|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 206 Records
-
1984 (6) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reduction Or Waiver, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... led in question before the AAC, the order passed by the Commissioner under sub-s. (2A) of s. 18 of the Act. The order called in question is the one passed by the WTO under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. The provision giving a finality to the order of the Commissioner under s. 18(2A) does not have the effect of denying the right of appeal to the assessee against an order passed under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Madras High Court in CWT v. Vanavarayar 1980 122 ITR 184 and of the Karnataka High Court in CWT v. Kempanna 1980 126 ITR 825. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the appeals filed by the assessee before the AAC are maintainable and the provisions of s. 18(2B) of the Act do not oust the assessee s right to file an appeal before the AAC under s. 23 of the Act. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... single mistake on his own part and where the fault in question is found to lie elsewhere and that too with professionals and has arisen out of sheer oversight on their part, to even so refuse to interfere would be akin to perpetuating the injustice suffered. Such situation cannot be permitted to prevail. In the result, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated January 13, 1981 (Ex. B), is set aside and quashed. The delay in submitting Form No. 11A is condoned. The respondents are directed to grant to the firm registration for the assessment year 1977-78. The petitioner will be entitled to claim from the Income-tax Department all such consequential reliefs as would follow from the above order and direction. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. The bank guarantee furnished by the firm in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this court shall stand discharged.
-
1984 (6) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Exemptions, Salary, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... The availability of alternative remedy would not be fatal to the invocation of the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution when the question of law involved is a general one affecting numerous persons working in the Electricity Board or in the Government and also is a recurring phenomenon. (4) The leave encashment amount is a receipt which falls within the province of the definition of profit in lieu of salary as enacted in s. 17(3)(ii) of the I.T. Act. (5) The house rent allowance paid to an employee, who lives in his own house, does attract tax, as it is not exempt under s. 10(13A) and so, is not ensconced by the parenthetical clause in s. 17(3)(ii) of the Act. (6) City compensatory allowance, bad climate allowance, shift allowance and incentive bonus, are perquisites within the meaning of s. 17(2) of the Act and, therefore, they constitute taxable receipts. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each.
-
1984 (6) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... xpiry of that period would be sufficient to sanction and validate the further retention of the books beyond that period. With great respect to the learned judges, we are unable to agree with their opinion for the reasons given supra. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the approval passed on February 25, 1980, long after the expiry of 180 days from the date of seizure, is incompetent in law and is ineffective to warrant the retention of the books beyond one hundred and eighty days. As soon as the period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure expired, the petitioner became entitled to, the return of the books and documents seized from him, and that right is not and cannot be defeated by the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to return the books and documents seized from the petitioner s premises on September 8, 1978 to him, forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1984 (6) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... basis of the information received in the nature of an audit note, which has been held by the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society s case 1979 119 ITR 996, to be no information at all on a point of law. In other words, the very basis on which the initiation of reassessment proceedings rested disappeared. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the ITO had no jurisdiction or authority or power to reassess the proceeding since with all the materials before him which were considered by the ITO in the original assessment proceedings and assessment made accordingly could not be reopened since it would for all intents and purposes be a change of opinion and not a case of escaped assessment. In the result, this petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing and setting aside the impugned reassessment made by the ITO which was without any jurisdiction or authority of law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Directors, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... 10 per cent. commission paid as such to the board of directors and they having not found that this expenditure is excessive or unreasonable, there was no valid justification by them to disallow deduction regarding the amount of commission paid to the four directors as that was a matter inter se between the directors. He, therefore, submitted that these being questions of fact and being not disputed, the Tribunal has rightly declined to refer the question of law as proposed by the Revenue on the ground that it being a question of fact, no question of law arises. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law as such is involved in the present case. Therefore, we see no valid ground to entertain this petition by calling upon the Tribunal to send the statement of the case and refer the question of law as proposed by the Revenue. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... does not seem to have found the relevant facts. We would have expected a detailed consideration of each of these items with reference to the relevant facts which ought to have been determined by the authorities. In the circumstances, we do not answer question No. 2 relating to miscellaneous receipts. Nor do we answer question No. 1, except in regard to interest. Accordingly, question No. 1 relating to interest is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards the assets and miscellaneous receipts referred to in question No. 1 and the miscellaneous receipts in question No. 2, the Tribunal shall call for the relevant records and ascertain the necessary facts and come to its own findings. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (6) TMI 19 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... on that question would be finding of fact but that finding of fact would largely depend on the proper interpretation of the several clauses of the partnership deed including clauses 6 and 12 thereof. It is by now well-settled that an interpretation of a material clause of a material document is a question of law. The answer to the question referred to and mentioned hereinabove depended on the construction of the relevant clauses of the deed in question as also s. 26 of the I.T. Act. That being the position, we are of the view that question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we direct, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the facts and refer the first question of law, quoted above, to this court for opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously press for the reference of question No. 2, inasmuch as it is covered by question No. 1. The application is, therefore, allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... est and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and the ITO may act under this section on direct or circumstantial evidence, but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. Therefore, in the present case, we are of the opinion that the notice issued by the ITO under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (annexure 0), is illegal and without jurisdiction as the necessary preconditions to confer jurisdiction under s. 148 of the Act are totally absent. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice (annexure O) dated March 18, 1981, issued by the ITO, E-Ward, Indore, under s. 148 of the said Act is quashed and the respondents are restrained from taking any proceedings under the said notice dated March 18, 1981, regarding reassessment. A writ is issued accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. The amount of security deposit, if any, be returned to the petitioner on verification.
-
1984 (6) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting, Chit Fund ... ... ... ... ..... in the interregnum to such new subscribers, materialises. Thus, there is an element of uncertainty, and this uncertainty will prevail till the last instalment of the chit is paid. It is obviously for these reasons that the assessee has been carrying over the dividend income till the expiry of the period of chit and has been accounting for the entire income in the year in which the chit runs out. We do not find any defect in this system of accounting which is regularly followed by the assessee. Thus, even on merits, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the ITO is entitled to tax the assessee on the dividend income received from year to year, in substitution of the method of accounting followed by the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, we consider that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct decision. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500 in each.
-
1984 (6) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... on of the Hindu undivided family is by the provision of a statute. Section 20 of the W.T. Act as also the corresponding provision in the I.T. Acts. 171 of the Act deal only with the case of assessment of a Hindu joint family even after its extinction by partition. They do not provide for the situation arising by reason of extinction by a statutory enactment. If by force of the statutory enactment there will be no joint Hindu family in the State from December 1, 1976, it follows that there can be no entity assessable as HUF either for the purpose of the I.T. Act or for the purpose of the W.T. Act. The contention to the contrary by the counsel for the Revenue is negatived. The O.P. is allowed. Exts. P3, P4 and P5 are quashed. In view of the fact that the assessment for the year 1977-78 has already been nullified by the appellate order dated January 10, 1984, no further relief is necessary regarding Ext. P2. The O.P. is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessee's Appeal, Doctrine Of Merger, In Part, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... n in regard to the violation of article 19(1)(g) has not been seriously urged at the hearing and, as such, we need not express any opinion thereon. In the view we have taken as indicated above, we declare the notification dated March 31, 1984, being No. 1042-F.T., issued under S. 8 of the Bengal Amusements Tax Act, 1922, to be ultra vires and restrain the appellant by an order of injunction from. enforcing the notification No. 1042-FT. dated March 31, 1984. In the premises, the notification as also the memorandum dated April 7, 1984, are set aside and quashed. The appellants are directed to refund the tax collected either in terms of the order of this court or otherwise to the writ petitioners within a period of four weeks from date. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails. Rule issued by the learned trial judge succeeds and is made absolute. In the facts of this case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay made but rejected. M. N. Roy J.-I agree.
-
1984 (6) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Illegal Business ... ... ... ... ..... rt, observed (p. 802) If the business is illegal, neither the profits earned nor the losses incurred would be enforceable in law. But, that does not take the profits out of the taxing statute. Similarly, the taint of illegality of the business cannot detract from the losses being taken into account for computation of the amount which can be subjected to tax as profits under section 10(1) of the Act of 1922. The tax collector cannot be heard to say that he will bring the gross receipts to tax. He can only tax profits of trade or business. That cannot be done without deducting the losses and the legitimate expenses of the business . In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not Tight in not allowing Rs. 40,000 as loss in business. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the negative, viz., that the Tribunal was not right in disallowing Rs. 40,000 as business loss. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Loss, Diversion By Overriding Title, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... ld that the tariffs and dividends control reserve created in pursuance of the requirement of the Act, though apparently created for the benefit of the licensee or its shareholders, is in truth and in ultimate analysis designed to see that the tariffs leviable on the consumers in the relevant years are not increased or enhanced. In other words, it was held that the said reserve was created really for the benefit of consumers and that it is not available to the licensee for any purpose of its own. This again is a case where the moneys paid into a particular reserve are lost to the assessee and, therefore, constitute expenditure . We are of the opinion for the above reasons that the amount set on in pursuance of s. 15 of the Payment of Bonus Act is not a permissible deduction for the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and, accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uestion of issuance of a clearance certificate in accordance with law. We may also indicate that sub-r. (1) of r. 16 provides for a qualified bar which operates once a notice under r. 2 has been issued. In this context, s. 281 of the Act has also got to be kept in mind, which too prohibits the transfer of property during the pendency of proceedings under the Act, or after the completion thereof, but before the service of notice under r. 2 of the Second Schedule. It is, however, unnecessary in this case to consider the mutual operation of s. 230A and r. 16(1), or of s. 230A and s. 281. We may also mention that the arrangement to be made by the defaulter should be to the satisfaction of the ITO there is no evidence before us that the petitioner has ever made any attempt to make such a satisfactory arrangement or that the ITO was satisfied with any such arrangement. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1984 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... estate of the deceased. We are not in a position to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The filing of the return by the deceased himself while he was alive clearly shows his conduct in treating the property as not his. We are not in a position to say that the conduct of the deceased after the purchase of the property in treating the property not as his own is either immaterial or irrelevant. Therefore, we are not in a position to eschew the wealth-tax returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the ground that they are not relevant or insufficient to prove the claim of the accountable person that the property in question did not belong to the deceased. In this view of the matter, we have to hold that the deceased had no beneficial title to Plot No. 4, Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Madras. We answer the question in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. The accountable person will get costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1984 (6) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Arise, Income, Received ... ... ... ... ..... in order to find out what is the interest income that accrues to the assessee from the date of dispossession and what portion of it would be exigible to tax in each year starting from the date of dispossession up to the date of payment. Sri Sarangan appearing for the Department submitted that we may lay down guidelines so as to meet different situations in similar cases. But having regard to the facts of these references, what amount of interest should be subjected to tax in each assessment year in question, is not in issue and does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. This is really hypothetical issue since the compensation in the present case was enhanced by the civil court in the year 1981 and in none of the assessments from which the references arise, the interest on the enhanced compensation is the subject-matter of assessment. No other question arises for decision and we answer the question in each of the references in the affirmative and against the Department.
-
1984 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Revision By Commissioner, Tenants-in-common ... ... ... ... ..... should be taken to continue until an actual division takes place. According to the petitioners learned counsel, a division in status is sufficient to treat them as divided members of a Hindu undivided family even though there has been no partition by metes and bounds. Admittedly, the properties in this case are held and enjoyed in common. From the mere fact that the income is divided between the petitioners, it is not possible to treat them as divided members of a Hindu undivided family so long as there is no division by metes and bounds. Thus, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax appears to be right in holding that the assessment of the petitioners should be only in the name of the 1st petitioner as representing the Hindu undivided family. In this view of the matter, we are not in position to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Board of Revenue. The tax cases are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... cient to refer to the decision in O. P. No. 3006 of 1983 dated June 25, 1984. There should be a proper consideration of all matters. The Commissioner should act in accordance with law. The order passed should be speaking order. I am constrained to state that exhibit P-3 has been passed rather summarily and without advertence to all the facts and circumstances, which were very forcefully urged by the Government Pleader, the scope and content of sections 25 and 26 of the Act, the events and proceedings at the assessment stage and thereafter, and the scope of the revisional powers exercised by the Commissioner under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act and other matters referred to hereinabove. In the result, I hold that exhibit P-3 is not in accordance with law. I quash exhibit P-3. I direct the 1st respondent to consider the revisions in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
-
1984 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Penalty, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... n to the petitioners to file their objections or explanations therefor, if any, and plead that no penalty is exigible or is to be levied even for non-payment of the admitted tax due, as per the returns when the penalty proposed as per exhibit P-2 is sought to be levied. That stage has not reached at present. In the light of the conclusion that section 17A(3) is valid and intra vires, do not find any error of law or other infirmity in exhibits P-1 and P-2. Both exhibits P-1 and P-2 are valid and legal. The assessing authority was justified in proceeding as he did in exhibits P-1 and P-2. It is open to the petitioners to plead and prove before the assessing authority as and when proceedings for levy of penalty under section 17A(3) is pursued or penalty itself is levied, that the said step is not warranted on the facts of the case or is otherwise unreasonable and unjustified. The original petitions are disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
