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 361 to 380 of 2976 Records

• 1993 (11) TMI 50
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Power of appellate authority to grant stay of tax collection during the pendency of appeals.
  2. Whether the amounts collected towards sales tax liability constitute income.
  3. Disallowance of depreciation to the extent of the subsidy received from the Government.
  
  Summary of Judgment:
  
  1. Power of Appellate Authority to Grant Stay:
  The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed writ petitions seeking mandamus to direct the third respondent to stay the collection of disputed tax and interest for assessment years 1987-88 to 1990-91. The petitioner contended that the third respondent, the appellate authority, is bound to stay the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals, citing the Supreme Court decision in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815. The court held that the appellate jurisdiction u/s 251 of the Act impliedly grants the power to stay proceedings, as it is necessary for the effective exercise of appellate powers. The court directed the third respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay applications filed by the petitioner.
  
  2. Amounts Collected Towards Sales Tax Liability:
  The petitioner argued that the amounts collected as contingency collections towards possible sales tax liability did not constitute income and were not part of trading receipts. These amounts were either payable to the State as sales tax or refundable to customers. The first respondent issued notices u/s 148 and revised the assessments, including these amounts as income. The petitioner challenged this addition in appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
  
  3. Disallowance of Depreciation:
  The petitioner also challenged the disallowance of depreciation to the extent of the subsidy received from the Government. The first respondent had added back the depreciation claim on the value of the plant and machinery subsidized by the Government.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the appellate authority u/s 251 has the implied power to grant stay of tax collection during the pendency of appeals. It directed the third respondent to take up the stay applications and pass appropriate orders. The issues regarding the inclusion of sales tax collections as income and the disallowance of depreciation were to be addressed in the pending appeals.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 49
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act and Rules regarding acceptance of fresh applications for registration during revised assessment proceedings.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to an assessee involved in agricultural income-tax assessments for the years 1972-73 to 1980-81. The original assessment orders assigning the status of a registered firm were set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to fresh assessment proceedings. The main issue revolved around the acceptance of a fresh application for registration during the revised assessment proceedings and its compliance with the Agricultural Income-tax Rules.
  
  The court examined Section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act and Rule 2 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Rules to determine the legality of accepting the fresh registration application. Section 27 outlines the procedure for registration of firms, while Rule 2 specifies the conditions for filing applications for registration. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to these provisions in the registration process.
  
  The court deliberated on the contention of the Revenue that accepting the fresh application during revised assessment proceedings was irregular and not in line with the rules. Conversely, the assessee argued that since the original assessment orders were set aside and fresh assessments were pending, the acceptance of the fresh application was valid under Rule 2 of the Rules. The court analyzed the sequence of events and the legal framework to arrive at a conclusion.
  
  Based on established legal principles and precedents, the court held that assessment proceedings are considered pending until finalized by a final order. Therefore, when the original assessments were set aside, fresh assessment orders were required. The court emphasized that the acceptance of the fresh application during the revised assessment proceedings was justified and in accordance with the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner's decision to the contrary was deemed erroneous.
  
  In conclusion, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, stating that the acceptance of the fresh application during revised assessment proceedings was lawful. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to address the second question separately. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 48
  
  Issues:
  Assessment of bad debt deduction under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1980-81.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The case involved an assessee, a limited company engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes, who exported goods to parties in Turkey between 1976 and 1977, amounting to Rs. 2,72,19,587. Due to a ban on remittances imposed by the Government of Turkey, the amount deposited in the Central Bank of Turkey remained unrecoverable. The assessee wrote off a sum of Rs. 121 lakhs as bad debt in the calendar year 1979. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the bad debt claim, citing a chance of recovery due to a decree by the Government of Turkey. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed Rs. 95 lakhs as bad debt, which the Tribunal upheld, leading to an appeal by the Revenue.
  
  The Revenue contended that the debt valuation by the assessee in May 1981 indicated the debt could not be considered bad in 1979. They argued that as long as there was a slight hope of recovery, the debt could not be deemed bad. However, the assessee argued that the decision to write off the debt was based on a valuation by bankers in December 1979, and the decree by the Government of Turkey in January 1980 was irrelevant to the previous year's assessment.
  
  The Tribunal found that conditions for bad debt deduction were met, especially after a letter from the Indian Embassy in Turkey in March 1979. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for bad debt deduction, emphasizing the proper quantification and expert assessment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the assessment of bad debt must be based on a bona fide evaluation of recoverability, not later events, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were not challenged as perverse.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to allow the bad debt deduction of Rs. 95 lakhs, rejecting the Revenue's arguments against the recovery possibility. The Court highlighted the importance of a prudent assessment of bad debt based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of write-off, not subsequent events. The judgment favored the assessee, confirming the deduction of bad debt and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 47
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the deduction of expenditure made by a company for the purchase of annuities for a director.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  The case involved the interpretation of section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which restricts certain deductions for companies related to payments made to directors or individuals with substantial interest. The primary issue was whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company for purchasing annuities for a director fell under the purview of section 40(c)(i) and the subsequent restriction on deductions. The Tribunal initially held that the restrictions under section 40(c)(i) applied to the payments made for the purchase of annuities. This decision led to the reference of the question to the High Court for determination.
  
  The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 40(c)(i) in detail. It emphasized that the expenditure covered under this section must result in the provision of remuneration, benefit, or amenity to a director. The court noted that the payments made to the director in this case were for specific services rendered by him, such as acting and directing in motion pictures, and were not related to his role as a director of the company. Therefore, the court concluded that the payments did not constitute remuneration or benefits provided to the director in his capacity as a director, as envisaged under section 40(c)(i).
  
  The High Court referred to a Supreme Court case, Bharat Beedi Works P. Ltd. v. CIT, which dealt with a similar issue regarding payments made to directors for the use of a trademark. The Supreme Court's decision in that case highlighted that payments made for specific rights or services, unrelated to the director's position, do not fall within the scope of section 40(c)(i). Drawing parallels from this precedent, the High Court determined that the payments made by the assessee-company for purchasing annuities did not fall under section 40(c)(i) as they were for services rendered by the director in capacities other than his role as a director.
  
  Furthermore, the Revenue argued that the payments could be considered special remuneration under the company's articles of association. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the special remuneration provision in the articles applied to services rendered by a director in his capacity as a director, not for separate obligations or functions undertaken through independent agreements. Therefore, the court held that the provision for special remuneration did not apply to the payments made for the annuities.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, ruling that the expenditure incurred by the company for purchasing annuities for the director was not subject to the restrictions under section 40(c)(i). The court also decided that there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 46
  
  Issues:
  1. Conviction and sentencing of the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act.
  2. Appeal against the modification of the substantive sentence by the Sessions Judge.
  3. Validity of evidence and confession statements presented by the prosecution.
  4. Interpretation of section 277 of the Income-tax Act.
  5. Argument regarding the involvement of other accused individuals.
  6. Appeal by the Department against the reduction of the sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The accused, in this case, was convicted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act for filing false income-tax returns, forging documents, and obtaining refunds fraudulently. The prosecution presented strong evidence, including testimony from Income-tax Officers and bank officials, along with confession statements made by the accused. The courts below confirmed the convictions, with the appellate court modifying the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The accused filed Criminal Revision Cases challenging the conviction and sentence.
  
  2. The accused contended that there was no substantial evidence to prove his guilt, but the court found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and sufficient. The confession statements made by the accused, which were not retracted in a timely manner, were deemed genuine and crucial in uncovering the fraud committed. The accused's attempt to retract the statements during trial was not considered valid, and the court upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented.
  
  3. The interpretation of section 277 of the Income-tax Act was also a point of contention. The accused argued that the section applied only to assessees and not to non-assessees like him, but the court disagreed, stating that the section encompassed any person committing fraud related to income tax. Citing previous judgments, the court rejected the accused's argument and upheld the application of the section in this case.
  
  4. Another argument raised was regarding the involvement of other accused individuals, particularly income-tax officials. The court found no merit in this contention, emphasizing that the evidence and findings of the lower courts indicated the accused acted alone in committing the fraud. The absence of charges against other potential accomplices did not invalidate the case against the accused.
  
  5. The Department appealed against the reduction of the accused's sentence by the Principal Sessions Judge. The court agreed with the Department's argument that the reduction was contrary to the prescribed minimum sentences under the Income-tax Act. Despite acknowledging the accused's time served and payment of fines, the court dismissed all revision petitions, concluding that the accused should not be sent to jail again after considering the circumstances.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 45
  
  Issues:
  1. Rejection of returns by the tax authority based on inspection report.
  2. Contention regarding reliance on inspection report for assessments.
  3. Appeal and revision process followed by the petitioner.
  4. Assessment details and modifications made by the tax authority.
  5. Legal infirmity and interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  6. Precedent regarding best judgment assessment and interference by High Court in writ proceedings.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment by the High Court of Kerala, delivered by Judge M. M. Pareed Pillay, deals with the petitioner's challenge against the agricultural income-tax assessments for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The petitioner's returns were not accepted by the tax authority, leading to the issuance of reassessment notices based on an inspection report. The petitioner contended that the assessments were solely reliant on the inspection report from February 14, 1985, which was deemed improper. The tax authority, however, argued that the assessments considered various factors, including previous returns and relevant data, and were not solely based on the inspection report.
  
  The petitioner pursued appeals and revisions against the assessment orders, which were ultimately confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The court noted that the assessments took into account data provided by the petitioner for the respective years and made adjustments based on yield calculations. The court emphasized that the assessments were not solely dependent on the inspection report but considered multiple aspects before determining the tax liability.
  
  Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted the principle that best judgment assessments are valid unless shown to be arbitrary. The court cited a case where it was established that decisions from previous years serve as evidence for subsequent assessments, and interference by the High Court is limited unless the assessment is found to be unlawful. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal flaws in the tax authority's calculations and subsequent confirmations by appellate and revisional bodies, the court concluded that interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India was unwarranted.
  
  Ultimately, the court dismissed the original petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought. The judgment underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment process, considering all relevant factors, and limits the scope of judicial intervention in tax matters unless there is a clear violation of law or procedure.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 44
  
  The Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut applied under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for two additions made to the income returned by the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the additions based on lack of evidence. The High Court rejected the application as the Tribunal's findings were based on facts and not on legal provisions, concluding that the application lacked merit and imposed costs of Rs. 150.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 43
  
  Issues:
  1. Revision filed under section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991.
  2. Assessment of agricultural income for the year 1988-89.
  3. Rejection of returns and accounts by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer.
  4. Dispute over income estimated from slaughter tapping of rubber trees.
  5. Failure of the assessee to produce evidence and objections.
  6. Validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
  7. Jurisdiction of the court under article 226 or 227.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The revision was filed under section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, by the petitioner, an assessee to agricultural income-tax, challenging the assessment for the year 1988-89. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer rejected the return filed by the assessee, proposing to estimate the assessable income at Rs. 70,000. Despite opportunities given to the assessee to object and provide evidence, the officer fixed the net income at Rs. 70,000, leading to a demand of Rs. 27,684. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment and ordered a remit, specifically addressing the issue of income from slaughter tapping of rubber trees.
  
  2. Following the remit, the assessee failed to produce relevant evidence and objections, resulting in a pre-assessment notice proposing to reject the returns and the lease deed submitted by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the revision filed by the assessee, noting that the assessee was given sufficient time to present evidence and objections but failed to do so. The Deputy Commissioner found the lease deed to be executed to circumvent the law, leading to the affirmation of the original assessment.
  
  3. The court examined the jurisdictional aspect of the revision under section 78 of the Act. It was established that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was not revisable under section 78, but the court could exercise jurisdiction under article 226 or 227 if the order was unjust. However, upon reviewing the files and the assessee's conduct during the assessment process, the court found no infirmity or injustice in the orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
  
  4. The court emphasized that the assessing authority and the revisional authority acted in accordance with the law, and the assessment was fair and reasonable. The assessee's failure to cooperate, produce evidence, and avail of opportunities led to a best judgment assessment. The court concluded that no injustice was done to the assessee, and the assessment was justified based on the circumstances and the assessee's actions.
  
  5. Ultimately, the court found the tax revision case to be without merit and dismissed it, upholding the assessment made by the authorities and emphasizing the assessee's responsibility for the outcome due to non-cooperation and failure to utilize opportunities provided during the assessment process.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 42
  
  The High Court of Allahabad rejected an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1982-83. The court found that there was no question of law arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of omitting property income from the return. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the omission, leading to the rejection of the application. The respondent-assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 150.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 41
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of reassessment proceedings under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Determination of revenue vs. capital expenditure for assessment year 1968-69.
  3. Validity of additions made during reassessment proceedings based on a writ petition challenging the notices under section 148 for assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The judgment pertains to two connected applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad. The first application, for the assessment year 1968-69, raised questions regarding the competence of the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings, consideration of principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and the classification of expenditure as revenue or capital. The second application, for the assessment year 1969-70, similarly questioned the competence of the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings and the consideration of legal principles in the reassessment process.
  
  2. Regarding the assessment year 1968-69, the court addressed the issue of determining whether an expenditure of Rs. 1,93,581 incurred during the setting up of plant and machinery was revenue or capital in nature. The court noted that the classification of such expenditure involves a mixed question of law and fact, and the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was considered to be arising from the order of the Tribunal.
  
  3. The judgment also discussed the reassessment proceedings for both the assessment years, which were initiated under section 147(a) of the Act. The court highlighted that notices under section 148 were challenged through writ petitions, leading to a partial allowance of the petitions. The court held that the Income-tax Officer could not bring to tax any other items of income except those covered by the valid notices under section 148. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to delete additional income additions was subject to the interpretation of the court's order in the writ petitions. The court concluded that the questions raised in both applications concerning reassessment proceedings were derived from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
  
  4. Ultimately, the court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions raised in the applications for the court's opinion. The court also awarded costs to the Revenue, assessed at a consolidated figure of Rs. 300. The judgment emphasized the legal complexities involved in interpreting reassessment proceedings and the classification of expenditures, underscoring the importance of adhering to legal principles and court orders in tax assessments.
  
  This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the intricate legal issues surrounding the interpretation of reassessment proceedings and the determination of expenditure classification, providing a detailed overview of the court's decision and reasoning.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 40
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  2. Determination of probable cost of construction and unexplained investment in raising the cinema building.
  3. Upholding of additions made by the Income-tax Officer and subsequent appeals challenging the additions.
  
  Analysis:
  1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
  The case involved reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments based on reasons related to the cost of construction of a cinema hall. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the action for the assessment year 1977-78 but annulled it for 1978-79. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's decision. The court found that the Tribunal had considered all material aspects diligently, leading to a rational conclusion. It cited the principle that findings of fact by the Tribunal should not be disturbed unless there was no evidence to support them. The court concluded that the reassessment proceedings for 1978-79 were annulled properly, and no reference was needed regarding the validity of the proceedings.
  
  2. Probable Cost of Construction and Unexplained Investment:
  The primary issue revolved around determining the probable cost of construction and unexplained investment in raising the cinema building. The Income-tax Officer had added amounts to the assessee's income as unexplained investment based on his estimation of the cost of construction. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the additions were not supported by valid evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer's findings were either incorrect or irrelevant, leading to the deletion of the additions. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the material and upheld the deletion of the additions, as there was no evidence to support them.
  
  3. Upholding of Additions Made by the Income-tax Officer:
  The Income-tax Officer had added amounts to the assessee's income as unexplained investment due to discrepancies in the estimated cost of construction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, after detailed examination, concluded that the additions were unjustified. They found that the assessee had maintained accurate accounts supported by vouchers, and the valuation by experts did not support the Income-tax Officer's additions. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the findings were based on factual analysis and no legal question arose. The court rejected the applications made by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the applications made by the Revenue, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decisions were well-founded in fact and law. The court held that no legal questions arose from the Tribunal's findings, and the additions made by the Income-tax Officer were rightly deleted. The court assessed costs against the Revenue and rejected the applications.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 39
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption eligibility for assets held by a minor child.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute over the exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in relation to a gift of Rs. 3 lakhs made by the assessee to his minor son. The Wealth-tax Officer initially allowed the exemption, but upon reassessment, disallowed it citing an amendment to the Act effective from April 1, 1975, changing "held by him" to "owned by him." The Revenue contended that since the bank account was in the minor son's name, the assessee was not the owner and thus not entitled to the exemption.
  
  The court referred to precedents from the Orissa and Madras High Courts, which held that the term "held by him" in section 5(3) extended to assets held by the wife or child, included in the assessee's total wealth. The court analyzed the amendments to section 4 and 5, emphasizing that the deeming fiction created by section 4 included assets of the spouse or minor child in the net wealth of the assessee. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling that liability to wealth-tax arises from asset ownership.
  
  The court interpreted the amendments as clarificatory in nature, ensuring that assets beneficially owned by the assessee or included in the net wealth were eligible for exemption under section 5(3). The court reasoned that if the value of the spouse or minor child's asset is included in the net wealth, the associated exemption must also apply. The court concluded that the assessee, deemed as the owner under the legal fiction of section 4, was entitled to the exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(3). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, ruling against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 38
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment deals with the allocation of expenses for an assessee deriving income from various sources, including exempt and taxable income, under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Allocation of Expenses:
  The case involved a State Government-owned Corporation earning income from letting out warehouses, interest, administrative charges, and other sources. The Income-tax Officer found that only income from letting out warehouses was exempt under section 10(29), while other incomes were taxable. The assessee claimed that all expenses should be allowed in full, but the Income-tax Officer allocated expenses proportionately for taxable and non-taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, holding the entire income as exempt, thus not considering the expenditure allocation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court precedent was cited, stating that all expenditure incurred for the business must be allowed, regardless of the taxability of income.
  
  Appeal and Tribunal Decision:
  The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that expenses should be allocated proportionately based on different sources of income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the staff of the Corporation was engaged in earning various income sources, justifying proportional allocation of expenses. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the assessee's claim for full expense allowance and allowed the Revenue's appeal.
  
  Court's Decision:
  The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that if expenditure is incurred to earn income from different sources, the portion related to taxable income is allowable under section 37. Without evidence from the assessee, the allocation of expenses on a proportionate basis was deemed appropriate. Citing previous judgments, including Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT and Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allocate expenses proportionately was lawful. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 37
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the retrospective effect of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Taxability of realizations made by the official liquidator for business operations during the winding up of a company.
  3. Deduction of interest to creditors at agreed rates in the case of liquidation.
  4. Entitlement to depreciation on immovable assets.
  5. Allowability of interest deductions under sections 220 and 139 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The primary question revolved around the retrospective application of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the provision was procedural in nature and applied to assessments pending on the date of enactment. The section aimed to provide safeguards for the assessee by allowing objections to proposed variations in income assessments. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the retrospective effect of the provision was deemed justified, emphasizing its procedural nature and applicability to assessments with significant income variations.
  
  Issue 2:
  Regarding the taxability of realizations by the official liquidator during the winding up of a company, the court referred to a previous case precedent. The Tribunal's rejection of the claim that such realizations were not taxable under the Income-tax Act was upheld. The court relied on established legal interpretations and concluded that the realizations made in accordance with the Companies Act and court orders were indeed subject to taxation.
  
  Issue 3:
  The question of deduction of interest to creditors during liquidation was raised. The assessee sought deductions at agreed rates, which were ultimately rejected. The Tribunal's decision to deny the deduction, based on prior rulings, was upheld. The court highlighted that the deduction claim was not substantiated adequately, leading to its rejection in line with previous decisions.
  
  Issue 4:
  The issue of entitlement to depreciation on immovable assets, specifically Maratha Mandir in Bombay, was addressed. Citing previous judgments, the court affirmed that the assessee was not the owner of the property and, therefore, not entitled to depreciation. The Tribunal's decision denying depreciation on the immovable assets was upheld based on established legal interpretations.
  
  Issue 5:
  Lastly, the court examined the allowance of interest deductions under sections 220 and 139 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's claim for interest charged by the Department was deemed inadmissible for business purposes. Relying on a prior case decision, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow the interest deductions, emphasizing that the charged amounts did not serve the purpose of carrying out the assessee's business activities.
  
  In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on issues 1, 2, 4, and 5, while returning issue 3 unanswered due to its hypothetical nature and lack of clarity regarding the payment of interest to creditors. The judgment provided detailed legal reasoning and interpretations to resolve each issue comprehensively.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 36
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Status of the assessee for tax assessment: individual vs. Hindu undivided family (HUF).
  2. Requirement of notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Validity of assessments made without issuing a fresh notice under Section 139(2).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Status of the Assessee for Tax Assessment: Individual vs. Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)
  The primary issue in this case was whether the income should be assessed in the status of an individual or a Hindu undivided family (HUF). The original return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed by the legal heir of the deceased, Shri Sumer Singh, in the status of an individual. A revised return was later filed claiming the status of HUF. The Income-tax Officer concluded that the assessee had been consistently assessed as an individual and that the estate was impartible, thus the income should be assessed in the status of an individual. This view was supported by the application of the rule of primogeniture, which dictated that the estate belonged to the eldest son, who was recognized as the ruler of the former Kishangarh State.
  
  2. Requirement of Notice Under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  The Tribunal relied on the decision in CWT v. Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705, which required a fresh notice under Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act if the return was filed in one status and the assessment was to be made in another status. The Tribunal held that without issuing a fresh notice under Section 139(2), the assessments were vitiated. However, this was contested by the Revenue, which argued that the opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee before altering the status from HUF to individual, thereby fulfilling the requirements of natural justice.
  
  3. Validity of Assessments Made Without Issuing a Fresh Notice Under Section 139(2)
  The court examined various precedents, including Munilal Shivnarain Kothari v. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 567, which held that the Income-tax Officer could assess a person in a different status from the one in which the return was filed, provided the assessee was given an opportunity to contest the change. The court noted that in the present case, the legal heir was given due opportunity to be heard, and detailed submissions were made before the Income-tax Officer. Thus, the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 139(2) were deemed to have been complied with.
  
  Conclusion
  The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessments made in the status of an individual were vitiated due to the lack of a fresh notice under Section 139(2). The opportunity given to the assessee amounted to a notice, fulfilling the requirements of natural justice. Therefore, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 35
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether conditional subsidy received for a housing scheme should be considered as part of the actual cost for depreciation calculation.
  2. Whether weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act is allowable for certain expenditures.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The case involved the question of whether a conditional subsidy received from the Rajasthan Government for a subsidised housing scheme should be included in the actual cost for depreciation calculation of a labour colony. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the depreciation claim on the amount of the subsidy. However, the Tribunal held that the subsidy was not required to be repaid by the assessee and, therefore, should be deducted for determining the actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court referred to a previous decision where a similar issue was addressed, concluding that the subsidy was deductible for assessing the actual cost of the labour colony. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, denying the depreciation deduction on the subsidy amount for multiple assessment years.
  
  Issue 2:
  Regarding the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act for certain expenditures, the Tribunal disallowed the claim for freight and packing charges, as well as 25% of the staff salary related to export business. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of section 35B, emphasizing that the expenditure on the carriage of goods outside India or on insurance while in transit was excluded from the relief contemplated. Citing various judicial precedents, the court affirmed that expenses on freight, packing charges, and insurance incurred in India were not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B. The court also upheld the disallowance of 25% of the staff salary, as it was deemed related to export activities. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the weighted deduction for freight and packing charges, as well as the portion of staff salary associated with export business.
  
  In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on both issues, denying the depreciation deduction on the conditional subsidy and upholding the disallowance of weighted deduction for specific expenditures. No costs were ordered in the judgment.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 34
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 as procedural and retrospective.
  
  Analysis:
  The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, specifically whether it was procedural and retrospective in nature. The provision in question, inserted by Act No. 66 of 1976, allowed for the valuation of a house used for residential purposes to be determined based on certain criteria. The court noted that this provision acted as an overriding mechanism over sub-section (1) of the Act, giving the Wealth-tax Officer the authority to estimate the price of an asset for valuation purposes. The court emphasized that section 7 is a machinery section that complements the charging section (section 3) of the Act.
  
  The court referred to the Gujarat High Court case of CWT v. Niranjan Narottam [1988] 173 ITR 693, which held that section 7(4) has retrospective operation and does not impair existing rights or obligations. Additionally, the court cited the Halsbury's Laws of England, which states the general rule against retrospective application of statutes unless expressly provided by the legislature.
  
  Furthermore, the court highlighted the decision in Gulabrai Hanumanbox v. CWT [1992] 198 ITR 131 (Gauhati), which deemed section 7(4) as procedural and having retrospective effect, applicable to pending assessments. The court clarified that the provision gives the assessee an option regarding property valuation, and if not exercised, the valuation would follow rule 1BB.
  
  In a related case, D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 107 of 1982--CWT v. Man Bahadur Singh [1994] 208 ITR 658, the court determined that rule 1BB, framed under section 7(1), is also retrospective and applies to pending assessments. The objective of these provisions was seen as simplifying valuation procedures and benefiting the assessee. The court concluded that since section 7(4) did not affect existing rights and was procedural in nature, it applied to all pending cases at the time of its enactment.
  
  Ultimately, the court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming that section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act is procedural and applicable to pending cases at the time of its implementation.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 33
  
  Issues:
  Accrual of interest income from an arbitration award and its taxability in the assessment year 1975-76.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the accrual and taxability of interest income from an arbitration award in the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee, a company, had a receivable amount from another party, which included interest and compensation. The matter was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award specifying the principal amount and interest due to the assessee. However, the award was not made a rule of the court, leading to a question of whether the interest amount had accrued to the assessee and could be taxed in its hands.
  
  The Income-tax Officer added the interest amount to the assessee's income based on the award, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that income accrues when the right to receive it is established, not necessarily when the claim is first made. The Commissioner found that the interest would arise from the date of the award, irrespective of the ongoing legal proceedings.
  
  In the second appeal before the Tribunal, it was highlighted that the award was given ex parte and was being contested, making it non-executable until made a rule of the court. The Tribunal concluded that without the award being enforced as a court decree, the assessee had no legal right to the interest amount, thus deleting the addition of the interest from the assessee's income.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that income accrues only when an award is made a rule of the court, especially in cases of interest awarded through arbitration. The judgment emphasized that for income to accrue, it must be enforceable in a court of law, and until then, it cannot be considered as accrued income for tax purposes. The ruling clarified that in cases of interest under an award, accrual happens only upon the award becoming a court decree.
  
  Therefore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was deemed justified, stating that unless the award is made a rule of the court, the interest amount could not be considered as accrued income taxable in the relevant assessment year. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal enforceability in determining the accrual of income from arbitration awards for tax purposes.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 32
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Justification of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Application of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Interpretation and applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Justification of the Tribunal in Cancelling the Penalty:
  The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelled the penalty of Rs. 33,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had maintained books of account, and the receipts were shown based on these books, which were accepted. Although the expenses claimed were not fully vouched, it did not indicate that any part of the expenditure was bogus or that the assessee attempted to suppress true income by inflating expenses. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696, concluding that the levy of penalty was not justified.
  
  2. Application of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c):
  The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1964, and it shifted the onus to the assessee to prove that the failure to file the correct return did not arise from any fraud or gross and wilful neglect. The presumption raised by the Explanation is a rebuttable presumption. The Tribunal did not adequately consider whether the assessee had discharged this burden. The court noted that the Tribunal proceeded in the reverse gear by holding that penalty cannot be levied unless it is established that the additions made represented the assessee's own income earned in the relevant previous year, which was suppressed to defraud the Revenue.
  
  3. Interpretation and Applicability of Anwar Ali's Case:
  The Tribunal's reliance on Anwar Ali's case was deemed inappropriate by the court. The Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case held that the Department must establish that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income and had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, the court clarified that this decision is applicable only after the initial burden on the assessee, as per the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), is discharged. The Tribunal failed to analyze whether the assessee had discharged this initial burden and directly applied the Anwar Ali decision.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 33,000. The Tribunal did not properly consider the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and failed to determine whether the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The reference was returned unanswered, and the Tribunal was directed to first consider the explanation of the assessee and then determine if the Department had discharged its burden. The Tribunal must provide a proper opportunity to both parties and reevaluate the case in light of the applicable Explanation.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 31
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Taxability of the "absence fee" of Rs. 47,428 in the hands of the non-resident assessee-company.
  2. Whether the tax paid by the Indian company on behalf of the assessee could be grossed up and included in the income of the assessee.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Taxability of the "absence fee" of Rs. 47,428 in the hands of the non-resident assessee-company
  The primary issue was whether the "absence fee" paid by the Indian company to the non-resident assessee-company was taxable as income in India. The assessee, a non-resident company, entered into an agreement with an Indian company to send technicians to India to assist in manufacturing licensed products. The Indian company paid Rs. 47,428 as "absence fee" to compensate for the salary paid to these technicians in Japan during their absence.
  
  The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) initially held that the "absence fee" represented income arising from a business connection in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned this decision, deeming the amount as income of the employees under section 9(1)(ii), not the assessee-company. This view was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
  
  Upon review, the court examined the provisions of section 9(1)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, which create a legal fiction deeming certain incomes to accrue or arise in India if they result from a business connection in India. The court noted that the "absence fee" was not a direct salary payment to the technicians but a compensation to the assessee-company for business services rendered in India. Thus, the "absence fee" was deemed to be income arising from a business connection in India and taxable in the hands of the assessee-company.
  
  The court distinguished this case from precedents like Carborandum Co. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 335 (SC) and Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 986 (AP), where the services were rendered entirely outside India or the personnel were not considered employees of the Indian company. Here, the technicians remained employees of the non-resident company, and the "absence fee" was a business expense related to services rendered in India.
  
  2. Grossing up and inclusion of tax paid by the Indian company in the income of the assessee
  The second issue was whether the tax paid by the Indian company on behalf of the assessee could be grossed up and included in the assessee's income. The agreement stipulated that any tax payable on the "absence fee" would be borne by the Indian company. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) included this tax liability in the gross income of the assessee-company.
  
  The court held that the tax paid by the Indian company should indeed be added to the "absence fee" and included in the total income of the assessee-company. The rationale was that the "absence fee" was a business income arising from a business connection in India, and the tax paid by the Indian company on behalf of the assessee was part of this income. The court rejected the argument that the assessee-company acted as a trustee for its employees in receiving the "absence fee."
  
  Conclusion
  The court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the "absence fee" of Rs. 47,428 was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company and that the tax paid by the Indian company could not be grossed up and included in the income of the assessee. The reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....151617181920212223........ 149