Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1979 1979 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 157 Records

• 1979 (9) TMI 38
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of partial partition claim by the assessee-HUF.
  2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,300 to the income of the assessee-HUF for the assessment year 1970-71.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of partial partition claim by the assessee-HUF
  The case involved a partial partition claim by an HUF where the karta, after the death of the father, divided the joint family property among himself, his mother, and two sisters. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected the claim citing the need for at least two coparceners for a valid partition. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) accepted the claim, and the Tribunal upheld the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that a widowed mother cannot compel a partition, but the karta has the right to end the joint status and partition the properties. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and held that even with one male coparcener, a partition can be valid. The Tribunal concluded that the karta validly effected a partial partition, which was either legally competent or could be considered a family arrangement under Hindu law.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,300 to the income of the assessee-HUF
  The second issue pertained to the addition of Rs. 6,300 to the income of the assessee-HUF by the ITO. This addition was based on interest accrued on the amount involved in the partial partition. The AAC deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the decision in line with the acceptance of the partial partition claim. The Tribunal's reasoning was that since the partial partition was valid, there was no basis for adding the interest amount to the income of the HUF. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,300 was justified based on the validity of the partial partition claim.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on both issues, stating that the karta had the right to partition the property, and the deletion of the additional income amount was warranted due to the valid partial partition. The judgment was delivered by J. V. GUPTA and B. S. DHILLON, dismissing the department's appeal and upholding the decisions in favor of the assessee-HUF.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 37
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the endorsement of a cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs by the assessee to his daughter constituted a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
  2. The beneficial interest of the assessee in the cheque amount.
  3. The applicability of gift-tax on the transaction.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the endorsement of a cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs by the assessee to his daughter constituted a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
  The primary issue revolves around whether the act of the assessee endorsing a cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs in favor of his daughter, Princess Pratap Kumari, qualifies as a gift chargeable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Tribunal concluded that the cheque was drawn in favor of the assessee by Shri Pratap Singh of Wankaner for and on behalf of his (assessee's) daughter only. The Tribunal's finding was that the assessee had no beneficial interest in the amount of the cheque, and thus, the endorsement did not constitute a gift.
  
  2. The beneficial interest of the assessee in the cheque amount.
  The Tribunal found that the cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs was intended for the benefit of Princess Pratap Kumari and not the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the affidavit submitted by the assessee, wherein he stated that he had no beneficial interest in the cheque amount and acted merely as a conduit pipe. The Tribunal noted that the agreement dated February 24, 1960, was executed to settle all claims and counterclaims between the parties, and the cheque was issued in the assessee's name only to indemnify the daughter's husband and father-in-law against any future claims she might make.
  
  3. The applicability of gift-tax on the transaction.
  The Tribunal held that since the cheque amount belonged to Princess Pratap Kumari and the assessee had no beneficial interest in it, the transaction did not constitute a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that there was no conscious act by the assessee to transfer his assets voluntarily to his daughter. The Tribunal's conclusion was that the endorsement of the cheque by the assessee in favor of his daughter did not attract gift-tax as the amount did not belong to the assessee.
  
  Judgment:
  The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the act of endorsing the cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs by the assessee in favor of his daughter did not constitute a gift chargeable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's finding of fact, which is binding, indicated that the cheque amount was intended for the benefit of Princess Pratap Kumari and not the assessee. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, confirming that the endorsement did not constitute a taxable gift.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 36
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the income of the assessee should be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 or in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48.
  2. Whether the remuneration received by the assessee from Kalyanmal Mills Ltd. in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, pursuant to the final decree passed on 14th December 1965, could be considered as income accrued in the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Assessment Years for Income
  The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee should be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, not in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for the assessment of arrears of salary on a receipt basis if they were not charged to income-tax for any earlier previous year. The Tribunal found that the relationship between the assessee and the mills was that of master and servant, making the remuneration taxable under the head "Salary." The Tribunal also noted that the mills had disputed their liability to pay the remuneration, and the amount became due only after the final decree was passed on 14th December 1965. Therefore, the amounts received in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were rightly assessed in those years.
  
  Issue 2: Accrual of Income
  The Tribunal's decision on whether the remuneration received in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 could be considered as income accrued in the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 was contested. The Tribunal held that the remuneration did not accrue until the final decree was passed in 1965. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the mills had disputed the liability, and the amount could not be considered due until the court's decision. This view was supported by the interpretation of Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for the taxation of arrears of salary on a receipt basis if they were not charged to income-tax in any earlier previous year.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  - Sohani J.: Agreed with the Tribunal's findings and held that the remuneration became due only after the final decree in 1965. Therefore, the income should be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68.
  
  - Oza J.: Disagreed with Sohani J. and the Tribunal. Held that the remuneration became due in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48, even though it was not paid or ascertained until the final decree. Oza J. argued that the arrears of salary could not be taxed under Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because they were due in years when the Indian Income Tax Act did not apply to the Holkar State.
  
  - G.P. Singh C.J.: Agreed with Sohani J. on the first question, holding that Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applied and the income should be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. However, agreed with Oza J. on the second question, holding that the remuneration became due in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48.
  
  Conclusion:
  The final judgment was that the income of the assessee should be assessed in the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, as per Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the remuneration was considered to have become due in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The case was referred back to the Division Bench for final disposal, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 35
  
  Issues:
  Assessment of share income from a partnership business in the hands of an individual or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) status.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the assessment of share income from a partnership business in the hands of an individual or HUF status. The family of the assessee underwent a partial partition, leading to the conversion of their family business into a partnership business. The main contention was whether the share income from the partnership business should be assessed in the hands of the assessee as an individual or in the status of HUF. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially assessed the income in the hands of the individual, rejecting the claim of the assessee to be assessed in the status of HUF. The Appellate Tribunal also disagreed with the claim, stating that the property received on partial partition would be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the assessee, even though he was being assessed as an individual for income tax purposes.
  
  For the assessment year 1972-73, a similar claim was made by the assessee regarding share income from the partnership business, which was rejected by the ITO. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the action of the ITO based on its previous decisions. The main dispute centered on the character of the property received by a coparcener in a partial partition. The assessee claimed that he could impress his separate property with HUF character, while the department argued that the property was not capable of being blended as it was not self-acquired property.
  
  The court analyzed the legal principles around coparcenary property and self-acquired property in Hindu Law. It referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that property obtained on partition is ancestral property as regards male issue but separate property for other relations. The court concluded that the property received by the assessee on partition was his self-acquired property, as he had no male issue other than the son who had separated. Therefore, the assessee had the right to impress the property with HUF character, allowing the income from the partnership business to be treated as the family's income.
  
  In light of the above analysis, the court answered the question regarding the share income from the partnership business in favor of the assessee and against the department, as the income was to be treated as the income of the assessee's family. The question regarding property income was left unanswered due to a lack of material. The assessee was awarded costs and counsel's fees in the judgment.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 34
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the provisions of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the continuation of registration of a firm.
  2. Determination of whether a reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment addressed a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred questions of law to the High Court for opinion. The first issue involved the interpretation of section 184(7) of the Act, specifically focusing on the continuity of registration for a firm. The court examined the proviso to section 184(7), which states that registration granted to a firm shall cease to be effective for subsequent years if there is a change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as per the partnership instrument. In the case at hand, one partner had retired, leading to a change in the firm's constitution, rendering the registration ineffective. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the order for the continuation of registration by the Income Tax Officer was not in accordance with the law.
  
  Regarding the second issue, the court analyzed whether a reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. It was noted that the Additional Commissioner issued a notice to show cause, and although the assessee's counsel requested an adjournment, the Commissioner proceeded with the case due to the absence of the assessee. The court found that no legal obligation required the Commissioner to grant the adjournment as requested. Therefore, it was concluded that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was indeed extended to the assessee, as there was no failure on the Commissioner's part to provide such an opportunity.
  
  In conclusion, the court answered both questions in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and emphasized the significance of adherence to legal procedures in matters of taxation.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 33
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the ante-adoption agreement dated April 18, 1931, and the ratification agreement dated December 22, 1934, amounted to a settlement or disposition of the properties in question.
  2. Whether the estates in question covered by the agreements are includible in the estate of the deceased by virtue of section 24(1) of the Estate Duty Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Settlement or Disposition of Properties
  
  The court examined whether the agreements dated April 18, 1931, and December 22, 1934, amounted to a "disposition" of the properties in question under section 24 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
  
  The facts revealed that Anandibai, after her husband's death, adopted Ramachandrarao with government permission. An ante-adoption agreement was made on April 18, 1931, between Anandibai and the natural father of Ramachandrarao, which allowed Anandibai to possess and enjoy certain watan lands and a house during her lifetime. The agreement was signed by the natural father on behalf of the minor Ramachandrarao.
  
  Clause (6) of the agreement specified that Anandibai would possess and enjoy the watan lands for her lifetime without the right to dispose of them. The court noted that this agreement was valid by custom, as established by the Privy Council in Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Krishnamurthi Ayyar, which upheld arrangements made on adoption where the widow enjoys the property during her lifetime.
  
  The court concluded that by clause (6) of the agreement, the natural father of Ramachandrarao, on his behalf, gave up the right to possess and enjoy the watan lands in favor of Anandibai, thus constituting a "disposition" of the properties. The court rejected the department's argument that the agreement was merely a family arrangement, noting that Anandibai did not give up any rights under the agreement.
  
  The court also considered the ratification agreement dated December 22, 1934, which reiterated that Anandibai would enjoy the properties for her lifetime. This agreement was signed by Ramachandrarao after he attained majority, further confirming the disposition of the properties.
  
  Issue 2: Inclusion of Estates in the Deceased's Estate
  
  The court examined whether the value of the watan lands should be included in Anandibai's estate under section 24(1) of the Estate Duty Act. Section 24(1) states that property shall not be deemed to pass by reason only of its reverter to the disponer if an interest is conferred on a person for their lifetime and they retain possession of it.
  
  The court noted that Anandibai had a life interest in the watan lands, which ceased upon her death. The court found that the agreements constituted a disposition of the properties, conferring a life interest on Anandibai. Therefore, the value of the watan lands was not includible in her estate by virtue of section 24(1).
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court reframed and answered the first question, stating that the agreement of April 18, 1931, and, if not, the agreement of December 22, 1934, amounted to a "disposition" of the properties within the meaning of section 24 of the Estate Duty Act. For the second question, the court held that the value of the watan lands was not includible in Anandibai's estate by reason of section 24(1). The court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 32
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of provisions of Estate Duty Act, 1953 regarding inclusion of gifted sums in deceased's estate; Application of sections 10 and 22 of the Act; Exclusion of property held by deceased as trustee from estate value.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, involving questions on the inclusion of gifted sums in the deceased's estate. The deceased, a partner in two firms and a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family, made gifts totaling Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 31,000 to near relatives. The court considered whether these amounts should be included in the estate value under section 10 of the Act. It was argued that the gifts made to the Hindu undivided family should be treated differently, but the court held that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases applied, and both amounts were not liable for estate duty.
  
  Regarding the second question, the deceased had executed a trust deed for charitable purposes, investing Rs. 40,000 with a firm in which he was a partner. At the time of his death, Rs. 20,000 remained in the trust account. The revenue authorities contended that section 22 of the Act applied, making the remaining amount subject to estate duty. However, the court found that the conditions under section 22 were akin to those of section 10, and following the Supreme Court's precedents, ruled in favor of the accountable person, excluding the Rs. 20,000 from the estate value.
  
  In conclusion, the court answered both questions in the negative, determining that the gifted sums and the trust fund amount were not includible in the deceased's estate. The accountable person was awarded costs for the reference. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the application of relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act and the interpretation of Supreme Court decisions in similar cases to reach the final decision.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 31
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act regarding gifts of cash amounts.
  2. Inclusion of gifted amount in the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Act.
  3. Inclusion of the value of a share in the goodwill of a firm in the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The court found it unnecessary to consider whether section 10 of the Estate Duty Act covers gifts of cash amounts as it was agreed that it was covered by the second question.
  
  Issue 2:
  The court determined that the total sum of Rs. 1,60,000 gifted by the deceased to his sons and grandsons should not be included in the estate of the deceased, based on previous court decisions and the assumption that the gift was entirely excluded from the donor.
  
  Issue 3:
  Regarding the inclusion of the value of a share in the goodwill of a firm in the deceased's estate, the court analyzed the provisions of section 10 of the Act. It was argued that the deceased had not been entirely excluded from the subject-matter of the gift. However, the court held that the deceased continued to enjoy his own share in the partnership, which had not been gifted, and therefore, the value of the share in the goodwill was not liable to be included in the estate. The court cited previous cases to support this decision, emphasizing that the donor must be entirely excluded from the possession and enjoyment of the gifted property for it to be included in the estate.
  
  In conclusion, the court declined to answer the first question, answered the second and third questions in the negative, and ordered the department to pay the costs of the reference to the accountable person.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 30
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Inclusion of insurance policy amounts in the estate of the deceased.
  2. Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the sum gifted by the deceased to his grandchildren.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Inclusion of Insurance Policy Amounts in the Estate of the Deceased:
  When the case reached hearing, the applicant's advocate stated that the applicant did not desire the court to give any answer to this question. Consequently, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on this issue.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the Sum Gifted by the Deceased to His Grandchildren:
  Material Facts:
  The deceased gifted two sums of Rs. 75,000 each to his minor grandchildren on May 11, 1955, and July 23, 1956. These amounts were deposited in the firm where the deceased was a partner. The deceased retired from the firm on November 12, 1958, and died on March 25, 1960. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (CED) included these sums in the estate of the deceased under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, which was upheld by the Appellate CED and the Tribunal.
  
  Legal Provisions:
  Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act states that property taken under any gift shall be deemed to pass on the donor's death if bona fide possession and enjoyment of it was not immediately assumed by the donee and retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or any benefit to him by contract or otherwise.
  
  Supreme Court Precedents:
  - George Da Costa v. CED [1967] 63 ITR 497 (SC): The crux of Section 10 lies in two parts: (1) The donee must bona fide assume possession and enjoyment of the property to the exclusion of the donor immediately upon the gift, and (2) the donee must retain such possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor or any benefit to him by contract or otherwise.
  - CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448 (SC): The Supreme Court held that neither the house property nor the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 gifted could be deemed to pass under Section 10. The benefit the donor had as a member of the partnership was not referable to the gift but was unconnected therewith.
  - CED v. N. R. Ramarathnam [1973] 91 ITR 1 (SC): The Supreme Court held that amounts gifted by making adjustment entries in the firm's books were not liable to be included in the estate of the deceased.
  
  Privy Council Precedents:
  - H. R. Munro v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1934] AC 61: Held that property transferred by gift was excluded from being dutiable because the donees had assumed and retained possession, and any benefit remaining in the donor was referable to the partnership agreement entered into earlier than the gifts.
  - Clifford John Chick v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1958] AC 435: Held that the value of the land gifted to the son was to be included in computing the value of the father's estate for death duty because the donor was not entirely excluded from the property.
  
  High Court Decisions:
  - CED v. Thanwar Dass [1974] 94 ITR 101 (Allahabad High Court): Held that there was no material distinction between gifts of cash made to a donee and subsequently invested in the firm and gifts made by making transfer entries in the firm's books.
  - Sakarlal Chunilal v. CED [1975] 98 ITR 610 (Gujarat High Court): Drew a distinction between gifts made by making entries in the firm's books and gifts of money deposited in the firm, holding that the latter were exigible to estate duty.
  
  Supreme Court Clarification:
  - CED v. Smt. Kamlavati and CED v. Jai Gopal Mehra [1979] 120 ITR 456 (SC): Clarified that the mere fact of the donor sharing the enjoyment or benefit in the property with the partnership firm does not attract Section 10 unless such enjoyment is clearly referable to the gift. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles laid down in its previous decisions should be broadly applied without excessive dichotomy and hair-splitting of facts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court found no material difference between the facts of the present case and those in Jai Gopal Mehra's case, which was decided in favor of the accountable person. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the negative, in favor of the accountable person and against the department. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 600.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 29
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Interpretation of "information" under section 147(b).
  3. Application of section 64(iii) for clubbing spouse's income.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment of the deceased assessee for the assessment year 1963-64, based on the information that the assessee's wife, Smt. Durga Devi, was also a partner in the firm, and her share income should have been clubbed with the assessee's income. The ITO included the share income of the assessee's wife under section 64(iii) and revised the total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that there was no new information received by the ITO from an external source, and the reopening under section 147(b) was invalid. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, leading to the reference for the High Court's opinion on whether the assessment was validly made under section 147(b).
  
  2. Interpretation of "information" under section 147(b):
  The court examined the meaning of "information" under section 147(b), referencing several Supreme Court decisions. It was emphasized that for section 147(b) to apply, the ITO must have received information from an external source after the original assessment. The court referred to the leading case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT, which held that "information" includes the true and correct state of the law, covering relevant judicial decisions. In CIT v. A. Raman and Co., it was ruled that "information" must be derived from an external source concerning facts or law. The court noted that the latest Supreme Court decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT clarified that "information" as to law must come from a formal source, like legislative or judicial authority.
  
  3. Application of section 64(iii) for clubbing spouse's income:
  The court acknowledged that the assessee had disclosed the constitution of the firm and his relationship with his wife in the original return. The ITO failed to include the wife's share income under section 64(iii) during the original assessment. The court held that the ITO's failure to apply the law correctly does not justify reopening the assessment under section 147(b). The ITO's subsequent realization of the mistake does not constitute new "information" as required by section 147(b). The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a fresh look at the same facts, not on new information from a formal source.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling that the assessment was not validly made under section 147(b). The court agreed with the Tribunal's view that the ITO's non-application of mind to the legal provisions during the original assessment did not justify reopening the assessment. The respondents were entitled to their costs, assessed at Rs. 200, and counsel fee in like figure.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 28
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions related to total income under section 23(2) and section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir addressed the issue of whether the total income of the owner under the proviso to section 23(2) includes income under section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court analyzed the definitions of "total income" and "gross total income" as per the Act. It was concluded that the total income of an owner would indeed include income of his minor child assessable under section 64. However, the Court clarified that "total income" and "gross total income" are not interchangeable, and the concept of each is distinct. Therefore, the Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative, stating that total income under section 5 is not equivalent to gross total income as defined in section 80B(5).
  
  In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the inclusion of income under section 64 in the total income of the owner but disagreed with the notion that total income is the same as gross total income. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 150.
  
  This judgment clarifies the scope of total income under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the inclusion of income under section 64 in the total income of an owner while distinguishing it from gross total income as defined in the Act.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 27
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the company on the entertainment of customers and clients was in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2) of the Act.
  2. Whether the Abohar Ginning Unit was entitled to exemption u/s 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
  3. Whether one-half of the profits of the previous years should be added to the capital computation for purposes of calculating the relief u/s 84.
  4. Whether the ITO was justified in estimating the annual letting value of the premises at Rs. 96,000 notwithstanding the rent of Rs. 27,462 received from Modi Industries Ltd.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Entertainment Expenditure u/s 37(2)
  The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,016 as entertainment expenditure incurred on customers, merchants, and agents, following the precedent set in Brij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 541. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view that this amount falls within the scope of s. 37(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
  
  Issue 2: Exemption u/s 84 for Abohar Ginning Unit
  The Tribunal found that the Abohar Ginning Unit was a separate and economically viable unit, not formed by the reconstruction of an existing business. It was entitled to relief under s. 84 of the Act. The court supported this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC), which emphasized that a new industrial undertaking must be distinct and separate from the existing business.
  
  Issue 3: Addition of Profits to Capital Computation u/s 84
  The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim to include one-half of the profits in the capital computation for the purpose of rebate u/s 84, as per r. 19(5) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The court agreed, referencing the decision in Addl. CIT v. Hind Lamps (P.) Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 360, which held that profits derived from a new undertaking should be included in determining the capital employed.
  
  Issue 4: Estimation of Annual Letting Value
  The Tribunal reduced the annual letting value from Rs. 44,209 to Rs. 27,432, the actual rent received from Modi Industries Ltd., as it was deemed fair and reasonable under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U.P. Act 3 of 1947). The court agreed, noting that the actual rent received should be regarded as the fair annual letting value when the property is subject to rent control limitations and there is no evidence to suggest the agreed rent is not fair and reasonable.
  
  Conclusion:
  1. Against the assessee and in favor of the department.
  2. In the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department.
  3. In the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department.
  4. In the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the department.
  
  The parties were directed to bear their own costs due to divided success.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 26
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Accrual of liability for the sum paid to Ahmedabad Textile Industry Research Association.
  2. Validity of the addition to the book results of the Pondicherry Unit by the Appellate Tribunal.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Accrual of Liability for the Sum Paid to Ahmedabad Textile Industry Research Association
  
  The assessee, a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth, claimed a deduction of Rs. 18,533 paid to Ahmedabad Textile Industry Research Association for the year ended March 31, 1958. The payment was made in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61 due to a dispute. The ITO disallowed the claim, stating the expenditure's nature was unknown and it related to a different period. The AAC agreed it was of a revenue nature but upheld the disallowance based on the period mismatch. The Tribunal also disallowed the claim, agreeing with the revenue authorities.
  
  The court held that in the mercantile system of accounting, a liability based on contractual obligation arises only when it is ascertained. The court cited several cases, including Kedar Nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) and Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC), to support its view. The court concluded that the assessee's claim was allowable as the liability accrued when the dispute was settled. Thus, the court disagreed with the Tribunal's view.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of the Addition to the Book Results of the Pondicherry Unit
  
  The assessee disclosed a net loss of Rs. 10,19,684 for the Pondicherry unit. The ITO found discrepancies in the stocks and added Rs. 15,77,643 to the book results. The AAC confirmed this addition. The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 6,81,643, applying a gross profit rate of 3% on estimated sales.
  
  The court examined whether the Tribunal considered irrelevant material or omitted relevant material. The assessee argued that the Tribunal ignored a chart explaining the discrepancies. The court noted that the discrepancies were in raw materials, stock-in-process, and finished products, and the Tribunal had accepted the explanation partially but required further justification for the entire discrepancy. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed examination of facts and was consistent with findings from the previous year.
  
  The court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was a pure finding of fact, which could not be questioned in a reference before the court. Thus, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and question No. 2 in the negative, in favor of the department. No order as to costs was made due to the divided success and failure of the parties.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 25
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law regarding concealment of income by the assessee for penalty under section 271(1)(c) to the court for opinion.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 24
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the loss of Rs. 2,30,000 on account of increase in the liability of the loans payable in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction?
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Background and Facts:
  The assessee, an Indian company in collaboration with Groz-Beckert International A.G., faced an increased liability due to the devaluation of the Indian currency. The company had taken a loan from its collaborators to meet additional project costs. The devaluation led to an increased repayment amount in rupees, resulting in a claimed loss of Rs. 2,30,000.
  
  2. Tribunal's Findings:
  The Tribunal observed that the loan was received from the supplier of machinery at the beginning of the company's career, treating it as part of the capital structure. It upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,30,000 as a capital loss while allowing Rs. 13,800 as business expenditure.
  
  3. Assessee's Contention:
  The assessee argued that the loan was for working capital, not for erecting the profit-making apparatus. It contended that the Tribunal should have determined the utilization of the loan in the relevant financial year, which it failed to do.
  
  4. Revenue's Argument:
  The revenue maintained that the loan was intended for capital account purposes, making the loss a capital loss. It argued that the Tribunal's finding that the loan was part of fixed capital was a question of fact and should not be disturbed.
  
  5. Court's Analysis:
  The court highlighted that the crucial factor is the utilization of the loan, not the source or timing of the loan. It referred to Supreme Court judgments in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd., and CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd., emphasizing that the nature of the capital (fixed or circulating) depends on its utilization in the business.
  
  6. Conclusion:
  The court found that the Tribunal had considered irrelevant factors and failed to determine the actual utilization of the loan in the relevant assessment year. It held that such a finding of fact, influenced by irrelevant considerations, is not binding. The case was sent back to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in light of the court's observations.
  
  Order:
  The case is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on the correct criteria. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 23
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and determination of applicable law for penalty calculation.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty proceedings against an individual assessee for the assessment year 1959-60. The Tribunal had to decide whether the default leading to penalty was attributable to the original assessment return or the revised return filed later. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the correct law for imposing the penalty, specifically whether it should be based on the pre-amendment provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
  
  The assessee initially filed a return for the assessment year, which was later reopened by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). Subsequently, the assessee filed another return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, declaring an income of Rs. 5,000. The ITO added Rs. 20,000 as undisclosed income, later reduced to Rs. 11,000 by the Appellate Authority. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 11,000 imposed by the IAC, representing the addition made by the Appellate Authority.
  
  The Tribunal held that the default leading to penalty should be attributed to the original assessment return and that the applicable law for penalty calculation would be the provisions of section 271(1)(c) before its amendment on April 1, 1968. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's findings. It emphasized that the penalty is imposed for a wrongful act, and the law in force at the time of the wrongful act determines the penalty. Therefore, the Court concluded that the default should be linked to the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, and the penalty calculation should be based on the law applicable at the time of that filing, i.e., after April 1, 1968.
  
  In light of these considerations, the High Court answered both questions referred by the Tribunal in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The Court also directed that each party would bear its own costs in this reference.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 22
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 2(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and rule 7 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 regarding allowance of expenses incurred by an assessee-company on its agricultural operations for raising sugarcane in computing income from business.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, under section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, sought the court's opinion on whether expenses incurred by an assessee-company on its agricultural operations for raising sugarcane are allowable in computing income from business. The assessee, a limited company manufacturing sugar from sugarcane grown on its lands, faced a disallowance of expenses by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) during assessment. The ITO disallowed a portion of expenses related to agricultural operations, leading to subsequent appeals and the ultimate reference to the High Court.
  
  The core issue revolved around the disallowance of expenses attributable to agricultural activity by the department. The ITO disallowed a specific amount as proportionate overhead expenses related to agricultural operations, which was upheld in part by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). However, the Tribunal allowed the entire claim of the assessee, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving sugarcane cultivation and sugar manufacturing. The High Court scrutinized the facts and legal principles to determine the validity of the disallowance.
  
  The High Court meticulously analyzed the expenses allocation and the nature of the costs involved in sugarcane cultivation and sugar production. It was observed that the expenses disallowed by the ITO were erroneously attributed to agricultural operations without a valid basis. The court emphasized the distinction between management expenses and expenses related to agricultural activities, highlighting that expenses directly linked to agricultural operations could be considered as allowable deductions under relevant provisions.
  
  Drawing on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., the High Court established that the cultivation of sugarcane and the subsequent sugar manufacturing constituted a single business entity. This understanding was pivotal in determining the allowability of expenses incurred by the assessee towards agricultural operations. The court concluded that the department lacked a legal basis to disallow the expenses in question, affirming the assessee's entitlement to succeed in the reference.
  
  Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the revenue's contentions and directing the revenue to bear the costs of the reference. The judgment underscored the importance of aligning expense disallowances with the specific nature of activities and expenditures involved in the business operations, emphasizing the legal principles governing deductions in such scenarios.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 21
  
  Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for determination of questions regarding tenancy, transfer, and capital gain.
  
  Issue 1 - Tenancy as a capital asset:
  The assessee, a tenant of a flat in Rutty Engineer House, had the tenancy terminated and became a statutory tenant. Subsequently, the assessee surrendered the tenancy right in exchange for an ownership flat in IL PALAZZO. The question arose whether this transaction constituted a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act.
  
  Issue 2 - Surrender of tenancy right and transfer:
  The Tribunal had to determine if the surrender of the tenancy right in exchange for the ownership flat constituted a "transfer" u/s 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee disputed the validity of the notice to quit served by Jolly and Maker Pvt. Ltd., but ultimately vacated the flat and received alternate accommodation.
  
  Issue 3 - Liability for capital gain tax:
  The main question was whether the transfer of the tenancy right and the subsequent acquisition of the ownership flat attracted liability for capital gain tax u/s 45 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  The High Court, considering the similarity of facts with a previous case, CIT v. Jehmi Jal Cooper, where a similar application was rejected by the Supreme Court, dismissed the application u/s 256(2) of the I.T. Act. The court found no reason to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions for determination. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 20
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Existence of the partnership firm during the relevant period.
  2. Validity of profit distribution among partners.
  3. Eligibility for registration under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Existence of the Partnership Firm During the Relevant Period:
  
  The primary issue was whether the partnership firm existed from April 1, 1971, to February 21, 1972. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) rejected the firm's registration application, asserting that the firm did not exist during this period. They contended that the firm only came into being on February 22, 1972, when Firdoos Ahmad Bhat was inducted as a new partner.
  
  The Tribunal, however, disagreed, stating that the firm was governed by two different partnership deeds during the relevant year: the deed dated March 25, 1970, and the deed dated March 27, 1972. They concluded that the firm was indeed in existence throughout the year, governed by the respective deeds.
  
  The court clarified that the induction of a new partner constituted a reconstitution, not a dissolution, of the firm. Citing Tyresoles (India), Calcutta v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 515 (Mad), the court emphasized that reconstitution implies a structural alteration without ending the firm's existence. The partnership deed dated March 27, 1972, was supplemental to the deed dated March 25, 1970, indicating continuity rather than a fresh start.
  
  2. Validity of Profit Distribution Among Partners:
  
  The second issue revolved around the distribution of profits for the entire year, including the period before the new partner joined. The ITO and AAC argued that Firdoos Ahmad Bhat could not be allocated profits for the entire year as he joined only on February 22, 1972.
  
  The Tribunal acknowledged the error in profit distribution but asserted that this mistake alone was insufficient to deny registration. The court supported this view, stating that once a firm is found genuine and in existence during the relevant year, registration cannot be refused merely due to non-compliance with profit distribution terms.
  
  Referencing R. C. Mitter & Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 194 (SC), the court noted that the Supreme Court's decision was based on pre-1961 rules, which were materially different from the current provisions under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  3. Eligibility for Registration Under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  
  The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the firm's registration for the assessment year 1972-73. The court examined Section 185, which mandates the ITO to inquire into the firm's genuineness and constitution as specified in the partnership instrument. If satisfied, the ITO must register the firm; otherwise, he must refuse registration.
  
  The court concluded that the partnership deed dated March 25, 1970, along with the modifications in the deed dated March 27, 1972, met the legal requirements for registration. The deeds evidenced a genuine firm in existence during the relevant year, satisfying Section 185's criteria.
  
  The court also referenced Waddington v. O'Callaghan [1931] 16 TC 187, 197 (KB), explaining that retrospective clauses in partnership deeds relate to accounting purposes rather than altering the actual date of partnership formation.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the firm was eligible for registration for the assessment year 1972-73. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department. No order as to costs was made, and counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 150.

  ---

• 1979 (9) TMI 19
  
  Issues:
  Application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to refer a question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the computation of deduction u/s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court was approached with an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to refer a question of law arising from the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The question pertained to the application of rule 19A(3) in computing the deduction allowable u/s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal had directed the ITO to recompute the deduction without reference to rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The High Court noted that the question posed was indeed a question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.
  
  The High Court considered two main reasons for not making the reference initially. Firstly, it was argued that the vires of rule 19A(3) had already been considered by the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court, both holding the rule to be ultra vires. However, the High Court held that until the validity of the sub-rule is finally determined by the High Court, the question remains a substantial question of law. Secondly, it was contended that under a previous decision, an order of remand could not be made the subject of a reference. The High Court expressed doubts about the applicability of this decision to the current case, as the matter had been remitted only for a routine arithmetical calculation without reference to the rule in question.
  
  Ultimately, the High Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law to the court. The court emphasized that the question posed contained substantial legal issues, including the validity of the rule in question and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine its vires. The High Court left the final determination of the applicability of previous decisions to the hearing of the reference. The application was allowed, and the Tribunal was instructed to refer the question to the High Court in accordance with the law.

  ---

1 ....345678