|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 183 Records
-
1978 (2) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... rious valuation dates for the four years in question on the amounts declared by the assessees under s. 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1965. We have chosen to quote this judgment since this was an independent view taken without reference to the earlier judgments but purely on the construction of the statutory provisions and also on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. CWT 1968 69 ITR 864 and Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT 1966 59 ITR 767. As against this preponderance of view, we have one decision of the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara 1974 93 ITR 288, taking a contrary view. We prefer to follow the views of the majority of the High Courts especially when we are also satisfied on the statutory construction that that was the more reasonable view to take. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... pplicable. The latter portion of the question referred, therefore, will have to be answered to the effect that no amount could be brought to tax under s. 2(6A)(e), and that is against the revenue. Though the first part of the question also is covered by a decision of this court in G. Ramaswamy Naidu v. CIT 1972 86 ITR 768, wherein it has been held that development rebate reserve will also be accumulated profit, that question does not arise for consideration in view of our answer to the latter part of the question referred. We, therefore, do not propose to answer the first part of the question, as it is academic. So, we hold that the four HUFs, who are the assessees, could not be taxed on any deemed income under s. 2(6A)(e). The questions are answered accordingly. The assessees will be entitled to their costs one set. Counsel s fee Rs. 300. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1978 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Application For Registration, Registration Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... rofit from the scheduled industry. The ITO, however, adjusted the carried forward loss which was liable to be set off under s. 72 of the Act and found that the assessee was not entitled to any deduction at all as there was no positive income in the relevant year to which s. 80E could apply. This court negatived the contention and held that so long as the total income as computed in accordance with the other provisions of the Act included any profits and gains attributable to the priority industries, the assesee would be entitled to a rebate of 8 on the said profits and gains attributable to such priority industries and that the question of set-off would come in only subsequently. We consider that the same principle applies to the construction of s. 80T also as the two provisions are substantially similar in language. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1978 (2) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Agricultural Land, Business Income, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... dware and the purchase and sale of the property was not an adventure in the nature of trade. The intention of the assessee was found only to make a profit by reselling the property and he sold it when favourable terms were offered. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Raja Rameshwar Rao s case 1961 42 ITR 179, the assessee had not sold the property as he bought it, but he parcelled it. That clearly brings out the intention of the assessee, namely, to carry on business in real property. We, therefore, set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal and hold that the profit derived by the assessee on the sale of plots is assessable to tax as income from adventure in the nature of trade, for the two assessment years in question. This question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, it becomes unnecessary to answer the second question. Reference answered accordingly with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Investment Company, Proof On Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ess in dealing or holding of investments. But we think that the materials before us are sufficient for answering the point. In Nawn Estates (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 45 (SC), as noted earlier, the company itself had been incorporated with the object, inter alia, of purchasing lands and buildings and letting them out and it had been investing monies in house properties yielding its major income. As such the company was found to be a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the holding of investments within the meaning of s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. But in the case in hand there was no material suggesting that its principal business was acquisition of shares, stocks, debentures or other securities or the company had been wholly or mainly dealing in or holding of investments. In view of the foregoing findings, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their respective costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ere. In addition to the decisions noticed above, our attention was drawn to the passage in Kanga and Palkhivala on Income-tax, Vol. 1, 7th edition, at pages 83, 84, 1206 and 1207. In foot-note 6 at p. 1207 the learned author submits that the decision of the Madras High Court in Continental Commercial Corporation v. ITO 1975 100 ITR 170 (one of the decisions relied on for the assessee) was wrong. In the light of the principle of the decisions noticed supra and on the scheme and purpose of ss. 271, 274 and 275, we are of the view that s. 275 of the Act embodies a rule of limitation and is procedural in character. The Tribunal was right in the view that it took. We answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1978 (2) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Market Value, Rule Against Double Taxation, Taxable Event ... ... ... ... ..... wards cannot be confined to transfers as contemplated by the G.T. Act, 1958. We are in respectful agreement with the learned Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the views expressed on this aspect of the matter in the case of ITO v. Buragadda Satyanarayana 1977 106 ITR 333 (AP). The other aspect of the matter adverted to in that case, namely, whether s. 52 was confined to a bona fide transaction or not, we are not called upon to decide in this case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the expression given in cl. (iii) of s. 47 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not only to exclude gift as contemplated under cl. (a) of s. 4 of the G.T. Act, 1958, but is meant to cover a transaction as understood generally and in the light of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In that view of the matter, the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... der Chapter XVIIB or paid in advance under Chapter XVIIC ... It is an admitted fact that the assessee had paid advance tax under Chap. XVIIC and the amount paid was in excess of the tax assessed. In these circumstances, there is no amount on which two per cent. of the tax can be calculated for the purpose of s.271(1)(a)(i)(b). The question considered in the decision in CIT v. Kandaswami Weaving Factory and Co. 1977 110 ITR 84 (Mad) was different. That was a case where the payment was made not as advance tax under Chap. XVIIC but before the penalty order. That will not be a payment under Chap. XVIIC. The Explanation was, therefore, not attracted and it was held that the assessee will be liable to pay penalty. That decision will not apply to this case. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee is entitled to costs from the revenue including counsel s fee of Rs. 300.
-
1978 (2) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Change Of Law, Excess Profits Tax, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... nce to s. 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the court held that any reference to the Limitation Act, 1908, after its repeal should be read as reference to the Limitation Act, 1963, in the City Civil Courts Act, 1953. In the case of New Central jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1971 SC 454, the Supreme Court held that on the repeal of the Sea Customs Act reference to the Sea Customs Act in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, should be read as reference to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. This contention, on behalf of the assessee, therefore, cannot also be accepted. In the result, we must hold that under sub-s. (14) of s. 11 of the Finance Act, 1946, the amount in question was assessable and was liable to be included in the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Parties, however, will bear and pay their own costs. GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mind in relation to an item upon which he has relied. The respondent, therefore, does not appear to have carefully looked into the record of the original assessment proceedings before he satisfied himself that there was escapement of income on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose material facts during the course of the original assessment proceedings. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, no conclusion is possible other than that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated without the very conditions precedent for the exercise of power having been in existence. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice, Ex. D, issued by the respondent is quashed and set aside and the respondent is restrained from initiating proceedings for reassessment against the petitioner in pursuance of the said notice. Rule made absolute accordingly. The respondent shall pay the costs of the petition to the petitioner.
-
1978 (2) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Lordships, therefore, framed question No. as to whether the assessee had discharged the burden placed upon him under the Explanation. Then comes question No. 2, which is identical as in the present set of cases. In those circumstances, question No. 2. was, in our view, interdependent on question No. 1. It cannot, therefore, be said on the authority of their Lordships decision in Addl. CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel 1978 115 ITR 118 (SC) that the question as framed by itself amounted to a question of law. The question whether the Explanation applies or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For similar reasons, our decision in CIT v. Satnam Malik (since reported in 1979 120 ITR 309 (Raj)), relied upon by Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the revenue, is clearly distinguishable on facts. For all these reasons, these applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, must fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Executor, Reference, Representative Assessee, Will ... ... ... ... ..... ble of being fixed and ascertained. Judged by these principles, in our opinion, in this case, it cannot be said that the shares of the parties were not definite or ascertainable, but shares required to be ascertained and the I.T. authorities were competent to ascertain the shares. The revenue is also competent to make protective assessment. In order to protect the interest of the revenue protective assessments are recognised under the I.T. Act (see observations in the cases of Beli Raw and Brothers v. CIT 1935 3 ITR 103 (Lah) and Lalji Haridas v. ITO 1961 43 ITR 387 (SC)). In our opinion, the mere pendency of a dispute does not make, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the shares of the parties in the properties, either indefinite or incapable of ascertainment. In the premises, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or had directed that, if the income was inadequate to make the monthly payments to the beneficiaries, that shortfall should be drawn from the corpus makes no difference. What must be seen is whether the beneficiaries were entitled to the payment of definite or known amount and have life interest. For the same reason, it is not also necessary that the trust should be held for each of the beneficiaries separately. We, therefore, hold, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Trustees of Nizam s Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust 1977 108 ITR 555, that separate assessments will have to be made, one under s. 21 (1) in respect of the actuarial valuation of the monthly sums paid to each of the beneficiaries and the other under s. 21(4) in respect of the actuarial valuation of the totality of the beneficial interests of the remaindermen or reversioners. The two questions referred to us are answered accordingly as indicated above. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each.
-
1978 (2) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ces of the instant case. As we have mentioned before, clause 6 of the present deed, in our opinion, read in the background of the will of Sagarmall, clearly indicates that the minor was being only admitted to the benefits of partnership . We have also set out the other clauses, which indicate that in the management of the business of the firm, third party, namely, the minor, was not being given any part. These clauses, read in conjunction with and in the background of the will of Sagarmall, in our opinion, clearly establish that the minor was admitted to the benefits of partnership and was not made a full partner. If that is the position, then the inclusion of his income in the income of the assessee was clearly attracted by virtue of s.64(ii). The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, came to the correct conclusion. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... aim was made before the ITO, This is a pure question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of the present case. In the order of the AAC, it was observed that the ITO had not given any reason as to why he had not allowed the exemption under s. 80J of the Act. This observation of the AAC presupposes that a claim was preferred by the assessee before the ITO. The Tribunal also in a way finds that this claim has been made before the ITO. No doubt, the Tribunal has also given a finding that the assessee is entitled to claim this relief before the AAC even though he has not raised it before the ITO. This finding we are unable to agree with having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. 1978 111 ITR 1. However, in view of the factual finding that this question has been raised before the ITO, we answer this question in the affirmative and against the revenue. The reference is answered accordingly, with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... entioned in the trust deed and for no other purposes, and such income was, therefore, exempt from tax under s. 4(3)(i). Even if cl. 8 of the deed did not come into operation until the death of Bai Kasturbai and the trustees would be incompetent to apply the income for charitable purposes during her lifetime, the only effect would be that the income would accumulate during her lifetime and on her death would have to be applied by the trustees for charitable purposes. In that view, it was held that the income would be exempt from tax under s. 4(3)(i). As in that case, in this case too, the income from the trust fund was to be spent wholly for public charitable purposes mentioned in cl. 8. Therefore, the trustees would be entitled to claim exemption under s. 5(1) of the Act. We, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal and answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee. Question No. 2 is answered holding that the income as per the books of the trust have to be considered for purposes of s. 11(1) of the Act. Question No. 3 is answered holding that there was compliance with s. 11(2)(a) of the Act with regard to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 and that s. 11(2)(b) of the Act has been complied with regard to the year 1967-68, and the question of compliance with the condition under this sub-clause does not arise with regard to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69. This would also answer the fourth question and that is to this effect that as there was no question of non-fulfilment of the condition under s. 11(2) of the Act, no portion of the income as assessed by the ITO is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69. Thus, these three questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly with costs of the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1978 (2) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Year, Income Escaping Assessment, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings consequent on these notices were without jurisdiction. Section 15(3) requires the issuance of a notice during the year in question. It provides In the case of any person whose total agricultural income is, in the opinion of the assessing authority, such amount as to render such person liable to payment of agricultural income-tax in any year, he may serve in that year a notice in the prescribed form........ Obviously, this mandatory condition was violated by the issuance of the notices on November 6, 1965, for the assessment year ending 1363 fasli. The notice on November 6, 1965, could not be characterised as valid notices under S. 15(3) of the Act. We answer the first question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. Learned counsels are agreed that in view of this answer, the second question does not call for any specific answer. We, therefore, return it unanswered. The assessee will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (2) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
HUF, Interest Paid By Firm To Partner ... ... ... ... ..... account belonged to the individuals. No matter whether in fact or in law the money may have belonged to the HUF, which they might have brought in, the other way of looking at it could be that since the entire contribution of each of these two partners was money belonging to the HUF in law the HUF was the partner of the firm represented by their kartas. Looked at from any point of view, the interest was paid on the capital contribution of the partners of the firm. That being the legal position, making entries in a way that the payment of interest may be shown to a person as a creditor would not make any difference, because interest was paid on the capital contributed by a person who was a partner of the firm. In this view, we answer the question referred to us by holding that the payment of interest on these capital accounts was not a permissible deduction, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In view of the divided success, parties will bear their own costs.
-
1978 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act. After giving notice to the assessee he dropped the said proceedings. Against the said order, there was an appeal to the Tribunal, which the Tribunal has dismissed as incompetent. In the view of the Tribunal, there was no provision for filing an appeal against an order passed under s. 35 of the W.T. Act. The learned counsel for the Commissioner was not in a position to dispute the fact that s. 24 of the W.T. Act does not provide for an appeal against the proceedings of the AAC dropping rectification proceedings. A similar question arose under the Indian I.T. Act of the year 1922, and it was held by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Vellingiri Gounder 1953 24 ITR 166, that no appeal lay to the AAC against the order of rectification passed by the ITO. The same decision holds good for the W.T. Act also. Therefore, we do not find that any referable question arises out of the Tribunal s order. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 one set.
....
|
