Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 340 of 2976 Records

• 1993 (11) TMI 90
  
  Issues:
  Assessment year 1980-81 - Valuation report discrepancy - Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer - Confrontation of valuation report to assessee - Application of case law
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to an appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81, involving a valuation report discrepancy related to the cost of construction of a property in Chandigarh. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act based on the variance between the cost of construction declared by the assessee and the valuation officer's estimation. The assessee challenged this initiation before the CIT(A), who upheld the reopening of assessment under section 147(b) but directed the confrontation of the valuation report to the assessee for a fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
  
  The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that a valuation report is merely an expert opinion and cannot be a basis for reopening assessment under section 147(b) on a change of opinion. Citing relevant case law, it was contended that the initiation of proceedings was legally flawed and the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the issue for reassessment. However, the learned D.R. supported the first appellate authority's decision.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the legal requirements for invoking section 147(b), emphasizing the necessity of the Assessing Officer having a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment based on 'information' in his possession. Referring to precedent cases, the Tribunal distinguished situations where valuation reports constituted valid 'information' for reopening assessments. It highlighted instances where discrepancies in valuation reports led to the initiation of proceedings under section 147(b), emphasizing the importance of factual distinctions in such cases.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 147(b) in the present case, dismissing the assessee's appeal. It endorsed the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh appraisal due to the non-confrontation of the valuation report to the assessee. The judgment underscored the significance of compliance with procedural requirements and the need for objective justification in reopening assessments based on external information.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the reopening of assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of valid reasons and factual distinctions in determining the legality of such proceedings. It underscores the need for procedural adherence and objective justification in initiating reassessments based on external information, while also highlighting the role of confrontation and fresh appraisal in ensuring a fair and transparent assessment process.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 89
  
  Issues:
  1. Applicability of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act in relation to the sale of two flats by the assessee-company.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an appeal by a private limited company against the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 1989-90. The company, involved in construction business, had constructed flats in Altamount property, selling most of them except for three flats. Two of these flats were let out on tenancy basis to associated concerns of the company. The Assessing Officer applied section 4 of the Gift-tax Act, levying gift tax on the two flats based on the cost of construction declared by the company. The main issue argued was the applicability of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act in this case, with other grounds not pressed by the company.
  
  The company contended that the transaction should not be considered a deemed gift, emphasizing the tenancy rights encumbering the ownership of the flats. The company's counsel argued that the transfer was made in respect of reversionary interest only, with the consideration being adequate. However, the departmental representative argued that the arrangement was a subterfuge to avoid tax liability, asserting that it was a transfer of ownership, not just reversionary rights. The departmental representative further highlighted that the real value of each flat was around Rs. 40 lakhs based on similar sale incidents.
  
  After considering the submissions and relevant details, the tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions. The tribunal noted that the flats were let out to companies owned by the daughter of the Managing Director of the company, emphasizing the intent of discouraging tax avoidance. The tribunal found that the transaction was not bona fide and was structured to avoid tax liability. The tribunal concluded that the case fell within the scope of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the company's appeal.
  
  In conclusion, the tribunal's decision centered on the application of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act to the sale of flats by the company, emphasizing the lack of bona fide in the transaction and the apparent tax avoidance motive, leading to the dismissal of the company's appeal.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 88
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Ex parte decision by the CWT (Appeals).
  2. Inclusion of the value of the assessee's Stock Exchange membership card as an asset under the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Ex parte Decision by the CWT (Appeals):
  
  The assessee challenged the ex parte decision made by the CWT (Appeals). The Tribunal reviewed the procedural aspects and the relevant rules and bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange as considered by the CWT (Appeals). The Tribunal found no procedural irregularities or violations that would warrant overturning the ex parte decision. Therefore, the ex parte decision by the CWT (Appeals) was confirmed.
  
  2. Inclusion of the Value of the Assessee's Stock Exchange Membership Card as an Asset:
  
  The primary contention was whether the Stock Exchange membership card should be considered a property under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee argued that the membership was a personal privilege and not a transferable right, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mrs. Sejpal R. Dalai v. Stock Exchange. The High Court had opined that the membership constituted a personal permission and was inalienable, thus not qualifying as property.
  
  The CWT (Appeals) distinguished this case from the one relied upon by the assessee, emphasizing that the membership card bestowed certain rights and privileges, could be transferred by nomination, and had value, especially in cases of forfeiture where the sale proceeds could offset liabilities.
  
  The Tribunal examined the relevant rules and bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange:
  - Rule 5: Membership constitutes a personal permission from the Exchange.
  - Rule 6: Membership is inalienable.
  - Rule 11: Allows nomination by existing members and legal heirs under certain conditions.
  - Rule 17: Specifies conditions of eligibility for membership.
  - Rule 18: Details qualifications for membership.
  
  The Tribunal noted that while the membership was described as a personal privilege and inalienable, the rules allowed for nomination and transfer under specific circumstances, thereby conferring a certain value to the membership. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's view that the term "property" is of broad import and includes rights that may not be traditionally transferable.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that the membership card had value and could be considered property under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. The argument that the membership was akin to professional memberships (e.g., Chartered Accountants or Medical Association) was dismissed, as the Stock Exchange membership allowed for nomination and transfer, unlike professional memberships which required specific qualifications.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the Stock Exchange membership card's value as an asset under the Wealth-tax Act. The appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were dismissed, confirming the CWT (Appeals) ex parte order and the addition of Rs. 5,75,500 and Rs. 6,75,500 for the respective assessment years.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 87
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Adjustment to book profit under section 115J.
  2. Bona fide nature of the change in the method of charging depreciation.
  3. Calculation and set-off of losses and depreciation against profits.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Adjustment to Book Profit Under Section 115J:
  The primary issue concerns the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the book profit under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO adjusted the book profit by adding a sum of Rs. 641.44 lakhs, representing differential depreciation due to a retrospective change in the method of charging depreciation from the Straight Line Method (SLM) to the Written Down Value (WDV) method. The AO contended that this adjustment was necessary as the change in the method of depreciation was not bona fide and was designed to avoid lawful payment of tax. The assessee argued that the profits shown in the Profit & Loss (P&L) account prepared according to Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act are sacrosanct and can only be adjusted if any clause of the explanation to section 115J is attracted. The assessee further contended that the arrears of depreciation provided under the WDV method are in accordance with the Companies Act and do not fall under any clauses of the explanation to section 115J, hence the AO had no authority to adjust the book profits.
  
  2. Bona Fide Nature of the Change in the Method of Charging Depreciation:
  The AO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] both concluded that the change in the method of charging depreciation was not bona fide but a design to avoid tax. This conclusion was based on the observation that the company reverted to the old method of providing depreciation in the assessment year 1991-92 when the provisions of section 115J were deleted. The assessee, however, provided various justifications, including the recommendations of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the technical and financial evaluations by the company's personnel, to support the bona fide nature of the change. The assessee argued that the change was made to result in a more appropriate preparation and presentation of financial statements, considering the obsolescence of the plant and machinery and the need for substantial replacement costs.
  
  3. Calculation and Set-off of Losses and Depreciation Against Profits:
  The AO allowed a set-off of Rs. 585.83 lakhs against the book profits, while the assessee claimed a set-off of Rs. 613.56 lakhs. The difference arose from the interpretation of the term "loss" in clause (iv) of the explanation to section 115J. The AO interpreted "loss" as exclusive of depreciation, representing pure cash loss, while the assessee argued that "loss" includes depreciation. The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Garden Silk Wvg. Factory was cited, which held that "depreciation" emanates from the genus described as "loss," arising only after debiting the P&L account with the amount of depreciation. The Tribunal concluded that the loss should include the element of depreciation, and therefore, the correct amount of adjustment required to be made in terms of clause (iv) works out to Rs. 613.56 lakhs, as claimed by the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal held that the change in the method of charging depreciation was bona fide and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the guidance of the ICAI. The arrears of depreciation provided by the assessee were legitimate and could not be excluded while calculating the book profit under section 115J. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's interpretation of "loss" to include depreciation, thereby allowing the set-off of Rs. 613.56 lakhs against the book profits. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, the Income-tax Act, and various judicial precedents.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 86
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Computation of capital gains in foreign currency.
  2. Determination of cost of acquisition for original and bonus shares.
  3. Taxability of proceeds from the sale of bonus shares.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Computation of Capital Gains in Foreign Currency:
  The primary issue in the department's appeal was whether the capital gains should be computed in US Dollars and then converted into Indian Rupees as per rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee, a non-resident company, argued that the sale price of shares should be converted into US Dollars at the prevailing rate on the date of transfer and similarly, the cost of acquisition should be converted into US Dollars at the rate as on 1-4-1974. The Assessing Officer disagreed, noting the transaction occurred in Indian Rupees and there was no physical remittance to the USA, thus ruling out the application of rule 115. The CIT (Appeals) sided with the assessee based on certain Tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT (Appeals) decision, citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 358, which held that transactions of transfer of shares in India could not convert the cost of acquisition and sale price into foreign currency for computing capital gains. The department's ground of appeal was allowed.
  
  2. Determination of Cost of Acquisition for Original and Bonus Shares:
  The second and third grounds of the department's appeal pertained to the computation of capital gains on the sale of shares, including original and bonus shares. The original shares were purchased before 1-4-1974, and the bonus shares were acquired in 1982. The assessee computed the cost of acquisition of original shares at Rs. 15.85 per share, which was the fair market value on 1-4-1974, and spread this cost over the total number of shares to determine the cost of bonus shares. The Assessing Officer, however, spread the cost of acquisition of original shares over both original and bonus shares, as per the Supreme Court rulings in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. and CIT v. Gold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd. The CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's method, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO, which stated that the cost of original shares could not be reduced by spreading it over bonus shares. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision for the original shares but clarified that the cost of bonus shares should be determined by spreading the cost of original shares over both original and bonus shares collectively, partially allowing the department's appeal.
  
  3. Taxability of Proceeds from Sale of Bonus Shares:
  The assessee's cross-objection argued that if the department's claim of reducing the cost of original shares was accepted, the proceeds from the sale of bonus shares should not be taxable as capital gains, citing the Supreme Court decision in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty. However, the Tribunal noted the Special Bench decision in Rohiniben Trust v. ITO, which held that surplus from the sale of bonus shares was taxable as long-term capital gains. The Tribunal rejected the cross-objection, following the Special Bench decision and maintaining the taxability of the proceeds from the sale of bonus shares.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal regarding the computation of capital gains in foreign currency and partially allowed the appeal concerning the determination of the cost of acquisition for bonus shares. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed, upholding the taxability of proceeds from the sale of bonus shares.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 85
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Computation of capital gains in foreign currency.
  2. Determination of the cost of acquisition for original and bonus shares.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Computation of Capital Gains in Foreign Currency
  
  Department's Appeal:
  The primary issue raised by the department was whether the capital gains should be computed in US Dollars and then converted into Indian Rupees as per Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The department contended that the proviso to section 48 of the Income-tax Act, which allows such a conversion, was inserted only from 1-4-1990 and is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.
  
  Assessee's Argument:
  The assessee, a non-resident company, argued that the sale price of Rs. 51 per share should be converted into US Dollars at the prevailing rate of exchange on the date of transfer of shares. Similarly, the cost of acquisition of shares should also be converted into US Dollars after applying the conversion rate as on 1-4-1974. The assessee sought to apply Rule 115 for conversion of income expressed in foreign currency into Indian Rupees.
  
  Tribunal's Decision:
  The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court had recently held in Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 358 that where the transaction of transfer of shares took place in India, the non-resident company could not convert the cost of acquisition of shares and their sale price into foreign currency for the purposes of computing the capital gains. Respectfully following this decision, the Tribunal reversed the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and allowed the department's ground of appeal.
  
  Issue 2: Determination of the Cost of Acquisition for Original and Bonus Shares
  
  Department's Appeal:
  The department contested the CIT (Appeals)'s direction to the Assessing Officer not to reduce the cost of original shares when determining the cost of bonus shares. The CIT (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to attribute the average price as the cost of the bonus shares.
  
  Assessee's Computation:
  The assessee computed the cost of acquisition of 5,91,063 original shares at Rs. 15.85 per share, which was the fair market value on 1-4-1974. This amounted to Rs. 93,68,348. The assessee then spread this cost over the total number of shares (original + bonus) to arrive at the cost of the bonus shares.
  
  Assessing Officer's View:
  The Assessing Officer, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 567 and CIT v. Gold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 62 (SC), held that the cost of acquisition of the original shares should be spread over both the original and bonus shares.
  
  CIT (Appeals)'s Decision:
  The CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's computation, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 788, which held that the cost of original shares cannot be reduced by spreading it over the bonus shares.
  
  Tribunal's Decision:
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision regarding the cost of original shares, stating that the cost of original shares, opting for the fair market value on 1-4-1974, cannot be reduced on account of subsequent issue of bonus shares. However, the Tribunal partially allowed the department's appeal regarding the cost of bonus shares. It held that the cost of the original shares should be spread over both the original and bonus shares collectively, not the fair market value of the original shares.
  
  Cross Objection by the Assessee
  
  Assessee's Argument:
  The assessee argued that if the department's claim of reducing the cost of original shares for determining the cost of bonus shares is accepted, then the proceeds from the sale of bonus shares should not be eligible for tax as capital gains. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294).
  
  Tribunal's Decision:
  The Tribunal rejected the cross objections filed by the assessee, following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Rohiniben Trust v. ITO [1985] 13 ITD 830 (Bom.), which held that the surplus from the sale of bonus shares should be included as long-term capital gains.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal by the department was partly allowed, and the cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision regarding the cost of original shares but modified the computation method for the cost of bonus shares, directing that the cost of the original shares should be spread over both the original and bonus shares collectively.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 84
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Addition of Rs. 11,001 under section 69A of the Act.
  3. Addition of Rs. 3 lac under section 68 of the Act.
  4. Application of Explanation 1(A) below section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
  5. Relevance of reference application under section 256(1) of the Act.
  6. Admissibility and consideration of affidavits in penalty proceedings.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The appeal was against the order of CIT (Appeals) confirming a penalty of Rs. 1,95,930 under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was levied based on the additions of Rs. 11,001 and Rs. 3 lac to the assessee's total income. The assessee argued that mere disallowance could not be the basis for the penalty and that their explanation had merely been disbelieved, not proven false. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept this and levied the penalty.
  
  2. Addition of Rs. 11,001 under Section 69A of the Act:
  The search revealed cash of Rs. 11,001, which was added to the assessee's income under section 69A. The assessee's explanation that the cash did not belong to them was disbelieved but not found to be false. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the penalty, stating that the explanation was treated as false.
  
  3. Addition of Rs. 3 Lac under Section 68 of the Act:
  The sum of Rs. 3 lac was added to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The assessee provided a confirmatory letter and later an affidavit from the director of the creditor company, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) held that the explanation was false and confirmed the penalty.
  
  4. Application of Explanation 1(A) below Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
  The Assessing Officer did not invoke Explanation 1 below section 271(1)(c). The CIT (Appeals) reproduced Explanation 1(A) and held that the explanations regarding both amounts were false, leading to the penalty confirmation. However, the Tribunal found that the explanations were disbelieved but not proven false, thus not falling under Explanation 1(A).
  
  5. Relevance of Reference Application under Section 256(1) of the Act:
  The assessee argued that the reference application under section 256(1) made the penalty non-leviable. The Tribunal accepted that the reference application kept the matter open and could potentially lead to the deletion of the addition, thus impacting the penalty.
  
  6. Admissibility and Consideration of Affidavits in Penalty Proceedings:
  The assessee submitted an affidavit from the director of the creditor company during the penalty proceedings, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the affidavit was valid evidence and could not be summarily ignored, thus impacting the penalty decision.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that the explanations provided by the assessee for both the amounts were disbelieved but not proven false. Therefore, the case did not fall under clause (A) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was directed to be cancelled, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 83
  
  Issues involved: Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding computation of income from construction work.
  
  Summary:
  The appeals were against the Commissioner's order u/s 263 of the Act, challenging the computation of income from civil construction contracts. The assessee followed the project completion method for accounting, recognizing profit or loss upon project completion. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to consider profits on work-in-progress, citing legal precedents. The assessee argued that their method was valid, supported by the Bombay High Court decision and consistent practice since 1982-83. The Senior Departmental Representative acknowledged both methods were recognized but emphasized the need for a reasonable view favoring the revenue.
  
  After reviewing the arguments, the Tribunal found no error in the assessment orders. It noted that the chosen method of accounting was regularly employed by the assessee, as evidenced by consistent practice. The Tribunal emphasized that the revenue must respect the assessee's chosen method unless it does not properly deduce profits. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 was not lawful in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal canceled the order u/s 263 and upheld the assessments by the Assessing Officer, rendering all subsequent proceedings irrelevant.
  
  In conclusion, both appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 82
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Valuation of vacant land within Bangalore Palace for wealth-tax assessments from 1977-78 to 1985-86.
  2. Impact of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the valuation.
  3. Consideration of the Bangalore Development Authority's Master Plan on the valuation.
  4. Appeals against the Wealth-tax Officer's valuation.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Valuation of Vacant Land:
  The central issue in these appeals is the valuation of the vacant land within the Bangalore Palace area, which spans 11,66,377.34 sq.m. The Settlement Commission had previously determined the value of the entire Bangalore Palace, including land and buildings, for various years, with the value for 1976-77 being Rs. 13,18,44,000. This valuation was adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer for subsequent years, with adjustments for market appreciation.
  
  Impact of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
  The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which came into force on 17-2-1976, significantly impacted the valuation. The Act imposes a ceiling on land holdings, and any land in excess of this limit is subject to acquisition by the state. The competent authority under the Act had declared the extent of excess vacant land held by the assessee and ordered its acquisition. The compensation for such excess land is capped at Rs. 1 lakh, as per section 11(6) of the Act. This legislative framework restricts the owner's ability to sell or otherwise alienate the land, thereby depressing its market value.
  
  Consideration of the Bangalore Development Authority's Master Plan:
  The Bangalore Development Authority's Master Plan further restricts the use of the vacant land within the Bangalore Palace area. The plan designates the area for a major City Park, prohibiting commercial exploitation or residential colonization of the vacant land. This restriction further impacts the valuation by limiting the potential uses of the land.
  
  Appeals Against the Wealth-tax Officer's Valuation:
  The assessee appealed against the valuation fixed by the Wealth-tax Officer, arguing that the valuation should consider the restrictions imposed by the Ceiling Act and the Master Plan. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially did not consider these factors but later reduced the valuation of the vacant land to Rs. 2 lakhs for each year from 1977-78 to 1985-86, acknowledging the impact of the Ceiling Act and the Master Plan.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal directed that the vacant land within the Bangalore Palace be valued at Rs. 2 lakhs for each assessment year from 1977-78 to 1985-86, considering the restrictions imposed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the Bangalore Development Authority's Master Plan. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9-1-1990 was reversed, and the Wealth-tax Officer was instructed to re-compute the net taxable wealth accordingly. The appeals for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were allowed, while those for 1979-80 to 1980-81 and 1984-85 to 1985-86 were dismissed.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 81
  
  Issues:
  - Depreciation allowance on motor buses belonging to the assessee
  
  Analysis:
  The Department filed an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the allowance of depreciation on motor buses owned by the assessee. The key contention was whether the buses were used for hire, affecting the rate of depreciation applicable. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) allowed depreciation at 33 1/3% instead of 50% claimed by the assessee, as he believed the buses were not run on hire. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) referred to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, and defined "stage carriage" and "hire" to conclude that the buses were indeed plying on hire, hence eligible for 50% depreciation.
  
  The Department argued that the buses were not hired out as they operated on usual routes and generated income only when passengers boarded. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel referred to various legal dictionaries to define "hire" as compensation for the use of a thing or services. The counsel contended that since passengers paid for the journey, the buses were used in a business of hiring. The counsel also highlighted provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, supporting the argument for higher depreciation.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal examined the definitions of "hire" from legal dictionaries and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. While tempted to agree with the assessee's argument, the Tribunal noted the specific language in the Income-tax Rules regarding depreciation rates for motor buses used in a business of running on hire. The Tribunal concluded that the higher rate of depreciation was intended for buses completely hired out, not for regular buses on fixed routes. The decision emphasized that the intention was to incentivize transport operators engaged in hiring out vehicles, not ordinary bus owners. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, allowing depreciation at the lower rate of 33 1/3% instead of 50%.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal held that the buses owned by the assessee were eligible for depreciation at the lower rate of 33 1/3% and not the higher rate of 50%. The decision reversed the ruling of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and reinstated that of the Income Tax Officer, directing depreciation allowance at the lower rate. The departmental appeal was allowed, affirming the decision.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 80
  
  Issues:
  1. Tax treatment of sales tax subsidy received by the assessee.
  2. Timing of inclusion of the subsidy amount in the assessee's income.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The primary issue in this appeal was the tax treatment of a sales tax subsidy received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the subsidy amount as income of the assessee for the year in question, as the dispute regarding the subsidy had been decided in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this treatment, considering the subsidy as part of the sale proceeds and taxable as income. The assessee contended that the subsidy was a revenue subsidy granted by the State Government for setting up a new industrial undertaking. The ITAT considered whether the subsidy should be treated as revenue or capital in nature based on various government orders and legal precedents.
  
  2. The timing of inclusion of the subsidy amount in the assessee's income was also a crucial issue. The assessee argued that since the subsidy related to assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, any addition should have been made in those years. During the proceedings, both sides debated whether the subsidy should be considered as revenue or capital in nature. The ITAT analyzed the nature of the subsidy, which was a cash refund of sales tax paid on raw materials purchased by the assessee for the first five years of production. The ITAT concluded that the subsidy was of revenue nature and taxable. However, they found no reason to include the amount in the income of the assessee for the particular year under appeal.
  
  3. The ITAT further delved into the timeline of the subsidy entitlement, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's order did not automatically grant the subsidy to the assessee. They highlighted the need for a formal action by the government to make the subsidy payable to the assessee. Due to insufficient evidence showing when the subsidy became payable, the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to determine the point in time when the subsidy amount actually became payable to the assessee. Ultimately, the ITAT reversed the lower authorities' orders and deleted the addition to the assessee's income for that year, with directions for further investigation.
  
  In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, emphasizing the need for clarity on the timing of the subsidy's inclusion in the income and the formal process for the subsidy to become payable to the assessee.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 79
  
  Issues:
  - Characterization of income from hiring out business assets
  - Treatment of rental income under different heads
  - Set off of unabsorbed depreciation against rental income
  - Failure to address deduction of expenses, interest charges
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Characterization of income from hiring out business assets:
  The assessee leased out its business assets and claimed the rental income as business income. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) assessed it under "income from other sources" based on the intention of the party leasing the assets. The Tribunal held that the rental income was rightly assessed under "income from other sources" as the assessee's intention was to earn rental income, not to continue business activities. Various case laws cited by the assessee were deemed distinguishable, and the decision was upheld.
  
  2. Treatment of rental income under different heads:
  The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the rental income should be treated as business income. It emphasized the intention behind leasing the assets for earning rental income, leading to the conclusion that the income falls under "income from other sources." The Tribunal distinguished relevant case laws cited by the assessee to support its decision.
  
  3. Set off of unabsorbed depreciation against rental income:
  The Tribunal considered the issue of granting set off of unabsorbed depreciation against rental income. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which allowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation even in the absence of business income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the legal fiction introduced by section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, and held that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed against any other head, including rental income.
  
  4. Failure to address deduction of expenses, interest charges:
  The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to address certain grounds related to the deduction of expenses incurred by the appellant company and the charges of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate on these grounds and restored the matter back to her file for further consideration.
  
  In conclusion, the appeals were allowed in part, with the Tribunal upholding the assessment of rental income under "income from other sources," allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against rental income, and directing the CIT(A) to address the outstanding issues related to expenses deduction and interest charges.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 78
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Nature of income derived post-sale of fixed assets.
  2. Set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses.
  3. Deletion of estimated royalty income.
  4. Addition on account of interest income.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Nature of Income Derived Post-Sale of Fixed Assets:
  The assessee, a public limited company, sold its land, building, and machinery in 1980 due to a recession in the textile industry. The company earned income from interest on deferred payments, royalty from a leased trademark, and small-scale trading in cloth. The Assessing Officer assessed these incomes as "Income from other sources" and denied the benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses. The CIT (Appeals) concluded that these incomes should be treated as "Profits and gains of business," considering the company's intention to continue business and the nature of the assets as commercial assets.
  
  2. Set Off of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Business Losses:
  The CIT (Appeals) held that the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years could be set off against any income, irrespective of its head, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 773. This view was confirmed by the Tribunal.
  
  3. Deletion of Estimated Royalty Income:
  The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made on account of estimated royalty income from the leasing of the trademark "Gopi Fabrics." The Tribunal agreed, noting that since the lessee did not exercise the option to extend the license beyond four years, no such income could be presumed to have accrued.
  
  4. Addition on Account of Interest Income:
  The CIT (Appeals) reduced the addition of Rs. 18,14,610 to Rs. 3,82,954, allowing the net interest income after deducting interest on amounts paid by the lessee on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, considering the contractual obligations and the effect of the dispute settled in the City Civil Court.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s findings on the nature of income, set off of unabsorbed depreciation, and deletion of estimated royalty income. The issue of interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Both appeals were treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 77
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Correct assessment year for income earned during the period of amalgamation.
  2. Interpretation of the provisions of section 3 of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Validity of the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
  4. Applicability of the option to choose the previous year by the assessee.
  5. Legal tenability of extending the previous year to a period of 18 months.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The main issue in this case was determining the correct assessment year for the income earned by the assessee-company during the period of amalgamation with another company. The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that the income for the six months ending on 31-12-1984 should have been assessed in the assessment year 1985-86, whereas it was assessed in the assessment year 1986-87. The CIT argued that the income should have been assessed in the earlier year based on the provisions of section 3 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  2. The interpretation of the provisions of section 3 of the Income-tax Act was crucial in this case. The CIT relied on section 3 to argue that the previous year of the assessee is the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year or any period of 12 months following such period. The CIT held that since the income was earned during the financial year 1984-85, it should have been assessed in the assessment year 1985-86. The CIT's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions.
  
  3. The validity of the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was challenged by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT erred in concluding that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The counsel contended that there was no material to support the CIT's conclusion of prejudice. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the CIT failed to demonstrate any tax loss resulting from the assessment.
  
  4. The issue of the assessee's option to choose the previous year was raised during the proceedings. The counsel for the assessee highlighted that the definition of the previous year in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act allows the assessee to choose the previous year. The counsel argued that the CIT's order did not consider this provision and incorrectly directed the addition of income in the assessment year 1985-86 without excluding it from the assessment year 1986-87.
  
  5. Finally, the legal tenability of extending the previous year to a period of 18 months was examined by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the option to choose the previous year is to be exercised by the assessee. Since the assessee had consistently followed the year ending on 30th June, the Tribunal held that the CIT's direction to extend the previous year to 18 months was legally untenable. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the order passed by the CIT and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 76
  
  Issues:
  1. Allegation of non-compliance with natural justice principles.
  2. Validity of statements made by partners.
  3. Dispute regarding the location of the head office.
  4. Distinction between the revision applicants and Bengal Sales Agency.
  5. Installation of power press machine without intimation.
  6. Clandestine production of excisable goods.
  7. Imposition of personal penalty.
  
  Issue 1 - Allegation of non-compliance with natural justice principles:
  The applicants alleged non-observance of natural justice principles, claiming insufficient opportunity for a hearing. However, the government found that multiple opportunities were provided for hearings, and the applicants failed to respond or avail themselves of these opportunities. The government clarified that natural justice requires a reasonable opportunity to be granted, and there was no violation in this case as sufficient chances were given for the applicants to present their case.
  
  Issue 2 - Validity of statements made by partners:
  The government emphasized that statements made by partners should be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence and cannot be dismissed solely on grounds of inducement. Merely alleging inducement is not enough to discredit such statements.
  
  Issue 3 - Dispute regarding the location of the head office:
  The applicants disputed the location of their head office, claiming it was not the same as the premises where goods were seized. However, the government noted that the applicants themselves admitted conducting business activities from the premises where the goods were seized, indicating a connection between the two locations.
  
  Issue 4 - Distinction between the revision applicants and Bengal Sales Agency:
  While the applicants argued that they were separate entities from Bengal Sales Agency, the government highlighted commonalities such as shared partners and business premises, indicating a close relationship between the two entities. The government found the argument of disassociation weak, especially considering the lack of records for purchases from other suppliers.
  
  Issue 5 - Installation of power press machine without intimation:
  The applicants installed a power press machine without notifying the Central Excise Department, claiming it was for producing non-excisable items. However, investigations revealed no stock of non-excisable goods, suggesting the machine was used for manufacturing excisable goods, supporting the allegation of clandestine production.
  
  Issue 6 - Clandestine production of excisable goods:
  Based on the evidence and discussions, the government upheld the confiscation of goods and their redemption on payment of fines and appropriate duty, concluding that the applicants were involved in clandestine production of excisable goods as alleged.
  
  Issue 7 - Imposition of personal penalty:
  The government acknowledged an error in the calculation of the penalty amount, leading to a reduction in the personal penalty imposed on the applicants. Granting the benefit of doubt, the government reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000, while upholding the orders of the lower authorities in all other aspects.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 75
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the presumption of goods being smuggled.
  - Determination of foreign origin of seized goods and its significance in invoking the presumption under Section 123.
  - Evaluation of evidence presented by the party, specifically related to invoices and discrepancies in valuation.
  - Application of the benefit of doubt principle in the absence of conclusive evidence of smuggling.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the presumption of goods being smuggled. The advocate argued that the seized diamonds, being of inferior quality and likely of Indian origin, should not be presumed as smuggled. The advocate emphasized that the origin of the goods is crucial in invoking the presumption under Section 123, citing a Supreme Court judgment that defined 'smuggled' as goods of foreign origin imported from abroad. The advocate contended that since the diamonds were of inferior quality and mainly cut and polished in India, they were likely of Indian origin, making them ineligible for the presumption of being smuggled.
  
  The judgment scrutinized the evidence presented by the party, particularly focusing on the invoices related to the seized goods. It was noted that while discrepancies were alleged in the valuation, weight, and number of diamonds in the invoices, the actual seized goods were of lesser weight and number than stated in the invoices. The judgment highlighted that discrepancies in valuation alone could not be the basis for rejecting the party's evidence, especially considering variations in diamond assessments and the tendency of seizing officers to value goods on the higher side. The authenticity of the invoices was presumed as genuine, as they were reportedly verified by the Department.
  
  Ultimately, the judgment concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the seized diamonds were of foreign origin or were likely smuggled goods. Given the lack of conclusive proof of smuggling and the benefit of doubt principle, the government decided to grant relief to the applicant by setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. The judgment underscored that in the absence of concrete evidence supporting the presumption of smuggling under Section 123, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the party involved, leading to a favorable outcome for the applicant.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 74
  
  Issues:
  Petitioner seeking return of gold seized despite Tribunal orders.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after obtaining an order from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) directing the central excise authorities to return 250 grammes of gold seized. The confiscation proceeding initiated resulted in the confiscation of 484 grammes of gold, with the original authority directing confiscation of 434.900 grammes and imposing penalties. The CEGAT, in its order dated 19th June 1990, directed the confiscation of 250 grammes of gold but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner complied with the order by depositing the required amounts within the stipulated period. Despite this, the gold was not returned, leading to further orders from the Tribunal. The Collector of Central Excise did not challenge these orders, rendering them final and binding.
  
  The Union Government contended that the petitioner did not deposit the entire redemption fine within the stipulated period and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass subsequent orders. However, the Court found that the petitioner had complied with the Tribunal's directions, and the Collector was bound by the Tribunal's orders. The Court rejected the Union Government's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the deposit of the redemption fine. The Court also dismissed the argument that the non-inclusion of another party in the proceedings was fatal to the petition, as the necessary parties were already involved in the appeal.
  
  Furthermore, the Court addressed the Union Government's argument regarding a pending criminal proceeding and its connection to the gold confiscation orders. The Court held that the criminal case did not affect the delivery of the confiscated gold as per the Tribunal's order. The pendency of the criminal case did not disentitle the petitioner from receiving the gold. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, issuing a writ of mandamus to deliver 250 grammes of gold to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of the writ, in accordance with the Tribunal's order. The writ application was allowed with costs, and a hearing fee was assessed.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court upheld the petitioner's right to receive the confiscated gold as per the Tribunal's orders, emphasizing the binding nature of the Tribunal's decisions on the concerned authorities and dismissing the Union Government's objections regarding the redemption fine, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, inclusion of parties, and the impact of the pending criminal case on the gold delivery.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 73
  
  The High Court of Judicature at Madras rejected a writ appeal based on a previous decision stating that a notification was prospective, not retrospective, as it rescinded an earlier notification with effect from a specific date. The writ appeal was rejected. [Case: The Superintendent of Central Excise, Villupuram Range, Villupuram v. The Madras Vanaspathi Ltd]

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 72
  
  The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the validity of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, excluding service establishments like photographic studios from project import benefit. The Supreme Court decision in Subhash Photographics v. Union of India supported this exclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with no costs, but granting appellants four weeks to pay the remaining duty.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 71
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this case are the provisional assessment of duty on a vessel imported into Indian Waters for demolition, alteration of tonnage by Customs Authorities, imposition of additional duty, interpretation of Excise Duty exemption, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ application.
  
  Provisional Assessment of Duty:
  The petitioners challenged the alteration of the tonnage of the vessel by Customs Authorities without basis, leading to an additional duty being imposed. The petitioner contended that the alteration was wrongful and relied on previous judgments to support their argument, including the equivalence of Customs Duty to Excise Duty.
  
  Excise Duty Exemption Interpretation:
  The petitioners argued that an exemption of Excise Duty in 1986 for ships intended for demolition without power usage should also nullify the Customs Duty. They referred to previous judgments to support their position on the interpretation of the third section of the Customs Tariff Act.
  
  Jurisdiction of High Court:
  The judgment delves into the jurisdictional aspect of approaching a High Court for a writ application when multiple High Courts may have a connection with the cause of action. It discusses the discretion of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition based on the dominant connection of the cause of action with a particular High Court, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot choose the High Court solely based on convenience.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court dismissed the writ application based on jurisdictional grounds, highlighting the importance of the dominant connection of the cause of action with a specific High Court for seeking remedies. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate High Court for further consideration, and the stay of operation of the order was refused.
  
  This judgment emphasizes the significance of jurisdictional considerations in approaching the High Court for writ applications and underscores the principle of connecting the cause of action with the appropriate High Court for seeking legal remedies.

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 149