|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
HUF, Income, Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... other shareholders of the company. All ordinary shareholders receiving rights or bonus shares are not treated as having received any income because they have got the rights or bonus shares. Similarly, a director or other person having substantial interest in the company who receives bonus or rights shares does not receive them because he is a director or managing director of the company or as a person having a substantial interest in the company, but because he is a shareholder, and, he is to be treated exactly like any other shareholder. If the income in question is not taxable in the hands of a director or managing director who happens to hold the shares in his own right, it would follow that the same rights or bonus shares cannot be taxed in the hands of the HUF, which the managing director or director may represent for the purposes of holding the shares. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us in the negative, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 40 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... be entered in the register maintained under sub-rule (3) is the amount, if any, paid by the guest towards his lodging and boarding in the guest house. Sub-rule (4) of rule 6C of the Rules defines the words guest house as including accommodation hired or reserved by the assessee in a hotel for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty-two days during the previous year. The above provisions also indicate that expenses towards food and other amenities are also included in the accommodation provided by an assessee in the nature of a guest house. The reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by the Karnataka High Court in the above said case seem to be quite logical and the learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to persuade us to take a different view. We, therefore, find overselves in respectful agreement with the said view, and that being so, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, against the revenue. The references stand answered accordingly with costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... 1968, and, therefore, at that time the question that the registration for the preceding year was refused in the year 1976 could never arise. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in taking the view it did. The statement of the case shows that, besides delay, the Tribunal considered the application on merits also and held that the assessee was not entitled to registration for the grounds stated in the order. This was finding of fact. Neither in the statement of the case submitted along with the reference application nor in the questions suggested, by the assessee any grievance was made about this finding. This court could in the circumstances refuse to answer the questions referred to it because the exercise would have been sterile. However, we will not like to dilate on this point. Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Costs of this reference will be borne by the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1981 (3) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... his expense was also a capital expense. There is a time fixed by the I.T. Act when it can be said that a business has been set up. As stated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, the rules of accountancy have to be applied in a reasonable manner keeping in view the ordinary practice of the business community in such matters. Viewed from this angle, the expense involved in purchasing the milk and determining whether the factory is in a proper working condition and making adjustments, and so on, does not seem to be anything more than a step in the setting up and finalisation of the factory which is the capital asset of the company. After the tests have been carried out, it can be said that the factory has been set up and is ready for commercial production. We would, accordingly, hold that the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. But we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Principles Of Valuation Of Assets, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... eterminative of the value which a property will be supposed to fetch in an open market on the relevant valuation date, as has been aptly observed In any event, even if the valuer was an expert, be is not a witness of fact but a mere witness of an opinion. That opinion, therefore, cannot bind the court or the Tribunal or the income-tax authorities. (See the observation of Chief justice P. B. Mukharji, in the case of Mahmudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1972 85 ITR 500 (Cal), at p. 528). In the light of the aforesaid facts, we would answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In that view of the matter, so far as question No. 2 is concerned, we would say that the rental method based on actual rent received from the property subject to variation permissible under the rent restriction laws would be the proper method. This question is also answered in favour of the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... order. In our opinion, the following question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1968-69 on Shri K. C. Mittal, advocate, on November 17, 1971, was a valid service ? With regard to the assessment year 1969-70 the question would be as follows Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1969-90 on Shri K. C. Mittal, advocate on November 17, 1971, was a valid service ? We, therefore, require the Appellate Tribunal to state the case for each of the two assessment years, namely, 1968-69 and 1969-70, and refer the respective questions. There shall be no order as to the costs of these references which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.
-
1981 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was supported by sufficient assets. In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38 and our attention was drawn to the observations at pages 46 and 47. In view of the facts as adduced before the Tribunal and in view of the matter that there was no alternative suggestion or no facts were indicated before the Tribunal, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion in respect of the question whether s. 64(iii) was attracted on the question of dividend income of the assessee s wife. In the premises, the question No. 1 referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Similarly, question No. 2 is answered by saying that the provisions of s. 64(iii) were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... aws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from 1st April, 1976. This objection was overruled by the Tribunal holding that the IAC had the necessary jurisdiction. On similar facts in Indrasen Bhoot v. CWT (M.C.C. No. 116 of 1979) 1982 138 ITR 758 (MP), vide order dated July 11, 1980, this court held that the date on which the WTO referred the case to the IAC for imposition of penalty was material for answering the question of jurisdiction. Counsel agree that in this case also it is necessary to obtain supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal directing the Tribunal to state the date on which the matter was referred by the WTO to the IAC for the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to send a supplementary statement of the case and to state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the WTO to the IAC in the instant case. After receipt of such a statement, the reference shall be fixed for further hearing.
-
1981 (3) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... it reserve could not be applied to the contingencies reserve. It, therefore appear s to us that contingencies reserve must have been created either out of the reserves or other sums or amounts available to the assessee. The said reserve had to be earmarked and set apart to meet the contingencies which are not known to exist at the time when the reserve was created and the reserve having been created by the authorities who were competent to take the decision and set apart for future purposes to which it, may be put. By the principles, which we have discussed in the previous decisions, the Tribunal was also right in treating the said contingencies reserve to be a reserve for the computation of the capital under the relevant provisions. In the premises, the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.- I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... lment of certain conditions, it is really in the course of dealing with a transaction of export that such a profit arose and, therefore, judged from that, in our opinion, the fact that the assessee was not a dealer as such in import entitlements was not decisive. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider whether the assessee had a definite intention to enter into the transaction with an intention to re-sell in order to make the dealing an adventure in the nature of trade. We would, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. We would say that for the second question there are materials to make such a finding but it is not necessary, in the light of the view that we have taken, to answer this question. In the view we have taken on the first question, it is also not necessary to answer the third question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own cost. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Perquisite, Priority Industry, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... v. Amul Transmission Line Hardware Pvt. Ltd. 1976 104 ITR 671 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd. 1977 107 ITR 386. In the aforesaid view of the matter and for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore we, therefore, answer the question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and the question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their respective costs. On the oral application of the counsel for the Revenue, for an appeal to the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court on question No. 1 as this question involves the interpretation of two different decisions of the Supreme Court. We, accordingly, grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. Let a certificate under s. 261 of the I.T. Act, 1961, be issued separately forthwith. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge, Business ... ... ... ... ..... culars necessary for the grant of a deduction for depreciation, was bound to come to it and allow depreciation, as the ITO was bound to arrive at the true figure of profits and gains of the business of the assessee. It could not be contended that merely because the assessee did not file the necessary particulars in his return, the ITO did not have jurisdiction to grant the depreciation allowance. If that is the position, in the case of s. 34(2) in case of initial depreciation, and where there is no dispute as to the amount or quantum of unabsorbed depreciation, and, where there is income in a subsequent year from the business, which is deemed to be carried on by the operation of the Explanation to s. 41(2), then such depreciation could be set off against the income of the business. For the reasons aforesaid, we would answer the question, as reframed, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... was sought to be urged that this contention is no longer open for the assessee that it should be allowed to adjust its books of account on the basis of the application made in Form No. 11A, allowing it the registration on the basis of the new partnership deed which came into existence on August 5, 1968. It appears to us from the amplitude of the question as well as the contention raised before the Tribunal, which we have set out hereinbefore, that this contention in actual and identical terms was raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question would be answered in the negative provided the assessee adjusts the accounts, taking into consideration that the new partnership came into existence on August 5, 1969, and for this purpose the Tribunal will allow the necessary opportunities. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee with the aforesaid directions. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 27 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... plant on co-operative basis in order to provide the industry its basic raw material on fair prices.... 18. To open fair price shops for sale of hosiery goods to consumers... 22. To devise ways and means for encouraging exports of the hosiery products. 23. To procure, allocate, distribute to hosiery manufacturers woollen hosiery yarn, their basic raw material from time to time on no profit no loss basis. To impose, collect, charge, cess or handling charges for their smooth running of the offices of the society and its administration. A perusal of the above-mentioned aims and objects would show that the present case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association s case 1980 121 ITR I and the income derived by the assessee was income from property within the meaning of s. 11 (1)(a) of the I.T. Act. The question referred is consequently answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 26 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Firm, Goodwill, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... l representatives will apply to the goodwill as well as to other assets In the present case, as stated earlier, there was no clause in the partnership deed to the effect that on the death of a partner his legal representative would not be entitled to any share in the goodwill and that the goodwill shall enure to the benefit of the surviving partners who would continue as the partners of the firm. In the absence of such clause, the accountable person being the legal representative of the deceased partner was entitled to the assets of the deceased partner in the firm which includes his share in the goodwill. Therefore, we see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accountable person that the value of the goodwill did not pass on to the accountable person on the death of the deceased partner and consequently it was not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i. e., against the accountable person.
-
1981 (3) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ore, has to be answered in the affirmative. So far as the second question is concerned, it was contended on behalf of the assessee by Mr. Munim that the income from land by way of rent should be treated as business income. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land was a trading asset of the assessee. If the land was not found to be a trading asset of the assessee and the assessee s main business consisted of hiring out machinery, income from rent could not be treated as business income but had to be treated as income from other sources. The second question has, therefore, to be answered against the assessee by holding that the income from rent was assessable as income from other sources. The two questions raised are answered as follows Question No. (1) In the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. (2) Income from lease was assessable as income from other sources. Questions answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (3) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned undisposed of, then the Commissioner should dispose of the petition in accordance with law and as quickly as possible. If as a result of such disposal, relief is obtained, such relief is to be given to the assessee. If such disclosure petition is accepted, we have directed the Commissioner to take steps to give relief to the assessee as he is entitled to. Having regard to the facts and circumstances we, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as question No.1 is concerned we also answer it in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, with this direction that in case relief is granted to the assessee in the disclosure petition in respect of income of Rs. 1,45,000 from the undisclosed source then in the quantum appeal appropriate relief might be given to the assessee. With these directions the questions are answered in the manner indicated above. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... contributions received by charitable or religious trusts were unconditionally exempt from tax. But s. 12 of the 1961 Act provides that any voluntary contributions (other than those made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust) shall be deemed to be income derived from property held under charitable or religious trust and the provisions of ss. 11 and 13 shall apply accordingly. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the association s receipts by way of contributions from the mills were not of income character and, therefore, they were not assessable to tax. The Tribunal also held that if such receipts, for argument s sake, be held to be of income character, they were exempt from tax under s. 12 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the foregoing findings, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... write Urdu. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal. I have placed reliance on the above decision only to highlight the fact that in filing a return the assessee may by inadvertent mistake or oversight have failed to add back certain income as, in the instant case, the portion of the rent assessable as personal to some of the partners of the assessee-firm. That in itself will not be either wilful negligence or concealment with knowledge. I have already held that this event is not relatable to the question of delay in filing the return. Therefore, there is clearly a misapplication of mind by the respondent-Commissioner in dealing with the revision application of the petitioner. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside and it is so set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to make a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the course of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... only question referred to us is answered as under ------------------------------------------------------------------ Question Answer ------------------------------------------------------------------ Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances No. of the case, the Tribunal rightly vacated the protective assessment issued by the Income-tax Officer ? The resultant conclusion is that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding with the matter and in disposing of it instead of blocking it till the disposal of the matter pending in the Supreme Court in order to bring it in conformity with the view of the Supreme Court. It was also not justified in vacating the protective assessment made by the ITO. The Tribunal will now take necessary steps in order to give effect to our opinion expressed herein and keeping it (the appeal) alive and pending awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 156 (NT) of 1971. Reference is answered accordingly. No order as to, costs.
....
|
