|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 169 Records
-
1979 (10) TMI 49 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... tly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In CIT v. Amway Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), it was observed that it would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false, does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income. It cannot be said that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determination or computing the tax is conclusive. However, it is good evidence. Their Lordships went on to observe that before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In the present case, the contention raised on behalf of the revenue that the finding is perverse is not at all substantiated. This application is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Change Of Law, Minimum Penalty Imposable ... ... ... ... ..... hu 1976 105 ITR 56 (Orissa) that the IAC will not have jurisdiction to pass an order of penalty even in a pending reference if the amount of income in respect of which the particulars were concealed did not exceed Rs. 25,000. We are also respectfully unable to agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Continental Commercial Corpn. v. ITO 1975 100 ITR 170 that s. 274(2) as it stood on the date of concealment, and not on the date when the reference was made or when the penalty order was passed, would be applicable for determining the jurisdiction of the IAC. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows (1) The minimum penalty imposable was equal to the concealed income in accordance with the amendment of cl. (iii) of s. 271(1) with effect from April 1, 1968. (2) The order of the IAC imposing penalty would not be bad in law for want of jurisdiction if the ITO had made the reference before 1st April, 1971. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (10) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In CIT v. Amway Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), it was observed that it would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false, does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income. It cannot be said that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determination or computing the tax is conclusive. However, it is good evidence. Their Lordships went on to observe that before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In the present case, the contention raised on behalf of the revenue that the finding is perverse is not at all substantiated. This application is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Failure To File, Liability To Tax, Waiver Or Reduction ... ... ... ... ..... maximum penalty imposable for the first two years even by the WTO for the delay in filing the return would be a small amount. The wealth liable for assessment appears to have remained stationary without any increase. So far as the subsequent years are concerned, the delay itself would be shorter than for the previous assessment years. In a case where the wealth returned has been virtually accepted and the liability to tax is marginal, it appears, that the exercise of the discretion to waive the penalty would be a proper one. That is not to say that in no other case penalty could be waived. All circumstances would have to be taken into consideration in exercising the power under s. 18(2A). For the reasons stated above, the order of the Commissioner to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee is set aside with a direction that the Commissioner shall pass orders afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard and in the light of the observations made above.
-
1979 (10) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law, Reference To High Court, Weighted Deduction
-
1979 (10) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Female Member, HUF Partner, Interest Paid By Firm ... ... ... ... ..... sent case the creditor is the HUF and not Smt. Prakash Kaur, one of the partners. This distinguishes the present case from the London Machinery Company s case 1979 117 ITR 111 (All). Sri Ashok Gupta urged that a supplementary statement of the case be called for in order to see as to whether the loan in the books of the firm was in the name of Smt. Prakash Kaur or the HUF. It was contended that in case the loan was in the name of Smt. Prakash Kaur the interest was rightly disallowed under s. 40(b). We do not think that it is advisable at this stage to call for a statement of the case on this aspect of the matter, because from a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below no such case appears to have been taken up at any stage by the department. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
-
1979 (10) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Business, Income From Property, Interim Dividend, Mercantile System, Municipal Taxes
-
1979 (10) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... urt in the decision mentioned already at page 1369 of Bibi Siddique Fatima v. Saiyed Mohammad Mahmood Hasan, AIR 1978 SC 1362. The Supreme Court quoted with approval a passage from Tyabji s Muslim Law, 4th Edn. The relevant passage of the Supreme Court runs as follows (p. 1369) Unless a different intention appears the benefit of a wakf for a person s sons and his children and the children of his children for ever so long as there are descendants, is taken per capita, males and females taking equally and the children of daughters being included . In the present case, the female descendants are not entitled to be maintained from out of the property. In these circumstances, the number of male descendants would have to be ascertained and the per capita rule would have to be applied. The result is that the question referred has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable persons. The accountable persons will be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (10) TMI 41 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Financial Year, Previous Year, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... adopted by the assessee in respect of his income from partnership business, or will it mean, as is the rule in such cases, the financial year ending 31st March, 1969 ? Although the Tribunal might have said that the income was received during this year, yet that does not give a finding with regard to the relevant accounting year for which it could be assessed. Mr. Rajgarhia s argument, therefore, does not carry his point anywhere. Summing up, therefore, since the said sum of Rs. 38,500 has been taxed as unexplained investment, the relevant previous year for taxing such unexplained investment could not be the accounting year ending 30th September, 1968. It follows, therefore, that the said sum of Rs. 38,500 could not be assessed for the assessment year 1969-70, whose relevant accounting year ended on the 30th September, 1968. In the result, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs and hearing fee of Rs. 250.
-
1979 (10) TMI 40 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... that, any type of containers used in the manufacture and for sale of any liquid, constitute plant . The point of law is substantial and requires a full dress debate and a survey of precedent based on analogies for coming to a correct conclusion. We are, therefore, of opinion that a case for calling for a statement has been made out. Accordingly, we allow all the three applications and direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the bottles and shells constitute plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act and as such depreciation and development rebate was rightly allowed ? It will be open to the Tribunal to make one consolidated reference in all the three cases. There will be no order as to costs. The statement may be submitted within three months of the receipt of this order by the Tribunal.
-
1979 (10) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... icals 1980 123 ITR 874 held that if the ITO during the pendency of the proceedings has omitted to take notice of a fact attracting s. 271(1)(a) of the Act which ultimately ended in an order of assessment, the order would be erroneous and in this view of the matter the Commissioner was right in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on him under s. 263 of the Act. This decision was followed by us in Addl. CIT v. Kantilal Jain (M.C.C. No. 280/1976-decided on October 5, 1979) 1980 125 ITR 373. The language of ss. 25(2) of the Act and 263 of the I.T. Act is identical. Following the aforesaid decisions of this court we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and the question referred to us has to be answered in favour of the department. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (10) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... eceased shall (a) if the interest extended to the whole income of the property, be the principal value of that property and (b) if the interest extended to less than the whole income of the property, be the principal value of an addition to the property equal to the income to which the interest extended. This section, therefore, clearly provides that in the case of a benefit from interest ceasing on death if such interest extends to the whole income of the property, its valuation shall be the principal value of that property. As stated above, there is no controversy that the interest of the deceased extended to the whole income of the trust property and as such the face value of this property would be taken to be the principal value of such interest. In view of the above discussion, our answer to both the questions referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Commissioner, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... (1) and 273(1) of the Act is identical and, therefore, if the ITO has omitted to take notice of facts attracting the provisions of s. 273(1)(b) of the Act during the pendency of the proceedings which ultimately ended in an order of assessment, the order would be erroneous and as the Addl. Commissioner has held that it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue he was right in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on him under s. 263 of the Act. No decision of the Supreme Court or of this court taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the Addl. Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers vested in him under s. 263 of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and in favour of the department. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1979 (10) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this penalty was that the Commissioner decided that prosecution should not be launched in this case. The Tribunal observed that if the Commissioner knew at the time of settlement proceedings that the assessee would go back from the agreed penalty, in that case it is not known as to what would have been his reaction regarding the prosecution proceedings. As already observed, it was on the agreement of the assessee, which agreement mentioned the figure as well as the rate of penalty, and on the basis thereof that the amount of penalty in question was imposed. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Jivatlal Purtapshi v. CIT 1967 65 ITR 261 for the proposition that the order based on an agreement cannot give rise to grievances and the same cannot be agitated in appeal. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the income arising from that share is liable to be included in the taxable income of the assessee This decision turned on the facts of the particular case in which it was found that there was transfer of the asset held by the father to the minor son. We do not consider that the learned judges either doubted or differed from the decision of the Bombay High Court. As they have themselves observed, they were not differing from the conclusion reached by the learned judges of the Bombay High Court. To say that the Bombay decision was doubted or dissented from is contrary to the court s clear pronouncement. In fact, in the case before this court, the question as to what should be the tax liability in respect of the accretion had not to be gone into. There is no transfer of the bonus shares by the assessee here. The result is, the questions referred are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1979 (10) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... that no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. The department has submitted this application under s. 256(2) of the Act. The AAC and the Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assesses that the deceased, Lalchand Sethi, used to put his signatures on the returns of income and that everything was being done by one Laxmanlal Soni and that the delay in filing the return was caused on account of the negligence of Laxmanlal Soni. The AAC and the Tribunal held that the negligence of Shri Soni was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the return in time and that, therefore, no penalty was imposable on the assessee for delay in filing the return. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and we see no reason to entertain this application. The application is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1979 (10) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... you we have taken legal action against the parties as stated above. In the meantime we would be debiting the amount to your account and in case any amount is recovered from the debtors we shall give you the credit in respect of such recoveries. The aforesaid letter does not throw any light on the question as to when the liability was incurred by the assessee. The liability of the assessee accrued, in terms of the selling agency agreement, when the amount became due from the parties to whom goods were sold. No material was placed on record by the assessee to show that the liability of the assessee had accrued in the accounting year in question. In these circumstances the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim that the deduction was admissible under s. 10(1) of the Act. For all, these reasons, our answer to the second question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (10) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction that it was unreasonable though the ITO could have certainly disallowed the same by the exercise of his powers under s. 40(c) of the I.T. Act. The ITO did not exercise his power under s. 40(c) in this regard to disallow the amount of remuneration or commission paid by the company to the karta as managing director for services rendered by him to the company and it is not open to the department in this reference to urge this point, as the assessments of the company have been allowed to become final. We have also noticed that no detriment to the interests of the joint family has been alleged or established in this regard. For all the reasons stated, our answer to the question is in the negative and against the department holding that the remuneration and commission received by Sri K. S. Subbaiah Pillai was not assessable in the hands of the HUF, but assessable only in his individual assessment. The assessee shall receive his costs of the reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 300.
-
1979 (10) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... m that the component of the profits derived from the industrial undertaking (cold storage) included in such reduced total income, is the whole profit of Rs. 47,027 which the ITO himself had so computed and indicated in the chart. It is also equally well established that if two choices are open to the assessee the right of the assessee to claim assessment under the head which leaves him with a lighter burden cannot be restricted. From whatever angle it may be looked into, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in concluding that the sum of Rs. 41,174, being the development rebate deducted in terms of s. 33 of the Act, by the ITO, while determining the gross total income, could not again be deducted from the sum of Rs. 47,027 which was claimed as deduction from the gross total income under s. 80J(1) of the Act. Question No. 2 is also, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... and that is also not the subject-matter of the questions referred to us. These are pure findings of fact which cannot be challenged in a reference. As regards the quantum of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal, it would be too much for the assessee to say that it is based on mere conjecture, for, if there can be any grievance about the relief allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, it could be only to the department. The average sale price of loose condensed milk was certainly a proper guide for estimating the value of the short yield. There was certainly no basis for adopting the purchase rate for this purpose. Therefore, we do not think that the assessee can, with any justification, dispute the quantum of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200 and counsel s fee in like figure.
....
|
