|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 61 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Concessional Rate ... ... ... ... ..... f their salaries, such accommodation provided to them on standard rent is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act. The above argument need not detain us any longer. A bare perusal of the rule referred to shows that this is for the purpose of valuation of the perquisite provided to the employees and if there is no perquisite, the question of valuation does not arise. Rule 3(b) of the Income-tax Rules can only be applied where the accommodation has been given to the employee at a concessional rate and if there is no concession, rule 3(b) of the rules is not applicable. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. BARIN GHOSE J.--I agree. F. M. A. No. 38 of 1997 In view of the discussions made in the appeal (F. M. A. T. No. 2761 of 1994) decided today and the reasons given therein this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, Expenditure Incurred, Export Business, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ons 80J and 80HH, profits and gains of new undertakings are not commercial profits but only such profits as are computed in the manner laid down under the Act in pursuance of section 80AB, as if each undertaking was a separate assessee. In section 80HH the deduction has to be quantified with reference to profits and gains and in section 80J with reference to the capital employed and not with reference to turnover as in the case of section 80HHC. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present case. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1(i) in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 1(ii) in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (1) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property, Restriction On Registration, Tax Recovery Officer, Writ Petition
-
1997 (1) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... disregarded. In accordance with section 36(1)(iv) of the Act and rule 88 of the Income-tax Rules, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the entire sum contributed to the approved superannuation fund during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. In so far as depreciation withdrawn on roads is concerned, it is also not the correct view taken by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the audit report because the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 149, held that roads are buildings for the purpose of depreciation, and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The audit note relied upon by the Income-tax Officer is an erroneous one. Therefore, on the basis of the erroneous report, reopening cannot be made, since it would not constitute information under section 147(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Members' Club ... ... ... ... ..... xpression should have the same meaning as given under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the Board s circular should apply with equal force in the case of associations of persons under the Wealth-tax Act also. We are of the view that even by applying the provisions contained under section 21AA of the Wealth-tax Act, the assessee-club is not liable to be assessed under the Wealth-tax Act. In return for their paying the membership fee, they get access to the facilities offered by the club and not any share in the income or assets of the club. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the provisions of section 21AA of the Wealth-tax Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (1) TMI 56 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ating it as not falling in the pattern of earlier years will have to be understood in its above context. In my judgment, there are several instances of the proceedings being conducted by one of the legal heirs. This situation also gets more than fortified if orders for the earlier assessment years at exhibits P-8 to P-12 are seen, showing that one of the legal heirs prosecuted the proceedings. The name is none other than the present petitioner who prosecuted the assessment proceedings for other assessment years. In my judgment, it is also to be kept in mind that the rights that flow from the legal situation cannot be allowed to be disturbed, may be because the proceedings are prosecuted by one of the legal heirs, leaving aside the staring features of the position of tenancy in common with regard to all the assessment years other than the assessment year in question. For all the above reasons, the petition succeeds in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) thereof. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 55 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority ... ... ... ... ..... tle remained with the vendor, as there was no valid document of transfer. The expression belonging to , no doubt, signifies the person holding the property without having full ownership. Even then also, the apex court held in the said case that though the expression is belonging to the assessee, there must be a valid transfer. The expression owner is a much comprehensive term which denotes the full owner as per law. Therefore, without a valid registered document, the right, title and interest would not pass to the assessee. In the present case, therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax in the instant case clearly held that it appears that the assessee surrendered the two amounts said to have been advanced by her to her husband during the years in question only to corroborate the story of loan said to have been given by her to her husband . One may surrender a given income with an ulterior motive. The duty of the assessing authority in such a case is to make full inquiry and satisfy himself that the income surrendered was, in fact, earned by the assessee and that was liable to be assessed in her hands. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the assessment of the income surrendered without any inquiry, will be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For the above reasons, we answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue (sic). Interim order dated January 22, 1982, is discharged.
-
1997 (1) TMI 53 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
High Court, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ubmission as well. Even after referring to the view taken in Century Enka Ltd. s case 1977 107 ITR 909 (Cal), the Tribunal could have taken a different view. It cannot be said that two views on the interpretation of section 84 of the Act and rule 19A(3) of the Rules were not possible especially when the judgment in Century Enka Ltd. s case 1977 107 ITR 909 (Cal) was not that of the apex court or of the jurisdictional High Court. The subsequent view taken by the Tribunal, under the circumstances, would amount to review and not correcting a mistake apparent from the record. For the reasons stated above, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and it is held that the Tribunal was not right in law in rectifying its appellate order under section 254(2) of the Act. Question No. 1 is, accordingly, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the answer to question No. 1 given above, question No. 2 becomes redundant and is, therefore, returned unanswered.
-
1997 (1) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority ... ... ... ... ..... the petitioner, which the petitioner would want to be adjusted against dues, if any, there was absolutely no justification for imposing the condition of paying 20 per cent, of the outstanding demand under the order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax under section 220(6) of the Act. We, therefore, strike out the said condition imposed under the said order, as a result of which the assessee will not be treated as a defaulter during the pendency of the appeal. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner will make a fresh application for the certificate under section 220(6) of the said Act and the concerned authority will issue the necessary certificate on the footing that the said condition has been struck out from the subject order. The concerned authority will issue the necessary certificate in accordance with law within two weeks after receiving the application from the petitioner for such certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Waiver Of Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... awakened to dispose of the application and on finding that after February, 1990, there is no interim order in writing hastened to dismiss the application on that ground. If this is permitted it would always be possible for an authority to keep the matter pending during the period when the conditions for exercise of the discretion are satisfied on the face of record and then to take up the matter for hearing only after something happened to warrant its rejection. It is neither the spirit nor the object of the provisions. Admittedly, the application has not been dealt with in a reasonable manner to warrant its sustenance. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the Commissioner is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law within a period of two weeks after giving an opportunity to the assessee to make satisfactory arrangements for the payment of the sums due to his satisfaction. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 50 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Natural Justice, Reference To Valuation Officer, Registered Valuer, Valuation Of Land
-
1997 (1) TMI 49 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Interest In Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... nsfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retiring partner to the continuing partners. The transfer of a capital asset in order to attract capital gains tax must be one as a result of which consideration is received by the assessee or accrues to the assessee. When a partner retires from a partnership what he receives is his share in the partnership which is worked out and realised and does not represent consideration received by him as a result of the extinguishment of his interest in the partnership assets. The decision of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai was affirmed by the apex court in Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 1987 165 ITR 166. On the aforesaid settled legal position that what a firm pays and a retiring partner gets on severance of his relationship is the right of the retiring partner in the share of profits and assets of the firm, in other words it is separation of joint interests nothing more nothing less, it is not possible to accept the assessee s contention.
-
1997 (1) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... unequivocally held that interest accruing on capital investment made by the minors will be includible under section 64(1)(iii) in the total income of a parent. The Appellate Tribunal referring to the clauses of the partnership deed, held that there was no legal obligation on the minors to contribute capital. In our view, the question is not whether there was legal obligation on the part of the minors to contribute capital, but, undisputedly, the factual position is that the minors did contribute capital in the respective partnership firms. We see no good reason to deflect from the view taken by this court in the case of Shri Ram Ratan 1996 217 ITR 692 and on the earlier occasions too that interest accruing on capital investment by the minors is includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned questions referred to this court in the negative that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (1) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
High Court, Settlement Commission, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... h. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation would involve consideration of certain complex questions and the Settlement Commission has dealt with the petitioner in an arbitrary manner by not allowing the application. We see no material on the record to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of the Settlement Commission that the petitioner did not make full and true disclosure of the income which was not known to the Department. Furthermore, whether the application under section 245C(1) should or should not be allowed, is a matter which is to be decided by the Settlement Commission giving due weight to the matters mentioned therein and in section 245D. The writ court is concerned with the legality of the procedure followed, that is, the decision-making process and not with the merits of the order. In this case, we do not find that the Settlement Commission had not followed the procedure required to be followed. The petition is dismissed in limine.
-
1997 (1) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Full And True Disclosure, In Good Faith, Reduction Or Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner that the disclosure was not made in the return by the petitioner in good faith. An assessee may have filed a return in good faith making full and true disclosure to his honest belief and yet addition may be made by the assessing authority rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee. Addition being made in the assessment of the petitioner on partial rejection of its explanation does not mean that the return was not filed by the petitioner in good faith. In the absence of a finding of lack of good faith, the benefit of waiver cannot be refused simply on the ground that some addition was made on account of unexplained investment in the petitioner s assessment. For the reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order, in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1977-78 refusing waiver, is quashed with the observation that the Commissioner will pass an order afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove allowing the waiver.
-
1997 (1) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Capital Employed, Income From Other Sources, Interest Income ... ... ... ... ..... peal. The fact remains that the bank deposits were made out of the profit earned from the business and were not treated as mere deposits for earning interest income. On the other hand, a claim was made by the assessee to treat the said deposit as capital employed for the purpose of getting relief under section 80J of the Act and the Department accepted the same. In such a case, if the deposit made by the assessee in the bank is capital employed, that would become part of the capital of the new industrial undertaking. Any income earned by the capital employed would automatically become the business income of the assessee and it cannot be treated as income earned from other sources . Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the interest income from bank deposits should be assessed under the head Business income . In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... interfered with. In the present case, the question was framed on a broad basis, namely, whether the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, which would cover all the facets on the basis of which penalty was levied. Therefore, the absence of a question whether the order of penalty was based upon valid materials by itself would not prevent the Department to contend that the interpretation of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, as stated in the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Inasmuch as the question framed by the Department covers all the facets, this line of submission made by the assessee s counsel would not survive. On a plain reading of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in its entirety, we consider that the Tribunal s order is not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... TR 268 does not lay down the correct law. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Smt. Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED 1975 100 ITR 297, has been partly reversed by the Supreme Court and the decision of this court in State v. Prem Nath 1977 106 ITR 446 FB which supports the case set up by the Revenue has been approved by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the following question of law arises in the instant case Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,65,822 being the value of the share of the deceased in the goodwill of the firm in computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased charge able to the estate duty is unjustified and unsustainable in law ? The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned question to the High Court and send the record of the case.
-
1997 (1) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... opposed to hand labour, the capacity for exerting mechanical force, It is no doubt true that power would include any form of energy as commonly understood. But, power would not include the source of power. Power can be generated through various sources. Coal, kerosene, oil and gas constitute sources of power and they would not by themselves become power or energy. If it is power, it can be directly applied to get energy and if it is fuel, it should be oxidised for getting energy. Therefore, gas which is fuel cannot be considered as power as contended by learned counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the firm in which the assessee is a partner, is not an industrial undertaking engaged in the distribution of power. In that view of the matter, the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act cannot be granted, to the assessee. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
