Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 1993 (12) 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 141 to 160 of 192 Records

• 1993 (12) TMI 52
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Interpretation of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Constitution of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
  3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Interpretation of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act:
  The core issue was whether the term "loss" in Section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, includes depreciation. The Tribunal held that "loss" means excluding depreciation, and for arriving at the adjusted book profit, unabsorbed depreciation or business loss, whichever is less, is to be adjusted. The High Court, however, found that this interpretation was incorrect. The Court emphasized that depreciation and loss are distinct concepts under the Income-tax Act. Unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income under any head, while unabsorbed business loss can only be set off against business income. The Court concluded that for the purpose of Section 115J, "loss" does not include "unabsorbed depreciation."
  
  2. Constitution of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:
  The Special Bench was constituted by the President of the Tribunal due to alleged conflicting decisions in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ITO and Buttwelded Tools (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT. The High Court found that the constitution of the Special Bench was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the decision of the Division Bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal should have prevailed over the single-member decision of the Madras Bench. The Court held that the President's decision to constitute the Special Bench was based on non-existing grounds and was contrary to established practice.
  
  3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
  The Department argued that there was a violation of natural justice as they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case. The designated officer fell ill, and the Tribunal refused to grant an adjournment or allow written submissions. The High Court found that the Tribunal's refusal to allow written submissions was unreasonable and arbitrary, and the Department was not given a fair opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the Court held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
  
  The High Court answered the reference in favor of the Department and allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 51
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the search and seizure proceedings u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Validity of the prohibitory order u/s 132(3).
  3. Entitlement to copies of the search warrant and materials collected.
  4. Sufficiency of the reasons for the formation of belief u/s 132(1).
  5. Allegations of mala fides and arbitrariness by the Revenue officers.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Legality of the search and seizure proceedings u/s 132(1):
  The petitioner-company challenged the search and seizure proceedings under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the authorisation must be based on a "reasonable belief" formed from relevant material. The court emphasized that it is not permissible to examine the sufficiency of the reasons leading to the issuance of authorisation, but only to ensure that the belief was reasonable and based on relevant information. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 74 ITR 836, which held that the section does not confer arbitrary authority and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law.
  
  2. Validity of the prohibitory order u/s 132(3):
  The petitioner also challenged the prohibitory orders issued under section 132(3). The court noted that the prohibitory order was confined to the bank account and had been recently extended. The petitioner's counsel indicated that the latest order would be challenged separately if necessary.
  
  3. Entitlement to copies of the search warrant and materials collected:
  The petitioner sought copies of the search warrant and all materials collected during the search. The court held that law does not require a copy of the warrant of authorisation to be furnished to the person against whom it is issued; it is sufficient if such a person is shown the warrant. The court referenced decisions such as Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC), which held that the materials need not be disclosed in the search warrant as it could hamper the investigation.
  
  4. Sufficiency of the reasons for the formation of belief u/s 132(1):
  The petitioner argued that the reasons for the formation of belief under section 132(1) should be disclosed. The court reiterated that the belief must be based on relevant material and that the court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the authorising officer. The court reviewed the material in camera and was satisfied that the belief was based on relevant information and reasonably connected to the subjects referred to in section 132(1)(c).
  
  5. Allegations of mala fides and arbitrariness by the Revenue officers:
  The petitioner alleged that the search was conducted to collect trade secrets and that the Revenue officers acted with mala fides. The court found no reason to disbelieve the Revenue's assertion that no such attempt was made. The court also noted that the absence of a statement of objections from the respondents did not automatically validate the petitioner's allegations, as the existence of "reasons to believe" could be proved by reference to the official records.
  
  Conclusion:
  The petition was rejected, with the court finding no merit in the challenges to the search and seizure proceedings, the prohibitory order, or the allegations of mala fides. The court upheld the principles that the belief for authorisation must be reasonable and based on relevant information, and that the disclosure of materials at the initial stage of search and seizure is not mandatory.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 50
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the petitioner's institution qualifies as a "charitable institution" u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Whether the activities of the petitioner's institution fall within the definition of "education" as per section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Charitable Institution u/s 12A
  The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, applied for registration as a "charitable institution" u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent rejected the application, stating that the petitioner's activities included carrying on business and the object for the promotion of science was too vague. The petitioner argued that its activities were for the advancement of objects of general public utility and thus qualified for registration. The court noted that the amendment to section 12A removed the relevance of profit motive in determining charitable status. However, the court concluded that the petitioner's institution, primarily a coaching center, did not meet the criteria for a charitable institution as it did not engage in normal schooling or systematic instruction.
  
  Issue 2: Definition of Education u/s 2(15)
  The court examined whether the petitioner's activities fell within the definition of "education" u/s 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT, which defined education as systematic instruction, schooling, or training. The court found that the petitioner's institution, which focused on coaching students for specific examinations, did not provide normal schooling or systematic instruction. Therefore, it did not qualify as an educational institution under section 2(15). The court emphasized that a coaching institute does not equate to an institution where normal schooling is conducted.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the application, ruling that the petitioner's institution did not qualify as a "charitable institution" u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its activities did not fall within the definition of "education" u/s 2(15) of the Act. The court held that running a private coaching institute for training students to appear in specified examinations did not meet the criteria for exemption under the Act.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 49
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of cancellation of auction by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax.
  2. Constitutionality of clause 15 of exhibit P-1.
  3. Violation of principles of natural justice in cancellation of auction.
  4. Jurisdiction of the court under article 226 of the Constitution.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by P. K. Balasubramanyan J. pertains to an auction conducted for a property by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. The auction, held on September 22, 1993, saw the petitioner as the highest bidder, offering Rs. 60,50,000 against a reserve price of Rs. 35,00,000. However, the Chief Commissioner cancelled the auction on the same day, citing complaints from other bidders regarding the conduct of the auctioneer and lack of fair opportunity for all participants. The petitioner challenged this cancellation through an original petition, primarily arguing against the arbitrary power reserved by the Chief Commissioner and the violation of natural justice in the cancellation process.
  
  The petitioner contended that clause 15 of exhibit P-1, reserving uncanalised power in the Chief Commissioner, was unconstitutional and violated article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, it was argued that the Chief Commissioner's decision to cancel the auction without hearing the petitioner breached the principles of natural justice. The petitioner raised concerns about the Chief Commissioner's presence during the auction, lack of intervention at the time of bidding, and subsequent cancellation of the auction in favor of the petitioner. Furthermore, it was suggested that the Chief Commissioner should have compelled other bidders to deposit a higher amount if a reauction was considered.
  
  However, the court noted that the auction sale was not statutory but contractual in nature, falling outside the purview of article 226 jurisdiction. The judge highlighted that the petitioner's title was subject to confirmation by the Chief Commissioner, which had not occurred in this case. The court expressed reluctance to delve into the specifics of the auction process and complaints raised by other bidders, emphasizing that such matters were more suited for civil court proceedings rather than constitutional challenges.
  
  Regarding the constitutionality of clause 15 of exhibit P-1, the court found that the petitioner had participated in the auction voluntarily, abiding by the terms set out in the notification. Given the petitioner's acknowledgment of the auction process and the return of earnest money post-cancellation, the court dismissed the argument that the Chief Commissioner's power was arbitrary. The judge concluded that the Chief Commissioner's actions appeared to be in public interest and not indicative of mala fides, leading to the dismissal of the original petition.
  
  In summary, the court declined to interfere with the Chief Commissioner's decision to cancel the auction, citing lack of jurisdiction under article 226 and finding no substantial grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the auction terms or the Chief Commissioner's actions. The petition was ultimately dismissed by the court.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 48
  
  Issues:
  Conviction under section 276CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, an income-tax payer, was convicted under section 276CC(ii) for failing to furnish a return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 within the prescribed time, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner filed the return late by about 20 months. The prosecution's case was based on the wilful failure to furnish the return on time, as required by the Income-tax Act.
  
  The prosecution relied on the testimony of a witness who confirmed the facts of the case and the late filing of the return. The witness also mentioned that the petitioner submitted a medical certificate and affidavit citing illness as the reason for the delay. However, the witness did not investigate the credibility of the medical certificate or the petitioner's illness, leading to doubts about the wilfulness of the delay.
  
  The courts below held that the delay in filing the return was not satisfactorily explained and concluded that the delay itself indicated mens rea. The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the wilfulness of the delay beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by section 276CC. The petitioner contended that the delay, even though substantial, did not automatically establish wilful failure.
  
  The High Court emphasized that the essence of the offence under section 276CC lies in proving the wilfulness of the delay in filing the return. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "wilful default," which requires intentional, deliberate, and conscious actions with full knowledge of the legal consequences. The court highlighted that mere delay does not constitute wilful default and that the prosecution must provide clear and reliable evidence of wilfulness.
  
  The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the delay was wilful, especially considering the petitioner's prompt submission of an affidavit and medical certificate citing illness as the reason for the delay. The court noted that the Department accepted the medical certificate without questioning its credibility, indicating that the delay was not adequately investigated. Consequently, the court acquitted the petitioner of the offence under section 276CC(ii) and ordered the return of any deposited fine.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment focused on the requirement of proving wilful default under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act and highlighted the importance of clear and cogent evidence to establish wilfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's decision to acquit the petitioner was based on the lack of conclusive proof of wilful delay in filing the return.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 47
  
  Issues:
  - Retention of impounded books of account under section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  - Requirement of communication of reasons for retention and order of approval to the concerned person.
  - Comparison of provisions under section 131(3) and section 132 of the Act.
  - Judicial interpretation of communication requirements for retention of seized books and documents.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to three writ applications seeking the release of impounded books of account under section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, registered partnership firms engaged in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce, had their books impounded by the Assistant Commissioner under section 131(3) of the Act. The retention of these books was approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax for various extended periods, based on undisclosed transactions leading to reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
  
  The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the retention of impounded books was contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 131(3) of the Act. The petitioners argued that the reasons for retention and the order of approval should have been communicated to them, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477. The petitioners claimed that non-communication of reasons would render the retention invalid.
  
  The Court analyzed the provisions of section 131(3) and compared them with section 132 of the Act, particularly sub-section (8) which mandates the recording of reasons for seizure of books. The Supreme Court's interpretation in the Oriental Rubber Works case emphasized the importance of communicating reasons and approval to the concerned person to safeguard their rights. The Court noted the absence of a statutory remedy for non-communication under section 131(3) as provided in section 132(10) and (12).
  
  While acknowledging the importance of expeditious communication of reasons and approval, the Court held that the statutory provision of section 131(3) did not expressly require such communication. Since the orders of approval had been communicated and reasons disclosed in the counter-affidavit, the Court declined to declare the retention invalid. It highlighted that the petitioners had filed a revision before the Commissioner and had received xerox copies of the impounded books, indicating ongoing proceedings and disclosure of information.
  
  In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ applications, emphasizing the absence of a specific requirement for communication under section 131(3) and the pending revision before the Commissioner. The judgment underscores the importance of communication of reasons and approval in similar provisions but does not extend the same requirement to section 131(3) without explicit statutory backing or binding judicial precedent.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 46
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Justification of Deletion by the Tribunal u/s 40A(3)
  The petition was filed u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, to refer a question of law regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 12,70,683 made u/s 40A(3) by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal had earlier declined to refer this question to the court.
  
  The assessing authority had made the addition on the grounds that payments were made in cash and not by cheques or drafts, thus not to be treated as expenditure. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction as expenditure, which led to the present petition.
  
  Legal Precedents and Interpretations
  The court referred to CIT v. Surinder Sugar Store [1989] 177 ITR 511 (P & H) but noted that the detailed facts of that case were not provided, making it difficult to form an opinion on its similarity to the present case. It was emphasized that the order of the Tribunal is crucial in determining if a question of law arises u/s 256(2).
  
  The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Managing Trustee, Jalakhabai Trust [1967] 66 ITR 619, which stated that the High Court only needs to consider if a question of law arises from the Tribunal's order, not whether it may ultimately favor the assessee.
  
  Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD
  The provisions of section 40A(3) must be read along with rule 6DD, which provides exceptions for payments made in cash. The Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 667 clarified that section 40A(3) is not intended to restrict business activities but to ensure the genuineness of payments and curb black money. Genuine and bona fide transactions are exempted from the section's sweep.
  
  Tribunal's Findings
  The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a bank account at the place of purchase, which was not contested by the Revenue authorities. This brought the case within the exception provided by rule 6DD(j). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's transactions were genuine and complied with the conditions of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
  
  Conclusion
  The court held that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and did not raise a question of law. The petition was dismissed, affirming that no referable question of law arises from the Tribunal's order.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 45
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
  - Whether the assessee was disputing liability for charging interest or claiming waiver/reduction in the amount of interest?
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court judgment pertains to a petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law to the court. The question at hand was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting interest charged under section 215 of the Act, considering the nature of interest as compensatory rather than penal. The Tribunal had declined to refer the question, stating no referable question of law arose in the case. The background of the case involved an assessee, Messrs. Gurkartar Steels (P.) Ltd., who was held liable to pay interest under section 215 for non-payment of advance income tax. An appeal was partially allowed, but the issue of interest imposition was not waived entirely. The Appellate Tribunal later granted relief to the assessee, leading to the current dispute.
  
  The critical aspect under consideration was whether the assessee was disputing liability for interest or seeking waiver/reduction. The Tribunal's order indicated that the assessee had consistently denied liability for interest, presenting grounds for appeal against the interest charge. The legal position, as highlighted in the Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. case, distinguished between penalty and interest levies under the Income-tax Act. Interest was deemed part of the assessment process, subject to appeal if the assessee disputed the levy entirely. The judgment emphasized that the assessee's denial of liability to be assessed under the Act allowed for an appeal against interest imposition.
  
  The court rejected the Department's argument that interest assessment under section 215 was separate and could not be challenged in an appeal against the original assessment. Citing the Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. case, the court reiterated that interest imposition was appealable if the assessee denied liability. Ultimately, the court found that the Tribunal's decision to not levy interest was fact-based, and no question of law arose for reference under section 256. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 44
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the fresh partnership deed dated July 1, 1990.
  2. Entitlement of the petitioner to relief against the reconstituted firm's income-tax return filings.
  3. Legitimacy of the petitioner's representations/applications to the Income-tax Officer.
  4. Procedure and requirements for registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act.
  5. Genuineness of the reconstituted firm and its registration application.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Fresh Partnership Deed Dated July 1, 1990:
  The petitioner, Madan Mohan Paul, contends that the initial partnership deed dated October 1, 1980, still subsists and that the firm, Messrs. Allied Metal Products, was never dissolved. He alleges that respondents Nos. 4, 5, and 7 manipulated a fresh partnership deed dated July 1, 1990, excluding him from the partnership. However, the court noted that the petitioner had expressed his desire to retire from the partnership and confirmed his retirement effective June 30, 1990. The court did not find sufficient grounds to invalidate the fresh partnership deed.
  
  2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to Relief Against the Reconstituted Firm's Income-tax Return Filings:
  The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the reconstituted firm from filing income-tax returns without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The court held that a firm, whether registered or not, is an assessee under section 2(7) of the Act and is obligated to file returns under section 139. The court emphasized that the filing of returns is a statutory obligation and cannot be restrained. The contention that the return filed by the reconstituted firm is non est was deemed a matter for tax authorities to adjudicate.
  
  3. Legitimacy of the Petitioner's Representations/Applications to the Income-tax Officer:
  The petitioner argued that his representations/applications to the Income-tax Officer should be decided before considering the registration application of the reconstituted firm. The court found that many of the petitioner's demands were motivated by ulterior purposes and were not statutorily maintainable. The court emphasized that a mandamus could only be issued if a legal duty and corresponding right under the statute were demonstrated, which was not the case here. The representations were more in the nature of complaints and did not warrant a statutory decision.
  
  4. Procedure and Requirements for Registration of a Firm Under the Income-tax Act:
  The court outlined the statutory framework for the registration of firms under sections 184 to 186 of the Act. It noted that the Assessing Officer is required to inquire into the genuineness and constitution of the firm as specified in the partnership instrument. The court clarified that the right to obtain registration is a statutory right, and the Assessing Officer must grant registration if the requirements are met. The court rejected the petitioner's submission that the application for registration could not be entertained.
  
  5. Genuineness of the Reconstituted Firm and Its Registration Application:
  The petitioner questioned the genuineness of the reconstituted firm. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of this contention as the matter was sub judice before the Income-tax Officer. The court observed that the Assessing Officer is expected to consider all legally permissible materials during the inquiry under section 185. The court noted that the petitioner had already been informed that the assessment proceedings and registration matter had not yet been taken up, addressing his complaint about having his say in the matter.
  
  Additional Observations:
  The court mentioned the provision of section 185(6) regarding deemed registration of a firm in certain circumstances. If the reconstituted firm had been granted deemed registration, the court's observations would not affect the inquiry under section 185.
  
  Conclusion:
  The writ petition was rejected in limine. The court also refused the petitioner's oral request for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the case did not involve any substantial question of law of general importance.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 43
  
  Issues:
  1. Justification of deleting penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Perversity in the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the penalty deletion.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a situation where the assessee filed its income tax return late, resulting in a penalty being levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee had received income in India, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 7,339 on the tax amount. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the penalty, stating that mens rea needed to be proved for successful penalty imposition, which was not established in this case.
  
  The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering the quantum appeal, found that the tax liability would be nil, leading to the deletion of the penalty. However, the Revenue argued that mens rea was not a prerequisite for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(a) and that the Tribunal erred in remitting the penalty based on the quantum appeal decision.
  
  The High Court clarified that mens rea is not essential for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(a) and that the focus should be on whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a reconsideration to determine if there was a reasonable cause for the delay. If no reasonable cause is found, the penalty may be upheld. The court emphasized that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was incorrect in requiring mens rea for penalty imposition.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court returned the reference unanswered for a fresh decision, emphasizing that mens rea is not a requirement for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(a) and directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the case based on the lack of a reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the return.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 42
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether a massive reinforced concrete structure designed to take up loads constitutes 'plant' u/s 43(3) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78.
  
  Summary:
  The case involved a limited company engaged in manufacturing grinding media balls and ingots, where a claim for depreciation on plant and machinery was initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the building for the plant and machinery could be considered as 'plant'. The structures were specially designed to handle heavy loads necessary for the manufacturing processes. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner, emphasizing that the structures made the plant operative.
  
  The court referred to the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court regarding the definition of 'plant' under section 43(3), emphasizing that the term has a wide and inclusive meaning. It was highlighted that a building or structure could be considered 'plant' if it is essential for the business activities and impossible for the equipment to function without it. The functional test of whether a structure is used for carrying on the business activities or merely as a space was crucial in determining its classification as 'plant'.
  
  The court also considered precedents from the Madras High Court and the Allahabad High Court, which supported a broad interpretation of 'plant' based on the specific trade or manufacture carried out by the assessee. It was noted that not all buildings automatically qualify as 'plant', and a functional test must be applied in each case to determine the classification.
  
  Ultimately, the court held that the reinforced concrete structure designed to support the cranes and make the plant operative fell within the definition of 'plant' u/s 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. However, any additional structures beyond what was necessary for the plant's operation were not considered 'plant'. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, concluding that the structure in question constituted 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 41
  
  Issues: Interpretation of ownership of gold ornaments for wealth tax assessment
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the High Court of Rajasthan pertains to a question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the ownership of gold ornaments for wealth tax assessment for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The case revolved around whether the assessee was the owner of 80 tolas of gold ornaments or holding them for the benefit of her sons, to be given to their wives upon marriage.
  
  The facts of the case revealed that the gold ornaments in question were acquired by the assessee at the time of her marriage from her parents and in-laws. The ornaments weighing 80 tolas of gold were received from her mother, Smt. Man Devi, and were not declared in the wealth tax return on the grounds that they belonged to the wives of her sons. An affidavit by the elder sister confirmed that the ornaments were meant to be passed on to the wives of the sons of the assessee.
  
  The Wealth-tax Officer initially found that there was no conclusive evidence that the gold ornaments were intended for the sons' wives. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, noting a contradiction in the assessee's stand regarding ownership. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the affidavit and found that the assessee was not the owner but holding the ornaments for her sons' benefit.
  
  The High Court analyzed the affidavit and concluded that the Tribunal's decision was justified. The court emphasized that the scope under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act is limited and does not involve reappreciating evidence. Since the affidavit remained uncontroverted, a finding of fact was established. The court held that the assessee was not the owner of the ornaments but held them for her sons' benefit, as intended for their wives upon marriage.
  
  In light of the above analysis, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's challenge. The judgment highlighted the absence of conflicting evidence or documents to warrant a different interpretation. As a result, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs imposed.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 40
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the entire gross receipts of the assessee were eligible for exemption u/s 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Exemption u/s 10(29):
  The core issue was whether the entire gross receipts of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation were eligible for exemption u/s 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that its entire income was exempt under this section. The Income-tax Officer, however, concluded that only the income from warehousing activities was exempt, and other sources of income were not.
  
  2. Interpretation of 'facilitating the marketing of commodities':
  The court examined the scope of section 10(29), which exempts income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The court referenced multiple judgments, including those from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court, which clarified that only income directly derived from letting godowns or warehouses for the specified purposes is exempt.
  
  3. Income from different sources:
  The court noted that the assessee derived income from various sources, including warehousing charges, procurement of grains, interest, supervision charges, fumigation service charges, and miscellaneous income. It was emphasized that the exemption u/s 10(29) applies only to income derived from letting godowns or warehouses for the specified purposes. Income from other activities, such as procurement of grains and interest, was not considered exempt.
  
  4. Integrated activity argument:
  The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the assessee's activities were integrated and thus all income was exempt. The court disagreed, stating that the exemption is specific to income derived from letting godowns or warehouses. Activities not directly related to letting godowns, even if they facilitate marketing, do not qualify for exemption.
  
  5. Specific income sources:
  - Procurement of grains: The court held that income from procurement of grains for the State Government/Food Corporation of India is an independent activity and not exempt.
  - Interest: Interest income from banks was also not considered exempt, regardless of whether it was classified as business income or income from other sources.
  - Fumigation charges: Income from fumigation services related to goods stored in the assessee's godowns was considered incidental to letting and thus exempt.
  - Miscellaneous income: The Tribunal did not discuss the nature of miscellaneous income in detail, so the court remanded this issue back to the Tribunal for further examination.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the entire income of the assessee was exempt u/s 10(29). The reference was answered partly in favor of the Revenue and partly against the assessee. The Tribunal was directed to re-examine the nature of miscellaneous income and other unspecified sources to determine if they qualify for exemption under section 10(29).

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 39
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of section 40(c)(i) versus section 40A(5) for determining inadmissible expenditure.
  2. Whether section 40(c)(i) applies to retirement gratuity payments to a director.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Applicability of section 40(c)(i) versus section 40A(5) for determining inadmissible expenditure
  
  The assessee, a company, paid Rs. 90,000 as retirement gratuity to its chairman and full-time director, Mr. Kodikal, and claimed it as deductible expenditure. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim. The Tribunal, however, held that the payment should be considered u/s 40(c) and not u/s 40A(5). The High Court examined the provisions of sections 40(c) and 40A(5) and concluded that both sections could apply to a director who is also an employee. However, the retirement gratuity paid to Mr. Kodikal was not covered by either section as it was not a periodic payment but a one-time payment made at retirement. The Court noted that section 40A(7) does not prohibit the deduction of actual gratuity payments made during the accounting year, distinguishing between provisions for future payments and actual payments.
  
  Issue 2: Whether section 40(c)(i) applies to retirement gratuity payments to a director
  
  The Court analyzed the nature of the expenditure covered by sections 40(c) and 40A(5), noting that both sections deal with periodic payments related to the previous year. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in CIT v. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation P. Ltd., which stated that for directors who are also employees, both sections would apply, and the higher ceiling would be used. However, the Court emphasized that retirement gratuity is a one-time payment based on the entire length of service and not a periodic payment. Therefore, it cannot be computed within the framework of sections 40(c) and 40A(5), which are designed for periodic payments. The Court concluded that the retirement gratuity paid to Mr. Kodikal was not covered by these sections and upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  (a) In determining inadmissible expenditure for payments to a director who is also an employee, both sections 40(c)(i) and 40A(5) apply. However, the retirement gratuity paid to Mr. Kodikal is not covered by either section.
  
  (b) The provisions of section 40(c)(i) do not apply to the retirement gratuity payment, and the expenditure is deductible.
  
  (c) No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 38
  
  Issues involved: Assessment of subsidy as income, reopening of assessment under section 148, consideration of loss in reassessment proceedings.
  
  Assessment of subsidy as income: The case involved the assessment of a subsidy received by the assessee-bank from the Central Government to cover the interest paid on loans. The Income-tax Officer held that the subsidy amount was to be considered as the assessee's income for the relevant assessment year, despite the assessee's revised return not including the subsidy as income. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld this decision, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the loss as per the assessee's account books in the reassessment proceedings.
  
  Reopening of assessment under section 148: A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued to reopen the assessment for the relevant year. In the reassessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer determined that the subsidy received was indeed the assessee's income, disregarding the loss or expenditure shown in the original or revised return. The Tribunal's order raised the question of whether the Income-tax Officer should consider the loss in the reassessment despite it being disallowed in the original assessment.
  
  Consideration of loss in reassessment proceedings: The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to consider the loss as per the assessee's books of account in the reassessment proceedings, which was challenged based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that in reassessment proceedings, the assessee can claim deductions for any expenditure related to the income being reassessed, but cannot reagitate claims already assessed. The Court held that while the assessee can put forward expenditure connected to the subsidy in reassessment, other claims already considered cannot be revisited.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal's direction for considering the loss in reassessment proceedings was not sustainable based on the Supreme Court's decision. The question was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. The assessee was allowed to present expenditure related to the subsidy in the reassessment proceedings, in line with the Court's observations.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 37
  
  Issues:
  1. Levy of interest under section 216 for short payment of advance tax instalments.
  2. Interpretation of underestimation of advance tax under section 216 based on underestimation of income.
  3. Deductibility of surtax liability in computing income from business.
  
  Levy of Interest under Section 216:
  The case involved the assessment year 1975-76 where the assessee had paid advance tax based on estimated income. The Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 216 for short payment of the first two instalments. The Tribunal remitted the matter to consider underestimation of advance tax not based on underestimation of income. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that underestimation of advance tax under section 212 is linked to the estimate of current income. The court rejected the contention that underestimation of current income should not be considered for levying interest under section 216, as the estimation of advance tax under section 212 is dependent on the estimation of current income. The court referred to conflicting decisions by different High Courts but ultimately held that underestimation of current income cannot be excluded when determining underestimation of advance tax under section 216.
  
  Interpretation of Underestimation of Advance Tax:
  The court discussed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's view that underestimation of advance tax must not be due to underestimation of income for interest under section 216 to apply. However, the court disagreed, stating that the estimate of advance tax is interlinked with the estimate of current income under section 212, and both cannot be artificially delinked. The Calcutta High Court's decision in a similar case supported considering underestimation of current income for invoking section 216. The court concluded that whether there is underestimation of advance tax depends on the facts of each case, and underestimation of current income cannot be excluded when determining underestimation of advance tax under section 216.
  
  Deductibility of Surtax Liability:
  Regarding the deductibility of surtax liability in computing income from business, the court noted agreement between parties based on a previous decision. Citing the decision in Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the surtax liability of the assessee-company was not deductible in computing its income from business.
  
  In conclusion, the court answered the questions raised in the case, ruling against the assessee on the issue of levy of interest under section 216 and in favor of the Revenue on the deductibility of surtax liability. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and interpretations by different High Courts to arrive at its decision.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 36
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Circular No. 30 of 1941.
  2. Set off of loss from an unregistered partnership against personal income.
  3. Interpretation of Section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Circular No. 30 of 1941:
  The primary issue is whether Circular No. 30 of 1941 is applicable to the assessee's claim for set off of loss from an unregistered partnership against her personal income. The court concluded that the circular does not apply to the assessee's case. The circular addresses the assessment of profits from temporary partnerships of short duration, directing that profits should generally be assessed in the hands of the respective partners. However, it does not deal with the set off of losses from unregistered firms. The court noted that the circular's subject matter does not cover the set off of losses and thus cannot be used to support the assessee's claim.
  
  2. Set off of Loss from an Unregistered Partnership Against Personal Income:
  The assessee claimed to set off her share of loss from an unregistered partnership against her personal income. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, deeming the agreement not genuine and the loss not genuine. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both found the agreement genuine and construed it as a partnership. However, the Tribunal allowed the set off based on Circular No. 30 of 1941. The High Court disagreed, stating that the circular does not entitle the assessee to set off the loss from the unregistered partnership against her personal income. The court emphasized that the circular does not address the set off of losses from unregistered firms.
  
  3. Interpretation of Section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  Section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, explicitly prohibits the set off of a partner's share of loss from an unregistered firm against their personal income. The court highlighted that this provision applies irrespective of whether the firm has been assessed or not. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Jadavji Narsidas and Co., which held that losses of an unregistered firm could only be set off against the firm's income, not the partners'. The court reaffirmed this principle, stating that Section 77(2) clearly prohibits individual partners from setting off their share of the firm's loss against personal income. The court rejected the assessee's argument that Section 77(2) does not apply if the unregistered firm has not been assessed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling that Circular No. 30 of 1941 is not applicable to the assessee's claim for set off of her share of loss from the unregistered partnership against her personal income. The court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the circular and allowing the set off. The court emphasized that Section 77(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, explicitly prohibits such set off, and the assessee is not entitled to claim it based on the circular or otherwise. The judgment was thus in favor of the Revenue.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 35
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim of development rebate.
  2. Compliance with conditions under section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, for claiming development rebate.
  3. Interpretation of the term "assessee" in the context of section 16(c).
  4. Whether Messrs. S. P. Builders acted as promoters of the assessee-company.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Tribunal's Rejection of Development Rebate Claim
  The primary issue is whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's claim for a development rebate amounting to Rs. 2,20,885. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, and section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Issue 2: Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974
  Section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, allows for a continuance of development rebate under certain conditions:
  1. The machinery or plant must be installed by the assessee after May 31, 1974, but before June 1, 1975.
  2. The assessee must furnish evidence that before December 1, 1973, they had either purchased or entered into a contract for the purchase of such machinery or plant.
  
  The Tribunal found that the plant and machinery were installed within the specified period but were installed by Messrs. S. P. Builders, not the assessee-company. Therefore, the assessee-company did not meet the first condition as it did not install the machinery itself.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of "Assessee" in Section 16(c)
  The court emphasized that the term "assessee" in section 16(c) refers specifically to the entity claiming the development rebate. The court rejected the assessee's argument for a liberal interpretation that would include machinery installed by any entity, provided the claimant is the owner during the relevant assessment year.
  
  The court supported its interpretation by referencing the Madras High Court's decision in Lakshmi Paper Industries v. CIT, which held that the term "assessee" must be construed as the one who claims the development rebate.
  
  Issue 4: Role of Messrs. S. P. Builders as Promoters
  The assessee argued that Messrs. S. P. Builders acted as promoters of the assessee-company, thereby implying that the installation by Messrs. S. P. Builders should be considered as installation by the assessee-company. The Tribunal, however, found no material evidence to support this claim. The court reviewed the facts and agreements and concluded that Messrs. S. P. Builders did not act as promoters.
  
  The court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England to define "promoter" and found no evidence that Messrs. S. P. Builders had set in motion the machinery for incorporating the assessee-company or had acted with the intention of transferring the machinery to the assessee-company.
  
  Conclusion
  The court concluded that the conditions under section 16(c) were not met by the assessee-company. Specifically, the machinery was not installed by the assessee-company, and the contract for purchase was not entered into by the assessee-company before December 1, 1973. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim for development rebate.
  
  The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue, and there was no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 34
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the substitution of rule 9A(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, amounts to repeal and whether the General Clauses Act will apply.
  2. Whether the assessing authority has jurisdiction to complete the assessment by invoking the old sub-rule (1) of rule 9A which stood substituted by a new sub-rule at the time of making the assessment.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Question No. 1:
  The primary issue is whether the substitution of rule 9A(1) by a new sub-rule amounts to a repeal of the old rule and whether such repeal would attract the General Clauses Act, particularly section 6. The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case laws to determine the nature of the substitution.
  
  The court noted that rule 9A(1) was modified by the Income-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 1986, which replaced certain sub-rules and deleted the distinction between regional and non-regional language films. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to elucidate the difference between "substitution" and "repeal."
  
  In State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court clarified that substitution does not necessarily imply repeal and re-enactment. Similarly, in Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co., the court emphasized that substitution involves two steps: the old rule ceases to exist, and the new rule comes into effect. The court also referred to Rayala Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, where it was held that section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the repeal of a rule.
  
  Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the substitution of rule 9A(1) did not amount to a repeal of the old rule. Even if it did, section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply, as it pertains to the repeal of Central Acts or Regulations, not rules. Therefore, the answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative.
  
  Question No. 2:
  The court examined whether the assessing authority could invoke the old rule 9A(1) for assessments made after the new rule came into effect. The new rule 9A, effective from April 2, 1986, explicitly stated in sub-rule (8) that it would not apply to assessment years commencing before April 1, 1987. This indicated the rule-making authority's intention to make the new rule prospective.
  
  The court emphasized that the machinery provisions for computation of income, including section 37 and rule 9A, are essential for assessing income tax liability. The new rule did not retrospectively repeal the old rule for assessment years ending on or before March 31, 1987. Therefore, the old rule 9A(1) remained applicable for those assessment years.
  
  The court referred to Felcon Tyres Ltd. v. Union of India and other decisions, concluding that changes in machinery provisions do not affect the charge of income tax for earlier assessment years. Thus, the assessing authority had the jurisdiction to complete assessments using the old rule 9A(1) for assessment years prior to April 1, 1987.
  
  The answer to Question No. 2 is in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference was answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 33
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether debentures issued to public financial institutions qualify as issued to the "public" u/r 1(iv) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.
  2. Whether the option for early redemption of debentures affects their inclusion in the capital base.
  3. Whether the assessee-company is entitled to include 49% of debentures subscribed by I.C.I.C.I. and L.I.C. in its capital base.
  4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reconsidering the inclusion of debentures under rule 1(v) after holding they were not issued to the public.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Debentures Issued to Public Financial Institutions
  The court examined whether debentures issued to financial institutions could be considered as issued to the "public" within the meaning of rule 1(iv) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. The court concluded that debentures issued to financial institutions did not form part of any "public issue" and thus could not be considered as issued to the public. Therefore, rule 1(iv) was deemed inapplicable.
  
  Issue 2: Early Redemption Option
  The court considered whether the option for debenture holders to redeem debentures before the expiry of seven years affected their inclusion in the capital base. It was held that the mere option for early redemption did not necessitate repayment within a period of less than seven years. If the option to convert debentures into equity was exercised, the company was not required to repay the loan, and the debentures would convert into equity, forming part of the paid-up capital.
  
  Issue 3: Inclusion of Debentures in Capital Base
  The court addressed whether the assessee-company was entitled to include 49% of the debentures subscribed by I.C.I.C.I. and L.I.C. in its capital base. The court held that the debentures of Rs. 60 lakhs (Rs. 30 lakhs each from I.C.I.C.I. and L.I.C.) were includible in their entirety in the capital base for surtax purposes, not merely 49% thereof.
  
  Issue 4: Reconsideration Under Rule 1(v)
  The court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in reconsidering the inclusion of debentures under rule 1(v) after holding they were not issued to the public. The court held that rule 1(v) applies to all borrowings from specified financial institutions, including those supported by debentures, provided they are for the creation of a capital asset and are not repayable within less than seven years. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in considering the inclusion under rule 1(v).
  
  Conclusion:
  - Question 1: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue.
  - Question 2: Answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
  - Question 3: The assessee is entitled to inclusion of debentures of Rs. 60 lakhs in its capital base for surtax purposes, in entirety.
  - Question 4: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
  
  No order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....45678910