|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 133 Records
-
1975 (7) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... act figure long before he filed the estimate. He could have easily included this amount in its estimate. The failure of the assessee to do so was definitely deliberate, as has been held by the Division Bench in ITR No. 717 of 1972 Commissioner of Income-tax v. U. P. Tannery Co. 1977 107 ITR 655 (All) referred to above. The other plea of the assessee that it was not aware of the omission until it was pointed out by its auditor in the year 1956, has already been rejected by this court in the reference relating to the penalty matter. There is no other circumstance which can be said to be responsible for the wrong estimate. We are satisfied that the assessee had filed a wrong estimate deliberately with a view to concealing income and with a view to avoiding the payment of proper advance tax. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (7) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Market Value, Movable Property, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... ontemplated by sub-section (1) of section 269D, namely, that the notification not only must be printed in the Gazette but the Gazette containing the notification must also be available to the public within the statutory period. We have already stated above that according to the averments of the petitioners in the rejoinder-affidavit, no Gazette containing the notification was received in the office of the Controller of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi, before 4th October, 1974, and was not available to the public before 14th October, 1974. This being the state of affairs, we have no hesitation in holding that the competent authority did not acquire jurisdiction to continue the proceedings as the proceedings had not been commenced within the statutory period. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The notice dated 19th August, 1974, initiating acquisition proceedings under section 269 of the Income-tax Act are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to the costs.
-
1975 (7) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deemed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ccrued, whether it actually accrued or whether it accrued as a result of the deeming provisions of the Act, will not make any difference. An income which has accrued as a result of the deeming provisions of the Income-tax Act, can form the basis for levy of penalty. We are respectfully in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Bench. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Commissioner of Income-tax v. D. D. Puri 1967 64 ITR 162 (Punj). The facts of that case are distinguishable and the observations made therein are of no assistance to him. For the reasons recorded above, our reply to the question is that penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-disclosure of an income which is deemed to be an income under section 41(1) in case other conditions of that section are held to be satisfied. In view of the circumstances of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. M. M. S. GUJRAL J.--I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... he submissions made on behalf of the revenue and we are unable to accept them. Apart from the explanation which was given by the assessee regarding these excess remittances and which was not found acceptable, there is no other material available to show that there was any concealment of amounts by these van salesmen which has been accounted for. It is true that the assessment proceedings would constitute evidence for the purpose of penalty proceedings. But, neither in the assessment proceedings nor in the penalty proceedings is there any material to show that there was actual suppression of sales so as to justify the inference that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income. As we are not satisfied that a deliberate suppression of income has been made in the present case, we consider that the Tribunal rightly deleted the penalty. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (7) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1922 Act, 1922 Act, 1961 Act, 1961 Act, Burden Of Proof, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... oncealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. This is a finding of fact. Apart from that, the Supreme Court has laid down that the entirety of the facts and circumstances should lead to the reasonable inference that there has been such concealment of income or such furnishing of inaccurate particulars. That has to be found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found otherwise. So far as the onus is concerned, the Supreme Court has held that it is for the revenue to establish that the assessee has concealed part of his income before penalty could be levied. That is at present the settled law. The upholding by the Assistant Commissioner of a part of addition in the appeal from the assessment order, in our opinion, is not sufficient to discharge the onus cast upon the revenue. Therefore, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. DEB J. --- I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Land By Government, Land By Government
-
1975 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. But, be that as it may, even if the question is answered in the negative, in our opinion, it would not make any difference to the main question whether penalty is imposable or not. This question appears to us to be of an academic nature. Coming to question No. 4, in view of the specific findings of the Tribunal that there was no material to hold that the amount in dispute represented the assessee s income, which finding has not been challenged in any of these questions, the answer necessarily follows that the Tribunal was correct in drawing its conclusion as it did. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we have to hold that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion in allowing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, this question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... the commission remitted by the assessee was given up for reasons of commercial expediency and was business expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was a fact-finding authority and if it came to the conclusion that a part of the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for purposes of the business and that finding was supported by evidence, it could not be disturbed. In deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial expediency and the principles of ordinary commercial trading. If the payment or expenditure is incurred for the purposes of the trade of the assessee it does not matter that the payment may inure to the benefit of a third party. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (7) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title ... ... ... ... ..... r in favour of the grandsons of the settlor. This is clearly a case where there is a complete diversion of the source of income before it accrued or arose to the assessee or was received by her. As the deed of assignment and gift is a tripartite document it will not be permissible to the trustees even to pay any part of the net income to the assessee because she has completely divested herself of her right to receive the money. Thus, it is not possible for us to take the view that the assessee had first received the income and thereafter applied it in favour of the grandsons. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that in the present case the income was diverted before it reached the assessee s hands. Thus, the answer to the question referred to us is as under The provisions of the deed of assignment dated May 5, 1956, executed by Kamlabai Juthalal resulted in diversion of income before it reached her hands. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1975 (7) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom undisclosed sources was income. These observations apply with full force to the facts of the present case. The assessee had made certain investment in property. The assessee gave an explanation with regard to its source. Now, merely because the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation would not lead to the inference that the investment represented the assessee s concealed income. There ought to be some material apart from the explanation of the assessee and that material is missing. In this view of the matter the case does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in section 34(3) because it is not a case to which the provisions of section 28(1)(c) apply. The assessment, therefore, which has admittedly been made after the expiry of four years was clearly barred by time. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is not represented and, therefore, we make no order as to costs.
-
1975 (7) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Employee ... ... ... ... ..... red to the profits earned in the immediately preceding year. But, apart from that aspect of the matter, which is one of the aspects to be considered under the proviso, the two aspects mentioned in the proviso are clearly against the assessee-company. In the first place, the payment of commission is disproportionately high as compared to their salaries and, secondly, no trade practice had been pointed out by the assessee-company in support of the commission paid. In other words, the expenditure incurred cannot be said to have satisfied the requirements of the proviso to clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 10. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the assessee-company could not be allowed the deduction claimed in respect of these payments made to Shri Kamat and Shri Shah. Having regard to the above discussion, all the three questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the revenue.
-
1975 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... he same employer in India. So long as he fulfilled the conditions indicated in the other parts of the section and particularly when his contract of employment with M/s. H. M. was approved by the Central Government as required, the assessee, in our view, was entitled to the concession conferred by the latter part of section 10(6)(vii)(a)(ii). It is true that while granting approval to the assessee s employment with M/s. H. M. the Government in its letter dated March 6, 1962, stated that the approval would not in any way entitle him (assessee) to the benefit of exemption from the payment of income-tax, but such a statement contained in the Government s letter dated March 6, 1962, would be ineffective, if, in law, on a proper interpretation of the relevant provision of the enactment, the assessee was entitled to the concession contained therein. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Revenue will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1975 (7) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Account Books ... ... ... ... ..... estimated. Such estimate was made by the authorities on the basis of the performance of the predecessor-in-interest of the assessee, namely, the partnership firm. On such material the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal came to their respective conclusions. Apart from the performance of the firm the Tribunal had before it the disclosed turnover of the assessee. It cannot be said that there was no material before the Tribunal to come to a conclusion. The Supreme Court has laid down the law clearly. Once the books of account of an assessee are rejected then profit has to be estimated. If same material is available the Tribunal can proceed to estimate profits on such material. The conclusion of the Tribunal has not been challenged as being perverse and in any event cannot be held to be mere guess-work. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tax On Undistributed Income ... ... ... ... ..... year is answered in the negative and also in favour of the assessee. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 are identical to the questions referred to above and are answered accordingly. We decline to answer question No. 3 for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. As we have declined to answer question No. 3, we reframe the question No. 4 for the said assessment years as follows. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that having regard to the commercial profits a larger dividend than that declared by the company could reasonably have been distributed ? So far as reframed question No. 4 for these assessment years are concerned, we have already held that the Tribunal erred in considering only the commercial profits ignoring the capital loss incurred. To that extent this question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We return our answers accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... open to the revenue to contend that no part of the gratuity paid to the heirs of the deceased should be allowed as a deduction. We find considerable force in this contention of Mr. Kaka, but by the same token it would not be possible to hold that the test of expectancy has been satisfied in this case qua the amount of Rs. 26,000 that has been disallowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the expenditure only to the extent of Rs. 24,000 being the part of the gratuity amount paid by the assessee-company to the heirs of Mr. B. D brass and further right in disallowing the sum of Rs. 26,000. In the result, the second question is answered thus Only a part of the gratuity to the exent of Rs. 24,000 paid by the assessee-company to heirs of Mr. B. D brass was an allowable expenditure in the hands of the company. The assessee will get the costs of the reference from the revenue.
-
1975 (7) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In The Nature, Practice And Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... t stated all the facts in the statement of the case nor has discussed them in its order. In these circumstances, we are unable to answer question No. I and by following the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 1967 66 ITR 622 (SC) and Raghunath Prasad Poddar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 90 ITR 140 (SC), we send back the matter to the Tribunal for its decision on the merits of the case on additional evidence that may be adduced by the revenue and the assessee. The Tribunal will also decide whether the realisations can be brought to tax either as revenue receipts or as capital gains as contended on behalf of the revenue before us, including the question as to whether the transfer of mining rights is a transfer of capital asset and as such cannot be brought to tax as contended on behalf of the assessee before us. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. PYNE J.---I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In The Nature, Income Tax Proceedings, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. reported in 1963 47 ITR 565 (Cal). But these two decisions are no longer good law on the question involved before us, for in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. B. M. Kharwar reported in 1969 72 ITR 603 (SC), the Supreme Court has disapproved these two decisions and has held that on realisation-sale the excess over the written down value of the machinery not exceeding the difference of the original cost and written down value is liable to be brought to tax under section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In this view of the matter, we return our answer in the negative to all these questions and in favour of the revenue. We would also like to record here that the learned counsel, who had been briefed in this matter for the assessee, kept himself out of the court during the hearing of this reference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the revenue. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Entire Exclusion, Interest On Securities ... ... ... ... ..... he interest was shown to have deceased in his own bank account, but which interest was shown to have remained with the deceased in fact, it could not be said that the deceased had used such interest for his benefit. In other words, a clear finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that not only had the donees assumed bona fine possession and enjoyment of the property but it also thenceforward was retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. In view of this finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal, it is difficult to accept the contention that section 10 of the Act was attracted. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in excluding the value of the Government securities worth Rs. 1 lakh from the principal value of the dutiable estate under section 10 of the Act. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the department. Revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the accountable person.
-
1975 (7) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... no agricultural operations were carried on for five years coupled with the conduct on the part of the assessee during the relevant years under consideration are the circumstances which the Tribunal has relied upon for the purpose of drawing an inference that the assessee did not intend to put these lands to agricultural use and that, according to the Tribunal, was sufficient to come to the conclusion that they had ceased to be agricultural lands during the relevant years. We are in agreement with the inference that had been drawn by the Tribunal in this behalf. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land admeasuring 40,315 sq. yards was not agricultural land and, therefore, not entitled to exemption from wealth-tax was perfectly justified. The second question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of the reference.
-
1975 (7) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income, Wealth Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... d by him on the valuation date for the purposes of determining net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act. With respect it is pointed out that section 68 does not provide for the compounding of the income-tax liability. It merely provides for a different rate of tax. The liability imposed upon an assessee under section 68(3) of the Finance Act, 1965, is a liability on account of income-tax and not a liability of any other kind. This is clear from section 68(3) itself which says that the rate of income-tax chargeable in respect of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be sixty per cent. of such amount. This provision, therefore, merely specifies the rate of income-tax in place of the rate prescribed under the relevant Finance Act. What is charged is income-tax and nothing else. Only the rate is different. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
....
|
