|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 173 Records
-
1978 (3) TMI 74 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, In Part, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... stakably divided profits in equal shares instead of shares mentioned in the deed. The question whether the partnership was not entered into with the intention of giving effect to the correct state of affairs was one of fact. Since, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the omission to divide the profits in accordance with the shares defined in the partnership deed was only a mistake, it is not possible for us to say that the view taken by the Tribunal that the firm was a genuine one was erroneous or incorrect. In the present case, the profits were, of course, divided but error was committed as to the share of each partner. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the registration to the firm for the first year and continuing, its benefit for the rest of the years in question. Consequently, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (3) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Partner, Income Tax Act, Partnership Deed, Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... ession governed by s. 188 of the Act. On the death of a partner and in the absence of any express stipulation that in such an event the firm shall not stand dissolved, the firm stands dissolved in the eye of law. In such a case the periods before and after the dissolution of the firm cannot be combined. Applying this Full Bench decision it is clear that the two periods could not be combined. Ujagarmal, one of the partners, died and there was no stipulation that under the circumstances the firm will not stand dissolved. The conduct of the parties shows that the firm stood dissolved in fact as well as in law and with effect from 15th March, 1967, a new firm took over the business. Under these circumstances the two periods could not be combined for the purposes of the assessment to income-tax. The question referred for our opinion is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (3) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Interest Payable, Tax Deducted At Source And Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... le to award interest thereon. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that even though there is no provision in the Act for the payment of interest on the amounts deducted at source over and above the tax found due from an assessee, but by applying the principles of equity such a direction should have been given by the I.T. authorities in the present case. A court created by a statute has only those powers which are given to it under it. It is not possible for such a court to employ the principles of equity to award interest in cases not covered by the provisions of the I.T. Act. Consequently, we answer the question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The second question is also decided in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 3 is decided in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In view of the divided success, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 71 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Returned, Real Income, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ations is whether the deposits made by the assessee in various banks from year to year could be set off against the extra profit added during previous years. In Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. CIT 1964 51 ITR 757, it was held by the Madras High Court that, where the income-tax authorities made an addition to the income of the assessee over and above the income as disclosed by the assessee, on an estimate basis, the amount so added must be treated as the real income of the assessee. It is not open to the authorities to take the view that the addition was only for purposes of taxation, and that it should not be regarded as the true income of the assessee. Apparently, therefore, it could not be contended that this income which had been added up as income from intangible sources in the previous years of assessment was not available to the assessee. Accordingly, our answer to the question is in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, General Public Utility, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit
-
1978 (3) TMI 69 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Chargeable To Tax, Income Tax, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... e entertainment expenses. We are of the opinion that the payments represented cash receipts in the hands of the recipient and there is no contractual obligation on the part of the assessee to make payments nor is there any right on the part of the non-residents to receive these amounts. In these circumstances, these payments cannot be regarded as income chargeable under the Act. As already stated, there is no obligation on the part of the payer, and no right to receive the same by the recipient. Payments do not arise out of any contract or obligation between the assessee and the recipients. There is no obligation either by virtue of a contract or in law to make these payments. They are made voluntarily by the assessee towards entertainment of the crew. We, therefore, hold that s. 195(1) is not attracted in the present case. We agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (3) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Restriction On Transfer, Service Of Notice, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... concerned. In these circumstances, I cannot uphold the power in the TRO to issue a prohibition in the nature of Ext. P-7. It is sufficient to state that Ext. P-7 is inoperative and shall not preclude the State Transport authority from exercising its statutory functions in accordance with law. There is no proposal to vacate Ext. P-2 and there may not be any proposal to do so on account of what I have said here about Ext. P-7. It has also not been shown that the State Transport Authority has been requested to vacate Ext. P-2. Hence, the prayer to issue an order to the State transport authority not to vacate Ext. P-2 does not call for consideration. The petitioner s application for transfer is said to be pending Ext. P-5 is the application in which the said prayer is made. That application will be disposed of in accordance with law after considering the case of the petitioner on the merits. In these circumstances, the original petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest Paid By Partner, Real Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... its of the firm. For all these reasons, both the questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are answered in favour of the CIT and against the assessee. It must accordingly be held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of Rs. 31,447, Rs. 10,833, Rs. 19,200, Rs. 30,141 and Rs. 30,343, by which the partners were debited towards interest on their outstanding liability of Rs. 2,66,121, constituted the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63. It must further be held that, in apportioning the total income of the firm between the several partners as required under s. 23(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and s. 158 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the interest adjusted on the debit balances of the accounts of the partners in the books of the firm, is not deductible from the share of profits of the respective partners. The Commissioner shall have the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 150.
-
1978 (3) TMI 66 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... ears to us that the principle of these decisions had not been kept in mind by the Tribunal and the basic facts had not been either assessed or found to enable us to give an answer to question No. 2 we would direct the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein and of the principle of the decisions referred to in the course of this judgment. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department and the Tribunal is directed to re-compute the actual deduction to which the assessee will be entitled and regarding question No. 2, we decline to answer the question and direct the Tribunal to go into the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1978 (3) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Natural Justice, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ioner of the previous years as well. Hence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the detection of the concealment of the particulars of income was found by the Income-tax Officer in respect of that year alone. The last submission made by the petitioner was that the prayer made by the petitioner was not only confined to section 273A(1)(ii)(b) but was also one under sub-section (4) of section 273A and as the Commissioner did not pass any order on the relief made on the basis of section 273A, therefore, the order was liable to be set aside. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner and found nothing in the said application which could be said to have been filed under sub-section (4) of section 273A. The petitioner did not make any prayer under this sub-section. Hence, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax could not be said to be invalid on that ground. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... r year. There being no evidence to show that this sum of Rs. 72,220 added by the ITO could be related to the assessment year 1964-65, it held that no penalty was leviable. It is against this order the above question has been referred. We have repeatedly held that in penalty proceedings independent evidence is necessary to show the concealment. The Tribunal had pointed out that there is no evidence to show any concealment of any amount in this particular year. Concealment involves existence of an income and the existence of the income has to be established by some positive evidence. It is only on the basis of some best judgment assessment the ITO has included the sum of Rs. 72,200. But that by itself will not supply evidence of concealment. In those circumstances, we are unable to see any error of law in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the reference in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (3) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... t reasons for committing default before the penalty could be imposed and the Tribunal having accepted the reasons stated by the non-applicant-assessee and having held that there were good and sufficient reasons for non-payment of tax in the case in hand, it could not be said that the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction. It could not be disputed that if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the reasons and come to the conclusion, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that there were sufficient reasons and no penalty could be imposed is a question of fact and the Tribunal having found on facts that there were sufficient reasons for not imposing penalty against the non-applicant it could not be said that any question of law arises for which a direction could be issued to the Tribunal to state a case. We, therefore, see no reason to allow this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact, Set Off Of Loss ... ... ... ... ..... o whether the different ventures constituted the same business or not was a mixed question of law and fact. In the instant case, learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out that the circumstances of the case necessitated application of any legal principle to the set of facts found by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the assessee had ceased to carry on a particular business in a relevant year. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the question as to whether the assessee has ceased to carry on any business is a question of fact and not a question of law or a mixed question of fact and law. For the above reasons, we are unable to say that any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and that the order of the Tribunal is in any way incorrect within the meaning of s. 256(2) of the Act. The application is accordingly rejected. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1978 (3) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... ce the ITO held that the assessee was in default. For the reasons aforesaid, the reference is answered in favour of the CIT and against the assessee. It must accordingly be held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that (1) penalty under s. 271 (1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was imposable on the assessee who was a partner of a registered firm, on which also a separate penalty under s. 271(1)(a) had been imposed, due to his default is not complying with the requirements of s. 22(2) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922 and (2) penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, has to be imposed at the fixed rate of 2 per cent. of the tax for each month of default, when the return was filed late, in response to the notice issued under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, subject only to the maximum amount not exceeding 50 per cent. of the assessed tax. The Commissioner shall have his costs of the reference. Hearing fee Rs. 150.
-
1978 (3) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Foreign Currency ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances, we are of the opinion that the general principles, according to which the increase in the cost of the asset arising out of devaluation of the rupee must be treated as part of the cost of the asset, cannot be applied for the purpose of granting development rebate under s. 33 of the Act in view of the definite provision against it in s. 43A(2) of the Act, referred to above. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the actual cost for the purpose of calculating development rebate under s. 33 no upward adjustment of Rs. 2,64,24,737, which the assessee had to bear as a result of the devaluation of the rupee, should be made and answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of the revenue. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court shall be forwarded to the I. T. A. Tribunal concerned.
-
1978 (3) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Legal Representative, Will Administration ... ... ... ... ..... ground of abundant caution. In our view, there is no scope for exercise of caution in view of the specific statutory provisions. If a person who is not legally liable to be assessed is included in the assessment and his name continues to be recorded in the proceedings as an assessee, he will be subject to various obligations and liabilities as laid down in the I.T. Act. So far as he is concerned, he cannot take the plea of abundant caution and claim exemption from such obligation. In our opinion, the error in the assessment is not a mere irregularity but affects the substance of the matter. For the reasons given above, the contentions of the assessee will succeed. The question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Dr. Pal for the assessee stated on instructions that he does not press question No. 2 and, therefore, we decline to answer the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ue but may be a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding the nature of the action taken by the assessee. In the background of all the factors the absence of a specific power to carry on business by leasing out would not be a pointer that the lease income was not business income. If on the leasing out of the business of the company the income was business income, then the sum of Rs. 3,033 spent in connection with the lease agreement was an expenditure of revenue nature incidental to the assessee s activities under s. 37 of the Act. The question No. 1 is, therefore, answered by saying that the income of the assessee from lease rent was assessable as business income under s. 28 of the I. T. Act, 1961, and the question No. 2 is answered by saying that the sum of Rs. 3,033 spent is an expenditure of revenue nature incidental to the assessee s business. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Payments In Cash, Purchase Price ... ... ... ... ..... ea that the word expenditure used in s. 40A(3) should be restricted to overhead expenses enumerated in ss. 30 to 43A. The word expenditure was of wide import. It would also cover the expenses to be taken into account while determining the gross profit. The gross profit is determined by the difference between the opening stock and the purchases on the one hand and the closing stock and the sales on the other. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word expenditure and such payments could be disallowed if they are made in cash in sums exceeding Rs. 2,500. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee at some length but we are not satisfied that this case needs reconsideration by this court. The decision is binding on us. In view of that decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (Rupees two hundred) only.
-
1978 (3) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reasonable Cause, Reference To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... 00, the balance is less than Rs. 25 000, which is the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax in the case of a registered firm. Clearly, the assessee was under no obligation to file any voluntary return under section 139(1) of the Act, and, as such, was not liable to any penalty under section 271(1)(a). As discussed above it could not be doubted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return and that finding is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. No question of law, therefore, arises and the first question suggested by the petitioner cannot be said to be a question of law. Similarly, on the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the first question, the second question is just a corollary and that too having been found by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, it could not be said that any question of law arises. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this petition. It is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee appreciated in value and this represented an appreciation in the value of sale proceeds of the assets in which the assessee was dealing in the course of its business and in such circumstances it was held that there could be no doubt that the appreciation in value of all such assets represented trading receipts of the assessee and, therefore, constituted revenue receipts in its hand which were chargeable to income-tax. From the foregoing discussions, we hold that the surplus amount of Rs. 16,354 received by the assessee due to devaluation is a receipt derived from an integral part of the business carried on by the assessee and as such the said income is exigible to tax. We, accordingly, answer the reference in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal.
....
|
