|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 110 of 110 Records
-
1981 (6) TMI 10
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions of Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding weighted allowance for promoting export markets.
Summary:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras discussed the provisions of Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which aim to promote and develop export markets for domestic companies. The case involved a domestic company engaged in exporting prawns and shrimps, seeking a weighted allowance under Section 35B for commission paid to secure export orders. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the weighted allowance, but the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) and the Tribunal granted the allowance.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee was entitled to the weighted allowance under specific sub-clauses of Section 35B(1)(b). However, the Department challenged this decision, leading to a detailed examination of whether the commission paid for securing export orders fell under the eligible expenditure categories of Section 35B.
The Court analyzed the applicability of sub-clauses (ii), (iv), and (viii) of Section 35B(1)(b) to the commission payment. It was concluded that the commission payment did not qualify under any of these sub-clauses as it did not meet the conditions specified for each category. The Court emphasized that the commission was paid for procuring orders, not for services related to the execution of a contract, as required by the relevant sub-clauses.
The Court also considered the location of expenditure, highlighting that the commission paid within India did not satisfy the conditions under sub-clause (iii) of Section 35B(1)(b) which pertains to expenditure incurred outside India. Therefore, the Court ruled against the assessee's claim for the weighted allowance under Section 35B.
In conclusion, the Court answered the question of law regarding the entitlement to the weighted deduction under Section 35B in the negative, ruling in favor of the Department. The Department was awarded costs from the assessee, including counsel's fee.
-
1981 (6) TMI 9
The High Court of Gauhati dismissed two petitions by the Revenue related to assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Tribunal found that the share income of the spouse could only be added to the individual's income if taken in their individual hands. The High Court held that no question of law arose and rejected the petitions.
-
1981 (6) TMI 8
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of devaluation loss of Rs. 4,17,833 in computing the assessee's business income.
2. Nature of the devaluation loss: capital or revenue.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deductibility of Devaluation Loss of Rs. 4,17,833:
The primary issue in this case is whether the devaluation loss of Rs. 4,17,833 on the sterling loan is deductible in computing the assessee's business income. The assessee, a private limited company, claimed this loss for the assessment year 1967-68 due to the devaluation of the Indian rupee on 6th June 1966. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, considering the loss as capital in nature. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) overturned this decision, stating that the sterling loan was taken to augment the company's working funds and did not create an asset or advantage of an enduring nature, thus qualifying the loss as a revenue loss. The Tribunal, however, reversed the AAC's decision, asserting that the loss was not directly related to the business operations but was a result of the sovereign act of devaluation, making it non-deductible.
2. Nature of the Devaluation Loss: Capital or Revenue:
The core question is whether the loss due to devaluation is on capital or revenue account. The Tribunal's view was that the loss was not a trading loss but a capital loss, as it did not arise directly from the business operations but from a sovereign act. However, the court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which established that the nature of the loss depends on whether the foreign currency was held as a capital asset or as part of the circulating capital. The court emphasized that if the foreign currency is held on revenue account or as part of the circulating capital, any loss due to devaluation would be a trading loss. The court found that the sterling loan in question was used as circulating capital for the business, and thus, the loss should be treated as a revenue loss.
The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its decision and that the devaluation loss of Rs. 4,17,833 should be allowed as a deductible revenue loss in computing the assessee's business income. The question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee, and it was held that the loss was on revenue account and deductible. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether expenses incurred on messing and tea are entertainment expenses disallowable u/s 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not entertaining additional grounds raised by the Revenue.
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no adequate ground was brought out to condone the delay in filing the additional grounds.
Summary:
Issue 1: Messing and Tea Expenses as Entertainment Expenses
The first question is directly covered by the decision in CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. [1977] 106 ITR 424. Following this precedent, the court answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue, holding that the expenses incurred on messing and tea are not in the nature of entertainment expenses disallowable u/s 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 2: Entertaining Additional Grounds by the Revenue
The facts relevant to this issue involve the assessee-firm, a registered partnership, which had its interest payments to partners disallowed by the ITO without adjusting the interest paid by the partners to the firm. The AAC allowed the assessee-firm's claims, including the adjustment of interest and deduction of messing and tea expenses. The Revenue appealed only against the messing and tea expenses but later sought to raise additional grounds regarding the interest adjustment after the appeal period had lapsed. The Tribunal refused to entertain these additional grounds, stating that they constituted a new appeal and were time-barred without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing Additional Grounds
The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide sufficient grounds to condone the delay in raising additional grounds. The Tribunal noted that the circular from the CBDT, which the Revenue cited as the reason for the additional grounds, was issued more than a month before the appeal was filed, and no material was presented to show that the ITO was unaware of the circular before filing the appeal. The Tribunal's discretion in this matter was upheld, and the court agreed that no adequate grounds were made out to condone the delay.
Conclusion:
All questions were answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 6
Issues:
Interpretation of development rebate eligibility for manufacturing articles listed in the Fifth Schedule under section 33(1)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat examined the eligibility for a higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the manufacture of articles specified in the Fifth Schedule. The case involved an assessee who purchased special steel, processed it through heat treatment, and manufactured wires. The question was whether the assessee, by processing special steel into wires, was entitled to the higher development rebate rate applicable to manufacturers of special steels. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had upheld the assessee's claim, citing a decision of the Kerala High Court. However, the High Court emphasized the distinction between manufacturing special steel and manufacturing an article from special steel. The critical factor was whether the article manufactured itself was special steel or an article made from special steel. The court highlighted that the development rebate is granted to encourage the manufacture of specific articles listed in the Fifth Schedule, which must be the actual end-product. The judgment emphasized that the end-product must be the article listed in the Fifth Schedule to qualify for the higher development rebate rate.
The High Court further delved into the interpretation of the relevant entry in the Fifth Schedule, which included "Iron and Steel (metal), ferro-alloys and special steels." The court analyzed precedents and legislative intent to determine that the entry referred to the manufacture of special steel itself, not articles made from special steel. The judgment rejected the argument that processing special steel into wires qualified as manufacturing special steel, emphasizing that the end-product must match the specific article listed in the Fifth Schedule to avail the higher development rebate rate. The court also dismissed arguments based on additional entries and import-export regulations, clarifying that the focus was on the actual product listed in the Schedule, not products made from the specified material. Ultimately, the court ruled against the assessee, stating that manufacturing wires from special steel did not meet the criteria for claiming the higher development rebate rate applicable to the manufacture of special steel.
-
1981 (6) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue.
2. Analysis of the foreign collaboration agreement.
3. Determination of the nature of recurring payments under the agreement.
4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision.
5. Consideration of relevant case law and statutory provisions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Expenditure as Capital or Revenue:
The primary issue in these tax cases is whether the expenditure incurred under a foreign collaboration agreement is capital or revenue in nature. The court noted that there are no separate tests under income-tax law for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure arising from a foreign collaboration agreement. Instead, the real character of the expenditure must be examined based on the terms of the agreement.
2. Analysis of the Foreign Collaboration Agreement:
The collaboration agreement between the assessee and the Dutch company, Wavin, involved the production of P.V.C. pipes. Wavin agreed to supply plant and machinery, work patents, and provide technical know-how and research results without any stated consideration, except for the initial setup of the factory for which equity shares were allotted. A significant clause required the Indian company to make recurring payments to Wavin for ten years, measured by the sales turnover of P.V.C. pipes, as a contribution towards Wavin's research costs.
3. Determination of the Nature of Recurring Payments under the Agreement:
The recurring payments under clause 10 of the agreement were intended to cover the costs of research carried out by Wavin in the Netherlands. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed 1/4th of these payments, considering them as capital expenditure, arguing that they provided an enduring benefit to the assessee's trade. However, the Tribunal held that the entire payment should be regarded as revenue expenditure, as it was related to the day-to-day production in the assessee's factory.
4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the materials showing that the research results provided by Wavin were directly related to the production processes in the assessee's factory. The Tribunal concluded that the payments were for the day-to-day running of the factory and not for acquiring any capital asset. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the contribution was specifically for research costs and not for any capital expenditure.
5. Consideration of Relevant Case Law and Statutory Provisions:
The court referred to several cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd., which held that payments for technical know-how and research contributions should be treated as revenue expenditure. The court also discussed the relevance of sections 35 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concluding that the payments made by the assessee were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and did not constitute capital expenditure.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the entire contribution towards research and development costs paid by the assessee to the foreign collaborator should be regarded as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision to delete the ITO's disallowance of 1/4th of the amount as capital expenditure was upheld. The Department was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1981 (6) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the cost of acquisition of shares for the purpose of calculating capital gains.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of shares on the dates they were thrown into the common hotchpot as the cost of acquisition.
3. What should be taken as the cost of acquisition if the previous answers are in the affirmative and negative respectively.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition of Shares for Capital Gains:
The primary issue was whether the cost of acquisition of shares, which were thrown into the common hotchpot of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) by its karta, should be considered as "nil" for the purpose of determining capital gains. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) argued that since the HUF did not incur any expense in acquiring these shares, the cost of acquisition should be taken as "nil." However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the HUF's contention that the market value of the shares on the date they were thrown into the common hotchpot should be considered as the cost of acquisition.
2. Market Value as Cost of Acquisition:
The Tribunal affirmed that the market value of the shares on the date they were thrown into the common hotchpot should be taken as the cost of acquisition. This was based on the principle that the real value of the property at the time of acquisition should be considered. The court referred to several precedents, including CIT v. Solomon & Sons [1933] 1 ITR 324 (Rangoon High Court), CIT v. A. V. Appu Chettiar [1962] 45 ITR 152 (Madras High Court), and Kalooram Govindram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 335 (Supreme Court), which supported the view that the cost of acquisition should be the market value at the time of acquisition, irrespective of whether the property was acquired through purchase, inheritance, or partition.
3. Cost of Acquisition if Previous Answers are Affirmative and Negative:
Given that the answers to the first two questions were in the affirmative, the third question did not survive and was not addressed by the court.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that for the purpose of calculating capital gains, the cost of acquisition of the shares for the HUF should be taken as the market value on the date they were thrown into the common hotchpot by the karta. This decision was based on the principle that the real value of the property at the time of acquisition should be considered, aligning with the precedents set by earlier court decisions. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee (HUF) and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (6) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for tax exemption u/s 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the I.T. Act.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of ss. 11(1)(a) and 11(2) concerning charitable trusts.
3. Applicability of Board's Circulars on the interpretation of the statutory provisions.
Summary:
Issue 1: Eligibility for tax exemption u/s 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the I.T. Act
The assessee, a charitable trust, claimed exemption from tax for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, arguing that it had invested more than 75% of its income in Government securities as per the procedure prescribed u/r 17 of the I.T. Rules. The ITO rejected this claim, assessing 75% of the total income for 1968-69 and the entire income for the subsequent two years. The Tribunal, however, accepted the trust's contention that it was eligible for exemption u/s 11(2) for the invested income and u/s 11(1)(a) for the remaining income, relying on the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's decision in CIT v. Shri Krishen Chand Charitable Trust [1975] 98 ITR 387.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the provisions of ss. 11(1)(a) and 11(2) concerning charitable trusts
Section 11(1)(a) exempts income applied to charitable purposes in India or accumulated up to 25% of the income or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher. Section 11(2) allows further exemption if the trust informs the ITO of the specific purpose and period of accumulation and invests the income in Government securities. The court held that these provisions are complementary and not mutually exclusive, allowing concurrent exemptions under both sections. The court rejected the Department's argument that s. 11(2) overrides s. 11(1)(a), stating that the restrictions in s. 11(1)(a) do not apply to the part of the income covered by s. 11(2).
Issue 3: Applicability of Board's Circulars on the interpretation of the statutory provisions
The court noted conflicting Board's Circulars on the interpretation of ss. 11(1)(a) and 11(2). An earlier circular required compliance with s. 11(2) for the entire accumulation, while a later circular aligned with the judicial consensus that both exemptions could be availed concurrently. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation should prevail over administrative circulars, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on judicial precedents.
Conclusion:
The court held that the Tribunal was correct in granting the assessee exemption for its entire income based on a combined application of ss. 11(1)(a) and 11(2) for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The question of law was answered in the affirmative and against the Department, with costs awarded to the assessee.
-
1981 (6) TMI 2
The High Court of Madras dismissed the Department's request to direct the Tribunal to state a case regarding the withdrawal of development rebate by the ITO under sections 155 and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the orders under sections 155 and 154 were invalid as the original order under section 155 was not in accordance with the law. The court rejected the Department's request as no referable question of law arose in these cases.
-
1981 (6) TMI 1
The High Court of Gujarat ruled that agricultural land within 8 kilometers of a municipality is not a "capital asset" if the specified notification was issued after the land transaction. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was upheld. The surplus from the land sale cannot be charged as capital gains due to the timing of the notification.
....
|
9911796707
