|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 178 Records
-
1989 (6) TMI 38 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... g partner and the continuing partner in the assets of the partnership and there is no element of transfer. The partnership deed in question has not been made part of the record. The orders of the Gift-tax Officer, the order in appeal of the Assistant Commissioner and of the Tribunal do not disclose any factum of reconstitution. The only question posed is whether there is an element of gift involved when the assessee retired from the firm. After retirement, readjustment will have to be made by the remaining partners. In the light of the above, we hold that the Tribunal was right in concluding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firms in which he had been a partner. Therefore, our answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... mpugned notice. There must be a pragmatic approach to the reopening of assessment proceeding if the situation so demands within the provisions of law and by strictly complying with the provisions of law as stipulated and provided under section 147 of the Act. By applying the test laid down by the apex court of the country and by looking to the statute straightaway, this court finds that the recorded reasons do not justify respondent No. 1 in issuing the impugned notice in the instant case. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any bar and/or impediment to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the rules are made absolute. The impugned notices and the proceeding relating thereto are quashed and/or set aside. There will be no order as to costs. This order will govern the other two cases, namely, C. R. Nos. 94109411 (W) of. 1979. There will be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from date as prayed for.
-
1989 (6) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Profession Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... and intellectual agility is, of course, essential. . The assessees have been ambitious enough to seek an exemption from profession tax. The panchayat has already turned it down. Of course, they can knock at different doors. However, the court cannot, despite its goodwill for the scientific talents and their administrative assistants, show any undue enthusiasm to sympathise with such a claim. As a sagacious statesman observed in a different context It is not to the sturdy marching troops that extra rewards and indulgences are needed at the present time. It is to the stragglers, to the exhausted, to the weak, to the wounded, to the veterans, to the widows and the orphans that the ambulances of the State I and the aid of the State should, as far as possible, be directed. (See Winston S. Churchill-Speeches 1897-1963, Vol. IV, page 126.) The writ petition is dismissed with costs each of the petitioners shall pay the costs to the panchayat, costs including advocate fee of Rs. 500.
-
1989 (6) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee to disclose what inferences of fact or law should be drawn from those primary facts. If the Income-tax Officer failed to inform himself about the true position in law, that cannot be made a ground to reopen the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. The matter is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bhanji Lavji 1971 79 ITR 582, 588 and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO 1977 106 ITR 1. In this perspective, we also hold that the assessees made a full and true disclosure of all primary and material facts and hence the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act are totally unauthorised and illegal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... re the assessment order was passed, the assessee has been reheard. Therefore, we hold that it was rightly held by all the authorities below that section 129 of the Act has been properly complied with and that, the assessment order is not vitiated on that ground. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 144B applied to the assessment in question, that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment is not barred by limitation and that the Tribunal was also right in law in holding that the provisions of section 129 of the Act has been properly complied with. Therefore, we answer all the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Payment To Relative ... ... ... ... ..... that the same is not reasonable. In fact, the Income-tax Officer fixed the interest rate at 12 which was increased by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to 18 . We do not think that the assessee is entitled to anything higher than that. In the circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that section 40A(2) was attracted to the payment of interest by the assessee to the estate of the late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah and further we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of interest at the rate of 24 by the assessee to the estate of the late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah was excessive and that only interest at the rate of 18 per cent. can be said to be reasonable. Therefore, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... stayed, by an order of injunction of any court will have to be excluded along with the time taken for giving an opportunity to the assessee under section 129 of the Act or period allowed under section 144B. The same is the case with respect to other clauses in the Explanation. Therefore, there is no justification for the contention that only one of the various periods specified in the Explanation can be taken into account or the longest period therein has to be taken into account for computing the time limit for completing the assessment. Hence, we hold that the Tribunal was right in concluding that the assessment order was not time-barred under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d pertain to the assessment year 1957-58, a period much prior to the enactment and enforcement of the provisions of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. If, in the light of the existing provisions, the recovery officials pursued the steps without demur, doubt or dispute and if the proceedings had resulted in a sale which has become final almost two decades earlier, this court should be slow in upsetting the entirety of the proceedings at the instance of a person who did not take timely action to ventilate his grievances or who has taken erroneous steps and got defeated in that process. The challenge essentially is to what had happened in 1967 what had been reaffirmed in 1981. Looking from that view also, it is difficult for this court to enthusiastically entertain this writ petition. The absence of substantial grievance, as is evident from the broader facts available, is another strong and dissuading factor for rejecting the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
1989 (6) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure, Exports, Remuneration, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ion to consider the matter in series of decisions. We mention a few decisions, viz., CIT v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. 1990 182 ITR 172 (Ker) (Income-tax Reference No. 239 of 1982) and ITRs Nos. 91 to 102, 203 and 211 of 1984-18-6-1987, etc. The matter requires evaluation and appraisal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, especially in the context of the administrative relief granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the circular dated December 28, 1981. Therefore, we decline to answer question No. (ii) referred to us, but at the same time direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file and adjudicate the matter afresh in the light of our directions contained in CIT v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. 1990 182 ITR 172 (Ker) and Income-tax References Nos. 91 to 102, 203 and 211 of 1984. The questions referred to us are answered as above. The Registrar shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1989 (6) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Banking Company ... ... ... ... ..... ld be assessed and there is no question of the income of the erstwhile banks being considered as the income of the assessees and subjected to assessment. Such income, in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 170 of the Act, has to be assessed as the income of the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. and the Indian Bank Ltd., respectively. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision in the Banking Companies Act or the Act rendering inapplicable the provisions of section 170 of the Act to a case like this and we hold that under section 170(1) of the Act, the erstwhile banks would be liable in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession and the assessee-banks would be liable to be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. We, however, do not make any order as to costs.
-
1989 (6) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Export Market Development Allowance, Liability For Unliquidated Damages, Weighted Deduction
-
1989 (6) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... done in the instant case, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction, on the amount claimed by it, under section 35B of the Act. In the absence of a positive finding in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should decline to answer the question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal. We do so. At the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore 1. T. A. No. 394 (Coch.) of 1982 to its file and adjudicate as to whether the plea of the assessee is factually true and correct and if so, whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. We decline to answer the question in the above circumstances. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... or not. Adverting to all the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found that there was no income by way of interest accrued and, in that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the interest amount cannot be included in the income. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest which had accrued to the assessee on the balance amount due from Malabar Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited was not includible in the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the light of the above finding, all the three questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ng profits and not the assessable profits of the year. In arriving at the assessable profits, the Income-tax Officer may disallow many expenses actually incurred by the assessee and in computing his income, he may include many items on notional basis, but the commercial or accounting profits are the actual profits earned by the assessee calculated on commercial principles. The commercial or accounting profits, in the instant case, as disclosed by the profit and loss account reproduced earlier did not warrant any further distribution of dividend higher than what was declared. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion on the facts of this case. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to Me vakalatnama within two weeks from date. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1989 (6) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... s validly initiated. The Tribunal has, however, gone into the merits. The Tribunal should have first considered whether the Income-tax Officer rightly invoked section 154 and whether there was any mistake apparent from the records. Only thereafter, the determination of quantum of disallowance could have been left to the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal s order in remanding the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal in the appeal arising out of a proceeding under section 154 without first deciding whether there was a mistake apparent from the records was not in accordance with law. We, therefore, answer both the questions in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, shall dispose of the case in the light of the observations made in the judgment. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (6) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Income ... ... ... ... ..... eld that, even in the mercantile system of accountancy, an assessee could forgo the whole or part of a debt, which was irrecoverable, and the same could not be added to the income of the assessee. There, the court held that since it was not possible for the assessee to recover the amount, the assessee was justified in not charging interest thereon and the interest was rightly forgone by it. In this case also, as we have already indicated, the assessee was not able to recover the principal and, accordingly, the charge of interest in such a case would have only inflated the income of the assessee and the assessee would have been liable to pay tax on such hypothetical income, when it is not the real income of the asses see and when it really was not reflected in the accounts of the assessee. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (6) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... v. Relish Foods 1989 180 ITR 454). This court, in delivering the judgment dated March 16, 1989, held that the subsidy amount received by the assessee could not go to reduce the cost of the asset for the purpose of allowing-depreciation and development rebate and deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. In the light of our earlier decision in I. T. R. No. 310 of 1982 dated March 16, 1989 (CIT v. Relish Foods 1989 180 ITR 454), the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government cannot be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets, has to be justified in law. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Both the references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (6) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reference To Valuation Officer, Revision, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the respective parties, and having gone through the provisions of sections 16A and 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and also by looking to the cases cited at the Bar, this court finds that the Valuation Officer s reports must be considered in the light of section 12A and section 16A of the Act. These reports must be considered while the assessment is, pending. If there is any report beyond the scope of section 16A of the Act, the same cannot be referred to in the manner as sought to be done in the instant case. Regard being had to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the steps taken by the respondents to issue the impugned notice cannot be supported and sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. There will be no order for costs. Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the notice dated September 20, 1977, and proceedings under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. There will be no order for costs.
-
1989 (6) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... learned counsel for the Revenue, said that it seems that the reassessment proceedings were initiated because of a judgment of this court. Asked if he stated that on the basis of the records of the Income-tax Department, he stated that he made the submission on the basis of a sheet of paper which accompanied his instructions. It is strange that the Revenue should not file an affidavit in-reply though seven years have elapsed. It is stranger still that the concerned file could not be produced in court. And it is irresponsible of counsel to make the submission based on a scrap of paper the origin and correctness of which he cannot vouch for. There is no basis upon which the court can conclude that the conditions set out in clause (b) of section 147 of the Act have been complied with. The notice dated October 11, 1982, issued under those provisions must, therefore, be quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of this petition.
-
1989 (6) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... Revenue, the question of law formulated hereinabove, has been referred for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO 1981 128 ITR 87, to hold that the assessee is not liable to capital gains tax on the sale of the agricultural land. A Bench of this court in the decision reported in CIT v. T. K. Sarala Devi 1987 167 ITR 136 dissented from the Bombay High Court view and held that capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land is exigible. In the light of the above Bench decision of this court, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
....
|
