|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 217 Records
-
1980 (2) TMI 57
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'salary' u/s 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to determine if 'bonus' is included.
Summary:
The High Court of Kerala was presented with a question regarding the inclusion of 'bonus' in the term 'salary' u/s 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an individual employee receiving salary, dearness allowance, bonus, and house rent allowance from the employer. The dispute arose in determining the exemption for house rent allowance as per the prescribed limits in the Income Tax Rules. The definition of 'salary' in the Fourth Schedule of the Act includes dearness allowance but excludes other allowances and perquisites. The assessee argued that bonus should not be considered part of the salary for exemption calculation purposes.
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially included the bonus in the salary calculation, limiting the exemption under section 10(13A) to a specific amount. However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that as per the terms of employment, only dearness allowance should be considered part of the salary, not the bonus. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the definition of 'salary' in the Fourth Schedule excludes bonus from its scope.
The High Court analyzed the definition of 'salary' in the Fourth Schedule and referred to a Supreme Court case to support the interpretation that only remuneration or recompense specifically provided in the employment contract can be considered as 'salary'. The Court disagreed with a Madras High Court decision suggesting that bonus should be considered part of the salary post the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Court concluded that bonus does not fall within the definition of 'salary' as per the Fourth Schedule, and therefore, upheld the Tribunal's decision that the bonus paid to the assessee should not be included in the salary calculation.
In conclusion, the Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the assessee and directing the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 56
Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act based on confessional statements.
2. Validity of confessional statements in relation to the loans on khata peta accounts.
Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the dismissal of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 under the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued notices under section 148 of the Act, alleging that income had escaped assessment due to the appellant's failure to disclose all relevant particulars. The appellant contended that all primary facts were disclosed before the original assessments were completed. The ITO reopened the assessments based on a confession by Dwarka Prosad, alleging name-lending business without advancing money in certain accounts. However, Dwarka Prosad's confession did not mention the appellant or the loans on the khata peta accounts in question. The confession of Dwarka Prosad's son also implicated the transactions as bogus, but the ITO's case was primarily based on Dwarka Prosad's confession. The court emphasized the importance of a direct nexus between the material and the belief for reopening assessments, citing a Supreme Court ruling. The court found that the confessions did not establish a link to the loans in question, thus failing to meet the preconditions for reopening assessments under the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment, restoring the rule nisi, and quashing the impugned notices and proceedings.
Regarding the questions raised by the revenue, the court rejected the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as they had already considered the confessional statements and ruled in favor of the appellant. The stay on the operation of the judgment was granted for six weeks as requested by the revenue. Both judges, R. N. Pyne and S. C. Deb, concurred with the decision. The judgment highlighted the necessity of a strong connection between the material prompting the belief of income escapement and the actual circumstances, emphasizing the importance of good faith in such assessments under the Income Tax Act.
-
1980 (2) TMI 55
Issues involved: Petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order and return of books seized under s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Details of the Judgment:
The petitioner, a registered partnership concern engaged in wholesale cloth business, had its premises surveyed by a party headed by an ITO. Allegations were made that the books were seized and taken away in violation of the provisions of sub-s. (4) of s. 133A. The respondent contested these allegations, claiming that the books were duly produced in response to a notice under s. 131(1) and impounded under s. 131(3) of the Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the books were actually seized and taken away after the survey in violation of the law. The court examined the evidence, including annex. P-3 titled "List of documents impounded under section 131," and found that the books had indeed been seized and impounded before the notice under s. 131(1) was served, circumventing the provisions of sub-s. (4) of s. 133A. It was concluded that the account books were seized and removed in violation of the law.
The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent to return the books within fifteen days. The petitioner was also awarded costs of Rs. 250. Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon concurred with the judgment.
This judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures and upholding the rights of individuals in cases involving the seizure of documents under tax laws.
-
1980 (2) TMI 54
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact Section 4(2).
3. Whether Section 4(2) is arbitrary, confiscatory, irrational, and discriminatory.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950:
The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 4(2) of the Act, which deems agricultural income derived from land in the possession of a mortgagee to be the income of the mortgagor. They argue that this provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and is arbitrary, confiscatory, irrational, and discriminatory.
2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Enact Section 4(2):
The petitioners argue that the legislative subject "taxes on agricultural income" in entry 46 in list II in the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution should be understood as "taxes on the agricultural income of the assessee," and the mortgagor cannot be taxed on the agricultural income derived by the mortgagee. The court examines this argument in light of Article 366(1) of the Constitution and relevant judicial precedents, concluding that the legislative entry does not limit the Legislature's power to tax only the income of the assessee.
3. Whether Section 4(2) is Arbitrary, Confiscatory, Irrational, and Discriminatory:
The court finds that Section 4(2) of the Act is discriminatory as it treats mortgagors who have possessorily mortgaged their lands differently from other landowners. The provision deems the agricultural income derived by the mortgagee to be the income of the mortgagor, even though the mortgagor has no control over the agricultural activities or income derived by the mortgagee. This results in an unfair burden on the mortgagor, who may not even know the quantum of produce obtained by the mortgagee. The court concludes that this provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Conclusion:
The court holds that Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is unconstitutional as it denies equality before the law and equal protection of the law to mortgagors who have transferred possession of their land under a possessory mortgage. The provision is void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court directs the respondents in the respective writ petitions to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioners in light of this decision. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 53
Issues:
1. Application for waiving penalty under section 271(4A) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of the application by the Commissioner.
3. Consideration of irrelevant matters in deciding the application.
4. Interpretation of section 271(4A) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Comparison with similar provisions in other tax laws.
6. Quashing of the Commissioner's order and directions for reconsideration.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, voluntarily filed income tax returns for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 after the due dates, seeking waiver of penalty under section 271(4A). The Commissioner rejected the application, citing that the petitioner's prior assessment history precluded him from benefiting under the provision, as it required a disclosure to avoid penalty for late filing.
The petitioner contended that the Commissioner considered irrelevant factors, such as the petitioner's prior assessment status, in rejecting the application. The High Court analyzed section 271(4A), emphasizing that the provision allows for penalty waiver if the assessee voluntarily discloses income before notice under section 139(2), cooperates in assessments, and pays due taxes. Notably, the Act does not exclude prior assesses from availing the provision, necessitating a strict construction of the taxing statute.
Drawing parallels with a similar provision in the Wealth Tax Act, the Court referenced a judgment highlighting that existing assesses are not precluded from seeking penalty waiver under such provisions. Further, a decision from the Mysore High Court emphasized that if the conditions of section 271(4A) are met, the Commissioner cannot arbitrarily deny penalty reduction or waiver.
Consequently, the High Court held that the Commissioner erred in considering irrelevant factors and quashed the order, directing a fresh consideration in line with the relevant criteria of section 271(4A). The Court allowed the writ petition, with costs imposed on the respondent, and instructed a reassessment of the application while adhering to the statutory requirements for penalty waiver under the Act.
-
1980 (2) TMI 52
Issues involved: Assessment of losses claimed by the assessee for embezzlement in the assessment years 1965-66 and 1969-70.
Assessment Year 1965-66:
The assessee, a private limited company dealing in iron and steel, claimed a loss of Rs. 60,000 due to embezzlement by the previous secretary, Shri D. D. Mehta. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) also dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, stating that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish the embezzlement and resultant losses. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete proof linking the losses to the alleged embezzlement, highlighting the absence of admission or clear evidence against Shri D. D. Mehta. The High Court directed the case to be sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, emphasizing that the authorities should assess the material presented by the assessee objectively to determine the validity of the claimed losses.
Assessment Year 1969-70:
For this assessment year, the ITO estimated sales and gross profit due to concerns over the accuracy of the company's accounts. The AAC reduced the estimated income, but the assessee still claimed deductions, including the loss on account of embezzlement. The AAC rejected this claim as well. The Tribunal consolidated the appeals for both assessment years and upheld the disallowance of the claimed losses. The High Court found that the Tribunal's assessment lacked a proper consideration of the material presented by the assessee, emphasizing that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings against Shri D. D. Mehta did not negate the possibility of proving the embezzlement and subsequent losses. The Court directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the appeals, considering the evidence provided by the assessee and the principles outlined in the judgment.
-
1980 (2) TMI 51
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the actual cost of the drier plant for the purposes of allowance of development rebate u/s 33 and depreciation u/s 32.
2. Admissibility of legal and court expenses as a deduction u/s 37(1).
3. Permissibility of deductions for interest paid on income-tax arrears and commission paid on shares borrowed.
Issue 1: Actual Cost of the Drier Plant
The Tribunal held that the cost of the drier plant shown by the assessee at Rs. 7,70,000 was the actual cost for the purposes of allowance of development rebate u/s 33 and depreciation u/s 32, rejecting the ITO's determination of Rs. 3,60,000. The ITO found that the payment to Bhagwati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. was excessively inflated and collusive, aimed at claiming larger depreciation. The Tribunal, however, observed that the term "actual cost" in s. 43(1) suggested both the reality of the payment and the cost to the assessee. It held that unless part of the cost was unpaid or ploughed back, the department could not substitute its own figure. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Guzdar Kajora Coal Mines Ltd. v. CIT, disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that collusion and inflation could justify the ITO's determination of actual cost. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain the actual cost.
Issue 2: Legal and Court Expenses Deduction
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 8,679 claimed by the assessee as legal and court expenses u/s 37(1). The High Court upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's observations in CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that steps taken to reduce tax liability, resulting in more funds for business, could lead to higher profits. The High Court also cited similar decisions by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, affirming that such expenses were permissible as business expenditure.
Issue 3: Deductions for Interest and Commission
The High Court referred to its earlier decision for the year 1961-62 in the present assessee's case, where a similar question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. Consequently, the High Court answered this question against the assessee, disallowing the deductions for interest paid on income-tax arrears and commission paid on shares borrowed.
Conclusion:
The High Court remanded the matter of determining the actual cost of the drier plant to the Tribunal, upheld the deduction of legal and court expenses, and disallowed the deductions for interest and commission. No order as to costs was made.
-
1980 (2) TMI 50
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of "information" under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Audit objections concerning Section 40A(7) (gratuity), extra shift depreciation allowance, Section 80J (new industrial undertaking), and Section 80M (inter-corporate dividends).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notice under Section 148:
The petitioner, a limited company, challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) proposing to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76. The notice was issued on February 23, 1978, on the basis that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court found that the notice was based on audit objections which did not constitute "information" as required under Section 147(b). Consequently, the notice was deemed illegal and void.
2. Interpretation of "Information" under Section 147(b):
Section 147(b) allows the ITO to reassess income if he has "information" that income has escaped assessment. The Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 clarified that "information" must be derived from an external source concerning facts or law. The court emphasized that "information" must come from a formal source such as legislative or judicial authority, not merely from an internal audit party's interpretation.
3. Audit Objections:
a. Section 40A(7) (Gratuity):
The audit party's objection was based on its own interpretation of Section 40A(7) rather than any formal expression of law. The court held that since the audit party did not provide any new factual information or authoritative legal interpretation, this did not constitute "information" under Section 147(b).
b. Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance:
The audit party objected based on its interpretation of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The court noted that the audit party refused to follow CBDT orders and did not present any legislative or judicial pronouncement. Therefore, there was no "information" for the ITO to act upon under Section 147(b).
c. Section 80J (New Industrial Undertaking):
The audit party questioned whether the Naphthalene Intermediate Plant (NIP) Expansion unit qualified as a new industrial undertaking under Section 80J. The court found that the audit party did not provide any new factual information. The ITO had already considered relevant Supreme Court decisions in the original assessment. Therefore, the audit objection did not constitute "information" under Section 147(b).
d. Section 80M (Inter-Corporate Dividends):
The audit party suggested a method to allocate interest expenses to investments for calculating deductions under Section 80M. The court found that this was a matter of legal interpretation without reference to any authoritative source. Thus, it did not qualify as "information" under Section 147(b).
Conclusion:
The court concluded that none of the audit objections provided "information" within the meaning of Section 147(b) as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the condition precedent for exercising powers under Section 147(b) was absent. The notice dated February 23, 1978, was quashed, and the respondent was restrained by permanent injunction from giving effect to the said notice. The special civil application was allowed with costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 49
Issues:
Challenge to validity of recovery proceedings initiated by ITO, jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), issuance of warrant for arrest without proper procedure, relief sought against arrest warrant in recovery proceedings.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the ITO, "A" Ward, Ferozabad, through petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners had entered into a settlement in 1972 to discharge income-tax liabilities of various entities. Subsequently, recovery certificates were forwarded to the TRO, leading to a notice for the petitioners to show cause for potential civil prison detention. The petitioners contended that the TRO's actions indicated an intent to commit them to civil custody without proper jurisdiction, focusing the relief sought against steps for civil prison commitment without addressing objections to the recovery certificate execution.
The legal framework for tax recovery procedures under the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act was examined. Rule 73 outlines the conditions for arrest and detention in civil prison, requiring a defaulter to appear before the TRO and show cause before any such order is made. Rule 74 mandates an enquiry process before committing a defaulter to civil prison. The TRO's power to issue a warrant of arrest is governed by subrules (2) and (3) of r. 73. The TRO must follow due process, including hearing the defaulter's objections before any detention order under r. 76.
The court found that the TRO's actions did not align with the procedural requirements of the Second Schedule. Despite the petitioners' appearances before the TRO in response to the show-cause notice, a warrant for arrest was issued prematurely. The court noted that the TRO's attempt to arrest the petitioners lacked justification as the necessary conditions for arrest under r. 73 were not met. The relief sought by the petitioners encompassed challenging the improper issuance of the arrest warrant as part of the overall recovery proceedings, which the court deemed valid for consideration.
Ultimately, the court allowed the petitions to the extent of directing the TRO not to proceed with the arrest of the petitioners based on warrants allegedly issued prematurely. The TRO was instructed not to commit the petitioners to civil custody without following the prescribed procedures, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules outlined in the Second Schedule. The court clarified that if the conditions for arrest under r. 73 were met subsequently, the TRO could act accordingly. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the petitions, concluding the judgment.
-
1980 (2) TMI 48
Issues:
Challenge to order under s. 273A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for waiver of interest, Non-application of mind by the respondent in passing the order, Interpretation of s. 273A, Consideration of full and true disclosure of income, Concept of waiver or reduction of interest under s. 273A, Mitigating circumstances for waiver or reduction, Variation between returned income and assessed income, Application of penalty and penal interest provisions, Application of s. 271(1)(c) and Explanation to s. 273A, Legal principles governing waiver or reduction of interest under s. 139(8) and s. 217.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order under s. 273A of the I.T. Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner of I.T., which was deemed to show non-application of mind. The petitioner, as the karta of a HUF, faced discrepancies in income assessment due to estimates made by the ITO, leading to a deemed income from unexplained investment. Despite appeals and revisions reducing the estimated cost, the respondent rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under s. 139(8) and s. 217, citing lack of full and true disclosure of income.
The judgment delves into the provisions of s. 273A, which empowers the Commissioner to reduce or waive interest or penalties under specified sections if certain conditions are met. The Explanation to s. 273A emphasizes the importance of full and true disclosure of income to warrant consideration for waiver or reduction. The court highlighted the significance of s. 271(1)(c) and the absence of a deeming provision for the converse position, emphasizing the need for genuine disclosure by the assessee.
The court discussed the interplay between penalty and penal interest provisions and the waiver or reduction of interest under s. 273A. It emphasized that variations in income assessment due to estimates should not automatically lead to penalties, aligning with previous judicial interpretations. Mitigating circumstances, as per s. 273A, require a genuine disclosure of income, considering the factors that led to the variations between returned and assessed income.
Citing a Division Bench ruling, the court reiterated that the essence of s. 273A lies in the assessee admitting liability to penalty but seeking waiver based on mitigating circumstances. The court emphasized that the wide variation in income determination was due to I.T. authorities' estimates, not the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. Consequently, the court quashed the order and directed a reconsideration based on the legal principles discussed in the judgment.
In conclusion, the court set aside the order, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment based on genuine disclosure of income and mitigating circumstances. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the factors leading to income variations and aligning the waiver or reduction of interest with the principles governing penalty provisions.
-
1980 (2) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Allowability of Rs. 50,000 paid to retiring directors as revenue expenditure on grounds of commercial expediency.
2. Deductibility of the liability to pay the sum during the relevant accounting year for assessment year 1964-65.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The assessee, a private limited company, claimed Rs. 50,000 paid to two retiring directors as deductible in the assessment for the year 1964-65. The ITO disallowed the claim as the services of the directors were terminated before the payment agreement was executed. The AAC upheld the decision. The assessee argued before the Tribunal that the payment was made for commercial expediency to remove undesirable directors, saving recurring costs. The Tribunal found the payment justified for termination compensation, allowing the claim based on commercial expediency and business purpose, citing relevant precedents.
Issue 2: The liability to pay the sum arose during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65. The board resolution authorizing the payment was passed on the last day of the accounting year, with the agreement executed later. The first payment installment was due after the accounting year. The authorities found that the liability did not arise during the relevant accounting year. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Court held that the liability did not arise in the relevant accounting year, ruling in favor of the revenue on this issue.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the deduction for the payment to retiring directors based on commercial expediency but denied the deductibility of the liability arising in the relevant accounting year. The judgment highlights the importance of timing and purpose in determining the deductibility of expenses in business transactions.
-
1980 (2) TMI 46
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 2(15) for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71.
2. Basis for the Tribunal's finding that one of the objects of the trust was to own property and carry on business or activity for profit.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in both Income-tax References Nos. 14 of 1975 and 29 of 1976 pertains to whether the income of Umaid Charitable Trust, Pali-Marwar, is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 2(15) for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71. The trust had earned commission as area managers of M/s. Laxmi Cement Distributors (P.) Ltd. but did not show this income in its return, claiming it was derived from a business undertaking held under trust for charitable purposes.
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disagreed and assessed the income derived from the business activity. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the appeal for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, holding that the trust was entitled to exemption under Sections 2(15) and 11. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the business undertaking carried on by the trust was one of its objects, thereby disqualifying it from exemption.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1, which clarified that if the predominant object of the activity is to carry out the charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not lose its character as a charitable purpose merely because some profit arises from the activity. The High Court concluded that the trust's activities were not motivated by a profit objective but were undertaken to advance charitable purposes. Therefore, the trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11.
2. Basis for Tribunal's Finding on Profit-Making Object:
The second issue involved the Tribunal's finding that one of the objects of the trust was to own property and carry on business or activity for profit. The High Court emphasized the distinction between the objects of the trust and the powers conferred on the trustees to achieve those objects. The trust deed's primary purpose was for charitable activities such as relief of the poor, advancement of education, medical relief, promotion of science, art, and literature, and any other object of general public utility.
The High Court noted that the powers conferred on the trustees, such as holding and managing business undertakings, were incidental to achieving the trust's charitable objects. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that these powers indicated a profit-making objective. The Court also dismissed the revenue's contention that the trustees had discretion to utilize the income for non-charitable purposes, clarifying that all objects and purposes enumerated in the trust deed were charitable.
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was based on an incorrect interpretation of the trust deed and that the predominant object of the trust was not profit-making but charitable purposes. Consequently, the High Court held that the trust was entitled to the benefits of Section 2(15) and Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the questions referred to it in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee (Umaid Charitable Trust) and against the revenue. The applications under Section 256(2) of the Act were dismissed as infructuous, and each party was left to bear its own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 45
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of Rs. 4,45,618 as business profits.
2. Deductibility of Rs. 67,067 interest on income-tax arrears and Rs. 7,680 commission on borrowed shares.
3. Deductibility of Rs. 37,359 gratuity payable to employees.
4. Deductibility of Rs. 21,110 paid for debentures.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Treatment of Rs. 4,45,618 as Business Profits:
The primary issue was whether the amount of Rs. 4,45,618 realized by the assessee from the sale of gunny bags, which were initially contracted for packing cement, should be treated as business profits. The court held that the transactions arose as a normal incident of the assessee's business in the manufacture and sale of cement. The Tribunal's reasoning was upheld, stating that fluctuations in the prices of raw materials and stores, including packing materials, are a normal hazard of trade. The sale of gunny bags was considered part of the assessee's business operations, and thus, the profit from their sale was taxable as business income. The court rejected the contention that such profits were casual or non-recurring, emphasizing that they arose from the normal trading operations of the business.
2. Deductibility of Rs. 67,067 Interest on Income-Tax Arrears and Rs. 7,680 Commission on Borrowed Shares:
The court addressed whether the interest paid on income-tax arrears and the commission paid on shares borrowed for pledging as security against income-tax demands were permissible deductions. The court referred to its earlier judgment in I.T.R. 34/71 (Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 425), where it was held that the assessee was not entitled to these deductions. The court reaffirmed that the interest on income-tax arrears and the commission paid did not qualify as permissible deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Deductibility of Rs. 37,359 Gratuity Payable to Employees:
The court examined whether the provision for gratuity payable to employees under a scheme dated April 8, 1955, was a permissible deduction. The court referred to several decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which established that a trader could deduct the present value of future gratuity liabilities if such value could be satisfactorily determined. The court held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the present value of the gratuity liability for the calendar year 1961, provided it was determined on an actuarial basis. The authorities were directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to establish the extent of the claim.
4. Deductibility of Rs. 21,110 Paid for Debentures:
The issue was whether the additional sum of Rs. 21,110 paid for purchasing its own debentures could be deducted as interest on borrowed capital. The court noted that the debentures retained their existence and were capable of reissue, as per Section 121 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court concluded that the entire payment made by the assessee was capital in nature and could not be treated as interest. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the deduction of Rs. 21,110 was upheld.
Summary of Answers:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes, but only to the extent indicated.
4. No.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on all issues, emphasizing the principles of commercial accounting and the nature of business operations in determining the taxability and deductibility of various amounts.
-
1980 (2) TMI 44
Issues involved:
The judgment involves two sets of references under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, regarding penalties imposed under section 18(1)(a) for default in filing returns without reasonable cause for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1968-69. The questions referred relate to the competency of appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, adequacy of opportunity for showing cause against the levy of penalty, and calculation of penalty based on the law applicable at the time of the default.
Question 1:
The Tribunal was justified in entertaining the ground raised by the department regarding the competency of appeals, as it was a legal question not dependent on factual establishment, within the Tribunal's discretion.
Question 2:
The Tribunal's conclusion that the orders of the Wealth Tax Officer were effaced due to the Commissioner's order under section 18(2A) was incorrect. The Commissioner's power to reduce or waive penalties did not override the jurisdiction of other authorities, and the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal were maintainable.
Question 3:
The Tribunal's consideration of whether the assessee had adequate opportunity before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was deemed incongruous and unnecessary, as the relevant issue was the opportunity provided by the Wealth Tax Officer.
Question 4:
The calculation of penalty should be based on the law applicable at the time the return was due to be filed and the default occurred, as established by precedent.
The judgment clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's powers under section 18(2A) and affirms the maintainability of appeals despite the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal's findings on the adequacy of opportunity provided before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were deemed irrelevant. The calculation of penalties was to be in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the default.
-
1980 (2) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the right of the assessee to receive 10 candies of arecanut per year as owelty is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Right to Receive Arecanut as Owelty and Its Exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
The material facts are undisputed. The assessee was a member of a joint family, and a partition was effected among the members, evidenced by a deed of partition dated 24th July 1968. For equalisation of shares, the assessee was to receive periodic payments of agricultural produce, specifically arecanut, from other sharers. The assessee claimed exemption for this right under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, which exempts agricultural land up to a value of Rs. 1,50,000.
Initially, the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) accepted the assessee's claim for the first two years but later rectified this, stating it was an error. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the rectification, stating the right to receive agricultural produce is movable property, not agricultural wealth. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeals, holding that the right to receive 10 candies of arecanut per year did not amount to agricultural land belonging to the assessee.
2. Assessee's Argument and Legal Precedents:
The assessee argued that the provision for payment of 10 candies of arecanut was by way of owelty, implying a charge over the properties of the defaulting sharers, thus constituting an interest in agricultural land. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Swaminatha Odayar v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore, which held that a person entitled to owelty has a lien over the property allotted to other sharers. Further, the assessee referred to Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank Ltd. and Ray Chand Jivaji v. Basappa Virappa, arguing that a charge on immovable property is an interest therein.
3. Tribunal's and Court's Findings:
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not retain any interest in the land in lieu of which the payment was agreed upon. The document explicitly stated that the allotment of properties was final and binding, and no sharer had the right to claim an exchange of the properties allotted. Therefore, the right to receive arecanut could not be construed as "agricultural land belonging to the assessee" under section 5(1)(iva) of the Act.
The court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the expression "agricultural land" is plain enough, and a mere charge on immovable property does not constitute an interest in the property. The court distinguished between a charge and a mortgage, noting that a charge does not transfer property or any interest therein but only creates a right of payment out of the specified property.
4. Additional Arguments and Observations:
The assessee also argued that the receipt of 10 candies of arecanut amounted to agricultural income, implying a link to agricultural land. The court rejected this, stating the sharer liable to pay the owelty could source the arecanut from anywhere, and the right to receive compensation was not necessarily linked to any particular agricultural land.
During arguments, the question of whether the right to receive arecanut as owelty could be considered an asset under section 2(e) of the Act was debated. However, since this was not the question referred, it was not pursued to finality.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the right of the assessee to receive 10 candies of arecanut per year as owelty was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The question was answered in the negative, and parties were to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 42
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 can be said to be income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Income Derived from Property Held Under Trust for Charitable Purposes:
The primary issue in this case is whether the income of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (the assessee) for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 qualifies as income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes, thereby making it eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee, a company limited by shares, was incorporated in 1947 with the objective of conducting a stock exchange and promoting and regulating business in stocks, shares, debentures, and other securities. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, arguing that its income was derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the claim for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69, directing the exemption of the entire income of the assessee, while only partially allowing the exemption for the assessment year 1967-68. For the assessment year 1969-70, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The department appealed to the Tribunal for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, arguing that the running of a stock exchange involved an activity for profit and could not be considered an object of general public utility. The Tribunal held that while the running of a stock exchange was an object of general public utility, the income of the assessee could not be said to have been derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes. The Tribunal noted the absence of any prohibition against the distribution of dividends to shareholders and the specific provision for creating funds for the benefit of shareholders, employees, and their relations, thus concluding that the income was not held under trust for charitable purposes.
For the assessment year 1969-70, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to differ from its earlier conclusion for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a letter from the Ministry of Finance constituted a direction to the assessee not to distribute dividends or presents to members.
The High Court, upon examining the case, agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion. The Court noted that Section 11 of the I.T. Act provides exemption for income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. The Court assumed, for the sake of argument, that all the objects of the assessee-company were charitable. However, it found that the company was not under any legal obligation to utilize its income solely for charitable purposes. The company, being limited by shares, was at liberty to distribute its entire profits by way of dividends. The Court emphasized that the requirement for exemption under Section 11 is not the factual position but whether in law the company is under any obligation to devote its profits only to charitable purposes. The Court concluded that the assessee did not meet this requirement, as it was free to distribute its profits among its members.
The Court also addressed the letter from the Ministry of Finance, finding it to be merely advisory and not legally binding. The Court observed that the letter suggested avoiding the distribution of dividends but did not impose any legal restriction. The Court further noted that the assessee continued the practice of distributing suit-cases to its shareholders even after receiving the letter, indicating that the letter had no compulsive or legal effect.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the assessee was not eligible for the exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act, as it was not under any legal obligation to utilize its income solely for charitable purposes. The questions referred were answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner was entitled to one set of costs, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 300.
-
1980 (2) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the reopening of the assessment was based on information from the Tribunal's order.
3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed an order.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment under Section 147(b)
The primary issue was whether the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68 was valid. The court held that the conditions precedent for invoking section 147(b) were not satisfied. Specifically, the ITO must have "information" that leads him to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court emphasized that a mere change of opinion on the same set of materials does not constitute "information" under section 147(b). The court cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support this interpretation, including CIT v. A. Raman and Co. and Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT. The court concluded that the ITO's action was based on a mere change of opinion rather than new information, rendering the reassessment invalid.
Issue 2: Reopening of Assessment Based on Tribunal's Order
The second issue was whether the reopening of the assessment by the ITO was based on information from the Tribunal's order dated November 30, 1970. The court found that the Tribunal had already considered the question of export profit rebate multiple times, and there was no new information that came into the possession of the ITO after the original assessment. The court held that the reopening of the assessment was not based on any new information but was merely a change of opinion by the successor ITO. Therefore, the court found the Tribunal's finding that the reopening was not based on information from its order to be reasonable and not perverse.
Issue 3: Competence to Reopen Assessment After AAC's Order
The third issue was whether the ITO could reopen the assessment after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had passed an order disposing of the appeal. The court noted that the AAC had already passed an order allowing the export profit rebate, and it was not legally competent for the ITO to subsequently reopen the assessment and recall the relief granted by the AAC. Given the conclusions on the first two issues, the court found it unnecessary to answer this question.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the affirmative, against the department and in favor of the assessee, and the second question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the department. The third question was deemed unnecessary to answer. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 40
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to issue notices under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer for reopening assessments.
3. Concealment of income by the assessee based on findings from raids and examination of books.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Civil Writ Petitions challenging the issuance of notices under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessments. The petitioner, an assessee under the Act, filed returns for the relevant years supported by documents. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) sought to reopen the assessments as income was found to have escaped assessment. The notices were issued based on raids conducted on brokers' premises, revealing discrepancies in transactions and concealment of income.
The court considered the jurisdiction of the ITO to issue the notices and the validity of the reasons recorded for reopening assessments. The findings from the raids on the broker's premises, where accommodation entries were discovered, led to suspicions of income concealment. The ITO's reasons for believing that income had escaped assessment were based on discrepancies between claimed and actual interest payments on loans, indicating possible concealment by the assessee.
The judgment highlighted the importance of the material recovered during the raids in forming the basis for reopening assessments. The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of the material would be subject to further inquiry, but the notices were not deemed to be without jurisdiction. The assessee's attempt to prolong proceedings and lack of cooperation were noted, further strengthening the justification for reopening assessments based on concealment of income.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that there was no merit in challenging the notices issued by the ITO. The judgment underscored the significance of the material obtained during raids and examination of books in establishing the grounds for reopening assessments under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
-
1980 (2) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,386 made by the Income-tax Officer and sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Judgment Details:
Assessment and Reassessment:
The total income of the assessee, an individual, for the assessment year 1957-58 was initially assessed at Rs. 2,37,899 by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) on April 29, 1960. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served on the assessee on March 30, 1966, for furnishing a return of total income. In response, the assessee filed a return showing the total income as already assessed. In the reassessment by the ITO on February 25, 1969, two additions were made - Rs. 1,968 from speculation business and Rs. 26,386 as income from undisclosed sources. The order of the assessing authority was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC).
Tribunal's Decision:
In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee accepted the addition of Rs. 1,968 related to speculation business but challenged the addition of Rs. 26,386. The Tribunal did not delve into the adequacy of the explanation provided by the assessee for the source of the amount. Instead, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the amount based on the reasoning that there was no legal presumption that cash or investments reflect the assessee's income for a particular accounting year.
Legal Precedents and Supreme Court Ruling:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a Madras High Court case, but the High Court disagreed with this view. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, the High Court emphasized that the burden of proving the source of received money lies with the assessee. In the absence of adequate explanation, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
Conclusion:
Due to the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that in the absence of sufficient explanation for the sources of the disputed amounts, the ITO was within his rights to treat it as income. Therefore, the question was answered in the negative against the assessee, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. Each party was left to bear their own costs.
Separate Judgment:
Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon concurred with the decision.
-
1980 (2) TMI 38
Issues:
1. Deductibility of impugned payment of Rs. 53,000 as revenue expenditure.
2. Deductibility of royalty payment, remuneration, and travelling expenses as revenue expenditure.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the deductibility of certain expenses incurred by the assessee company during the assessment year 1962-63. The expenses in question included a lump sum payment for technical fee, royalty payment, travelling expenses for German technicians, and remuneration to the technicians. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, stating that the expenses were incurred for an asset of enduring benefit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disallowed the lump sum payment but allowed the other expenses. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal regarding the payment of Rs. 53,000, finding that it was laid out wholly and exclusively for the business purposes and did not result in acquiring an enduring asset or advantage.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the assessee did not acquire any enduring asset under the agreement. However, it was noted that the Tribunal failed to find or state relevant facts concerning Article 3 of the agreement, which dealt with technical "know-how." The High Court highlighted the importance of determining whether the assessee could utilize the technical know-how without the specified advice and assistance under Article 3 to classify the expenditure as revenue or capital. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to establish these facts before making a conclusive decision on the nature of the expenditure.
Given the Tribunal's failure to decide the crucial issues relating to Article 3, the Court directed the Tribunal to take additional evidence on those issues following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The parties were granted the opportunity to present their arguments, and the Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the appeal accordingly. The judgment was delivered unanimously by Judges R. N. Pyne and S. C. Deb, with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
