|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 183 Records
-
1978 (2) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Retrenchment Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... h the firms in which the Singhania family had major interest. Therefore, the compensation paid to an outgoing agent was capital expenditure and was not allowable as deduction under section 10(2)(xv). As we have mentioned before, there is a categorical finding in the instant case before us that there was, in the facts and circumstances of case, no motive to benefit the Lyons (India) Pvt. Ltd. The payment in question was not made to benefit any other company but was sharing payment in respect of the payments made to the workers. It was to terminate an arrangement which was proving disadvantageous to the assessee as mentioned hereinbefore. In this background, the facts of the present case are essentially different. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in allowing the sum of Rs. 1,51,008 as business expenditure. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties, however, will bear and pay their own costs. GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... he matter and take into account what we have said in this judgment and enter a clear finding as to the quantum of the income which had been concealed by the assessee. Perhaps the specific figures that are to be taken are Rs. 3,117.72, Rs. 2,850 and Rs. 2,500 each said to have been paid to B. S. S. Mani and Thangavelu. The Tribunal has found already that it is not 100 of the tax that should be imposed but only 30 . That percentage, of course, must stand, because no question has arisen about the percentage. After finding that certain specific amount had been concealed on the basis of the material available which had been discussed by the Tribunal, it will be open to the Tribunal after rehearing to impose penalty at 30 on the amount of tax that would have been payable on the income that has been found to be concealed. We dispose of this reference on the above terms. The assessee has won in part and the revenue in part, and so we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commencement Of Business, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... rying on the business of restaurant of A. Firpos Ltd. and, therefore, the expenses should be considered to be expenses in connection with the expansion of the existing business. Whether this was a part of the new business or not was a fact which was for the assessee to establish, which fact the assessee made no attempt to establish before the revenue authorities. In view of the ratio of L. M. Chhabda and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1967 65 ITR 638 (SC), it is not possible for us to uphold the contention of the assessee even if he is allowed to agitate this question under the frame of a question referred to this court, a matter on which we entertain grave doubts. In the premises, we are of the opinion, that the Tribunal was right in disallowing the expense, claimed in the computation of business income and the question is, therefore, answered in the affimative and in favour of the revenue. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 80 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... determine in what capacity the expenditure was incurred. In this case, because of the manner in which the assessee had carried on the business, viz., the illegal importation of the goods in question, the assessee might have incurred the expenditure but the purpose of the expenditure was for carrying on of the business and the expenditure was incurred in the capacity of a trader. The expenditure was not a liability imposed for violation of law. The liability might have arisen for carrying on the business in a manner not in accordance with law. But that does not detract from the fact that the expenditure was incurred in the capacity of a trader for carrying on the business. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, the amounts in question were allowable as deduction as revenue expenses. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear their own costs. GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... latter had obtained in the partition, and irrespective of the question whether it was ancestral property in the hands of Karuppan or not, he would exclude his son. Since the existing grandson at the time of the death of the grandfather has been excluded, we think that an after-born son of Karuppan will also not get any interest which Karuppan inherited from his father. Thus, the principles of Hindu law are not applicable. It is impossible to visualise or envisage any Hindu undivided family in regard to the property which Karuppan got. This is the view that we have taken in the decision in T. C. No. 276 of 1972 (Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. V.R.A. Manicka Mudaliar (Decd.) to which one of us was a party. We respectfully agree with the view expressed in that decision and answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. The revenue will pay the costs of the assessee including counsel s fee of Rs. 500.
-
1978 (2) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Asset, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Carrying On Business ... ... ... ... ..... sum, the assessee, in our opinion, was not acquiring any capital asset, as such, viz., his right over the film had already been acquired nor was the assessee perfecting his title which was clarified by the award of the arbitrator. But in running the business or to make the business productive of profit the sum was spent to settle the matter and in that background of expediency of the running of the business this amount was spent. The amount spent for that business expediency, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, can be considered to be revenue expenditure and, applying the correct principles, if the Tribunal has taken that view, we find no reason to interfere with that decision of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the question referred to us will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee will get the costs of this reference. GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Civil Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... of and jurisdiction to issue any process against the property of a defaulter on whom a notice under rule 2 of the said Second Schedule has been served. Therefore, the order of the learned subordinate judge raising the attachment subsequently effected by the Tax Recovery Officer, which was wholly unnecessary in view of the service of the notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, has to be set aside. In passing, I may observe that by an order dated 12th December, 1974, the sale of the property in E.P. No. 627 of 1970 in O.S. No. 267 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, held on March 8, 1972, and confirmed on December 30, 1972, has been set aside. Notwithstanding this, the order raising the attachment has to be set aside and is set aside. If the sale had been set aside, the auction-purchaser will be entitled to refund of the amount in court deposit. The income-tax department is entitled to pursue the remedies open to the department. No costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 76 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax, Acquisition Proceedings, Appeal To High Court, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income And Wealth Ordinance
-
1978 (2) TMI 75 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... cumstances, before us no representative assessee could have complied with the provisions of the statute and avoided liability to pay penal interest in any conceivable circumstances. For the reasons stated above, we are inclined to hold that a person may be treated as a representative assessee of a non-resident at any point of time but if he is treated as a representative of a non-resident after the financial year is over, he cannot retrospectively be saddled with liability to pay advance tax for any past financial year. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the question whether a representative assessee is liable to pay only the tax assessed or the tax including all penalty and interest. Not having agitates this question earlier, the assessee cannot be permitted to urge the same in the reference. C. K. BANERJI J.-- I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 74 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... anguage of the sections an employer is under an obligation to deduct the tax due from the salary which he pays to his employee and if he fails to do so he commits a default. This default occurs when such salary is paid and not when an order is made under section 18(7) of the earlier Act or under section 231 of the later Act. Therefore, the said letter dated the 26th June, 1965, to the extent it can be considered to initiate recovery proceedings by calling upon the assessee to pay the outstanding tax is barred by limitation. To the extent the said letter records that the assessee is in default under sections 18(7) and/or 201(1) of the said Acts the same may not be barred. But as more than four years have passed since the issue of even this letter, further recovery proceedings also appear to have become barred. To the extent as indicated above, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 73 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Assessment Order, Original Assessment, Original Order, Subject Matter, Wealth Tax
-
1978 (2) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Assessee, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... t is clear that this interpretation of the law by the Commissioner is in complete disregard of the provisions of section 215(2) which have got to be read into section 217 by virtue of section 217(2). Therefore, it is obvious that the orders of the Commissioner, respondent No. 2 herein, rejecting the revision petitions were wholly erroneous, which error is apparent on the record, and must be quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Application must, therefore, be allowed and the respondents are directed not to give effect to notices of demand issued against the petitioners charging interest in a manner contrary to the provisions of law as explained hereinabove. Similarly, the orders passed in revision petitions, annexure A2 to the petitions are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate interest under section 217(1A) for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in accordance with what has been stated hereinabove. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... order being passed in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Income-tax Officer had no power to pass the order under section 3 of the Act of 1922, read with section 16(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, this contention urged on behalf of the respondents has been rejected by us. Under these circumstances, we allow both these special civil applications and quash and set aside the demand notices issued by the Income-tax Officer in so far as the said demand notices relate to the dividend income received by the partnership firm from Renwick and Company Pvt. Ltd., and reflected in the allocation of profits of the partnership firm to the two partners. All recovery proceedings in respect of this income and the adjustment of the tax sought to be recovered in respect of this dividend income are also quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute accordingly in both these special civil applications. The respondents will pay to the petitioners the costs in each of these two matters.
-
1978 (2) TMI 70 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Civil Suit, Garnishee Order, Income Tax Act, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... the notice served on it. Since the service of the said notice the defendant No. 3 had no alternative but to pay the said sum to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, the defendant No. 3 has given ample opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the letter of administration in her favour so that money could be handed over to her and also given sufficient time to the plaintiff to have this dispute settled or clarified with the income-tax authorities. In view of this, I answer issue No. 6 in the positive. So far as issue No. 7 is concerned, as the plaintiff has not obtained letter of administration in respect of the estate of Keshab Prasad Goenka, I do not pass a decree at present in her favour but defer it till she obtains a letter of administration in respect of the estate of Keshab Prasad Goenka and file the same in court. On the oral prayer of Mr. Prabir Majumdar, learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, there will be a stay of operation of the order for four weeks from date.
-
1978 (2) TMI 69 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ncial position of the alleged lenders and had given the income-tax file numbers which would prove prima facie the financial ability and the strength of the alleged lenders. In this case before us, there was no confession as such that the transactions in question with the assessee were fictitious and there was no question of such confession or statements being brought to the notice of the assessee and the assessee being given an opportunity to adduce or contradict any such statement. In any event, as mentioned hereinbefore, if on these facts a court of fact finding comes to the conclusions that the assessee has discharged the onus that lay on him, it is not possible to say that such a view is perverse in the sense that no reasonable man could come to such a finding. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question referred to this court must, therefore, be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 68 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Income Tax, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification Of Mistakes
-
1978 (2) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Penalty Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... n is not applicable to cases where the provisions are mandatory and a definite time limit is fixed for completion of the penalty proceedings. It is not enough if the first order passed by the first authority is in time. Even the order to be passed on remand by a superior authority must also be within the. time prescribed by s. 275. As clearly stated by the learned judges of the Supreme Court, the period of limitation laid down by the Act cannot be extended merely for the reason that a superior tribunal had set aside the first order made by the ITO and directed him to make an order afresh. In CIT v. Ram Baran Ram Nath 1976 104 ITR 691, the Allahabad High Court, construing the scope of s. 275, has also held that the IAC was debarred by the time-limit provided under s. 275 from passing the order of penalty. For the reasons recorded, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal and answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue with costs. Advocate s fee 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Cost Of Acquisition, Import Entitlements, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... can safely draw the inference from the conduct of the department in not preferring appeals against the judgments of the High Courts of Calcutta and Kerala, and further in not pressing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment in Rathnam Nadar s case 1969 71 ITR 433 (Mad) that the department has accepted the ratio of the decision in Rathnam Nadar s case 1969 71 ITR 433 (Mad) as laying down the correct law. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of consideration received by the assessee-firm for transfer of its goodwill is not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the department. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will have his costs from the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1978 (2) TMI 65 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Partner, In Part, Partnership Deed, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... majority of 4 to 1 took a contrary view to the one expressed by this court by a majority of 3 to 2 in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vinayaka Cinema 1977 110 ITR 468 (AP) FB and requested that, in view of the importance of the question involved and the differing views expressed earlier by a Full Bench of this court and the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the case merits to be referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. We are unable to agree that this case requires to be decided by a larger Bench of seven judges. Having regard to the view expressed by the Full Bench of this court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vinayaka Cinema 1977 110 ITR 468 (AP), we hold that the firm which came into existence on the death of Linga Reddi is distinct and separate from the partnership firm, which was in existence till September 29, 1972. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee. No costs. Advocate's fee ₹ 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 64 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Court Fee, Estate Duty, Mistake Apparent From Record, Property Passing On Death, Relief In Respect
....
|
