|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Assessment Year, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... . In the preceding assessment year, similar remedy was availed of and the assessee, after explaining the nature of the profits, succeeded in appeal before the Tribunal. It has also to be noticed that a notice under section 143(2) of the Act has already been issued to the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 and it appears that assessment under section 143(3) has thereafter been made. If that was so, the assessee can challenge the order, if any, made in the regular assessment, reducing the claim under section 80HHC of the Act. The view taken by this court in Swaraj Mazda s case, 1992 105 CTR 109, in similar circumstances, supports it. We, therefore, do not think appropriate to enter into a discussion on the merits of the applicability of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make adjustments thereunder. The assessee is advised to seek alternative remedy available under the Act. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source, Sanction For Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ng on record the material, if any, regarding the consideration made by the sanctioning authority whether or not the offence could be compounded before institution of the prosecution. It would be open to the parties to canvass before the trial court whether or not an opportunity of hearing deserves to be granted to the affected person before according sanction to prosecute. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial magistrate has to be quashed and set aside for the purpose. In the result, all these appeals are accepted. The common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana on February 24, 1994, in Criminal Cases Nos. 998 of 1990 to 1003 of 1990 and 5343 of 1990 and 5359 of 1990 is quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana for restoration of the cases to file and for their fresh disposal according to law in the light of this judgment of mine.
-
1997 (1) TMI 39 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact, Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal, was also on the ground that a common notice had been issued to two persons jointly. The Tribunal took notice of the fact that, since a notice was issued jointly in the names of Jatinder Kumar---Pushpinder Kumar, that was not sufficient service on the two accountable persons. There was no evidence on the record to show that the notice had been served on any accountable person. Since there was no service of notice on the accountable person, it had the effect of rendering the assessment bad. From the above facts, it appears that the controversy related to the question of service of notice. It was a question relating to a fact and, therefore, in our opinion, the controversy does not give rise to a question of law. In the result, the application, filed by the Revenue, is rejected on the ground that no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and the questions, sought to be referred, do not give rise to a question of law to be answered by this court.
-
1997 (1) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... assets, but not to stock-in-trade. It is for these reasons, the Tribunal held that the gains arising out of the sale of the land cannot be treated as business income. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the same assessee in T. C. P. No. 226 of 1980 wherein by an order, dated October 21, 1980, this court held that the gains arising out of the sale of the land should be taxed under the head Capital gains and it cannot be treated as business income . Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, we are also of the opinion that the assessee was not selling the land in question as stock-in-trade. Considering the nature of the transaction, we have to hold that the gains arising from the sale of the land, should be assessed under the head Capital gains , since what was sold was only investment and not stock-in-trade. Accordingly, we answer questions Nos. (2) to (4) referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Partner, HUF Partner ... ... ... ... ..... l appearing for the assessee, before us, are similar and identical to the submissions made in the assessment year 1967-68, we are unable to come to a different conclusion than what was reached by this court on a similar set of facts in the earlier assessment years. The assessee has not produced any further evidence before the Tribunal for coming to a different conclusion than was arrived at in the earlier assessment years. The judgment rendered by this court in North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT 1987 165 ITR 623, is binding on the assessee when the facts are similar in both the assessment years under consideration. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the reserve created in the assessment years under consideration for deficit stock, cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Gratuity Fund, High Court, Previous Year, Provision For Payment, Taxing Statutes
-
1997 (1) TMI 35 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Doctrine Of Merger, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 130. In this case, as pointed out before, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not decided the question whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 35B of the said Act, but remanded the said question before the Income-tax Officer for a decision. Therefore, the decision on the said question by another Income-tax Officer is a fresh decision and the same cannot be said to have merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Against such fresh decision of the Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner can exercise its jurisdiction under section 263 of the said Act for the purpose of revising the order. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Parties to bear their own costs. Let a copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and under the signature of the Registrar be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. N. PANDEY J.---I agree
-
1997 (1) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact, Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... no such request made by the donees in the present case. To make a valid gift, there must be delivery of possession in the case of movable articles. In the present case, delivery of possession took place only in India where the drafts were encashed and payments were made. Therefore, the gift was completed within the Indian territory, and the gift-tax is leviable. This was the view taken by this court in T. C. R. No. 1248 of 1979 (CGT v. S. Raja Ramalingam 1997 227 ITR 622). The said case arose out of the order of the Tribunal passed in G. T. A. No. 58/Mds. of 1977-78 dated April 26, 1978, which was followed by the Tribunal in the present case. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the decision of this court in T. C. R. No. 1248 of 1979 (CGT v. S. Raja Ramalingam 1997 227 ITR 622), we are unable to support the order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Current Repairs, Insurance ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, recast the question as follows 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,--- (i) the expenditure in respect of repairs and insurance of motor car and jeep can be included in the expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of motor cars for the purpose of restriction under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) the Tribunal is right in law in holding repairs are governed by section 31 and taxes are regulated under section 30 such expenditure cannot be construed as running, and maintenance expenditure of motor cars described under section 37(3A) of the Act? In the light of the discussion as above, 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. Registry will forward a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (1) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Bad Debt ... ... ... ... ..... assessee s appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the assessee s plea in this behalf. The Revenue contested the Commissioner s order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee s contention that the reserve was created not for a loan liability and was of the same nature as reserve for doubtful debts. The Tribunal, therefore, agreed that these sums in question should be treated as reserve for inclusion in the capital base. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 1996 219 ITR 706 and another decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 388, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal on the facts that the reserve for balances in Pakistan should be treated as reserve. Accordingly, inasmuch as the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 31 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Constitutional Validity, Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... safeguards provided under the statute itself which unambiguously show that the offending sections cannot be termed to be penal in character and thereby being unconstitutional on the ground of violating the principle of audi alteram partem . Section 119 provides for the powers vested in the Board which can be exercised for the benefit of the assessees as and when felt necessary and in the interest of justice. We do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned single judge is upheld and the appellants are given liberty to urge all such grounds as may be otherwise available to them before the authorities concerned against levy or recovery of the interest payable under the impugned sections. As and when such pleas are raised before the concerned authorities, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law and the notifications or orders issued in pursuance of section 119 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1997 (1) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Hospitality Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... any factual materials to show that any expenditure has been incurred towards the benefit of the employees in the office. But here, there is no finding on whom the expenditure was incurred. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal should consider the question as to how much the assessee has spent towards the employees in the office, factory or other places of work and that portion would be allowable as business expenditure on the ground that it is staff welfare expenditure. But, in so far as the expenditure incurred by way of provision of hospitality to any person, it may be a customer or any other person or an employee outside the business premises, it is not allowable under the ground it is an entertainment expenditure which is disallowable under section 37(2A) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Department with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the question in the light of the observations made above.
-
1997 (1) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Firm, Penalty, Damages ... ... ... ... ..... to agree with the Tribunal that the entire amount is allowable as business expenditure. Therefore, we direct the Tribunal to determine after giving opportunity to the assessee, the portion of the amount paid under section 14B of the Act as compensatory in nature and allow the same. The other portion which is of penal nature is not allowable as expenditure. We are also not in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the liability has arisen in the course of carrying on the business. The liability has arisen because of the default committed in the payment of dues within the time stipulated under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the liability has arisen in the course of carrying on the business. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department, with the direction to the Tribunal to allow the expenditure which is compensatory in nature, and disallow the expenditure which is penal in nature. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Transfer, Co-operative Housing Society ... ... ... ... ..... tion in respect of transfer of the shares of the Suburban Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., shall amount to transfer of right or interest in the flat and hence the assessee will be entitled to deduction in respect of long-term capital gain arising on account of the transfer of the same under section 80T(b)(i) of the Act. In view of the above stance of counsel for the parties, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the surplus realised by the assessee on the sale of the shares and flat represented by them in Suburban Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., constituted long-term capital gains and was entitled to relief under section 80T(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the other hand, it would be the relief under section 80T(b)(i) of the Act. The above question No. 1 is answered accordingly. In view of the answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 is not pressed by the Revenue. The same is, therefore, returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Pre-operative Expenses, Depreciation, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... up of the business or the installation of the machinery. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am rather inclined to accept the contentions of the Revenue that the so-called expenditure by way of payment of interest to the partners was not an expenditure or investment at all but it was simply appropriation and allocation of available funds between the partners themselves. I am, therefore, of the view that so far as the amount of Rs. 25,206 is concerned, the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority rightly did not allow it to be added to the actual cost of the machinery for capitalisation and for claiming depreciation of the rate of 10 per cent. Similarly, I am unable to see how expenditure connected with dealings in raw materials for the period prior to the start of business can be said to be capital expenses. For the reasons stated, I answer the question in the negative, that is to say, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. S. N. JHA J.---I agree.
-
1997 (1) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Question Of Law, Accrual ... ... ... ... ..... ystem of accounting. No question has been framed by the Revenue questioning the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had not switched over to the cash system of accounting from the mercantile system. It was held by the apex court in Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 547 that when the question referred to the High Court speaks of on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , it means on the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal and not facts and circumstances that may be found by the High Court on a reappraisal of the evidence. In the absence of a question whether the findings were vitiated for any reason being before the High Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind or question the statements of fact made by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is concluded by the findings of fact. In our opinion, no statable question of law arises for reference. The application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1997 (1) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Loss, Carry Forward, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... hip firm. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the assessee that, in the case of Jagdish Ram Sud as an assessee, losses incurred in the two firms were allowed to be set off against the profits from the third firm on the ground that Jagdish Ram Sud continued to be a partner in Kishan Chand and Company in the next year. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents except that an incorrect set off allowed to a partner could not be treated to be a legally allowable claim in the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner s plea thus finds force that the Assessing Officer has allowed set off of the unabsorbed loss in the case of one partner, namely, Jagdish Ram Sud, but he disallowed the claim of set off in the case of the petitioner, Kishan Chand. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the unabsorbed loss of Rs. 49,793 incurred in the two firms is held to be allowable by way of set off against the income of the petitioner in the next year. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tribunal, Penalty, Delay, Return ... ... ... ... ..... view that it is not open to the Tribunal to reduce the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Act to anything lower than the sum equal to two per cent. of the tax assessed for every month during which the default continued. In view of the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal reducing the penalty to a sum of Rs. 1,000 is not sustainable in law. As already stated, the section prescribes the amount of penalty that should be imposed when the assessing authority found that there was no reasonable cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in the submission of the return. The Tribunal has also confirmed the imposition of penalty. In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the penalty leviable would be Rs. 1,000 which is less than the statutory prescription. Hence, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Transfer, Firm, Partition, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... s put for the lands was not a notional one, but a real one and the Tribunal was not right in holding that in computing the capital gains, the cost of acquisition should be taken as its market value as on April 1, 1964. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee relying upon the decisions in CIT v. Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. 1994 209 ITR 44 (Cal) and Goculdas Dossa and Co. v. J. P. Shah 1995 211 ITR 706 (Bom) FB , contended that the market value as on April 1, 1964, should be taken as cost of acquisition. In view of the fact that in the assessee s brother s case in Addl. CIT v. Govindoss Purushothamdoss 1980 124 ITR 319, this court has already taken a view that the market value as on April 1, 1964, cannot be taken as cost of acquisition, it is not possible for us to take a different view, accepting the contention put forward by the assessee s counsel. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Presumption, Civil Construction, Profits And Gains Of Business ... ... ... ... ..... onal by providing that nothing contained in sub-sections (1) to (4) of that section would apply, where the assessee claims and produces evidence to prove that the profits and gains from the aforesaid business are lower than the profits and gains specified in sub-section (1), and thereupon the Assessing Officer shall proceed to make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of assessment made under sub-section (3) of section 143. Furthermore, section 40(b) does not provide for any deduction, as it is restrictive in nature. If any deduction is allowable, it is to be allowed under any other provision not under section 40(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was covered under sub-section (5) of section 44AD, but the assessment was made in terms of section 44AD. If it is so, this would be a matter which could be taken in appeal. The petition is dismissed in limine.
....
|
