|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 111 of 111 Records
-
1968 (8) TMI 11
Notification No. 878-F - purpose of the Notification was to avoid double taxation by providing that if the amount has been assessed in the hands of the company the same should not be assessed over again in the hands of the assessee. There was nothing in the Notification to suggest that it was a condition precedent for getting the benefit of the Notification that the company should have expressly made a claim for deduction and that claim should have been expressly disallowed - exemption granted
-
1968 (8) TMI 10
Company filed an application before the CIT under s. 33A for revision of the assessment - application which was filed under s. 33A of the Act was completely barren of an explanation for this delay which had to be properly and satisfactorily explained - Assessee appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 9
According to the third proviso to s. 5, the Act was not applicable to any business, the entire profits of which accrued or arose in an Indian State with the result that the profits of that business could not be included in the total computation of income of the assessee for the purpose of excess profits tax - Therefore s. 10A could not be applied to the present case - assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 8
Company failed to declare dividend - company in a general meeting resolved to make available out of its reserve as dividend to the shareholders and to credit the account of each shareholder his respective share therein - Pursuant to that resolution Rs. 23,328 were credited to the account of the appellant who held 1,333 shares of the company - sum of Rs. 23,328 could not be assessed to tax in hands of appellant - Assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the phrase "any person who has not hitherto been assessed" in Section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Applicability of provisional assessment under Section 23B to Section 18A(3).
3. Legislative intent and subsequent amendments to the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the phrase "any person who has not hitherto been assessed" in Section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the phrase "any person who has not hitherto been assessed" in Section 18A(3) includes individuals who have been provisionally assessed under Section 23B. The respondents, who were partners in a business, had been provisionally assessed in the assessment year 1954-55 but not regularly assessed until February 27, 1958. They did not send any estimate of tax payable as required by Section 18A or pay the tax in advance, leading to the imposition of interest and penalties by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 18A(8) and 18A(9)(b).
2. Applicability of provisional assessment under Section 23B to Section 18A(3):
The appellants argued that a provisional assessment under Section 23B does not satisfy the requirements of Section 18A(1), which calls for tax to be based on the total income of the previous year. They contended that provisional assessment merely determines the tax payable based on the return filed, without a thorough assessment of total taxable income. However, the court held that even provisional assessment involves determining the total income, albeit provisionally. The court noted that the language of Section 18A(1) does not restrict the term "assessed" to regular assessments only. Thus, the term "assessed" in Section 18A(3) includes provisional assessments under Section 23B.
3. Legislative intent and subsequent amendments to the Income-tax Act:
The court examined the legislative history and amendments to the Act, noting that Section 18A was amended consequent to the introduction of Section 23B. Parliament did not restrict the meaning of "assessed" in Section 18A(3) to exclude provisional assessments. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the term "assessed" should be interpreted narrowly to mean only regular assessments, pointing out that the term is used without qualification in Section 18A(1).
The court also considered the language of Sections 210 and 212(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which refer to regular assessments. The appellants argued that these sections should be treated as a Parliamentary exposition of Section 18A(3) of the earlier Act. However, the court held that a subsequent Act does not provide a useful guide to the interpretation of an earlier Act unless both laws are on the same subject and the earlier Act is ambiguous. The court found no ambiguity in Section 18A(3) and thus did not accept the appellants' argument.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, affirming that the phrase "any person who has not hitherto been assessed" in Section 18A(3) includes individuals who have been provisionally assessed under Section 23B. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the judgment of the High Court dated March 25, 1963, was deemed correct.
-
1968 (8) TMI 6
Notice issued by ITO under s. 34 - Preamble of notice was defective but in the body of notice assessment year was clearly specified - negligence in drawing up of the preamble to notice did not affect the validity of notice - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 5
Unexplained Cash Credits - Rejection Of Accounts - Where there is an explained cash credit, it is open to the ITO to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the ITO to show that that income is from any particular source - ITO was justified in its view that the impugned amount represented the assessee`s income from some undisclosed source - Revenue's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 4
Revised assessments u/s 34 - validity - assessee had failed to show that he did not know and was not aware of the true position in respect of the sum of Rs. 27,000 odd which was invested in the Sarpat and bamboo business - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 3
When under the scheme of the Act tax is assessed individually against each partner, and no tax is made payable by the partnership, the principle of joint and several liability under s. 44 cannot be invoked - CIT has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice u/s 45 - Assessee appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 2
Appellant applied for registration as a firm u/s 26A - ITO refused the registration under s. 26A & passed an order of assessment holding that the assessee constituted a HUF and not a firm - ITO was not justified - members of the appellant firm could not be regarded as strangers to the proceedings which resulted in the assessment order made in respect of them on the basis of their constituting a HUF along with others - Assessee appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 1
Issues:
1. Whether speculative losses can be set off against profits from any other business activity under section 10 in spite of the first proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether speculative losses can be set off against profits from any other business activity under section 10 despite the first proviso to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved an individual assessee deriving income from property, shares in joint stock companies, commission agency business, and shares in partnership firms during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54. The assessee had returned a net profit in the personal business of commission agency, which included a share of loss from a partnership firm. The Income-tax Officer initially ignored the loss figure, prompting the matter to be taken up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the exclusion of a portion of the loss for setting it off against the income from speculative dealings in subsequent years. However, the Tribunal rejected the contention to set off the loss against profit from other business, citing precedent from Keshavlal Premchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The High Court disagreed with the decision in Keshavlal Premchand's case, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The judgment extensively discussed the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, particularly sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which outline the heads of income chargeable to tax. Section 24 of the Act allows for the set off of losses against income, profits, or gains under any other head in the same year. The judgment highlighted the proviso to section 24(1), which restricts the set off of losses sustained in speculative transactions against profits and gains under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation." The court delved into the interpretation and application of this proviso in light of previous case law, including Keshavlal Premchand's case, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramgopal Kaniyalal, and other decisions by various High Courts.
The Supreme Court referenced Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kantilal Nathuchand to emphasize the significance of the proviso to section 24(1) in computing total income. The court clarified that the proviso limits the applicability of the principal clause of section 24(1) and governs the computation of the assessee's total income. The judgment rejected arguments seeking to distinguish the observations in Kantilal Nathuchand's case, asserting that the proviso's language is clear and unequivocal in its restriction on setting off speculative losses against profits from other businesses. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the explicit language of the proviso and the accompanying explanation regarding the treatment of speculative transactions as a separate business entity.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled against the assessee in both appeals, affirming that speculative losses cannot be set off against profits from other business activities as per the provisions of section 24(1) and its proviso. The appeals were allowed with costs, and the decision favored the department.
....
|
9911796707
