|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 183 Records
-
1978 (2) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Clubbing Of Income, Minor Child, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... that the document created a trust and as s. 13 of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act did not deal with the trustees that section was held not applicable. As s. 13 of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act did not apply to the facts of that case, their Lordships proceeded to hold that s. 12(1) of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act was attracted. But, s. 10(1)(a) of the Act, with which we are concerned, covers the case of trustees. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the decision of this court rendered in Punja s case 1967 63 ITR 442 (Mys) is inconsistent with the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Handique s case 1966 60 ITR 216. For the reasons stated above, we answer the reference as follows Where a person holds an agricultural land as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, assessment can be made in accordance with s. 10(1)(a) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957, and not under s. 10(2)(a) or under s. 3(3) of the said Act.
-
1978 (2) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Business Income, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... the subsequent two assessment years are concerned, it appears that the ITO has proceeded on the basis that one-fourth was disallowed by the Tribunal in the earlier years. Now, in the earlier years, one-fourth had been disallowed on the ground that the same were capital expenditure being expenditure incurred for expansion of the existing business. But, in this case, all the increments had been considered by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence adduced by the two yardsticks of the section, namely, the legitimate business needs of the company and, secondly, the benefit accruing to the company and by these two tests these disallowances were found to be justified by the Tribunal. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the conclusion to which it had come. In the premises, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Good Faith, Wealth Tax Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ation is the intention of honesty and the absence of bad faith or mala fide. According to our view, the Commissioner ought to have given a finding on the question of good faith as well. In the absence of such a finding the order of the Commissioner cannot be upheld inasmuch as the authority entrusted with the discretion must direct himself properly in law. He was obliged under the law to call his own attention to matters which he was bound to consider. It is true that the power conferred under s. 18(2A) is discretionary but the discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the law and not mechanically. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under s. 18(2A) cannot be maintained. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the CWT dated March 6, 1975, is quashed. He is directed to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Question Of Fact, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... harge or whether the sums have been earmarked for a future liability. On facts, it has to be found as to what portion of the earmarked amounts represents either the former or the latter. The provision in respect of taxation can be treated as a reserve only to the extent that it exceeds the tax liability which had already accrued on April 30, 1962. Similarly, about the provision for dividends, it will have to be seen as to how the assessee conducted itself in the matter of deciding upon the dividends which were payable for the year. In the absence of findings on these crucial aspects, the question of law as found by the Tribunal cannot properly be decided. We, therefore, send this reference back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will re-hear the appeal and decide the matter afresh, after recording appropriate findings on the various questions including questions of fact, in the light of the observations made above. Under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... of the learned counsel appearing for the revenue was that in the absence of a formal deed or any other writing it was not possible to hold that the present was a case of charitable and religious trust. The submission made has no substance. A charitable trust may be created by words sufficient to show the intention. So long as there is a clear manifestation of intention to create a charitable or religious trust and there is a formal vesting of the ownership of the property the dedication is complete. In All India Spinners Association v. CIT 1944 12 ITR 482 (PC), the Privy Council held that no formal deed or any other writing is necessary to constitute a religious and charitable trust, still less to constitute a legal obligation , which would suffice for the purpose of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee would be entitled to costs, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (2) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Acquisition Under Land Acquisition Act, Interest Income ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee had purchased the site and the buildings in the course of a profit-making scheme. It was from this point of view that it was held that the compensation received by the assessee was revenue in nature. The case of CIT v. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. 1979 118 ITR 825 (All) cited by the revenue is equally distinguishable. There also the purchase of machines, for which damages were allowed by the court, was itself a business transaction. The assessee was maintaining its business accounts on mercantile basis. Therefore, it was held that the receipt of compensation was taxable in the year in which it accrued and not in the year of receipt. We have no such problem. The ITO was correct in spreading over the amount of interest through the years in which it had accrued. In the result, the question of law referred to us is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (2) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... on the business or that the firm was not constituted for the purpose of the business. We do not think, therefore, that this provision that the partners can leave the firm at will is important by itself. This is particularly so in view of cl. 12 of the partnership deed which we have already noticed. It says that if any partner retires, the party of the first part, namely, the said Alagiriswami Chetti, will have the right to take over the business and run it. The continuity of the business is thus ensured and the purpose is clear that it must continue even if the newly taken partners choose to leave. Following the decision of this court in CGT v. T. S. Shanmugham 1977 110 ITR 237 (Mad) and of the Kerala High Court in V.O. Markose v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 504, we answer the question in T.C. No. 3 of 1973 also in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The department will pay the costs of the assessee including counsel s fee of Rs. 500 one set.
-
1978 (2) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Development Allowance, Foreign Technician, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... t this is less than Rs. 7,500 but where no part of the income is chargeable under the head Salary the proviso would not be attracted. Having given our anxious and careful consideration we are of the view that the words Rs. 7,500 or less would include a nil amount as well and it could not be understood to mean from one rupee to Rs. 7,500 . The legislature had not used any words which would imply that at least there should be one rupee which is chargeable under the head Salaries in order to attract the provisions of the proviso. We are also unable to find any rationale or logic for not giving the benefit of the proviso to a case where no part of the amount paid is chargeable under the head Salaries . We, accordingly, hold that the second proviso is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, and that, therefore, we answer the question referred in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Application For Registration, Registration Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... on partners. Section 183(b) is a provision enabling the ITO to treat a firm as a registered firm if he was of the opinion that the tax payable by the partners individually if the firm were assessed as a registered firm would be greater than the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the firm. In such a case, if the ITO had really some information, which came into his possession subsequent to the assessment, then he may have powers to start proceedings under the provisions of s. 147(b), but he cannot have recourse to s. 154. This is not a case, where it is possible to take action both under ss. 147 and 154, so that if the action was taken under one of them, instead of the other, such action could not be held to be bad. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal.
-
1978 (2) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... it is, in fact, a reserve and not an amount for distribution as dividend. Having regard to this principle there will be no justification to hold that the sum of Rs. 19,57,258 set apart in this case was kept for distribution as dividend. We like to point out in this connection that the Bombay High Court in the case in CIT v. Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. 1977 107 ITR 38 appears to have laid down the correct position in law. We are fully in agreement with the views and observations of their Lordships. Similar point also arose in I.T.R. No. 371 of 1970 CIT and SPT v. Burn and Co. Ltd. 1978 114 ITR 565 (Cal) , which came up for hearing before us. My Lord, Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the court, also answered the point in favour of the assessee holding similar views. So, in view of the foregoing findings and reasonings, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each, party to pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals, One Partner ... ... ... ... ..... paid pursuant to this deed, whatever be their character, have been rightly added back to the income of the assessee. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts paid to Laxmi Devi were not deductible and were rightly added back by the ITO. We answer the second part of the question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The first part of the said question, i.e., whether the said amounts were the shares of profit of Laxmi Devi becomes academic and we do not answer the same. Question No. 1 also appears to us to be academic as the assessee has not raised the consequential question whether the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the AAC on this ground was erroneous. In view of our answer to question No. 2, which goes to the merits, we do not answer question No. 1. We dispose of the reference accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... everal reprints. Therefore, it cannot be said that the guide books sold by the assessee to the student community do not answer the description of books in s. 80QQ. Nowhere do we get from the language of s. 80QQ, as understood by the ITO, that the object of granting concession under the provision was to encourage a publication of books in India which would replace the books which have been imported from foreign countries. The question is also not whether these books are useful for a period of four or five years, but whether they are, in fact, books. The question how long they are useful is not relevant. Having regard to the opinion expressed by this court earlier in Govindaswamy Binding Works v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1972 29 STC 219 (AP), we hold that the guide books published by the assessee come within the meaning of the term books in s. 80QQ of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cer could not initiate reassessment proceedings again in respect of the same matter. He relied upon CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh 1965 56 ITR 234 (SC). It is not necessary to go into this point in so far as Katghar house is concerned. In relation to the value of the mining lease rights, the point does not arise because there has been no finding by the Tribunal that proceedings for it could not be initiated, or that the initiation of proceedings in respect of this at the time was without jurisdiction. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The respondent is restrained from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned notices in so far as the Katghar house owned by the petitioner is concerned. The notices issued for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 are quashed. The proceedings based on the notices for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 shall proceed only in relation to the value of the mining lease rights. The petitioner will be entitled to costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Concessional Rate, Higher Rate, In Part, Indian State, Original Assessment, Reopening Assessment
-
1978 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Rules ... ... ... ... ..... egards question No. 2, what we have to consider is whether the manufacture of rims and wheels by the assessee would entitle the assessee to say that its work should come under the heading Cycle manufacture works under item 8 of C of Part I of Appendix I. Two views are possible, namely, that its work must produce the entire cycle or that it must produce substantial parts of the cycle. It is well known that parts of cycles are made in factories or in different places or in different works. Seldom it is that the entire bicycle parts are manufactured in the same factory and assembled in the same factory. The Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee s works are cycle manufacture works. We are not prepared to say that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is erroneous. We, accordingly, answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. The department will pay the costs of the assessee including counsel s fee of Rs. 500.
-
1978 (2) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Connection, Collaboration Agreement, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... ness of the resident and sales are made by the latter on his own account it can be inferred that the transactions are on the basis of principal to principal. As stated above whether a non-resident has a business connection in India from or through which income or profits can be said to accrue or arise within the meaning of s. 9 of the I.T. Act has to be determined on the facts of each case. Having regard to the various activities of the non-resident companv as stated by us earlier, we fail to gee how this circular is of any help to the assessee. In the circumstances of the present case, we hold that there was a business connection between the non-resident company and the assessee which would justify the assessee-company being treated as the agent of the non-resident company within the meaning of s. 163(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. We answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Family Property, HUF Property, Throwing Of Individual Property Into HUF ... ... ... ... ..... tween the members of the family. The joint family and also the properties can be identified from the declaration. Following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Subramania Iyer 1955 28 ITR 352 (Mad), we hold that any pre-existing nucleus of a joint family property is not necessary so that self-acquired property can be thrown into the hotchpot and, following the decision in M. K. Stremann 1965 56 ITR 62 (SC), we also hold that when the assessee proceeded to draw up the declaration at that point of time the properties in question assumed the character of joint family property and when the deed was actually drawn up it recorded a pre-existing fact that the assessee threw his properties into his joint family hotchpot. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the affrmative and also in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... facie for the sub-lease. The consideration for lease is either a premium or rent. Premium is the price paid or promise in consideration of the demise. In India there may be a lease, even if no rent is payable. The absence of the right of alienation to the transferee under the deed of assignment goes to indicate that it was not a conveyance on consideration. Again, where a document provides that municipal taxes are payable by the lessee, that may have formed a part of rent. On examination of the recitals of the deed in question it cannot be said that the assessee was divested of all rights, title and interest in the property known as Sashi Sadan . The right of reversion of the assessee was still there. Thus, on consideration of the recitals of the deed of assignment, taken as a whole, it appears that there was no transfer of the buildings known as Sashi Sadan by way of sale. On the other hand, both the building and the land underneath had been transferred by way of sub-lease.
-
1978 (2) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Contingency Reserve, Priority Industry, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... ricity by it. We are unable to agree with this view of the Tribunal. In order to attract the provisions of s. 80-I the income should be in the nature of profits or gains arising out of business of a priority industry. Neither the statutory reserve nor the securities in which the amounts have been invested can be considered to be a trading asset of the assessee. Any investment of the contingency reserve, therefore, could not be taken as having a direct relationship or nexus with the business of generating and supplying energy. The interest received on such investment, therefore, could,not be considered to be profit or gain attributable to the business of the assessee which alone can be taken into account for the purpose of s. 80-I of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to relief under s. 80-I in respect of interest on securities. We answer this question also against the assessee. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.
-
1978 (2) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Application For Reference ... ... ... ... ..... would, in their Lordships opinion, be an over-refinement of the position to hold that each aspect of a question is itself a distinct question for the purpose of s. 256(2) of the Act Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1965 56 ITR 365 (SC), Sundaram and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1967 66 ITR 604 (SC), Bhanji Bagawandas v. CIT 1968 67 ITR 18 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. 1970 78 ITR 474 (SC). The applications for reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are accordingly allowed and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to draw up the statement of the case and refer to the High Court for its opinion on the following question, namely Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the hath kharch allowance of Rs. 60,000 received by the assessee from her son, H. H. Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Udaipur, out of the privy purse was not liable to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
