|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 203 Records
-
1981 (2) TMI 83
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Copper Coated Mild Steel (C.C.M.S.) Wires under Tariff Item 50.
2. Reliance on end-use, technical books, and dictionary meanings for classification.
3. Burden of proof for classification under excise duty.
4. Validity of ex-parte order without notice to the Company.
5. Adherence to Supreme Court guidelines in classification matters.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Copper Coated Mild Steel (C.C.M.S.) Wires under Tariff Item 50:
The primary issue was whether the Company's C.C.M.S. Wires could be classified as "welding electrodes" under Tariff Item 50, thus attracting excise duty. The Company argued that its C.C.M.S. Wires could not be classified as welding electrodes because they are not used by conducting electricity, which is an essential characteristic of electrodes. The authorities, however, classified the C.C.M.S. Wires as welding electrodes based on their end-use in submerged arc welding, which does not necessarily involve electricity.
2. Reliance on end-use, technical books, and dictionary meanings for classification:
The authorities relied on personal observations, the end-use of the product, technical books, and dictionary meanings to classify the C.C.M.S. Wires under Tariff Item 50. The Court noted that such reliance had been repeatedly deprecated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had emphasized that the classification should be based on the popular meaning or the commercial sense of the term, not on technical or scientific definitions. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh* and *Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills*, to support this view.
3. Burden of proof for classification under excise duty:
The Court held that the burden of proof was on the Department to establish that C.C.M.S. Wires were popularly understood in the trade as welding electrodes. The Company had consistently argued that its C.C.M.S. Wires were not known as electrodes in commercial parlance. The Department failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. The Court reiterated that in fiscal or taxing statutes, the burden of proof lies heavily on the Department seeking to recover the tax, as supported by the Division Bench's observations in *Amar Dye Chem. Ltd. v. The Union of India*.
4. Validity of ex-parte order without notice to the Company:
The ex-parte order passed by the Superintendent on 2nd February 1973, classifying the C.C.M.S. Wires under Tariff Item 50 without notice to the Company, was also challenged. The Court observed the close proximity between the tariff advice issued by the Central Board on 23rd January 1973 and the Superintendent's order, suggesting that the order might have been influenced by the tariff advice. The Court cited *Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India*, emphasizing that quasi-judicial powers cannot be controlled by directions from higher authorities.
5. Adherence to Supreme Court guidelines in classification matters:
The Court found that the authorities had ignored principles repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the classification of goods for excise duty. The Supreme Court had consistently held that the classification should be based on the commercial sense of the term and not on technical or scientific definitions. The authorities' reliance on personal observations, technical books, and dictionary meanings was contrary to these guidelines.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders of the Superintendent, the Appellate Collector, and the Revisional Authority. The Department was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 14,25,736.28 paid by the Company under protest within four months. The Department was also instructed to refund any additional amount paid under protest after necessary inquiries. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Supreme Court guidelines in classification matters and the burden of proof lying with the Department in fiscal statutes.
-
1981 (2) TMI 82
Issues: Classification of X-Ray processing unit as a refrigerating appliance under Item 29A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
In this case, the Appellants challenged the classification of certain X-Ray Processing Units as Refrigerating appliances falling under Item 29A in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The main issue was whether the X-Ray processing unit could be classified as a refrigerating appliance due to the application of a cooling process. Both the Collector and the learned Judge had classified the unit as a refrigerating appliance based on the cooling process applied to it. The Appellants argued that the primary purpose of the unit was X-Ray film development, and the cooling process was only for better results, not to convert it into a refrigerating appliance.
The court analyzed the definition of refrigerating appliances under Item 29A, which includes refrigerators, air-conditioners, and parts thereof. The court emphasized that a refrigerating appliance must exist as a unit with the sole purpose of cooling the intended article, such as water or bottles. The court noted that even though a cooling process was attached to the X-Ray processing unit for developing X-Ray films at lower temperatures, the primary purpose of the unit remained unchanged. The court highlighted that the basic character and purpose of the unit, i.e., X-Ray film processing, were not lost despite the addition of a cooling process for better results.
The court rejected the Respondents' argument that the X-Ray processing unit should be considered a refrigerating appliance under Item 29A. The court concluded that even with the cooling process built into the unit, it could not be classified as a refrigerating appliance for excise levy. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Judge's order, and directed the Respondents to pay the Appellants' costs. The court also rejected the Respondents' application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and stayed the order of refund for four weeks, allowing the Appellants to withdraw the deposited costs.
In summary, the court held that the X-Ray processing unit, despite having a cooling process, did not qualify as a refrigerating appliance under Item 29A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as its primary purpose remained X-Ray film development, and the cooling process was secondary for achieving better results.
-
1981 (2) TMI 81
Issues: The judgment involves the questions of whether certain payments made by the assessee in the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were allowable as revenue expenditure, and whether these payments were for specific services rendered by a German company to the assessee.
Summary:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench referred two questions to the court regarding the allowability of payments made by the assessee under an agreement. The court had previously ruled in favor of the revenue in a similar case. The counsel for the assessee argued for a fresh look at the matter based on different tests applied in other cases. However, the court found that the basic facts remained the same as in the earlier case and decided to uphold the previous decision. The court emphasized the importance of finality and certainty in tax litigations and cited precedents supporting this view.
In conclusion, the court held that the Tribunal was not justified in law in allowing the payments as revenue expenditure and that the payments were for specific services rendered by the German company to the assessee. No costs were awarded in this matter. Judge B. N. Misra concurred with the judgment.
-
1981 (2) TMI 80
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Whether the capital of the company as computed in accordance with Rule 1 of the Second Schedule could be increased by the increase in paid-up capital which took place during the previous year.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The rule states that if the capital of a company, as computed in accordance with the preceding rules, is increased during the previous year due to an increase in paid-up share capital, issue of debentures, or borrowing of money, the capital shall be increased proportionately for the number of days the increase was effective.
The court also examined Rule 1 of the Second Schedule, which defines the capital of a company as the aggregate of its paid-up share capital, reserves, debentures, and certain borrowings as of the first day of the previous year.
The court noted that the purpose of Rule 3 is to allow the statutory deduction to be stepped up proportionately if the capital increases during the previous year. However, the court emphasized that Rule 3 applies only if there is an actual increase in the capital as computed under Rule 1.
2. Whether the capital of the company as computed in accordance with Rule 1 of the Second Schedule could be increased by the increase in paid-up capital which took place during the previous year
The court examined whether the increase in paid-up capital on September 12, 1968, could be considered for increasing the capital computation under Rule 1. The assessee argued that the capitalization of reserves by issuing bonus shares should lead to an increase in the capital computation under Rule 1.
However, the court held that Rule 3 does not apply if the increase in paid-up capital is achieved by utilizing reserves already included in the capital computation under Rule 1. The court clarified that Rule 3 is intended to apply only when there is an actual increase in the capital as computed under Rule 1, not when reserves are merely reallocated to paid-up capital.
The court also considered a similar provision under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and noted that Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to that Act was different from Rule 3 of the 1964 Act. The court pointed out that Rule 3 of the 1964 Act was specifically worded to prevent double benefits from the same reserves.
The assessee's counsel argued that the issuance of equity shares on December 16, 1968, should be considered an increase in capital under Rule 1, which would then allow the capitalization of reserves to be included under Rule 3. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the increase in capital computation should be based on the actual increase in capital as computed under Rule 1, not on reallocations within the capital.
The court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in holding that the capital of the company as computed under Rule 1 could be increased by the proportionate amount of the increase in paid-up share capital that took place on September 12, 1968. The court emphasized that the relief available under Rule 3 is limited to the actual increase in capital as computed under Rule 1.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the negative, stating that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the capital of the company as computed under Rule 1 could be increased by the increase in paid-up share capital which took place on September 12, 1968. The Commissioner of Surtax succeeded in the reference and was entitled to the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (2) TMI 79
Issues involved: Depreciation allowance on building and thermocole insulation in a cold storage facility.
Depreciation on thermocole insulation:
The High Court held that thermocole insulation is covered by the definition of "plant" as per section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. The court referred to a previous case and stated that the definition of "plant" is inclusive and does not exclude items normally included in it. The court concluded that the thermocole insulation qualifies as plant and the assessee is entitled to 15% depreciation on its costs.
Depreciation on building:
Regarding the depreciation on the building, the Tribunal did not provide reasons for considering the cold storage building as a factory building. The court examined the definition of "factory buildings" under the Factories Act, emphasizing that the essence of a factory lies in the manufacturing process carried out on the premises. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that the cold storage facility involves a manufacturing process aimed at preserving food materials. The court noted that the cold storage is subject to the control and supervision of the Factories Inspector and has been recognized as a "factory" under the Factories Act. Consequently, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, affirming that the cold storage building qualifies as a factory building for depreciation purposes.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing 15% depreciation on the thermocole insulation costs and confirming the cold storage building's classification as a factory building eligible for depreciation.
-
1981 (2) TMI 78
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 in relation to taxation of family pension received by the widow of a deceased government employee.
2. Assessment of income tax on the family pension received by the widow for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
3. Whether the Tribunal's decision to tax only 1/4th of the pension received by the widow was correct.
Analysis:
The High Court dealt with Income-tax Cases related to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, concerning the taxation of family pension received by the widow of a deceased government employee under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The widow received Rs. 1,200 as family pension during the relevant accounting period for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) taxed the entire amount, leading to appeals by the widow against the decision. The Tribunal, however, found that only one-fourth share of the pension amount should be considered as the widow's real income for tax assessment purposes.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the family pension was meant for the family of the deceased government employee as a whole, not for individual family members. The Tribunal emphasized that the widow was merely a collector of the family pension on behalf of the family, which included her, one minor son, and two minor daughters. The Tribunal further highlighted that the shares of family members in the pension were definite and ascertainable, leading to the conclusion that only the widow's share could be taxed, as it was her income.
The High Court, after considering the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, concurred with the Tribunal's interpretation. It emphasized that the scheme was designed for the benefit of the family as a unit, comprising the widow, minor sons, and daughters of the deceased government employee. Therefore, the widow's taxation should be based on her definite and ascertainable share of the family pension. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision to tax only 1/4th of the pension received by the widow.
In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the revenue's petitions and dismissed them with costs, concurring with the Tribunal's decision regarding the taxation of the family pension received by the widow under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
-
1981 (2) TMI 77
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of registration due to lack of a fresh deed of partnership.
2. Delay in filing the application for registration.
3. Validity of multiple documents constituting an instrument of partnership.
4. Interpretation of the term "instrument of partnership" under the I.T. Act, 1961.
5. Requirement of stamping for the letter dated December 2, 1969.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Refusal of registration due to lack of a fresh deed of partnership:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused registration on the grounds that no fresh deed of partnership was executed and there was a multiplicity of documents. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that the assessee's plea that there was no necessity for executing a fresh deed was sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC, referencing the decisions in Haridas Premji [1930] 4 ITC 475 [FB] and other cases, concluding that multiple documents could be treated as a deed of partnership for registration purposes. The Tribunal viewed the letter dated December 2, 1969, as a fresh deed of partnership.
2. Delay in filing the application for registration:
The ITO also refused registration because the application was filed beyond the end of the accounting year without a valid explanation. The AAC condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's bona fide belief that no application was initially necessary. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the delay was justifiably condoned.
3. Validity of multiple documents constituting an instrument of partnership:
The Tribunal, referencing the decisions in A. Phiroj and Co. [1966] 59 ITR 645 and Chhotalal Devchand [1958] 34 ITR 351, held that multiple documents could constitute an instrument of partnership. The Tribunal concluded that the correspondence between GEC and Philips in December 1969 served as a fresh deed of partnership.
4. Interpretation of the term "instrument of partnership" under the I.T. Act, 1961:
The Tribunal noted that under the old Act, a firm had to be constituted under an instrument of partnership, whereas under the new Act, it had to be evidenced by an instrument of partnership. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC that the letter dated December 2, 1969, served as a fresh deed of partnership, satisfying the requirement of an instrument of partnership.
5. Requirement of stamping for the letter dated December 2, 1969:
Mr. Bagchi argued that the letter dated December 2, 1969, should not be considered as it was not properly stamped. However, the court observed that the rigorous provisions of the Evidence Act are not binding on the ITO and that a document not properly stamped can be admitted in evidence once impounded. The court referenced Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Supreme Court decision in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, to support this view. The court concluded that the letter dated December 2, 1969, should not be excluded from consideration.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in affirming the AAC's order. It held that the term "instrument" does not mean only a regular partnership deed but can include any formal transfer, and multiple documents or correspondence can constitute an "instrument of partnership." The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised return filed by the assessee.
2. Applicability of the 1922 Act vs. the 1961 Act for assessment.
3. Tribunal's decision to not cancel the assessment order.
4. Procedural correctness of the AAC's order to set aside the assessment.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Revised Return:
The ITO observed that the assessee filed a return u/s 139(4) on March 30, 1965, and a revised return on March 28, 1966. The ITO deemed the revised return invalid as u/s 139(5) allows a revised return only if the original return was filed u/s 139(1) or (2). The AAC, however, considered the revised return valid under s. 22(3) of the 1922 Act. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's view, stating that the revised return could not be treated as valid u/s 139(5) since the original return was filed u/s 139(4).
2. Applicability of the 1922 Act vs. the 1961 Act:
The AAC believed the 1922 Act applied, but the Tribunal concluded that the 1961 Act governed the assessment procedure due to s. 297(2)(b). The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's view, noting that the return filed on March 30, 1965, was valid u/s 139(4) of the 1961 Act.
3. Tribunal's Decision to Not Cancel the Assessment Order:
The Tribunal found that the ITO acted legally in ignoring the second return filed by the assessee and thus did not cancel the assessment order. The High Court agreed, stating that s. 139(5) does not permit a revised return for returns filed u/s 139(4), and the Tribunal's decision was correct.
4. Procedural Correctness of the AAC's Order:
The assessee argued that the AAC should have annulled the assessment instead of setting it aside. The High Court noted that since the Tribunal's view was upheld, this question did not arise. The High Court also mentioned that the Tribunal should have directed the AAC to address the merits of the assessment, but no such plea was raised or referred.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision. The Commissioner was entitled to costs in the reference, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (2) TMI 75
Issues involved:
The judgment pertains to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, where the Tribunal referred a question of law regarding the allowance of expenses for a public limited company that had discontinued its business of manufacturing and selling wooden bobbins.
Assessment Year 1969-70:
The assessee company had filed returns showing income from interest and rent, while claiming expenses of Rs. 11,295. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the expenses and added certain items to the income, resulting in a net assessed income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed a partial deduction towards expenses, but the Tribunal held that the company was not carrying on any business in that year. However, the Tribunal allowed the claimed expenses, stating that certain expenses were necessary for the company to exist and earn income from other sources, as per Section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
Assessment Year 1970-71:
Similar to the previous year, the ITO disallowed expenses and added items to the income, resulting in a net assessed income. The AAC allowed a partial deduction, but the Tribunal confirmed that the company was not carrying on any business. The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the assessee were essential for the company to maintain its status and effectively dispose of its assets from the previous business. The Tribunal found that the expenses were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income from other sources, as per Section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for expenses laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income from other sources. The Tribunal found that the claimed expenses were directly related to maintaining the company's existence and facilitating the profitable disposal of its assets, excluding expenses related to income from property. The judgment cited precedents to support the nexus between the character of the expenditure and the making or earning of income, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the claimed expenses for both assessment years. The assessee was granted costs, and the judgment highlighted the importance of expenses necessary for a company to exist and earn income from other sources, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
-
1981 (2) TMI 74
Issues:
Application under s. 391(6) and s. 443 of the Companies Act seeking restraint on sales tax authorities from levying penalty and charging interest.
Analysis:
The petitioner-company, engaged in car distribution, faced financial distress leading to a winding-up petition. A scheme of arrangement was proposed to repay creditors over ten years, excluding penalties and interest under various laws. Sales tax assessments were pending, with fears of heavy penalties due to the proposed scheme. The sales tax department objected, citing lack of court jurisdiction and past defaults by the petitioner. The court deliberated on its jurisdiction to stay assessment, penalty, and interest proceedings under the Sales Tax Act. It differentiated between s. 391 and s. 446 of the Companies Act, asserting jurisdiction to stay taxation proceedings.
The court rejected comparisons to a Supreme Court ruling on income tax proceedings, emphasizing the distinct nature of the present case under s. 391(6). It clarified the scope of s. 391(6) to include proceedings under special acts like taxation laws. While no stay was granted on assessment proceedings, the court considered staying penalty proceedings crucial to uphold the proposed scheme's integrity. Despite inaccuracies in the petitioner's claims, the court prioritized creditor interests, staying penalty proceedings for pre-1980 assessment years.
Regarding interest, the court acknowledged its automatic levy under the Sales Tax Act but opted to stay its recovery to support the petitioner's financial stability. A payment proposal by the petitioner was considered, mandating monthly payments towards arrears and current liabilities. The court conditioned the stay on timely payments, warning of automatic vacation if conditions were breached. The judgment concluded with each party bearing its costs.
In summary, the court asserted jurisdiction to stay penalty and interest proceedings under the Sales Tax Act, prioritizing creditor interests and financial stability in granting the stay subject to payment conditions.
-
1981 (2) TMI 73
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in favor of the assessee-company regarding the deduction claimed for commission paid to Textile Processing Agency. The court confirmed that the amount incurred by the agency was a legitimate business expenditure for the assessee, allowing the deduction of Rs. 33,809 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1981 (2) TMI 72
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of ownership of a house property u/s 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.
Interpretation of Ownership under Section 22:
The case involved whether the assessee could be regarded as the owner of the house property in question as per section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee purchased the property in 1964, undertook construction, and completed the house in 1967. The sale deed was executed in 1969. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued notices to include income from the self-occupied property, which the assessee contested, claiming not to be the owner until the sale deed was executed. The ITO taxed the income, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The assessee argued that possession alone, without the sale deed, should not attract tax under section 22. The revenue contended that the assessee occupied the property and was in a position to earn income, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The High Court held that ownership for tax purposes does not solely depend on a registered sale deed, but on actual occupation and ability to earn income. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's observation that the focus is on income receipt from the property, not just legal ownership.
Application of Supreme Court Precedent:
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570, emphasizing that ownership for tax purposes is not limited to legal title through a sale deed. The Court noted that if an assessee is in occupation of a building as an owner in all aspects except for a sale deed, they are liable to income tax u/s 22 of the Act. The Court highlighted that in the present case, the assessee occupied the house after the agreement to sell in 1964 and was capable of earning income from the property. The Court also pointed out that all payments were made at the time of the agreement to sell in 1964, not during the execution of the sale deed in 1969. The Court distinguished a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala's case prevails for interpreting section 22 of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Court answered both questions in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, emphasizing that ownership for tax purposes is not solely contingent on a registered sale deed but on actual occupation and the ability to earn income from the property.
-
1981 (2) TMI 71
Issues:
Assessment of wealth-tax on agricultural lands, imposition of penalty for belated filing of returns, interpretation of Section 18B of the Wealth Tax Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a wealth-tax assessee, was assessed for the first time in 1970-71 with wealth in the form of agricultural lands. The petitioner voluntarily filed returns for 1970-71 and 1971-72, but the valuation was disputed by the WTO. Penalty proceedings were initiated for belated filing of returns under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner explained the delay due to the challenge on including agricultural lands in the Act, but the penalty was imposed by the WTO. The Commissioner partially reduced the penalty, leading the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 226 for relief.
The main contention was that the Commissioner did not apply the special powers under Section 18B correctly. The Commissioner found the petitioner had reasonable cause for the delay but rejected the explanation based on the assumption of filing returns without printed forms. The Court clarified that Section 18B confers a special power on the Commissioner, distinct from revisional or appellate powers. The judgment in Shankara Apaya Swami's case emphasized that the Commissioner must consider factors like full disclosure of wealth and cooperation with the department, not the reasonableness of the delay, while exercising discretion under Section 18B.
The Court highlighted that the Commissioner's focus on the reasonableness of the cause for delay was incorrect. The decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider under Section 18B, considering the factors outlined in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner should not assess the reasonableness of the cause explained by the assessee but focus on the factors required for granting relief under Section 18B.
The judgment referenced previous cases where the interpretation of Section 18B was clarified, emphasizing the discretionary power of the Commissioner and the factors to be considered while reducing or waiving penalties. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter in line with the principles outlined in the judgment.
-
1981 (2) TMI 70
Disallowed Interest On Borrowed Capital u/s 36(1)(iii) - The capital provided u/s 23 of the Act, by the Central Govt. or thee State Govt. is the capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession - HELD THAT:- In case of CEPT v. Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. [1953 (5) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], the question was whether it was "money had and received" or "borrowed money". It was held that there has to be a positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money, as a loan. Thus, it is clear that an element of refund or repayment is inherent in the concept of borrowing. There is no provision in the Act which contemplates the repayment of the capital so provided u/s 23 of the Act.
Apart from that, S. 23 of the Act provides that the Central Govt. and the State Govt. may provide any capital. In other words, it is not by virtue of any agreement, etc., between the parties, but because of the statutory provision that the Governments are obliged to provide the capital. It is u/s 26 of the Act that the corporation may borrow money in the open market for the purpose of raising its working capital. Thus, the distinction has been made in the Act itself between the “capital provided” u/s 23 and the "capital borrowed" u/s 26.
There is no obligation to refund the capital provided by the Governments. In this view of the matter, the “capital provided” u/s 23 of the Act by the two Governments, cannot be said to be " capital borrowed as contemplated u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. Thus, the answer to the question is in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
-
1981 (2) TMI 69
Issues:
Whether the expenditure of Rs. 12,620 incurred by the assessee-company for making alterations in its articles of association is deductible as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the deductibility of legal fees amounting to Rs. 12,620 incurred by an assessee-company for making alterations in its articles of association to comply with changes in the law relating to companies. The assessee, a private company, sought to bring its articles in conformity with the provisions applicable to public companies following an amendment in the Companies Act. The Income Tax Officer treated the expenditure as capital investment, disallowing the deduction. However, the Tribunal, in the second appeal by the assessee, allowed the claim by treating it as revenue expenditure. The revenue challenged this decision, leading to the present dispute.
The High Court referred to a similar case decided by the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business to ensure the company's continued compliance with the law. The court rejected the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure drawn by the standing counsel, highlighting that the amendment was necessary for the company to operate in its business field. The court held that if the expenditure was intrinsically connected with the running of the company and essential for its operation, it should be considered revenue expenditure. In this case, since the expenditure was crucial for the company to function within the legal framework, the court agreed with the Tribunal's decision and allowed the deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure of Rs. 12,620 was deductible as a revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment was a significant clarification on the treatment of expenses incurred for legal compliance purposes, emphasizing the connection between such expenses and the operational requirements of a business.
-
1981 (2) TMI 68
Issues involved: Interpretation of expenditure as capital or revenue in nature for income-tax assessment u/s 256(2) of the Act.
Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Delhi addressed a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the assessment year 1960-61. The dispute arose from the assessee's claim of Rs. 32,431 spent on remodelling furniture in retail depots as a deductible expense. While the ITO and AAC considered the expenditure capital in nature, the Tribunal disagreed, deeming it necessary due to design changes in the ordinary course of business.
The Tribunal, following a court directive, posed the question of whether the expenditure on remodelling furniture was allowable as a repair expense. The court noted a previous application u/s 256(2) for a different assessment year, where the Tribunal declined to state a case due to no dispute on the business purpose of the expenditure, leading to the court's rejection of the application.
In the current assessment year, the court found no evidence suggesting the expenditure was not for business purposes. The ITO's classification of the expenditure as capital indirectly acknowledged its business nature. The Tribunal differentiated between capital and revenue expenses related to furniture, shops, and fans, concluding that the remodelling expenditure was revenue in nature, necessitated by design changes, and not capital. Citing a relevant Supreme Court decision, the court held the Rs. 32,431 as deductible revenue expenditure, supporting the Tribunal's decision.
Therefore, the court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, affirming the deductibility of the remodelling expenditure as revenue expenditure.
-
1981 (2) TMI 67
Issues involved: Interpretation of the definition of an industrial company u/s 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act of 1968 and determination of whether the assessee-company, engaged in retreading tyres, qualifies for the concessional rate of tax for industrial companies.
Summary:
The High Court of Delhi addressed the issue of whether the assessee-company, involved in retreading tyres, qualified as an industrial company u/s 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act of 1968. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to a reference made by the Commissioner. The AAC had accepted the company's claim based on evidence provided, including certificates from machinery manufacturers and magazine extracts supporting the classification as an industrial company.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered the definitions of "manufacture" and "processing," ultimately concluding that the assessee was engaged in the processing of tyres. The Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that the processing of goods encompasses a wide range of activities beyond mere manufacturing. Citing previous judicial decisions, the Court affirmed that the assessee's activities fell within the definition of processing goods as per the Finance Act, 1968.
Regarding contentions raised by the department, the Court dismissed the argument that there was no finding on whether processing was the main activity of the company, as it was not previously raised. The Court also rejected the argument to restrict the connotation of "processing" in the context of the Act, distinguishing the present case from a previous Kerala High Court decision involving a hotel's classification as an industrial company.
Ultimately, the Court held in favor of the assessee, determining that the retreading of tyres constituted processing within the Act's definition of an industrial company. The Commissioner was directed to bear the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (2) TMI 66
Issues involved: Appeal under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent u/s 148 read with s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961; Conditions precedent for issue of notice u/s 148; Application of Supreme Court decisions in reassessment cases.
Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent u/s 148 read with s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The court upheld the judgment of the learned single judge who quashed a notice issued by the ITO and restrained further proceedings against the respondent. The court found that conditions precedent for the notice u/s 148 had not been fulfilled, as per cl. (a) of s. 147. The facts of the case were compared to Supreme Court decisions in Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, where assessments were reopened unjustifiably for cash credits previously accepted as genuine.
The appellants contended that the Supreme Court decisions were wrongly applied, but the court disagreed. It was noted that the present case mirrored the situations in the Supreme Court cases, where no new material connected to the cash credits was presented to justify reassessment. Reference was made to Calcutta and Madras High Court decisions, which were found distinguishable based on facts and disclosure of material information during original assessments.
The court concluded that the reassessment in the present case lacked a live connection between the information available to the ITO and the genuineness of the loans recorded. The court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the learned judge's decision. The respondent was awarded costs amounting to counsel's fee Rs. 300.
-
1981 (2) TMI 65
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the cost of acquisition for computing capital loss or gains, the passing of controlling interest to family members, and the exemption of capital gains under a specific tax order.
Cost of acquisition for computing capital loss or gains:
The case involved a dispute over the cost of acquisition of shares for computing capital loss or gains. The assessee purchased shares at a higher price than the market value, claiming it was for acquiring controlling interest. The Tribunal held that the excess amount paid represented the price of controlling interest, which the assessee contended was an error. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that controlling interest is an incidence arising from holding shares and cannot be separately acquired or transferred. The Court held that the cost of acquisition should be what the assessee actually paid for holding the block of shares.
Passing of controlling interest to family members:
Another issue was whether the controlling interest of the assessee in a company passed on to family members along with the shares sold to them. The Tribunal did not allow this alternative case to be set up initially, but the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question. However, as the first issue was decided in favor of the assessee, this question did not survive for consideration.
Exemption of capital gains under specific tax order:
The final issue was regarding the exemption of capital gains realized on the sale of land within the compound of a palace under a specific tax order. The assessee contended that the capital gains were exempt under a particular provision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the exemption did not cover income in the form of capital gains. Therefore, the capital gains realized by the assessee were not exempt from taxation under the relevant tax order.
The High Court answered the questions accordingly, with each party bearing their own costs in both references.
-
1981 (2) TMI 64
Issues involved:
Interpretation of cost of acquisition u/s 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for computing capital gains arising from the sale of shares.
Summary:
The case involved a limited company owning shares in M/s. Coles Cranes of India Ltd. The dispute was regarding the cost of acquisition of shares for computing capital gains. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) calculated the cost of acquisition at Rs. 4.80 per share, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held it should be Rs. 10 per share. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the cost of acquisition refers to the price paid at the time of purchase. The Tribunal referred to sections 45, 48, and 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which dictate the computation of capital gains and cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that the cost of bonus shares should be spread over both original and bonus shares collectively. It was held that the cost of acquisition should be the actual cost at which the shares were acquired. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO, emphasizing that the cost of acquisition is the price paid at the time of acquisition, not the value on a subsequent date. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principle that subsequent events need not be considered while computing capital gains.
The High Court, concurring with the Tribunal's decision, answered the question in favor of the assessee. The Court highlighted previous decisions supporting the interpretation that cost of acquisition is the amount paid at the time of acquisition. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Judge Sabyasachi Mukharji agreed with the decision.
....
|
9911796707
