Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 150 of 150 Records
-
1976 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HUF Property ... ... ... ... ..... f at the time of computation of the estate of which one-half share is deemed to have passed on the death of Vraj Priya. Under these circumstances it must be held that Vraj Priya, the deceased widow, who was a member of the Hindu undivided family was the absolute owner of one-half of the Hindu undivided family s property and that this one-half share passed on her demise either under section 5 or, in the alternative, under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act. We must, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person. The accountable person will pay the costs of this reference to the Controller. Mr. Shah at this stage applies orally under section 65 of the Estate Duty Act for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As the question involved in this case is a substantial question of law, we grant the certificate and we certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1976 (4) TMI 9 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Immovable Property, Legal Representative, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ittedly executed and registered in 1959. That being so, the gifts under the registered deeds of gift are chargeable to gift-tax under section 3 of the Act. It has also been found that the transfer of 24 shares were recorded in the books of M/s. Bahadur Tea Co. Private Ltd. on March 4, 1960. The learned Tribunal also on consideration of the materials on record has found that the cash gifts of Rs.90,000 were made during the previous year to the assessment year 1960-61. Thus, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the gifts made by Kumudeswar Goswami were assessable to gift-tax in the assessment year 1960-61. Accordingly, we answer the third question of law in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the result, all the three questions of law are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs. D. PATHAK J.-I agree.
-
1976 (4) TMI 8 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Power To Remand Case, Powers Of Tribunal, Protective Assessment, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... heard. (3) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of any orders passed under this section to the assessee and to the Commissioner. (4) Save as provided in section 256, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. Considering the above provisions of law and the findings and observations of the Tribunal in its order, we find that the order of remand passed in the instant case by the Tribunal cannot be made the subject-matter of a reference on the proposed questions of law. The Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and remanding the appeal to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law after making further enquiries on the lines indicated by it in its order and after giving opportunities to both the parties of being heard, has acted clearly within its jurisdiction and, therefore, the present petition is liable to be rejected. The petition is accordingly rejected. We make no order as to costs. K. LAHIRI J.--I agree.
-
1976 (4) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Agricultural Land, Land Whether Agricultural ... ... ... ... ..... ld follow from the actual agricultural use of the land, the land should be held to be agricultural land even though the land under consideration may be in the vicinity of developed or developing area. If the land is not actually a building site at the date of the sale, the inference flowing from the continuous agricultural use of the land will not be dislodged by sale by yardage or any other similar footing. Under these circumstances, following the reasoning of our decision in Manilal Somnath s case 1977 106 ITR 917 (Guj) we hold in the instant case that the presumption flowing from the continuous agricultural user of the land for a number of years prior to the sale is not dislodged by the evidence on record and hence the land must be held to be agricultural land. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (4) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Act, Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... the supplementary statement of the case was submitted by the Tribunal. The direction of the Supreme Court regarding the enquiry was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the relevant facts and the materials on question No. 1 are not before this court. Hence, the rival contentions mooted before us must fail, for we are unable to answer this question for the reasons sufficiently indicated herein. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to submit within 6 months from the date of the receipt of this judgment and this order a further supplementary statement of the case to this court under section 66(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and such statement shall contain the relevant facts and the materials as indicated in this judgment and also the conclusions of the Tribunal on these facts as directed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1967 63 ITR 449. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1976 (4) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ertainment and, therefore, the restrictions laid down under s. 37(2A) of the Act is not applicable to the said expenditure. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that expenditure incurred at the general body meeting cannot be regarded as entertainment expenditure. Entertainment presupposes a third party being entertained by the assessee one does not entertain himself. There cannot be any two views on this question and we do not consider that there, is any referable question of law. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... before the ITO and the AAC, was allowed to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, following CIT v. Steel Cast Corporation (Income-tax Reference No. 72 of 1974, decided by this court on December 17, 1975 1977 107 ITR 683), it must be held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise this particular point regarding computation for the purpose of s. 84. This question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative, since the case falls within one of the categories mentioned in Steel Cast Corporation s case 1977 107 ITR 683, where the Tribunal was held to have jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise another aspect of the same case for mere computation regarding the point which had already been raised before the ITO or the AAC. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
A divided member of HUF married a Christian lady - a son was born - Whether father and son form a Hindu undivided family - Legitimate children of a Hindu father by a Christian mother who are brought up as Hindus would be governed by Hindu law - discretion vested in a Hindu assessee to treat his properties is joint family properties by taking into his fold his Hindu sons so as to constitute, joint family properties
-
1976 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Balances in profits and loss accounts, general reserves and provisions for taxation are includible in the computation of accumulated profits because they are the accumulated profits as per the definition of " dividend " in s. 2(6A)(c) - capital appreciation in respect of the lands from which the income was derived as agricultural income and was not taxable in the hands of the company as capital gains would not on distribution be liable to be so taxed as dividend under section 12
-
1976 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
It is not in dispute that the property in question was the individual property - coparcenary had unity of possession but not unity of ownership on the property. Each coparcener, therefore, took a defined share in the property and was the owner of his share. Each such defined share thus "belonged" to the coparcener. It was his "net wealth" within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Act and was liable to wealth-tax as such under section 3
....
|