|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 217 Records
-
1993 (11) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... to the respondent. If these two amounts are excluded, then what remains is the profit of about Rs. 13.9 lakhs and the liability of the respondent to banks to the tune of Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the view that the just order that would have been passed by the Tribunal was to direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs. We accordingly modify the order of the learned single Judge and also that of the Tribunal and direct the petitioner-respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs. Out of that sum, it has already deposited a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. Therefore, it has to deposit the balance of Rs. 6 lakhs. For the remaining amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, namely, the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, the respondent shall furnish security, which may be of immovable property, free from encumbrance with marketable title or bank guarantee, within one month from today. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appeal - Review Petition - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... One more fact may be mentioned that it has been repeatedly argued and even mentioned in affidavits that since the Central Government has to deal with a large number of matters, they should be shown latitude in such matters. In the present case, there is no merit in the said contention for the reason that the Supreme Court had given liberty to the Government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the delay, as far back as on 26th February, 1990, and yet no steps were taken whatsoever even to remove the office objections which were raised on 14th May, 1990 and since then the matter continued to remain on the Lodging number. On the other hand, in the affidavit dated 10th November, 1993, the office of this Court is sought to be blamed. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the Notice of Motion No. 1842 of 1993. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed with costs. Consequently, the Review Petition bearing Lodging No. 640 of 1990, shall also stand dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... g that the assessee has not employed a regular method of accounting or there should be a finding that it was not possible to estimate the income of the assessee from the method employed by the assessee. Certainly, this will be a matter to be considered at the stage of final assessment. The decision in Honey Comb Estate s case 1991 191 ITR 472 (Kar) is relevant here only to point out that the said rule has its own limitations for the Revenue to apply. I am of the view that the first respondent is not competent to apply a different rate for the points than the rates referred to by the petitioner in the return filed by it, while acting under section 20 of the Act. Consequently, the provisional assessment order is set aside with liberty to the first respondent to recompute in the light of the observations made herein. It is unnecessary to go into any other questions in view of the above and those questions are left open. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute.
-
1993 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Relief For Salary Paid In Arrears Or In Advance, Termination Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... t to restricting the scope of the beneficial clause. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified In holding that the ex gratia compensation of Rs. 63,230, received by the assessee consequent on his resignation, is entitled to the relief under section 89(1) of the Act. It may also be pointed out that if the ex gratia amount received by the assessee by reason of his resignation from employment is not held as falling under clause (3) of section 17 of the Act, it cannot also be construed as An income amenable to assessment to income-tax, because it is not the amount earned or paid for the service rendered, and as such it will be only a capital receipt. From this angle also, the stand of the Department cannot be considered to be consistent or in conformity with the provisions of section 17(3) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be held that the stand taken by the Income-tax Department is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
-
1993 (11) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... of the deficiency under section 80J, it could have taken appropriate remedy by way of appeal, revision, etc., against the order of assessment for the year 1976-77. Having not done so, the assessment for that year became final and the amount determined by the Income-tax Officer cannot be challenged by the assessee in the course of assessment or appeal for the subsequent year. In the subsequent year, the assessee is only entitled to get set-off of the amount as determined by the Income-tax Officer for the earlier assessment year. In view of the aforementioned position, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to challenge the computation of deficiency under section 80J of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the earlier years in a subsequent assessment year when set-off is given. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 52 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Scientific Research, Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... actually spent. If the Legislature had intended that the capital expenditure on a capital asset could be carried forward to a subsequent year when the capital asset was finally brought into existence,there was no necessity for use of the expressions in any previous year and for that previous year . The provisions of the clause concerned make it abundantly clear that the expenditure incurred in any previous year can be considered for that previous year only. The Tribunal found substance in the alternative submission of the assessee that it was entitled to depreciation on the concerned amount which position was also accepted by the Departmental representative and, accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation in accordance with law. In the aforesaid premises, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim. The answer to the question is in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs. R. K. PATRA J.-I agree.
-
1993 (11) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Return, False Statement In Verification, Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... iz., Nutakki, Tenali RMS, Guntur Dist., the deposit of Rs. 27,000 in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the accounting year 1984-85. As per section 278B of the Income-tax Act, where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In these cases, necessary allegations so as to bring the petitioner under section 278B have not been made in paragraph 4 of the complaint which I have extracted above. In view of the same, all further proceedings in C. C. Nos. 319 to 329 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II, Egmore, Madras, shall stand quashed in so far as they relate to the second accused-petitioner herein.
-
1993 (11) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery Proceedings, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... uniformity in approach or guiding principles for consideration. In the light of the above view expressed by me that the appellate authority under the Act, viz., the third respondent, has the necessary powers to deal with and pass orders on the application for stay filed by the appellant, the third respondent has a duty in law to take up the applications for stay said to have been filed and dispose of them in accordance with law on the merits, after hearing the appellants or their authorised representatives. For all the reasons stated above, these writ petitions shall stand partly allowed by the issue of a direction to the third respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), to take the applications for stay said to have been filed by the petitioner or that may be filed before him and pass appropriate orders on the relief sought for by way of stay on the merits and in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations and directions in these writ petitions. No costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Application For Registration, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Firm Registration, Original Assessment, Registered Firm
-
1993 (11) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... dard has to be the standard of a reasonably prudent businessman or director of a company coming to the conclusion that the debt is irrecoverable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In any case, whether a debt has become bad in a particular year is purely a question of fact and the Tribunal has found as fact that the amount of debt for which the deduction has been claimed as bad debt has really become bad during the previous year and we do not feel called upon to interfere with that fact-finding which has not been challenged by the Revenue as perverse. The Tribunal s finding has not been assailed as based on no evidence or on considerations partly relevant or partly irrelevant. Unless it is specifically assailed to be a finding of fact vitiated by perversity, that finding has to be accepted as final. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (11) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... usual place of business on the company s business or if he is otherwise asked to perform extra services or to make special exertions or efforts for the company. It was submitted by the Revenue that the remuneration paid to Dev Anand under the two agreements would fall under article 126. This submission does not appeal to us. The special remuneration which a director may be paid under article 126 is clearly remuneration for any extra services which a director may render to the company in his capacity as a director. This has nothing to do with other functions or other obligations which a director may be called upon to discharge under independent agreements with the company which have no relation whatsoever to his functioning as a director. Article 126, therefore, does not apply to the present case. In the premises, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Return, False Statement In Verification, Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ns judge, is completely in error in reducing the sentence to till the rising of the court. Learned counsel would then submit that it is in evidence that the accused had already been once before convicted under section 278 and as per section 278A for a subsequent offence the punishment shall not be less than six months. Learned counsel is absolutely correct and I accept his contention that the reduction of sentence by the learned sessions judge is against law and cannot be sustained. However, it is seen from the records that since the accused was not able to pay the fine amount, to serve the default sentence of imprisonment he has been in jail for about seven months, and now the entire fine amount of Rs. 42,000 also has been paid. Now, since the date of order of the Sessions Judge, viz., March 28, 1989, more than 4 1/2 years have passed. Considering these, I do not think it would be proper to send the accused to jail again. So holding, all the revision petitions are dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... one year and an identical matter or question comes up for consideration in the subsequent year, the decision rendered in the previous year will be certainly good and cogent evidence in the subsequent year when a similar question falls to be determined. In the above decision, it is also held that so long as the best judgment assessment cannot be found to be arbitrarily made the High Court cannot interfere with it in writ proceedings. As the petitioner could not show that the estimate made by the third respondent is not in accordance with law and as the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority had considered the matter and confirmed the order of the third respondent, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot probe into the matter with regard to the quantum and make its own estimate in the matter. The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the original petition. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... before the Tribunal, it concluded that the addition of Rs. 24,500 or any part thereof was not liable to be sustained. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the order of the Appellate Tribunal proceeds to decide the controversy up for consider ation purely on the basis of weighing the evidence that was laid before it and not with reference to the construction of any statutory provisions of law. It is settled that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not open to challenge in these proceedings unless the findings are such as are not based on any material or otherwise the conclusion reached by the fact-finding authority is perverse or arbitrary in any manner. It is not so in the instant case, nor was there any suggestion forthcoming from stand ing counsel. The questions proposed in the application also do not suggest so. For what has been stated above, the application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, rejected with costs which we assess at Rs. 150.
-
1993 (11) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Being Heard ... ... ... ... ..... so. He gave an opportunity to the assessee on that aspect also. The assessee did not avail of the opportunity afforded in that connection. The estimate of the income made by the officer in the order of assessment dated December 24, 1990, was warranted. It was affirmed in revision filed by the assessee, by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated July 18, 1992, and rightly so. On a perusal of the relevant files and the orders that are assailed herein, we are satisfied that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner-assessee. The assessment has been made in accordance with law. It is fair, reasonable and proper. It is due to the assessee s own omission to avail of the opportunities afforded to him that he is faced with a best judgment assessment. He has to blame himself for his lapses. It is idle for him to contend that the assessing authority or the revisional authority committed any error of law or acted unreasonably. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... urn. The explanation of the assessee was that the omission was made on account of confusion, for in the earlier years, the property income in question was inadvertently included in the hands of the bigger Hindu undivided family and the Department had all along accepted that position. It was under that notion that the property income could not be included in the return for the year in question as well. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted the bona fides of the assessee s explanation. Whether there was concealment of income or income was omitted to be included inadvertently, is essentially a question of fact. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee which the Tribunal was competent to do. We do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error of law in reaching this conclusion. The application is without any substance and is accordingly rejected. The respondent-assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 150.
-
1993 (11) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, High Court, Question Of Law, Writ Petition
-
1993 (11) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Cinema Theatre, Finding Of Fact, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Question Of Law
-
1993 (11) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Bank Deposits, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the minor child will be applicable to the assessee, who by the deeming fiction is considered as an owner. Under the provisions of section 4 of the Act, in computing the net wealth of an individual, assets which are transferred by an individual to his minor child have been considered as belonging to the individual. The amendment made in section 5(3) which has used the words owned by him , therefore, has to be read along with section 4(1)(a)(ii) and section 4(3) and if a particular asset, even if it is owned by the minor child, it is deemed to be as belonging to the individual and, therefore, the amendment made in 1975 would be considered as clarificatory in nature. In view of this position, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1993 (11) TMI 38 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Earning Income, Expenditure Incurred, Income From Letting Out ... ... ... ... ..... 7. If the assessee has maintained separate accounts then the expenditure could have been determined by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of such evidence which the assessee might have produced. In the present case, no evidence was produced by the assessee and there was no other option other than to allocate the expenditure relating to taxable and non-taxable income on proportionate basis. This matter has also been considered in the case of Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT 1994 209 ITR 276 (Raj) (Income-tax Reference No. 135 of 1982--decided on October 12, 1993). Following the said judgment and the decision of the apex court in Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT 1993 203 ITR 1027, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing the entire expenditure and the allocation on proportionate basis was in accordance with law. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
