|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 194 Records
-
1982 (9) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sugar - Excess production rebate - Admissibility of - Writ petition - Criteria for laches-Art. 226
-
1982 (9) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... estimated by it and has also paid that tax, as required by s. 200 of the Act. As the employer has thus deducted and paid tax, as required by ss. 192 and 200 of the Act, the employer cannot be held to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax. Our answer to question No. 2, reframed by us is, therefore, in the negative and against the Dept. In this view of the matter counsel for the parties agreed that it would not be necessary to answer question No. 1. As regards questions Nos. 3 and 4 referred to us, learned counsel for the parties conceded that if our answer to question No. 2 was, that under the provisions of s. 201(1) of the Act, the employer could not be held to be an assessee in default, then the provisions of sub-s. (1A) of s. 201 were not attracted. Our answers to questions Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, are in the negative and against the Department. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (9) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Loss, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... see s wife in the income of the firm are both to be treated as the assessee s income by virtue of s. 16(3) of the 1922 Act. Section 24(2)(ii) allowed a set-off of the loss sustained by a person in any business against the gains of any business carried on by him during that year. For the purpose of the section, it cannot be said that the income that he derived as a partner from the firm, which was doing business, was not income from business carried on by him in that year. The question that the Court had really to deal with was whether the wife s income was part of the husband s income. If it was part of his income it could be set off against the loss of that year whatever be the head under which the losses are incurred. We, therefore, answer the question as above, namely, 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 will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1982 (9) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... cultural income, there was a variation exceeding the amount of Rs. 1,00,000. But in order that the provisions of s. 144B(1) of the Act may be attracted, it is necessary that variation in income or loss return should exceed the amount fixed by the Board. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the provisions of s. 144B of the Act were not attracted and hence the extended period of limitation provided by cl. (iv) of Expln. 1 to s. 153 of the Act was not available. As the assessment in the instant case was not completed before the expiry of one year from the date of filing of the return, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of assessment was hit by the bar of limitation by virtue of the provisions of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 153 of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Department. As none appeared for the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (9) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ty so as to attract s. 41(1) of the Act. We may mention at this place that according to Sri Katju, learned counsel for the Revenue, we cannot go into the merits of the question and we can address ourselves only to the validity of the notice. There is merit in this contention. In the present case, however, for reasons which we have mentioned above, in order to decide as to whether the respondent No. 1 bad jurisdiction to initiate the impugned proceedings, it became necessary for us to advert to the question of the applicability of s. 41(1) of the Act to the facts of the present case. We are thus of the opinion that the initiation of proceedings under s. 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 was without jurisdiction and the notice as also the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the impugned notices and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are quashed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... terms of s. 5A(a), (c) of the Act he was entitled to Rs. 7,000 deduction plus 40 of the amount by which such aggregate exceeded Rs. 10,000. The 40 of Rs. 3,691 is Rs. 1,582.05. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of life insurance premia at Rs. 8,482 and no more. That being an apparent error of law, the respondent had jurisdiction to rectify the same under s. 37 of the Act. In accordance with the conclusions reached by me above, the rectification order is set aside in respect of all items except the item relating to insurance policy. The respondent shall issue notice of demand for such tax as may be found due by the assessee in respect of the excess deduction given to the payment of insurance premia to the extent indicated above. In the result, rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Smt. Vanaja, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that an order refusing consent or even an order granting consent on conditions should not be passed without first hearing the assessee. The petitioners were not heard before the order refusing consent was passed. It would appear from a perusal of the 1st respondent s order that the only real reason for passing it was that the Commissioner had in the order under s. 263 of the Act said that the original order granting consent affected the interests of the Revenue. The 1st respondent failed to notice that the order under s. 263 required him to hear the petitioners and to prescribe conditions that would offset the loss to the Revenue. In the circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent under s. 3(4) dated 21st March, 1979, must be quashed and set aside. The ITO, Company Circle VI(3), shall consider the petitioners application for consent for alteration of the previous year afresh and pass an order having regard to what is stated herein. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ons given in those judgments, we do not propose to re-write the same here and adopt them for the purpose of supporting the view taken by the Division Bench in Rohtak Delhi Transport P. Ltd. s case 1981 130 ITR 777 (P and H), with the result that with respect we are unable to agree with the views taken by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts. Consequently, it is held that the right of the assessee to interest in respect of the excess amount of advance tax paid by him must be determined by reference to the date of the first or original assessment made by the ITO and not the date of the order of the ITO, as a result of the order passed in appeal. The answer to this question is returned in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the view we have taken on question No. 1, it is not necessary to deal with the merits of question No. 2, and, consequently, the same is returned unanswered. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. S. P. GOYAL J.-I agree.
-
1982 (9) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Affidavit, HUF, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... nder for deposit of the amount due in a treasury or bank, to the assessee. This course must have been followed in the instant case as well. There is no reason for us to think that the income-tax office would have departed from this well-known and well-established practice of the Department when an order of assessment was made and it was found that certain amount of income-tax was due from the assessee. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the assessee that the notices of demand in respect of the assessment years in question were not served on the karta and that the proceedings for recovery of arrears of income-tax are illegal for want of such notices. In view of what has been held above, the recovery proceedings or the order of the Commissioner do not suffer from any illegality and do not call for any interference. This writ petition has no merit and must fail. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Stay order, if any, is discharged.
-
1982 (9) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t earlier. The Tribunal no doubt mentioned that the gifts were not of reasonable amounts as they represented almost 2/3rds of the capital of the family, but it is clear from the discussion that the Tribunal had not attached much importance to this circumstance in upholding the conclusion of the AAC that in reality there were no gifts the other circumstances which were discussed at length were the main circumstances on which the order of affirmation was passed. In these circumstances, the answer to question No. 2 will have no bearing on the right or liability of the taxpayer and it becomes a purely academic question. We are, therefore, of the view that question No. 2 need not be answered. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to question No.1 is in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is purely academic and, therefore, it is not being answered. The assessee shall pay costs of these proceedings, which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (9) TMI 44 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... tion of fact, which has been decided against it by the Tribunal, that the expenditure was incurred over stamps for obtaining a capital asset, the principle will not be different, as the Supreme Court has now settled the law. It has been laid down that expenditure incurred in raising loans is allowable as business expenditure on revenue account irrespective of whether the funds are borrowed for capital outlay or for revenue disbursement. We must make it however, clear that such an assumption is unwarranted on the facts of the present case as found by the Tribunal. We, accordingly, find no infirmity in the Tribunal s appellate order and decide the question referred to us by holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 4,970 spent by the assessee was of the nature of a revenue expenditure allowable under s. 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case is thus decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Revision, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... r, as deductions. As said before, these claims were based on facts which were supposed to be existing but had not yet been determined at any forum. The Commissioner undertook the exercise purely in the abstract. In that situation, his order need not and should not be quashed by the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, for it is not an error Of law alone which would justify interference at the end of this Court, but further if it was a case of manifest injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner by its own conduct, having failed to raise the items before the ITO, has disentitled itself to any indulgence from this court to assume it to be a case of injustice to it. Thus, I am of the considered view that no relief be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings. For the view I have taken, this is not a case for interference by this court under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 42 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... AAC on an appeal preferred by the Department. It is, no doubt, true that a delay of a few days has ultimately resulted in the assessment of the assessee as an unregistered firm and could be said to be a hardship but it is clear that the assessee, when the revision was dismissed, failed to take steps to get that order of the ITO quashed. That not having been done, it is clear that the AAC could not have reopened the question when the question was set at rest by the orders of the Commissioner in revision and the view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, could not be said to be erroneous. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, our answer to the question is in the negative. The Tribunal has not failed in law in holding that the AAC could not give directions to the ITO to pass a fresh order stating reasons for adopting the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm in an order u/s. 143(3). In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... the date on which the appeal was dismissed, the appeal was not competent and in substance, counsel for the assessee withdrawing the appeal submitted that the appeal was not competent and he chose to pursue the remedy of revision before the Commissioner. Having failed to get relief from the Commissioner, it is not open to the assessee now to say that his appeal should be heard. The only course open to the assessee was to challenge the order of the ITO, which was maintained by the Commissioner, by way of appropriate proceedings. That not having been done, it could not be contended that the Tribunal committed any error in rejecting the application u/s. 154. In our opinion, therefore, the answer to the question is in the affirmative that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... hild be shown in the return. There was a footnote which required mention of such income. In view of the principles laid down in Muthia Chettiar s case 1969 74 ITR 183 (SC), the answer to question No. 3 must be in the negative, and the answer to question No. 4 must be in the affirmative. Both these answers should be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the grounds on which questions Nos. 3 and 4 have been answered, questions Nos. 1 and 2 become academic and it is not necessary to answer them. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows Question No. 3 The answer is in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 4 The answer is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 It is not necessary to answer these questions in this case. These questions are merely academic in this case and are returned unanswered. The assessee shall get costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (9) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he benefit of the provision of s. 72, can be deprived of that benefit if there is change in the shareholding to the extent of 51 per cent. But, such EL deprivation will not take place if such change in the shareholding has not taken place to evade or reduce the tax liability. In this view of the matter, we have to answer question No. 1, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Coming to question No. 2, in view of the answer to the first question, that the benefit of s. 72 cannot be deprived in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the change in the shareholding was not effected with view to avoid or reduce the tax liability, and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off even in the year of change, there is no question of lapsing of that benefit for the subsequent years. We do not, therefore, propose to answer this question. The tax cases are, therefore, disposed of accordingly. The Revenue will pay the costs to the assessee. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (9) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... stake was not apparent on the record and could not be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. We may also point out that while dealing with the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 the Tribunal, by its order dated March 24, 1973, held, following its decision in the case of E. Hill and Co., which also manufactured and exported carpets and derived income from the sale of import licences, that the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of cl. (d) of sub-s. (7) of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1966. In our opinion, the income of the assessee has been wrongly taxed at 65 and this was an error which could be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. Our answer to the first part of the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Our answer to the later part of the question is also in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (9) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... n and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable. A Bar Council may sue or be sued by the name by which it is known. Thus, it is clearly a juristic person and would be covered by the expression artificial juridical person . The assessee is, therefore, a person within the meaning of s. 2(31) of the Act and a taxable entity. The remaining questions Nos. 2 and 4 to 7 do not need any answer, in view of our answers to questions Nos. 1 and 3. Our answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Our answer to question No. 3 is that the assessee is an institution for charitable purpose within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is also entitled to claim relief under s. 10(23A) besides the relief claimable under s. 11 of the Act. Questions Nos. 2 and 4 to 7 need no answer and are hereby returned unanswered. The assessee shall get costs of these proceedings which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Capital Asset, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... hire Brewery v. Bruce 1914 6 TC 399 (HL) had expressed the view thus (p. 437) Where the whole and exclusive purpose of the expenditure is the purposes of the expender s trade, and the object which the expenditure serves is the same, the mere fact that to some extent the expenditure enures to a third party s benefit, or that the expender incidentally obtains some advantage, in some character other than that of a trader cannot in law defeat the effect of the finding as to the whole and exclusive purpose. The same principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal and Co. 1960 38 ITR 601, CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club 1961 41 ITR 414 and Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT 1951 20 ITR 1. Thus, on a due consideration of the matter, we have to agree with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will have his costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1982 (9) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The assessee appealed to the Tribunal and urged that the order passed by the IAC was barred by the limitation of two years provided in s. 275 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this submission. At the instance of the Commissioner, a reference under s. 256(1) of the Act was made to this court. This court held that the IAC was debarred by the time-limit provided under s. 275 of the Act from passing a fresh order of penalty and the Tribunal had rightly set aside that order. The principle laid down in the decision applies on all fours to the instant case. Since the period of limitation of two years prescribed in s. 275 of the Act had expired in the instant case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty order and in declining to send the case back to the IAC for disposal afresh. In view of the above, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall get costs of these proceedings which are assessed at Rs. 250.
....
|
