|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 188 Records
-
1978 (7) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... appears to us that if this letter is properly understood, the basis of the amalgamation is as we have explained earlier. It is in this sense that the Tribunal has understood the amalgamation. The approach of the ITO and the AAC that there is no transfer of assets or that there was no change in the legal personality appears to be totally incorrect and does not represent the true legal position. In the view that we have taken of the basis of the amalgamation, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal of the actual cost of the assets to the transferee-company will be required to be upheld. In this view of the matter, the two questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1--The cost allowable to the assessee in computing the capital loss in respect of 22,500 shares of the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. should be Rs. 6,73,125. Question No. 2--In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A Firm, Capital Asset, Capital Receipt, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... up to the limit of rupees one lakh only. This arrangement also then could be regarded as one which is extremely beneficial to the assessee and onerous for the firm of Natsons Manufacturing Company. It is impossible upon these facts to hold that this agreement was a contract or arrangement in the course of the regular business of the assessee and, if that is so, it must follow that the termination was tantamount to a termination or premature determination of a capital asset and any amount paid for such premature determination must be regarded as a capital receipt. This has also been held by the Division Bench of this court in Khushalbhai Patel and Sons case (I.T. Reference No. 37/65-Since reported in, and the principle of that decision appears to us to be fully applicable to the facts of this reference. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cottage Industry ... ... ... ... ..... ry given in s. 2(c) of Act 17 of 1960. In this view of the matter, it would appear that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the assessee is not qualified to seek exemption under s. 81(i)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is in order. In the view that we have taken, therefore, the question referred to us will be required to be answered in favour of the revenue. We may add, although it is not necessary to do so, that even if another view is possible, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal on the consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case is not a possible view. Merely because another view may appeal to us more would be no occasion to decide against the revenue. However, as stated earlier, we are in full agreement with the approach and the conclusion of the Tribunal. For these reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The parties, however, will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... had not applied the provisions of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act for determining the valuation of the house in question. The Tribunal appointed two valuers for the purpose of finding the correct valuation of the house. The valuers agreed that the property could fetch more than Rs. 1,000 per month as rent. In this view of the matter, it appears to us that the standard of municipal annual letting value would be wholly illusory particularly when the house had not been let out. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the assessee could not suggest any ground on which the judgment of the Tribunal determining the valuation of the house at Rs.1,40,000 could be said to be illegal or incorrect. For these reasons, the questions Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (sic) do not require any specific answer and have to be returned unanswered. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (7) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Dissolved Firm, Same Business ... ... ... ... ..... uted the same business. In the case before us it is not even controverted, on the other hand it is found as a fact, that the business of Chitra Mandir as well as that of Hind Vijay was film exhibition business. There was also inter-connection by reason of the fact that there was a common manager, co-ordination in the management and obtaining films from the same distributors and some financial transactions between them. When such is the case, the test that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in A. Dharma Reddy s case 1969 73 ITR 751 is applicable and the loss suffered in one business can be set off against the profits made in the other. Accordingly, the assessee was entitled to set off the carried forward share of loss from Hind Vijay against the business income of the material year and share income from Vijay Chitra Mandir. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 64 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Residential House Property ... ... ... ... ..... UF. We have already indicated that the plain and ordinary meaning of the significant words used in s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, indicates that the word assessee used in the section, construed in its context, refers only to living persons or individuals and not to fictional or artificial juridical persons. The aforesaid authorities, which throw light on the problem also suggest the same construction. No authority indicating a contrary view has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we do not find any cogent reason to take a different view on this question. It must, therefore, be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, applies only to individuals or living persons and not to fictional or artificial juridical persons. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... n I.T. Act. It is quite clear from this judgment that the question was considered not merely depending upon the definition given in s. 2 but upon the combined provisions of s. 12B which deals with capital gains. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Short Brothers case 1966 60 ITR 83 (SC) was followed later in the other case of Tea Estates Ltd. s case 1976 103 ITR 785. It is thus clear that the accumulated profits would not include capital gains which are not chargeable to tax even during the period the capital gains tax is in force. Distribution made to the shareholder of a company out of non-taxable accumulated capital gains of a company would not be dividend. Accordingly, our answers to the questions referred to are as under Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (7) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, New Industrial Undertaking, Splitting Up, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... the business carried on by the assessee was formed by the splitting up of a business which was already in existence. The mere fact that some work of binding is entrusted to the assessee by Manipal Power Press does not lead to the inference that there is a splitting up of the business. The assessee is an independent contractor and the Manipal Power Press is as much a customer as any other of the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no material to hold that the assessee s business of book-binding had been formed by the splitting up of the business which was already in existence, and that it did not satisfy the requirement of cl. (i) of sub-s. (4) of s. 80J. Accordingly, the question referred to in I.T.R.C. No. 63/1975 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The question in I.T.R.C. No. 64 of 1975 is also answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have his costs. Advocate s fee is Rs. 250 one set.
-
1978 (7) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application For Registration ... ... ... ... ..... cause will normally be a finding on the question of fact and cannot be reagitated in an application for reference. Thus, having regard to the provisions of s. 26A together with r. 2, the application for registration presented by the assessee-firm was liable to be rejected. Reliance was placed by Mr. Patil upon the circular of the Board bearing No. F.N. 26/3/65/IT (A1) dated June 26, 1965. The provisions of this circular are of no assistance to Mr. Patil because the circular only applies to applications for registration made under the I.T. Act, 1961. There is nothing in the provisions of this circular to indicate that an application for registration made under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is even remotely governed by the circular or the principles laid down therein. This circular is, therefore, of no assistance to Mr. Patil. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 60 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Coparcenary Property, Estate Duty, Exemption Of Residential House ... ... ... ... ..... (1)(n) will have to be given in respect of the whole house which is valued at Rs. 80,000. Truly this could not have been the intendment of the law. The answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, formulated thus Section 33(1)(n) of the Act has no relevance to the computation of the value of the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property under s. 39. Where the residential house belongs to a HUF governed by Mitakshara, only the share of the deceased in such house is exempt from estate duty under s. 33(1)(n). For purposes of rate of estate duty, the value of the share of the deceased in such house has to be excluded from the value of the property passing on his death under s. 34(1)(a), but the value of the shares of all the lineal descendants of the deceased in the coparcenary property including the residential house has to be aggregated under s. 34(1)(c) without any reference to any exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the Act. The question is answered accordingly.
-
1978 (7) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Income Tax Rules, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... rged against the imposition of interest in the instant case, whether the assessee is denying its liability to be charged interest at all or is only challenging the quantum of interest charged. From the other grounds in the appeal, it is clear that the assessee does not deny its liability to be assessed at all. The assessee also does not deny its liability to pay advance tax. The only question which has to be gone into by the AAC is whether the assessee is denying its liability to pay interest at all. If this is so, then the AAC will consider the matter further. If not, the appeal should be rejected in limine. We would like to observe that unless a proper ground is clearly made out on the lines as indicated earlier the assessee may be shut out from agitating a ground against imposition of interest in its appeal. To the limited extent as we have indicated above, the question referred is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Profits ... ... ... ... ..... t is used, and considering Acts which may be in pari materia will be of little assistance. The unreported decision of this court in Eastern Scales (P.) Ltd. (since reported in 1979 117 ITR 477 (Cal)) is also of little relevance. The question involved in that reference is not identical with the question before us. The court in that case was not called upon to construe s. 40(c)(iii) but was specifically concerned with s. 40(c)(i). For the above reasons, the question referred in respect of the assessment year 1966-67 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. On the question referred to in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 we would like to add that the deduction claimed for transport allowance is covered by s. 40(c)(iii) itself. Accordingly, and also for the reasons stated above, we answer the said question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 57 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Loss, Extinguishment Of Right, Held By Assessee, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... d and agreed to the same whereunder, as noted earlier, no shares were to be issued to the assessee in lieu or exchange of the shares held by it in the transferor-companies. The shares held by the assessee in the transferor-companies represented the capital invested by the assessee in the said companies and by the said amalgamations the assessee became the sole owner of the entire capital of the transferor-companies. By virtue of the said amalgamations the assessee as the transferee-company became the sole repository of all the rights which flowed from or were imbedded in the shares held by the assessee in the transferor-companies. For all the above reasons, there was no extinguishment of any right of the assessee as holder of the shares in the transferor-companies. On all other aspects of this case, I fully agree with the reasonings and conclusions of my learned brother and I agree that the question referred should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.
-
1978 (7) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... nce with s. 139(4) does not absolve the assessee from the liability of penalty under s. 271(1)(a). These questions must, therefore, be answered accordingly and against the assessee. The result, therefore, is that the assessee s default under s. 139(1) commenced on October 1, 1962, for the assessment year 1962-63 and July 1, 1963, for the assessment year 1963-64 and it continued for both these years up to February 22, 1964, when returns for these years were actually filed by the assessee, for which default the assessee was liable to imposition of penalty for each of these years under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. As a result of the above discussion, our answers to the aforesaid questions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, while questions Nos. (1) and (2) are not answered as they do not arise in the present case. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1978 (7) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Employed, Income Tax Concession, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... to the attention of the Calcutta High Court. It passed its decision on a consideration of the two decisions of the House of Lords and of the Madras High Court. As far as this court is concerned, we have taken the view that since the I. T. Act is a piece of all-India legislation, as far as possible if any High Court has construed any section or rule and come to a particular interpretation thereof, that interpretation should be followed by this court unless there are compelling reasons brought to our notice for departing from the view taken by another High Court. No such compelling reason has been brought to our notice by learned counsel for the revenue. In this case also, therefore, we propose to follow the principle of uniformity which even earlier we have followed in a number of matters. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay to the assessee the costs of this reference.
-
1978 (7) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... having found that s. 81(i)(a) did not permit the allowance of the rebate on the additional surcharge, we find no difficulty in holding that the mistake committed by the ITO was one which attracted the provisions of the said section. It cannot be disputed that overlooking of a mandatory provision which leaves no option or discretion with the taxing authority, would amount to commission of the mistake apparent on the face of the record. As already observed, since s. 81(i)(a) provided for the exemption of the income-tax and not the exemption of the additional surcharge leviable on the residual income, the mistake was apparent and was rightly corrected by the ITO. The AAC as well as the Tribunal were not right in holding that the mistake was not apparent on the face of the record. For these reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (7) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... to refer the above question for our opinion. We do not think that there is any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is clear from the correspondence referred to in para. 4 of the order of the Tribunal that it was only on 16th April, 1966, that I.T.C. Ltd. agreed to waive the recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs which is the subject-matter of this case. The letters previous to the letter dated 16th April, 1966, which are dealt with by the Tribunal do not show that there was any firm commitment on the part of the I.T.C. Ltd. to waive any amount till 16th April, 1966. The income must, therefore, be treated as having accrued subsequent to the end of the accounting year 1965-66. It could not therefore be taxed as the income of the assessee for the previous year ending March 31, 1966. The view taken by the Tribunal has to be sustained. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee is Rs. 250.
-
1978 (7) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... of a priority industry. But it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on it, for, in our opinion, question No. 1 is a pure academic question in view of our answer to question No. 2 as hereinafter stated. Mr. Ajit Sengupta, learned counsel for the revenue, argues that the view taken by the Tribunal is the only view that can be taken on the interpretation of r. 4 to the Second Schedule of the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964, and there cannot be two conceivable views on it. But the Karnataka High Court in the case of Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa Pvt. Ltd. v. 2nd ITO 1976 102 ITR 320 has taken a diametrically opposite view and, therefore, the case cannot come within the ambit of s. 13 of the C. (P.) S.T. Act, 1964, and, accordingly, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 2, we decline to answer question No. 1 which has become purely academic. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (7) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... iod for know-how and data. The assessee in that case did not acquire ownership of such know-how or data. The case of CIT v. Lucas-T.V.S. Ltd. (No. 1) 1977 110 ITR 338 (Mad) is equally unhelpful. Here also the term of the agreement of technical collaboration was that after the expiry of the period of licence, the stock remaining in hand was to be sold and royalty way payable therefor. It was found that the assessee had no right to manufacture fresh articles on the basis of know-how which it had obtained from the foreign company, after the termination of the agreement. The payments were held to be in the nature of a licence fee for the period the agreement remained in force. For the reasons already mentioned, this case is also equally distinguishable. We answer the question referred to us by holding that a sum of Rs. 28,917 did, in the circumstances of the case, constitute an item of capital expenditure. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (7) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Concession, Income Tax Rules, Industrial Undertaking
....
|
