|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 175 Records
-
1982 (8) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Authority To Levy Penalty, Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... at there was no transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, so far as we are concerned in view of the decision in R. M. Amin s case which was followed in the case of Vania Silk Mills, we must hold that in the absence of consideration, section 45 would not be attracted and hence deduction by way of short-term capital loss is not available to the assessee. We must, therefore, answer this contention also against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. So far as the expenditure of Rs. 20,40,000 is concerned, the same has been allowed as revenue expenditure by the decision of this court in CIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation 1981 132 ITR 377, in the assessment year 1969-70. There can, therefore, be no question of allowing deduction for the said amount or any part thereof in the assessment year 1970-71 or 1971-72. The said claim was, therefore, rightly disallowed by the Tribunal. For the above reasons we answer the reference accordingly with costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... espect of any material gathered on the basis of any enquiry under sub-section (2) and proposed to be utilised for the purpose of assessment. On this aspect the Tribunal held that the assessee must be given further opportunity. In view of the clear language used by s. 142(3) read in conjunction with cl. (b) of s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in Our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on this point of law is contrary to the clear and unambiguous expression used in these sections. Therefore, we are unable to agree with this conclusion of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to refer to the several decisions which have been mentioned in the order because those decisions do not strictly deal with the actual points with which we are involved in the present case. In that view of the matter, the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 33 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking, Practice, Remuneration Paid To Managing Director
-
1982 (8) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Income Tax Law, Partition, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... any purpose and that the Tribunal was in error in quashing the said assessments merely because a new factual ground was urged for the first time before it. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred shall be in the negative and in favour of the Department. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in this reference. Sri N. Rajeswara Rao, the counsel for the assessee, makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We find that there is a difference of opinion on the questions involved in this R.C. between the High Courts in this country. This is a fit case which has to be considered by the Supreme Court. We have agreed with the Gujarat High Court and dissented from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. There is no decision of the Supreme Court on the point and the law concerned is a Central law. Accordingly, a certificate shall issue under art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. APPENDIX.
-
1982 (8) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... come into existence within the ambit and scope of s. 4 of the Partnership Act on the installation of the plant and machinery for the manufacture of nuts and bolts even though actual production of goods had not commenced during the relevant assessment year. Learned counsel for the Department referred to the Full Bench decision of this court in Mohd. Hafeez Khan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal 1978 MPLJ 351 AIR 1978 MP 116 we fail to appreciate the significance of that decision. The question for consideration in that case was whether the bad operational record of a partnership firm is a relevant fact when any of the partners of the partnership firm applied for grant of permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The decision in 1978 MPLJ 351, has no application in the instant case. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 30 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Entries In Schedules To Act, Higher Rate ... ... ... ... ..... cyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18, is The term textile , derived from the Latin Texere ( to weave ), originally applied only to woven fabrics, is now a general term for fibres, yarns, and other materials that can be made into fabrics and for fabrics produced by interlacing or any other construction method. Thus, threads, cords, ropes, braids, lace, embroidery, nets and fabrics made by weaving, knitting, bonding, felting, or tufting, are textiles. This definition goes to support the assessee s contention that yarn is, in a broader sense, textiles and leads to the same conclusion as is arrived at by us. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, falls within cl. 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the I.T. Act, and is accordingly entitled to development rebate at the rate of 25 . The question referred to is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... t of the smuggling operation and detection by the Customs authorities and consequent confiscation was a necessary incident and constituted a normal feature of such an operation. On this view, the loss was held as incidental to business and as such an allowable deduction under s. 10. Since in the present case the question as to whether or not the confiscation of the gold amounted to a business loss has not been decided by the Appellate Tribunal, we cannot give an answer to the question referred in the affirmative or in the negative. We, therefore, answer the question by saying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to an adjustment of the loss against the assessed income for the reasons recorded by it. The Appellate Tribunal would go into this question afresh and in doing so would keep in view the observations which we have made in this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... t. Lilawati the assessee acquired a right, title and interest in the disputed property as legatee of the deceased and that was to the extent of 2/3 share in her mother s 1/3 share. This creation of right would not be defeated merely because Sri Hans Raj Gupta challenged the genuineness of the will. She, however, relinquished her right, title or interest in this property by means of the compromise dated 15th December, 1970. Thus, she was a co-owner of the property along with her brothers and nephews and her share was ascertained and definite and when she relinquished that share the transaction would be a transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the Act. Our answer to this question, therefore, is in the affirmative. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Department is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (8) TMI 27 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Firm, HUF Business, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... assessee as computed by the ITO does not exceed forty thousand rupees. We must also record that the authorisation issued by the President under sub-s. (3) has not been placed before us by the Department. Inasmuch as sub-s. (3) does not restrict such authorisation only to appeals involving computation of the income alone, we are unable to say that the authorisation in this case is ineffective or that the member who disposed of the appeal and who has been admittedly authorised tinder sub-s. (3) was not competent to dispose of the appeal. For the above reasons, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Similarly, we answer question No. 3 also in the affirmative. Since R.C. No. 23 of 1979 is merely consequential and our answer to the question referred to in this R.C. is also in favour of the assessee upholding the view taken by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in both the R. Cs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Agricultural Land, Appeal To AAC, Business Income, Finding Of Fact, House Property, Income From Property
-
1982 (8) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... d on Devidas Vithaldas and Co. v. CIT 1972 84 ITR 277 (SC) and S. Kuppuswami v. CIT 1954 25 ITR 349 (Mad). According to the terms settled between the retiring partners and the continuing partners, the firms were not dissolved and the continuing partners were entitled to carry on business in the firms names. What was done was that the retiring partners were restrained from setting up any business in the name of the said firms. There was thus no acquisition of any goodwill by the continuing firms and no part of the amount paid could thus be ascribed towards the purchase of any goodwill. In view of the foregoing discussion, the two questions in ITR No. 39 and 40 of 1976 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, whereas question No. 3 in ITR No. 48 of 1976, is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. SANDHAWALIA C, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 24 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ash credits were genuine before the ITO, it was not open to him to contend that they related to income from undisclosed sources earned in earlier years. Learned counsel, in this connection, referred us to two Madras decisions. These cases are S. Ahmed Khabeer Rowther v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 984 and CIT v. Banarsilal Dhawan 1977 109 ITR 360. This contention cannot be accepted. In Addl. CIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co. 1983 144 ITR 140 (MP) it was held by a Division Bench of this court that it was open to an assessee to take an alternative plea, like the one taken in the instant case, before the AAC for the first time. The Madras cases on which reliance was placed by the learned standing counsel were referred to but were not followed as the view taken by this High Court on this question is different. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (8) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Proper Service ... ... ... ... ..... 76 (Mad), notice for reassessment under s. 148 was served on the manager of the assessee. The manager also wrote for extension of time for filing return. No return was, however, filed by the assessee. The assessment was completed under s. 144 by the ITO. The assessee contended that as there was no service of notice on the person duly authorised to receive the same, the assessment was invalid. This contention succeeded before the Madras High Court. It would be seen from the facts of the Madras case that the assessee did not act upon the notice nor did he file any return or participate in the assessment proceedings. All these cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee are, therefore, not applicable on the facts of the instant case. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) The service of notice under s. 148 was valid. (2) The assessment made under s. 147 was valid. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.
-
1982 (8) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... lid, the appellate authority will not merely set aside the assessment order but would remand the case to the ITO for taking approval of the IAC, i.e., for complying with the requirement of s. 52(2). In other words, the appellate authority would do the same thing which the Commissioner can do in revision. Thus, the Revenue s interest is safeguarded in all eventualities and it cannot be said that the omission to follow the procedure of obtaining the approval of the IAC as required by s. 52(2) would result in prejudice to the Revenue. Examining the position from all these angles we agree with the Tribunal that the Commissioner had no power of revision, for, the omission to take the approval of the IAC did not make the assessment order passed by the ITO pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue. For the reasons given above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (8) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... zed, the section states clearly that the ITO has to make a summary enquiry to determine how much of the seized amounts should be retained by him to recover the estimated tax liabilities. The object of enquiry u/s. 132(5) is to reduce inconvenience to the assessee as much as possible, so that the remaining assets are returned within a reasonable time. The person from whose custody the documents etc., are seized is entitled to make copies and take extracts. Therefore, these are also no grounds for holding back the transfer of the cases. For the foregoing reasons, all the contentions fail and the petitions are dismissed. Though the dismissal is technically in limine yet the petitioners were given full and adequate hearing. They were even permitted to file additional affidavits apart from scrutinising the records which were produced by the Revenue. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The stay orders passed in these cases stand vacated.
-
1982 (8) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Industrial Company, Processing, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... pect on which the Tribunal has based its conclusion relying on the decision of the Kerala High Court that if this operation was done manually and without application of mechanical forces then in any event it could not be considered to come within the expression processing . This argument has been expressly negatived by the Supreme Court in the passage which we have set out hereinbefore. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that in this case no specific or separate definition of the expression processing or It manufacturing has been provided in the Act, we would say that the Tribunal was in error in basing its conclusion on the facts found by it in determining whether the assessee was an industrial company in terms of s. 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978. We would, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Excess Profits Tax, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... from the earlier date or any date prior to June 9, 1960, is negatived. The claim that the adjustments for these five persons was contrary to the statement is also in my view liable to be negatived. However, the claim in respect of adjustments made for these five partners is not warranted by the statutory protest. Hence, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a)(i) and (b)(i) of the petition, but limited to the amounts mentioned in statement A , which has been taken on record, which is the aggregate of the amounts adjusted in respect of the five persons at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in Ex. J collectively. In prayer (b)(i) of the petition mandatory order has been sought regarding the refund, and I direct that the refund of the amounts as indicated in the statement handed over and marked A will be made to the firm, namely, the petitioner No. 5. As there has been partial failure and partial success, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this miscellaneous petition.
-
1982 (8) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... o error in the approach of the Tribunal in determining the value of the property on annual rental value. The mode of determining the value of the building on the basis of annual rental value is well recognised. Even the Legislature has prescribed this method under the W.T. Rules, r. 1 BB, which permits the valuation of a building on the basis of the annual rental income by applying a multiple of 10 . The Tribunal, in our opinion, did not commit any error or transgress its jurisdiction in determining the market value of the property on the basis of the annual rental value. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the appraisal of the material available on the record which does not suffer from any error of law or fact. However, the appeal does not involve any question of law as such it is not maintainable. In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 17 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in statute, the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of interpretation by analogy or implication, something what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity. To do so - (at p. 65 in Prem Nath L. Ganesh v. Prem Nath L. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 Punj 62, per Tek Chand J.) would be entrenching upon the preserves of legislature , the primary function of a court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, were attracted in the case of an application filed under s. 146 of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (8) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deduction, unless such person proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The Department is now only required to show that the difference in the income returned and the income assessed was more than 20 per cent. and if that is so, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. It is another thing that this onus is as in a civil case and the matter is to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. To conclude, therefore, in our opinion, in the present case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the Commissioner and against the assessee. The Commissioner is entitled to costs, which we assess at Rs. 250.
....
|
