|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 178 Records
-
1980 (1) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Being Heard, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ed would not meet the requirements of s. 274. We also think that there is no basis for the Tribunal s view that the assessee knew that the penalty was going to be imposed on the basis of the rectified assessment when the notice under s. 271(1)(a) had been issued much earlier on the basis of the original assessment order. It is also worth taking note of the fact that the reply submitted by the assessee to the notice under s. 271(1)(a) was an effective reply, and as the matter stood before the rectification order, no penalty was exigible on the assessee. This being so, as the penalty order was passed on the basis of the rectified assessment order, i.e., in changed circumstances, a fresh notice had to be issued before the penalty could be founded on the rectified order. We accordingly answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel fee assessed at the same figure.
-
1980 (1) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Notice For Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... eme Court has pointed out, the information of the audit party as to the effect of the various clauses of the lease deed cannot constitute information within the meaning of s. 147(b). I, therefore, think that on this aspect the writ petitioners have an arguable case which requires more detailed consideration. Since however, I am agreeing with my learned brother that the writ petitions have to be allowed on the ground that even if the interpretation sought to be put on the lease deed by the audit party can be acted upon, it is not a correct interpretation of the documents in question and that there has been no escapement of income at all, I am not expressing any opinion in regard to the question whether there was information in the possession of the ITO justifying action under s. 147(b) on the basis of the report of the audit party. Subject to the above reservation, I agree with my learned brother that the writ petitions have to be allowed for the other reason mentioned above.
-
1980 (1) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Electrical Machinery, Special Rate ... ... ... ... ..... d results. Such machinery cannot be taken to be electrical machinery. However, where the machinery itself is a single unit with the electric motor forming a vital and inseparable part of it, then the machinery would be electrical machinery. We find that in all these cases the ITO rejected the assessee s claim without practically giving the details of the nature of the machinery possessed by the assessee. The AAC accepted the assessee s claim and the Tribunal confirmed it. The result was that there has been practically no proper investigation of the nature of the machinery under consideration in respect of which higher rate of depreciation is claimed. In the circumstances, in the absence of proper details of the nature of the machinery, we are obliged to return the references unanswered. The Tribunal may get the necessary materials from the assessee and then proceed to dispose of the question de novo in the light of what is indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 75 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Financial Year, Interest On Excess Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... m the 1st day of April following the end of the financial year in question up to the date of the regular assessment. In view of the conclusion arrived at as above, it is clear that the view taken by the ITO, the IAC and the Commissioner was erroneous and was contrary to law. We, therefore, set aside the order dated December 17, 1977, annex. D to the petition, and also what has been set out in the letter of the Commissioner, annex. H to the petition. Annexure F , the letter dated January 17, 1978, of the IAC confirming the action of the ITO, must also be set aside and quashed. We, therefore, allow this special civil application and set aside the letters, annexs. D , F and H to the petition. We direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent. on the excess referred to in s. 214 from 1st of April, 1975, till the date of regular assessment. The respondent will pay the costs of this special civil application to the petitioner. Rules made absolute accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 74 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Property Tax, Reassessment Proceedings, Taxing Statutes, Words Used
-
1980 (1) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Implements, Business Loss, Rebate And Relief, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e retention of the goodwill of the sales tax authorities was essential for the smooth carrying on of the business by the assessee, there was justification to hold that the loss was incidental to the carrying on of the business and that should be allowed as a revenue loss. It is this part of the conclusion of the Tribunal that has brought about the reference of the third question. A similar question came to be considered by this court in Addl. CIT v. B. M. S. (P) LTD. 1979 119 ITR 321. There also Govt. securities had been purchased and sold and losses were incurred. The only difference was that the purchase in that case was at the instance of road transport authorities with whom the assessee there had to deal. This court held that the loss incurred on the sale of bonds was allowable as a loss incidental to the business of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the proviso nowhere suggests that the provision regarding the mandatory nature of the rule governing the institution, should be in the rules of the trust deed as pertained before the enforcement of the 1961 Act. Even if two interpretations are possible, the one in favour of the assessee has to be taken. The Tribunal has taken that view and we have no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Tribunal in this regard. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the interpretation given to the proviso to s. 13(1)(c) of the Act, will equally apply to the provisions of s. 21 A of the W.T. Act, 1957. For the reasons recorded above, all the questions referred to us in the references which are being disposed of by this common judgment, are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We order accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases.
-
1980 (1) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Fixed Deposit, Insurance Business, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... ut the money and the company which receives it is not the real criterion of an investment. There may be properties which give rise to that relationship, while there may be others which do not. The result is that the questions and are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As regards the third question, as set out in the statement of the case, the amount due from the company was being capitalised and that is how the sum of Rs. 2,68,056 was taken as an investment in the hands of the assessee. Whenever a deposit is renewed, the amount actually due under deposit along with the interest has been stated to be the renewed deposit. What has obviously happened in effect is that the assessee has been paid the money due as interest, and it redeposited it in the mills. It should also be an investment. The net result is that the third question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (1) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
House Property, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... ssee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 56,485 being a loan due to the LIC out of this amount a sum of Rs. 32,000 was secured by mortgage of the assessee s house property and the balance of Rs. 24,485 was secured against the life insurance policy taken by the assessee. The WTO disallowed the deduction and the AAC confirmed the said order. The Tribunal also rejected the claim relying on s. 2(m)(ii). As far as the debt on the security of the house property is concerned, the matter is concluded by our decision for the assessment year 1972-73. As far as the debt borrowed on the security of the policy is concerned, the matter is governed by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jiwan Lal Virmani v. CWT 1967 66 ITR 338 which we have followed earlier in this judgment. The result is that the question referred for the second year has also to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1980 (1) TMI 69 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Compulsory Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... ould, therefore, be reasonable to introduce a legal fiction and hold that the award given on December 30, 1961, should be deemed to be a part and parcel of the original awards of 1945 and 1946, respectively. In this view of the matter, the amount of interest awarded to the assessee on December 30, 1961, should be deemed to have accrued during the years 1945 and 1946 and subsequent accounting years for the purpose of assessment under the Act in the respective years. On the said basis, the AAC as well as the Tribunal, were correct in, treating Rs. 6,927 only as interest accrued to the assessee during the year under reference and thus the balance of the amount of interest to the tune of Rs. 99,394 was rightly deleted by the Tribunal from the total income of the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year. The result of the foregoing discussion is that we answer the reference in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 68 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Expenditure Tax ... ... ... ... ..... considered as his income. It may be pointed out that in the reference arising out of the Tribunal s order in connection with income-tax it was held by this court that the sum of Rs. 62,204 was a capital receipt not liable to tax and that the said amount of Rs. 62,204 had been rightly deleted from the assessable income of the asseessee. Thus, there is no room for the argument that the amount of Rs. 62,204 awarded to the assessee by way of compensation on account of the surrender of his right to levy and collect customs and excise duty should be considered as income. If this amount of Rs. 62,204 is deleted the assessee s income would be below Rs. 36,000 for the relevant year. In this view of the matter, the proviso would have clear application to the assessee s cage and the assessee would not be liable to pay expenditure-tax for the relevant assessment year. Hence, we return the answer to the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee, but make no order as to costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chit Fund, Winnings From Lottery ... ... ... ... ..... Act. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Sesha Ayyar v. Krishna Ayyar, AIR 1936 Mad 225, while interpreting the provisions of s. 294A of the Indian Penal Code in a lengthy judgment, outlined the basic ingredients of lottery. The view which we have taken finds ample support from the said Full Bench authority of the Madras High Court. Shri D. N. Awasthy, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Narayana Aiyangar v. K. Vellachami Ambalam, AIR 1927 Mad 583. This authority was overruled by the Madras High Court in a larger Bench decision in Sesha Ayyar s case, AIR 1936 Mad 225. With respect we agree with the conclusions arrived at by the majority judgment of the Full Bench in Sesha Ayyar s case. For the reasons recorded above, the answer to the questions referred to us in both the above references, is returned in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee with costs. We order accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... om some undisclosed source. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000 is concerned, the assessee explained that this amount came out of the sale consideration of her ornaments which she sold in the year 1955 for a sum of Rs. 28,298. The Tribunal pointed out that the loan to Sri Banwarilal was advanced in the year 1959 and that it was difficult to believe that the money obtained by sale of ornaments as far back as 1955 was available for being utilised by the assessee in advancing the loan to Sri Shastri again is a question of believing or not believing the explanation offered by the asses could, in the circumstances of the case, disbelieve the explanation given by the assessee on the ground mentioned by it and record amount of Rs. 25,000 also represented income from some undisclosed source. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the department. The CIT shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 200 as costs from the assessee.
-
1980 (1) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accident Insurance, HUF Income, HUF Property, Individual Income, Individual Property, Property Of HUF
-
1980 (1) TMI 64 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessee Carrying On Business, Business Income, Minor Child, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... light of s. 50 of the Trusts Act, it was not open to the assessee to receive the entire income of K. Doctor Enterprise as his own income. The resolutions passed by the trustees in their capacity as trustees were for starting the business of K. Doctor Enterprise and even if the income of the business was due to personal skill and know-how and intelligence of the trustee, Kumudkant Doctor, it was not open to him to receive any remuneration for his trouble, skill and loss of time in executing the trust, namely, in attending to the business of the trust. Under these circumstances, the principal question which was urged before us, namely, question No. 3, must be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of our answer to question No. 3, it is not necessary, so far as facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, to answer question No. 1 or question No. 2. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (1) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... bility in such cases would not crystallize till the waiver matter was disposed of. We are, therefore, of the view that the liability for Rs. 69,383 did not crystallize in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. This disposes of the third question. So far as the fourth question is concerned, the claim for deduction of damages could not be allowed, as a deduction, as it had not arisen in the previous year relevant to the assessment year.We, accordingly, answer the first and the third questions in the negative, and the second question is answered by saying that the interest on outstanding balance of sales tax was not an allowable deduction. The fourth question is answered by saying that the assessee s claim for damages was not an allowable deduction in computing the assessee s income for the assessment year under consideration. The department is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. The counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
-
1980 (1) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Application For Reduction Or Waiver, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... der to qualify for reduction or waiver of penalty in the case of non-filing or late filing of return without sufficient cause, the assessee must voluntarily disclose his income before a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act is issued, cl. (b) provides that in the case of penalty leviable for concealment or wrong furnishing of particulars of income, the penalty can be reduced or waived only if the assessee voluntarily discloses his income before such concealment or furnishing of wrong particulars is actually detected. Both these provisions merely speak of the point of time before which the disclosure of income has to be made by the assessee so as to enable him to make a request for waiving or reducing the penalty imposed or imposable on him. There is nothing in these clauses which is directed to indicate that the expression voluntary used therein has been used in a sense different from that as explained by us above. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1980 (1) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... chargeable to income-tax because the activities of the association did not constitute trading activities. Apart from what has been stated above, even on the facts found, it is apparent that the assessee is carrying on trading activity. As a matter of fact, a truck owner who is a member of the union is not concerned with the procurement of the business directly and it is only the union which procures business for him and has direct relations with the customers. Again, a part of the income of the union is derived not from any contributions by its members but from 5 per cent. discount which they retain out of 20 per cent. discount payable to the customers. The view taken by the Tribunal would not, therefore, be sustainable even on the ground that the income of the union is not derived from trading activity. In view of the above discussion, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs. B. S. DHILLON--I agree.
-
1980 (1) TMI 60 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1980 (1) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Gratuity Liability, Supplementary Statement ... ... ... ... ..... case for the deduction had to stand or fall by the method disclosed by him. In that case too the assessee had not disclosed relevant material for calculation of the gratuity on any other method. The decision of this court in Ascharajlal Ram Parkash 1973 90 ITR 477 is clearly distinguishable. In that case the year in which the truck was purchased was known as also its purchase price. The purchase price of the truck and the year of the purchase being known, the amount of deduction could easily be calculated by reference to the provisions of the I.T. Act itself. Such is not the case here, as has been seen, for, before the deduction could be allowed, a number of other facts had to be brought to the notice of the authorities for allowability of the deduction. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against, the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
....
|
