|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 175 Records
-
1982 (1) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Relief U/S 15C ... ... ... ... ..... kept idle. (2) A rotary tablet-making machine was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 19,601 on 18th November, 1958, three months after the production of goods by the assessee was commenced. The industrial undertaking could not be regarded as having been formed by the use of that machine. (3) reconditioned tablet-making machine of the value of Rs.2,987 was purchased from Kilburn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. It was held that out of the machinery of the value of Rs. 58,003, the said tablet-making machine was of insignificant value and even if its user is assumed, it will not affect the claim for exemption and the contention of the Revenue that the benefit of s. 15C(2) was not available to the assessee could not be accepted. This decision completely supports the view, which we have taken, as stated earlier. In view of the aforesaid, the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay to the assessee the costs of this reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ies, the petitioners had to suffer a heavy loss in stopping their business in view of the order of acquisition dated May 20, 1976. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners could not stop their business overnight or right on the day on which the authorities may choose to take possession of the property. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner have some claim on account of the alleged loss suffered by them, they have to seek their remedy in a proper forum but certainly not in these proceeding under art 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of this jurisdiction no damages can possibly be assessed as claimed by the petitioners. So far as the second relief of the petitioners is concerned, as already indicated, the respondent authorities have already paid them the amount claimed, that is, Rs. 28,000. They are not entitled to any further amount on that account. As a result of the discussion above, this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Income From Property, Interest In Property, Property Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... enefit accruing or arising from the said cesser under any of the provisions of the Act including section 40. To put it differently, the cesser of such interest is not made exigible to duty. It, therefore, appears to us that the Tribunal was not justified in relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Manian Natesan s case 1965 56 ITR (ED) 5, and on the view which we have taken, even though there was a cesser of interest,, the benefit arising therefrom was not exigible to duty because the provisions in S. 40(a) of the E.D. Act did not contemplate a computation of the value of such a benefit. Accordingly, question No, (1) referred to us is answered by holding that though there was a cesser of interest and property could be said to be deemed to pass, the benefit accruing therefrom would not be liable to estate duty. In view of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (2) does not arise and need not be answered. The costs of the reference will be paid by the Revenue.
-
1982 (1) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exclusion From Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... he English cases referred to above. From the above, it is clear that in order to constitute an investment, the moneys must be laid out in such a manner as to acquire some species of properties which would bring an income to the investor. Viewed in that sense, we are unable to conclude that there has been an investment of any moneys by the assessee with any of the partnership firms. The various partnership firms are bound to return the moneys due and payable to the assessee-firm as and when demanded. It has not been found either by the Tribunal or by the lower authorities that the said moneys have been invested by the assessee-firm as understood in business parlance with a view to obtain any profit. It necessarily follows that cl. (h) of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 is equally not attracted. We agree with the findings entered by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (1) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ms of the trust deed before us it is clear that neither the said Jehangir nor the said Ardeshir, the grandchildren of the assessee, can be said to have any vested interest in the corpus of the trust during the relevant assessment year and the terms of the deed of trust make it quite clear that the interest of these grandchildren would be vested only on their surviving, in any event, up to 10th March, 1973. That this is so is not disputed by the department before us and in view of this it must be held that during the relevant assessment year there was no vested interest created in any beneficiary other than charity by the said deed of trust. In the result the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question (1) In the affirmative. Question (2) In the affirmative. Question (3) In the negative. Question (4) In the negative. It is clarified that all the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner must pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ember, 1964. That being so, the assessee knew that she was to receive her share of profit. So far as the transaction with M/s. Thakur Dass Naresh Kumar is concerned, Mr. B. S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, laid great stress on the letter dated 26th April, 1965, wherein it has been written that the assessee was likely to incur a loss of Rs. 16,000 to Rs. 17,000. As the facts stand, this letter is of no help to the assessee, as she had not brought any material on the record to prove the date on which the transaction was settled, as a result of which she had received profit from M/s. Thakur Dass Naresh Kumar, on 15th March, 1968. The Tribunal, on the material available on the record, has rightly held that penalty under s. 273(b) of the Act was exigible. Consequently, the question referred for our decision is answered in the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no Order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Limitation For Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... hich the amendment came into effect. The amendment would then have had to be held to be operative in the assessee s case and the department s right to impose the penalty up to 31st March, 1973, upheld. We are, therefore, of opinion that if limitation had to be reckoned from the date of the reassessment order then the penalty order would have been within time but that, since, for the reasons stated earlier the time has to be counted from February 28, 1969, the penalty order cannot be upheld. For the reasons discussed above, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and the second question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As we have rested our conclusion on a basis different from that adopted by the Tribunal in deciding the case and as one of the contentions of the department has been accepted, we do not think that this is a case in which the department should be asked to pay the costs of the assessee. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals, Nature Of Body Of Individuals
-
1982 (1) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on on the question of concealment, although it may not have been resorted to at the stage when the reference was made to the authority imposing the penalty. While we may occur with the view of the Gujarat High Court that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) enacts a rule of evidence, it has to be noted that the decision in Kantilal Case 1981 130 ITR 411 (Guj), sustaining the penalty turned on the fact that there was a finding that there was a manipulation of accounts. The facts in the case before us, as already pointed out, clearly show that there was no manipulation whatsoever, and, according to the Tribunal, the accounts have been maintained in such a manner as was possible in the circumstances of the case. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of penalty, and, consequently, question No. 2 has to be answered in the negative and against the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal has found as fact that the three amounts in favour of the three daughters were kept for marriage expenses at the time of the partition in the year 1958, that as these three amounts were exclusively given to the three daughters as marriage expenses before partition, the same could not, after the partition be, in law, said to belong to Basant Singh, karta, and that in the circumstances of the case no question could arise for throwing into the hotchpot, of the three amounts given to the three daughters before partition. In view of these findings, it is quite evident that the three amounts were given to the daughters before partition and the same belonged to them exclusively. In this situation, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the said amounts could not be treated as the income of the assessee. Consequently, the answer to question No.1 is returned in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ashed or the orders of penalty should be set aside, will be a matter which it was open to the Tribunal to decide and the matter will have to be decided by the Tribunal on the circumstances of each case. If, on a consideration of the circumstances, the Tribunal did not think it fit to exercise its discretion to set aside the order of penalty on the ground of inordinate delay, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had acted, in any way, illegally or contrary to law. The assessee could not as a matter of right claim that the penalty proceedings should be set aside and the Tribunal was entitled to take the view that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order should not be set aside. We, therefore, find no error of law in the order of the Tribunal and, consequently, the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The question is accordingly answered in the negative and against the assessee. Assessee to pay costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... urt that the expression for the purpose of the business used in s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is wider in scope than the expression for the purpose of earning profits . Its range is wide. It may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title. In Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 405 (All), which again dealt with s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that so far as the expenditure incurred for the protection of assets is concerned, the distinction between a capital asset and a revenue asset is irrelevant. It was observed that in a company, which is formed for business, all its assets represent business assets. In the result, both the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative. The Commissioner to pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cted in this case. In this reference at the instance of the Department, the conclusion of the Tribunal is questioned as being erroneous in the sense that it was not based on any relevant material, nor was it based on a reasonable view of the facts. We have already summarised the reasonings of the Tribunal and the materials on the basis of which the Tribunal had expressed its conclusion that there was no evidence of concealment in this case. We do not think that the materials which have been relied on by the Tribunal are farfetched or irrelevant to the point at issue. Nor can we bring ourselves to say that on the facts found, no reasonable Tribunal properly instructed in the law could have come to this conclusion which this Tribunal has come to. Our answer to the question of law, therefore, must be, in the affirmative and against the Department. The reference is accordingly answered in the assessee s favour. The Department will pay the assessee s costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (1) TMI 22 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hs on the valuation date, the same would also entitle a claim for deduction. It is conceded that the assessee had not laid the claim for deduction. But the provisions referred to above do not require as a rule, a claim for the same as a condition precedent to the deduction. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in clear terms about the entitlement of the assessee. We must assume that the provisions of law were known to the Tribunal and on the basis of the provisions indicated above, the Tribunal came to hold that the requisite conditions had been satisfied and the demand was open to be made. We do not think, there is any scope for different view on the facts placed before us. On the analysis indicated, though some authorities had been cited at the bar, we see no justification at all to take a view different from the one that has been adopted by the Tribunal. In our opinion, no question of law does arise for being answered by the court. There would be no order for costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... useless. Our attention was also drawn to the observation of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravindra Gunvantlal v. CED 1969 74 ITR 498, where the facts were entirely different. In that case the settlor himself had reserved his right to determine the objects from time to time in the contingencies contemplated. In those circumstances, it was held to come within the mischief of sub-s. (1) of s. 12. The facts of that case were entirely different and we are of the opinion that no assistance can be had from the said decision in the instant case before us. In that view of the matter, we must hold that the properties covered by the first trust deed do not come within the mischief of s. 12(1) of the E.D. Act and if that is so, the other properties were not includible for the purpose of the levy of estate duty. The question, therefore, must be answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. Parties to pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (1) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... the AAC had construed the terms of the trust deed on 24th June, 1959. It would not, therefore, be permissible for the Revenue to rely on the construction on the trust deed by the order dated 17th September, 1966, which does nothing more but follow the view taken in respect of the trust deed by the order dated 24th June, 1959. Once we hold that the ITO (Company Circle I(2)) must be presumed to have known the order dated 24th June, 1959, the attempt to reopen the assessment of the trust for the assessment year 1962-63 cannot be said to be based on any information obtained from the order dated 17th September, 1966. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, appears to be more than justified by the facts of the case. Consequently, both the questions have to be answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Revenue to pay costs of this reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... geable under the head Long-term capital gains . The Tribunal s decision has wholly ignored not only the scheme of computation of the long-term capital gains under the appropriate sub-head inclusive of the provisions as to set off of long-term capital losses but also the relief provided under s. 80T. The question of law which has been referred to us by the Tribunal in this case is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction under section 80T was to be allowed on the capital gains of Rs. 48,767 arising from the sale of the Bangalore property and the balance was to be set off against the capital loss of Rs. 96,907 arising from the sale of shares in the computation of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74 ? Having regard to the consideration we have stated above, our answer to this question is against the assessee and in favour of the Department. The Department will have its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (1) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee to short-circuit the assessment process by offering the peak credit for assessment. Whatever might be the compelling motive, there is not a shred of evidence even in the penalty proceedings to show that any of the credits were not genuine or that they are really camouflaged or concealed income, of the assessee. None of the persons in whose names the cash credits appear in the assessee s books were shown to have been examined by the ITO or even by the IAC for the purpose of making out a case against the assessee to the effect that they are not genuine loan transactions. In these circumstance, we must accept the ultimate finding of the Tribunal as one based on a reasonable view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Our answer to question No. 3 is against the Revenue. It follows that similar answers must be returned for the two other questions as well. Since the Department has failed in this reference, it will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (1) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... t could not be made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. The exceptional circumstances stated by him were that the seller made a demand for payment after banking hours and insisted on cash payment. Admittedly, the goods were purchased on credit basis a number of days earlier to the date on which the alleged payment was made. The assessee, therefore, had ample opportunity to make payment by crossed cheque drawn on a bank or crossed bank draft and need not have waited till the demand was made for payment. There was, therefore, no such exceptional or unavoidable circumstance which could justify non-compliance with the provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 40A of the Act and as such the Tribunal rightly maintained the disallowance of Rs. 28,231 in computing the taxable income of the assessee. Accordingly, question No. (3) is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nally fixed for the sale. It seems that the TRO, Shri Sukhdev Singh colluded with the defaulter and he was in a hurry to conclude the bid in favour of the grandson of the defaulter, which is apparent from the complaints filed by Samitter Singh and Gurdev Lal. In these complaints it is mentioned that they were prevented from carrying on their bids and that the bid had been knocked down in favour of the petitioner suddenly and they were not allowed to give further bids. No other point is urged. For the reasons recorded, I am of the view that the impugned orders of the Commissioner as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner are reasonable, just and proper. The orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case is made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee, Rs. 1,000.
....
|
