorisation was necessary under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or the Reserve Bank of India Act, before the money was actually transmitted to the non-residents. Hence, the assessee s contention that the liability to deduct tax arose under section 195 only from the actual date of payment to non-resident is to be accepted. 10. In the circumstances, we hereby restore the matter to the file of the ITO for recomputation of the interest under section 201(1A) from the date on which the salaries were actually paid to the employees to the dates on which the taxes thereon were paid by the assessee into the Government treasury. 11. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 60 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... eal. These cover expenses like salaries, rent, travelling, publicity, etc. We have given above our understanding about the activities of the assessee-company to enable one to find out how much of this would entitle for the export allowance and what expenses, if at all, would fall under different sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b). The full details have to be gathered and analysed. The authorities below have rejected the entire claim on the ground that the assessee is not involved in export activity. For this reason apparently the expenses have not been analysed or gone into. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the ITO to proceed on the basis that the assessee carries on activity entitling it to allowance under section 35B and computing the allowance on the basis of the details and the nature of the expenses. The assessee should be permitted to produce all evidence necessary for the purpose. 17. The appeals are partly allowed. Per Shri P.S. Dhillon, Judicial Member--I agree.
-
1982 (12) TMI 59 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Business Connection, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... ed a deduction of 10 per cent from the royalty income and that he did not find any ground to reject the assessee s claim for a similar deduction of 10 per cent. in the year under appeal. Accordingly, he allowed a relief of Rs. 19,627. 20. Apart from relying on the order of the ITO the learned departmental representative was unable to point out any valid reason to disturb the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point. The revenue does not dispute the fact that the ITO himself had allowed 10 per cent deduction for expenditure in the two assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. In fact, the assessment order for 1974-75 shows a similar allowance of 10 per cent expenditure out of the royalty income by the ITO himself as against the assessee s claim of 20 per cent expenditure out of the gross income from royalty. We, therefore, do not see reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in this year also. 21. In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 58 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Business Connection, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... is attributable to the agent s services, provided that (a) the non-resident principal s business activities in India are wholly channelled through his agent (b) the contracts to sell are made outside India and (c) the sales are made on a principal-to-principal basis. In the assessment of the amount of profit, allowance will be made for the expenses incurred, including the agent s commission, in making the sales. If the agent s Commission fully represents the value of the profit attributable to his service, it should prima facie extinguish the assessment. 30. On the facts of the case, we cannot say, considering that only procurement of orders and negotiations thereof are the only operations in India, that the profit attributable would be more than 10 per cent. Since the Indian Company gets a commission of 10 per cent, as per the circular, there is no liability for Indian taxation. We have ourselves gone into the details of expenditure. 31. On this finding, we allow the appeal.
-
1982 (12) TMI 57 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... o be guilty of any conduct contumacious or in deliberate disregard of his statutory duties, vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). Apart from this in the case of Ramchoddas Karsondas vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 105 (Bom), the Supreme Court held that a return showing income below the taxable limit submitted voluntarily in answer to the general notice u/s. 22(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 is a good return and it cannot be treated as an invalid return. For analogous reasons, we hold that the estimate filed by the assessee, in the instant case, cannot be said to be invalid estimate non-existent in the eye of law as urged before us by Shri S. Krishnan for the department. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that this was not a fit case for levying any penalty, and the CIT(A) was quite justified in cancelling the penalty under consideration. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 56 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Order, Reference To IAC ... ... ... ... ..... is a person other than the educational institution or university would not affect the position. The expression of in section 10(22) envisages the source, i.e., the generation of a particular type of income. It is not entirety of the income of the recipient but only the income from the educational institution that comes within the purview of the exemption. Thus, from the Calcutta High Court s decision, it could be seen that the assessee may have other activities as well as the activity of running an educational institution. The income of the educational institution, however, would be exempt under section 10(22). We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a decision of this Bench in a similar issue in the case of Kasturba Medical College Trust created by the Academy of General Education, a reference to which is made by him in para 5 of his order. 14. For the reasons stated, we would uphold the Commissioner (Appeal s) findings and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1982 (12) TMI 55 - ITAT BANGALORE
Income From Other Sources, Profits In Lieu, Superannuation Fund ... ... ... ... ..... umstances mentioned in section 10(13). So, rule 6 has apparently no application to the assessee s case. 9. Thus, in our view, the amount of Rs. 26,761, being the amount received by the assessee from an approved superannuation fund, is clearly excluded from sub-clause (ii) of section 17(3) and cannot be treated as profit in lieu of salary . Thus, the said amount is not taxable. 10. The said amount cannot be charged as income from other sources as it is only on account of his employment that the assessee received the said amount. The tax is deducted at source under section 192(5). This shows that the deduction of tax was only on account of employer and employee relationship. Thus, the source is only employment. Thus, the amount received by the assessee is not assessable under the head Income from other sources also. 11. In our view, the AAC was right in directing the ITO to exclude the sum of Rs. 26,761. We uphold his order. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 54 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... of refund. We, therefore, allow the claim of the assessee for interest for the period from the prescribed date to the date of the assessment. Accordingly, we vacate the finding of the lower authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 4. Since, their lordships held that it is the only logical conclusion which one would be led to on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find that there is any scope for any controversy in the matter. Accordingly, we rule out the finding of AAC to the contrary. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. We now take up for consideration the cross objection of revenue. We have already given out our finding in connection with the appeal of the assessee that assessee is entitled to claim interest upto the date of payment of refund which follow from a careful perusal of the provision contained in sub-s. (2) of s. 214 and that in s. 244(1A). Accordingly, we find no merit in the contention of revenue and dismiss its cross objection.
-
1982 (12) TMI 53 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Central Excise Act, Income Tax, Liability For Excise Duty, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... t of distributable income vis-a-vis the amount actually distributed would work out to Rs. 4,151, i.e., less than 10 per cent of its distributable income. In which case the ITO would be required to follow the procedure laid down in section 105(1)(ii). 7. In the light of the above discussion, therefore, the only point which now survives for consideration is declaration of dividend in regard to the shortfall of Rs. 4,151 which is determined on the basis of the distributable income exclusive of excise liability and the dividends actually declared. So far as this shortfall is concerned, in our opinion the provisions of section 105(1)(ii) would come into play and the ITO is directed to proceed in accordance with the said provisions so as to give opportunity to the assessee to distribute the shortfall as dividend so that the total distribution is not less than the statutory percentage of the distributable income. 8. Subject to the above observation, the appeal is treated as allowed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 52 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
New Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... our decision on this point alone but also holding that on merit, for the reasons set out in detail in IT Appeal No. 2304 (Ahd.) of 1981, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80HH on the basis of gross amount of profits inclusive of interest disallowed under section 40(b). 11. Now coming to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, it is agreed by both the sides that the controversy is fully covered by our decision in IT Appeal No. 2304 (Ahd.) of 1981 and except that the figure of business income and the interest disallowed under section 40(b) are different, there is no distinction in regard to the claim as made by the assessee for relief under section 80HH. 12. For the reasons set out in IT Appeal No. 2304 we uphold the contention of the assessee for both the years and direct the ITO to allow relief under section 80HH on the basis of gross amount of profits as determined by him including interest under section 40(b). 13. In the result all the appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (12) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Short-levy and non-levy ... ... ... ... ..... ice clearly entails that in the absence of payment coercive steps will follow. Hence any payment made in pursuance of Ex. A1 cannot be said to be a voluntary payment. Further the conduct of the assessee in taking advantage of the trade notice Ex. B1 will not nullify the demand notice, and the remittance cannot be said to be voluntary. It has also been held in the decision reported in U.O.I. v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., 1978 E.L.T. (J 680) that the trade notice has no statutory effect. Under the circumstances the payment of one-third of the differential duty by the plaintiff cannot be said to be a voluntary payment and Section 72 of the Contract Act applies to the present case. Hence the respondent is entitled to recover the amount paid by him. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in this regard will have to be negatived. 16. In the result the judgment and decree of the lower Court are confirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (12) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Exemption notification - Reference to Tariff Act ... ... ... ... ..... Ramnad in Tamil Nadu. Learned Counsel, however, did not dispute that the Central Government, against whom also the writ petitioner has prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ, pervades the length and breadth of the Indian Union, including Tamil Nadu. But learned Counsel s stand is that the cause of action for this writ petition had arisen wholly outside the State. He pointed out in this connection that Cochin, in Kerala State, is the port of entry for the writ petitioner s consignments of viscose staple fibre and it is also the place where the assessing officers of the Customs department have the seat of their officers. 12. Having gone into the merits of the case, which were fully argued by both sides before us, we do not think we can serve any body s useful purpose by entering into a discussion of this objection as to jurisdiction. 13. In the result, the rule already made by this court is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1000.
-
1982 (12) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Valuation — Sales through `main dealer' and also to other independent purchasers within same territory
-
1982 (12) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Civil Court's Jurisdiction - Contempt of Court ... ... ... ... ..... in practice at that time certain revision applications involving similar questions have been dealt with by me and therefore in the interest of justice, the cases, should be heard by some other Court. Below these applications that is only thumb impression which is not even identified by anyone. Shri P.N. Ravals, counsel for the respondents filed his appearance later on. About these applications I had put questions to Shri P.N. Raval, the counsel appearing for the respondents, and asked him as to whether he wishes that on this ground the matter should be heard by some other Court and he stated that he had no objection whatsoever if the matters were heard and decided by me. Therefore I have heard and decided those matters. It may be noted that such an application or prayer without there being any basis whatsoever would amount to interference with the course of justice and in a given case, it may amount to contempt of Court also. However, in those cases no such question arises.
-
1982 (12) TMI 47 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... of the assessee. The question No. 1 is, therefore, answered accordingly. Second question is also answered by saying that the assessee is entitled to a relief for the relevant assessment year not for the entirety of the building but after deducting the annual value of the residential unit, which is in the occupation of the assessee. The second question is, therefore, answered accordingly. Mr. Mitra, advocate on behalf of the Department, orally asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme court. We do not consider it a fit case to grant certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court because the relief sought for has been considered by us and we have given our views on the construction of the relevant section. Moreover, the construction of this section has become academic after 1971. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to grant the certificate asked for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (12) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... eed to formally enter our opinions in the references. The questions of law before us are as under T. C. No. 1138 of 1979 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 57,141, being the provision made towards gratuity liability for the assessment year 1972-73 ? T.C. No. 1142 of 1979 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 13,731 representing provision for gratuity in the assessment year 1972-73 ? T.C. No. 1249 of 1979 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 58,436 representing incremental liability to gratuity for the assessment year 1972-73 ? For the reasons earlier stated, our answer to each of these questions is in favour of the respective assessee and against the Department. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (12) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... eference to the case law on the subject nor the broad reference to the nature of the expenditure really meets with the requirement of an inquiry under the statute. In the absence of materials and a discussion of those materials by the Tribunal, we cannot answer the references in any satisfactory manner. The question of law which the Tribunal has referred to us is as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 22,666, Rs. 37,175 and Rs. 54,097 represent entertainment expenditure not allowable prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1976, under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? For the reasons we have stated above, we cannot answer this question, but must return the reference unanswered. The implication, however, is that the Tribunal should take up the appeal and consider the matter de novo in the light of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs. The references are accordingly returned. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (12) TMI 44 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e view can be taken of the explanation being probably true. If that be so, the question of active concealment or gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c) does not arise and the onus shifts back again to the Department and the law as laid down in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC) would still govern the field. The Revenue authorities have not been able to discharge that onus. I thus find no infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal. The questions referred to this court for the assessment year 1964-65 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as also the question referred for the assessment year 1965-66. Both the questions are thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the award of costs. I accordingly award a consolidated cost of Rs. 500 payable to the assessee by the Department. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1982 (12) TMI 43 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts of this case, the Tribunal held on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing the estimate of advance tax. In this connection, it has referred to the relevant facts and circumstances including the fact that for the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee s income was assessed at Rs. 30,019 only. Though it may be that if we were sitting in appeal, we may have come to a different conclusion, yet in reference under s. 256, we cannot interfere with the finding of fact of the Tribunal unless it is shown that it is perverse or that there is no evidence to sustain it. In this case, it is not possible for us to say either that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or that there is no evidence to support it. If so, no interference is possible in this case. For these reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs.
-
1982 (12) TMI 42 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Unexplained Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal, that clinches the issue. For the aforesaid reasons we are constrained to hold in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and answer the question of law referred to us in the negative. We, accordingly, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the above sum of Rs. 16,700 from the assessment of the firm. Before parting with this case, we will be failing in our duty if we do not make mention of a number of decisions, cited at the bar to wit, Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT 1963 49 ITR (SC) 112 at 120, CIT v. Deviprasad Khandelwal and Co. Ltd. 1971 81 ITR 460 (Bom), Ka1e Khan Mohammad Hanij v. CIT 1963 50 ITR I (SC) at page 4, CIT v. K. S. Kannan Kunhi 1973 87 ITR 395 (SC) at P. 399. None of these cases relate to s. 68 of the Act and have no bearing upon the point with which we are apprised. It is, therefore, futile to refer to them. In the circumstances of the case, however, we shall make no order as to costs.
............
|
