|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 132 Records
-
1977 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Original Order ... ... ... ... ..... r it was incumbent upon the authority to found its jurisdiction on this basis and again ignore this basis and seek to found the jurisdiction on the consent. Turning to the partition deed, I have myself perused the partition deed dated February 16, 1969. It has all the ingredients of the partition. Whether the daughters are entitled to the share or not and what exactly is the character of the property cannot be gone into by the department. In other words, it is not open to the department to say that since daughters are not entitled to the shares, the provision of shares to those minor daughters would militate against the partition. It is for the other sharers to question the partition deed if they are aggrieved. There is a valid partition. Partition being not a transfer at all there is hardly any scope to apply section 9(2)(iv). Thus, the impugned orders manifest errors of law on the face of the record and are, therefore, quashed. The rule nisi is also made absolute. No costs.
-
1977 (3) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... ot on the net dividend income. We have referred to the above decisions in deference to counsel who have placed the relevant authorities before us. We may also point out that counsel for the revenue invited our attention to the relevant amendments effected by the Finance Act, 1965, which introduced Chapter VIA in the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of showing that the object of the amendment was to provide an integrated scheme for determining the total income. As stated earlier, in view of the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, even after the integrated provisions of the Income-tax Act, we are of opinion that the question of law referred must be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. We do so. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the court, will be communicated to the Appellate Tribunal as required by law.
-
1977 (3) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... w-how and use of the names and patents, etc., of Aturia and for the manufacture of units commercially saleable and for general fulfilment of other conditions of the agreement. The provision also is fully in accordance with the nature of the right granted in the agreement, being only a licence as expressly stated in clause (i) of the agreement itself. Having regard to all these features of the agreement which are distinguishable from the case dealt with by the Mysore High Court in Kirloskar s case 1968 67 ITR 23 (Mys), we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the entire payments constituted revenue expenditure, by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ciba s case 1968 69 ITR 692 (SC). Hence, we answer the questions referred to this court in all these three references in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) one set.
-
1977 (3) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ght to share the profits, so long as he continued. But he got that right reduced from 1/3rd to 1/9th without at the same time reducing his share of the capital proportionately with the result 2/9th share in the profits was treated as gift. In the present case, the assessees have retired from the partnership. The moment they have retired, their right to a share in the future profits of the firm came to an end and, therefore, there is no question of their giving up any right to share the future profits. In view of this, the decision of this court in V. A. M. Ayya Nadar s case 1969 73 ITR 761 (Mad) referred to above cannot be of any assistance whatever to the case of the revenue in the present references. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in each of these references. The assessees being different individuals, they will be entitled to their costs and the counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 each.
-
1977 (3) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
In Good Faith, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rent on the face of the record. As stated earlier, the petitioner did not choose to avail itself of the opportunity to appear before the Commissioner and to show cause against his proposal to reject its application under section 18(2A) of the Act. In reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not even offer any explanation as to the circumstances in which two separate returns were filed by the same set of persons in the status of Hindu undivided family. All that the petitioner said in its reply was that the wealth-tax assessment order did not disclose any of the facts stated in that show-cause notice. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner that the petitioner did not act in good faith in filing two separate returns, cannot be said to suffer from any manifest error so as to call for interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. In the result, we dismiss this petition. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (3) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncome and expenditure, the net agricultural income of the appellant, even if it is found that he held lands of more than 12.50 standard acres each year, the net income in each year will be below the taxable limit. In this paragraph the Tribunal has not given any facts and figures as to the gross income obtained or the cultivation expenses incurred by the first respondent for the purpose of finding out whether his income in each of the four years was within the taxable limit or not. In view of this very summary and scrappy manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal of the appeals preferred by the first respondent on merits with regard to the second point on the basis that section 10(1) does not exempt the first respondent from the provisions of the Act. The tax revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (3) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 959. Therefore, there is no possibility of clubbing the income of the petitioner as the karta of the joint Hindu family along with the holdings of the wife who got the properties separately under the settlement and they have to be assessed separately. So far as the authorities below refused to accept the contention, I will have necessarily to hold that the orders are manifestly wrong and they are accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh assessment in the light of the observations made above. I may once again state that this order would relate only to the assessment year 1972-73. Since I have confirmed the orders for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, W.P. Nos. 6053 of 1973 and 263 of 1974 will stand dismissed. W.P. No. 4086 of 1974 will stand allowed and the matter is remitted to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mayuram, for fresh assessment in the light of the observations made above. I make no order as to costs in any one of these writ petitions.
-
1977 (3) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
General Public Utility, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit ... ... ... ... ..... eral public utility. On these facts, in view of Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer s tests, it cannot be said that the advancement of the object of general public utility does not involve activity for profit. Learned counsel for the assessees has urged that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Indian Chamber of Commerce 1975 101 ITR 796 renders nugatory the relevant provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which we have quoted above. It is not for us to examine the validity of this contention. We agree with the Tribunal s view that the assessee in the instant case cannot claim exemption from income derived from property. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1976 105 ITR 546 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madras Stock Exchange Ltd.) which has considered both the judgments of the Supreme Court. But, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court we have quoted above, it is difficult for us in the instant reference.
-
1977 (3) TMI 24 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority ... ... ... ... ..... tion of the assessments by issuing notices on the remaining legal representatives, as has been done in the instant case, the authority may not be allowed to nullify the provisions of law as laid down in section 153 of the Act. In the result, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that non-service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against nine out of the ten legal representatives of the deceased, Shri B. N. Singh, did not invalidate the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessments and it was not a case fit for cancellation of the assessments. The question of law referred is accordingly answered in the negative and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1977 (3) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ken into consideration several circumstances which according to the Tribunal would constitute exceptional and unavoidable circumstances as contemplated by clause (j) of rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no material before the Tribunal to come to its conclusion. The Tribunal has taken into account the following circumstances, namely, that this was the very first year of the business of the assessee, that the assessee was not known in the market and hence could not make payments by cheques, that in the fertilizer business supplies are made mostly against cash payments for sales made to consumers and that because of the special nature of the business cash payment was unavoidable. The sufficiency of these materials cannot be gone into by this court in a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, in our opinion, no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we reject this application.
-
1977 (3) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Company Court, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ssee liable. On the other hand, the assessee is not free to pay the amount without the sanction of the court. If any delay in getting the sanction of the court will cause loss to the company in liquidation, it will be interfering with the power of the court to issue directions regarding the distribution of assets of the company. So, the Income-tax Officer should obtain the sanction of the court or move that court that the claim for interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act may be considered and orders passed in respect of it. Demand to pay the amount without observing this requirement of section 446(2) and (1) makes the demand unenforceable against the company in liquidation. It follows that the demand to pay Rs. 6,220 as interest on the income-tax due is, for the above reasons, invalid and the Income-tax Officer is, therefore, restrained from enforcing this claim except in the manner provided for by section 446(1) and (2) of the Companies Act. Ordered accordingly.
-
1977 (3) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
In Part, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... to the first question is Even if there was no evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there was ascertainment of capital assets of the business on October 23, 1957, it did not follow as a necessary consequence that there was no partial partition on October 23, 1957. Our answer to the second question is Even on the finding that there was no ascertainment of the capital assets on October 23, 1957, the Tribunal was not justified in its conclusion that partnership was not in the eye of law brought into existence on October 23, 1957, although as a matter of fact it was. The assessee firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal did not find that no partnership was brought into existence on October 23, 1957 on the contrary, the Tribunal had recorded a positive finding in its appellate order, that a, partnership was in fact formed on October 23, 1957. Parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings.
-
1977 (3) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Levy Of Penalty, Original Assessment, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... to article 14 was held bv the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India 1970 77 ITR 107. Therefore, section 271(1)(a)(i), when it is applied to a firm, will have to be applied alongwith sub-section (2). The non obstante clause occurring in sub-section (2) is very significant. According to it, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of the Act, the penalty imposable under sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be the same amount as would be impossible on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm. Therefore, whatever be the effect of the other provisions, including the use of the word tax in sub-clause (i), the penalty will have to be imposed as if the petitioner were an unregistered firm. That is what precisely the department did. We see nothing wrong in it. These are the only two points that were raised and urged before us and we find no substance in either of them. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1977 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 65(1) and not to a person who wants to file a return under section 16(1) to have the income assessed on that basis. Secondly, the section itself declares only certain orders granting permission for composition as of no effect, namely, orders that were passed before the 21st of November, 1972. In this particular case, the order was passed on January 30, 1973, and, therefore, the order in question does not fall within the scope of the transitory provision. If so, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction or justification to cancel his earlier order dated January 30, 1973, and to pass a fresh order on February 24, 1973. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax rightly set aside the later order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mannargudi, dated February 24, 1973, and restored his earlier order dated January 30, 1973. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (3) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... the deed of lease as to the rent payable in respect of fans. The Tribunal has found further that there was no letting either of the lift or of the air-conditioning plant. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the Tribunal is right in holding that the income derived from letting out of the building is to be assessed under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are, however, of opinion that the lift charges and the air-conditioning charges which have been shown separately in the Income-tax Officer s assessment order should be taxed under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that is, as income from other sources. We, therefore, answer the reframed questions as follows (1) Income derived from letting out of the building is to be assessed under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (2) Income derived from lift charges and air-conditioning charges are to be assessed under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1977 (3) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... aid reasoning, that though the wife has a right to be maintained by the husband during her lifetime, that right has no choate connection with the property of the husband. Consequently, no deduction can be made on that claim of the wife to be maintained. After his death under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act she gets a share and, following the principle of sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, she cannot claim maintenance. Therefore, the answer to the third question is that the Appellate Tribunal is not right in law in allowing deduction towards maintenance expenses of the wife of the deceased from the estate passing on his death. That answer is in favour of the revenue. Thus, the two questions which are the subject-matter of E.D.C. No. 6/75, are answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this case as well.
-
1977 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... it must be held that this amount is a provision for taxation and directly falls under item No. 8 under the head Current Liabilities and Provisions in the Form of balance-sheet given in Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and is, therefore, hit by the Explanation. Similarly, in view of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the account relating to Rs. 17,47,647 already adverted to and the directors proposed additions to reserve as already stated, it must also be held that this account is of the nature of item No. 6 under the head Reserves and Surplus in the Form of balance-sheet given in Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and accordingly, this amount also falls within the mischief of the Explanation to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act. In the premises, the contentions made on behalf of the assessee must fail and we answer all the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C.J.--I agree.
-
1977 (3) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Authorities, Legal Representative, Powers Of Commissioner, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... d counsel on the meaning of section 271(2) is to be accepted, section 271(2) will be really otiose and superfluous, because the result contended for by the learned counsel will flow from section 271(1) itself. Thus, it will be seen that that was not a case where no tax was payable by the registered firm, yet the penalty was levied. From what we have extracted already, the contention that was advanced in that case was that the tax payable by a registered firm has to be first assessed and once that has been done, it is on that tax, the penalty has to be calculated at two per cent. for every month of default. Therefore, that decision of ours is not in any way inconsistent with the view now we have taken on the scope of section 271(1). Under these circumstances, we agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal, even though for different reasons. Hence the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (3) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Money Lending Business, Notice For Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... any in determining the controversy in this case. For the present, it must also be noted that the subsequent disclosure will not be any material for issuing the notice dated 7th January, 1976. Whether there were materials for issue of the notice must be judged with reference to the position prior to the issue of the notice. As I have held that there were some materials to think that there was not full disclosure about the loan transaction of M/s. Manickchand Mohanlal with the assessee-company, the subsequent disclosure petition merely corroborates that position. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the challenge to the notice cannot be sustained. In the view that I have taken it is not necessary for me to embark on the question whether the petitioners have any alternative remedy which entitles the petitioners to the reliefs under article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons as aforesaid, this application fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (3) TMI 13 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... any need for severing any portion from the rest. There was a valid partnership which came into existence we have been unable to find any other provision in the Indian Partnership Act or even a general principle of law relating to partnerships which has been violated such as to render the said partnership invalid. None has been specifically pointed out by the Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal. The ITO could not be directed to treat the status of the assessee as AOP. Shri Manisana Singh, learned counsel for the revenue, attempted to urge before us that the partnership was not supported by consideration so far as the other three partners were concerned. We did not permit him to argue the question because this point does not appear to have been taken so far it does not arise out of the reference. In the circumstances, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay costs to the assessee, the hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 250.
....
|
