|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 242 Records
-
1980 (4) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 75,201 as an expenditure or as a business loss out of his income.
Summary:
1. Nature of Liability Discharged by the Assessee:
The assessee, who was the managing director of Chopda Electric Supply Co. Ltd., paid Rs. 73,520.80 to the Bank of India as a guarantor for a loan taken by the company. The company went into liquidation, and the assessee could not recover the amount paid. The court noted that under s. 128 of the Contract Act, the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Upon payment, the assessee stepped into the shoes of the creditor u/s 140 of the Contract Act. The loss incurred by the assessee was deemed a capital loss.
2. Claim for Deduction u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The assessee claimed the amount as a deduction u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Act, arguing it was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The court found that the assessee's activities, including investment in shares and holding positions as director or managing director, did not constitute carrying on a business. The repayment of the loan was not considered an expenditure laid out for business purposes, as there was no legal obligation for the assessee to guarantee the loan.
3. Claim for Deduction u/s 12(2) of the Act:
The Tribunal also considered the claim u/s 12(2) of the Act, which pertains to income from other sources. The court held that the repayment of the loan did not qualify as an expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning income, profits, or gains. The assessee's income from dividends and director's fees was not connected to the loan repayment.
4. Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found insufficient material to establish that the assessee was carrying on a regular business of managing the company. It also noted that the activities related to different companies did not constitute the same business. Consequently, the claim for set-off of the loss was rejected.
5. Court's Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessee's claim for deduction under both s. 10(2)(xv) and s. 12(2) of the Act was not permissible. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, against the assessee. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1980 (4) TMI 81
Issues:
Capital gains liability on transfer of goodwill and tangible assets to a new company.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an assessment where the assessee transferred its inward foreign Tourist activities to a new company, receiving fully paid-up shares in return. The Income Tax Officer treated the amount received as capital gains, which was later reduced by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal found that only intangible property, namely goodwill, was transferred, except for the benefit of pending contracts, engagements, orders, etc. The Tribunal dissected the amount received into goodwill and tangible assets, without specifying the tangible assets transferred.
Regarding the first issue, the court relied on a previous decision to conclude that goodwill is a self-created asset and not subject to capital gains tax. Therefore, no capital gains liability arose from the transfer of goodwill. For the second issue, the court found the Tribunal's valuation of goodwill and tangible assets to be unsupported by evidence. The lack of identification of the tangible assets transferred led the court to reject the Tribunal's valuation. Consequently, the court answered the second and third questions in the negative, in favor of the assessee, as no tangible assets were proven to have been transferred.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no capital gains liability arose from the transfer of goodwill and tangible assets due to the lack of evidence supporting the valuation provided by the Tribunal. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1980 (4) TMI 80
Issues:
1. Whether the mere book entry is sufficient to convert individual's separate property into joint family property for tax purposes?
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an individual deriving income from money-lending business and property, with assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the income from a sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the assessee's capital account, estimating it at 18% and adding it back to the income. The assessee claimed the amount was thrown into the joint family hotchpot and used in the pawnbroking business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal held that no formal declaration was necessary to prove the conversion of property into joint family property, relying on entries in the books of account. The key issue was whether a mere book entry was sufficient to convert individual's separate property into joint family property for tax purposes.
The judgment delves into the doctrine of "throwing into the common stock or common hotchpot," emphasizing the essential requisites for such conversion: the existence of a coparcenary and the deliberate intention of the coparcener owning separate property to treat it as joint family property. It was clarified that the transformation into joint family property is based on the coparcener's intention, not just physical acts or public declarations. In this case, the court found a clear intention to throw the sum of Rs. 50,000 into the joint family hotchpot, supported by entries in the capital account and the assessee's statement regarding the use of the amount in the pawnbroking business. As per the court's analysis, the mere book entry, along with the intention demonstrated, was deemed sufficient to convert the individual's separate property into joint family property. Consequently, the references were answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the principles governing the conversion of separate property into joint family property for tax purposes. It underscores the importance of intention over formalities, highlighting that a mere book entry, coupled with a clear intention, can suffice to establish such conversion. The decision provides a significant interpretation of the doctrine and its application in the context of individual and joint family property, setting a precedent for similar cases involving tax assessments based on property conversions.
-
1980 (4) TMI 79
Issues involved: Determination of whether the assessee-company qualifies as an 'industrial company' u/s 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966 for the purpose of exemption from super-tax.
Summary:
The High Court of Bombay considered a reference by the Tribunal regarding the classification of the assessee-company as an 'industrial company' under the Finance Act, 1966. The company engaged in construction activities and had declared dividends exceeding 45% of its profits. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially denied the company's claim for exemption from super-tax, requiring a higher dividend declaration. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) ruled in favor of the company, considering its construction activities as manufacturing or processing of goods. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the direct relation of the company's manufacturing activities to its primary business of building construction. The revenue challenged this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.
The Court analyzed the definition of 'industrial company' as per s. 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966, which specifies engagement in the manufacture or processing of goods. It noted the distinction between construction and manufacturing activities, highlighting that the definition excludes companies primarily engaged in construction other than ships. The Court criticized the Tribunal's approach of treating the company's manufacturing activities as separate from its construction business, emphasizing that the goods produced were integral to the construction process and not sold independently.
The Court rejected the argument that the company's income from manufacturing activities should be considered separately, as the company's sole business was construction and repair of buildings. It dismissed reliance on a circular interpreting the Finance Act, noting the lack of evidence supporting separate income streams. Ultimately, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in classifying the assessee-company as an 'industrial company' and ruled against the company, requiring it to pay the costs of the reference.
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay determined that the assessee-company did not meet the criteria to be classified as an 'industrial company' under the Finance Act, 1966, based on the specific definition provided in the legislation.
-
1980 (4) TMI 78
Issues involved: Assessment of executor to wealth-tax in respect of the estate of deceased, permission to raise new ground challenging liability to assessment, competence of Tribunal to allow new ground of appeal not agitated before lower authorities.
Assessment of executor to wealth-tax: The executor to the estate of a deceased individual was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1961-62. The AAC upheld the liability to assessment, which was based on the assets left by the deceased. The executor sought permission to raise a new ground challenging this liability, citing a previous court decision that highlighted the absence of a provision in the Wealth Tax Act for assessing the estate of a deceased individual. The Tribunal allowed the executor to raise this ground, leading to the matter being remanded for further examination on whether the executor could be made liable to wealth-tax in the relevant assessment year.
Permission to raise new ground: The Tribunal's decision to permit the executor to raise a fresh ground challenging the liability to assessment was questioned by the revenue. The revenue argued that allowing a new ground that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Wealth Tax Officer was erroneous. However, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the appeal brought before it includes assessing the legality of the proceedings that resulted in the assessment. The contention raised by the executor was a pure question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Wealth Tax Officer to assess the executor to wealth-tax in the absence of a specific provision in the Act.
Competence of Tribunal: The Tribunal's decision to allow the new ground of appeal was deemed to be a proper exercise of discretion in the interest of justice. The Tribunal had the authority to consider the jurisdictional question raised by the executor, especially since it pertained to the legality of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal's order, which favored the executor's position, was upheld by the AAC and further supported in the appeal filed by the revenue. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision was found to be in accordance with the law, and the revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1980 (4) TMI 77
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the commission income of Rs. 40,000 is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
2. Whether the amount of Rs. 40,000 could be deemed to have accrued to the assessee during the assessment year under consideration.
3. Whether the Tribunal had any material to justify its reversal of the finding of fact given by the AAC that the income of Rs. 40,000 accrued to the partnership firm and not to the assessee.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment of Commission Income
The Tribunal held that the commission income of Rs. 40,000 should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. However, the High Court disagreed, concluding that the sum constituted the income of the firm, not the individual assessee. The court reasoned that the assessee had been following the cash system of accounting, and the right to commission did not accrue until the company decided to make the payment, which happened after the formation of the partnership.
Issue 2: Accrual of Income
The High Court determined that the commission did not accrue to the assessee during the assessment year under consideration. The court emphasized that the right to commission arose only when the bills submitted by the assessee were passed by the company, which occurred after the partnership was formed. Therefore, the income could not be deemed to have accrued to the assessee before December 31, 1960.
Issue 3: Justification for Tribunal's Reversal
The Tribunal's reversal of the AAC's finding was not justified. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the amount of Rs. 40,000 had accrued to the assessee before the formation of the partnership. The court highlighted that the business, along with all its assets and liabilities, had been transferred to the partnership, and the commission income should be assessed in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the referred questions in the negative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that the commission income of Rs. 40,000 was the income of the partnership firm and not the individual assessee. The assessee was entitled to the costs of the reference, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 300.
-
1980 (4) TMI 76
Issues:
1. Validity of invoking section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
2. Entitlement to depreciation under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules for ships in the fleet for more than 20 years
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to assessment years 1947-48 to 1957-58 involving a non-resident shipping company registered in Norway conducting business in India. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened assessments for these years, disallowing depreciation for ships in the fleet for over 20 years under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) found that the assessee had provided necessary particulars during original assessments, concluding that no income had escaped assessment due to failure to disclose material facts. The AAC emphasized that the duty of the assessee is to disclose primary facts, not draw inferences from them, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191.
The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating there was no excessive depreciation and hence no income escapement. However, the Tribunal did not address whether any escapement was due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine if there was any failure or omission by the assessee to disclose relevant facts during the original assessment, leading to income escapement. The High Court highlighted that if there was no failure to disclose, the reopening would be invalid, rendering the second issue of entitlement to depreciation for ships over 20 years irrelevant.
In conclusion, the High Court directed the Tribunal to thoroughly assess if there was any omission by the assessee in disclosing material facts during the original assessment, which could have led to income escapement. The decision on the entitlement to depreciation for ships in the fleet for more than 20 years hinged on the determination of whether there was a failure to disclose relevant facts. The High Court's decision emphasized the importance of assessing the validity of reopening assessments based on the disclosure of primary facts by the assessee.
-
1980 (4) TMI 75
Issues:
Partial partition recognition under Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69; Assessment status of individual members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in a firm; Clubbing of income in the hands of an individual or association of persons; Existence of sub-partnership between family members; Interpretation of partnership laws in relation to partial partition.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the recognition of a partial partition within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The case involved Shri Ram Narain and his three sons, who were partners in a firm. A partial partition occurred in the family, leading to the division of 1/4th share in the firm among five family members, each having a 1/5th share. The capital was also divided accordingly, and the shares of the family members were treated as loans to the firm. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) recognized this partial partition, and the family members filed returns showing income from their respective shares.
Upon assessment, the ITO rejected the individual assessment claims of the family members and assessed them as an association of persons for the entire 1/4th share income from the firm. The family members appealed to the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC), who accepted their claims, stating that each member's share had been determined post the partition, and thus, income could not be clubbed.
The revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that a sub-partnership existed between the family members due to the partial partition. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the family members, holding that each member should be assessed as an individual. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO lacked the authority to assess them as an association of persons without proper notice.
The revenue further challenged the Tribunal's decision in the High Court, questioning the correctness of the family members' individual assessment status. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the partial partition had been recognized by the ITO, leading to equal division of income among family members. The Court rejected the revenue's contentions regarding the existence of a sub-partnership and affirmed that each member had a rightful individual share post-partition.
The Court dismissed additional contentions raised by the revenue, concluding that the family members were correctly assessed as individuals. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that partnership arises from contract, not status, and upheld the individual assessment status of the family members based on the recognized partial partition.
In conclusion, the Court answered the referred question in favor of the family members, affirming their individual assessment status and rejecting the revenue's appeal. The judgment highlights the significance of recognizing partial partitions within HUFs for accurate income assessment and underscores the legal principles governing partnership laws in such scenarios.
-
1980 (4) TMI 74
Issues involved: The judgment involves the assessment of whether a sum of Rs. 20,000 declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in 1951 and subsequently deposited in the names of two daughters of the assessee represented income from undisclosed sources.
Summary:
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the case of an assessee, a karta of a Hindu undivided family (HUF), who declared Rs. 20,000 under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in 1951. The amount was later deposited in the names of his two daughters. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added this amount as income from undisclosed sources, which was contested by the assessee. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) initially allowed the appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision. The main question referred to the court was whether there was evidence to hold that the Rs. 20,000 represented undisclosed income.
The court noted that the Rs. 20,000 declared under the scheme was not found in the accounts of the assessee or the HUF. The assessee claimed that the deposited amount belonged to the disclosed sum. The court emphasized that the burden lay on the revenue to disprove the explanation provided by the assessee. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court highlighted that the revenue must show inherent weaknesses in the explanation or provide contrary evidence to reject it. Since there was no evidence to suggest the disclosed amount was utilized differently, the court accepted the assessee's explanation.
Additionally, the court considered that the deposited amount was in the accounts of the major daughters, not the assessee himself. Without evidence to refute the connection to the disclosed sum, the presumption of undisclosed income could only apply to the daughters, not the assessee. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Rs. 20,000 did not represent income from undisclosed sources. The judgment was delivered by Judges B. S. Dhillon and G. C. Mital, with both concurring on the decision.
-
1980 (4) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Whether proceedings for imposition of penalty could be taken for not furnishing the return under section 139(1) in the assessment proceedings under section 139(2).
2. Whether the onus to establish that failure to furnish the return was without reasonable cause under section 271(1)(a) was rightly placed by the Tribunal upon the assessee.
3. Whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the expression "the amount of tax payable" in section 271(1)(a)(i) to mean the tax payable on the date of final assessment.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty for Not Furnishing Return Under Section 139(1):
The main point urged by the assessees was that with the issue of a notice under section 139(2), the default under section 139(1) ceases to exist. The court found this contention difficult to accept. It was held that sections 139(1) and 139(2) deal with two different situations: the first imposes an obligation to file a return suo motu, and the second to furnish a return in compliance with the notice under section 139(2). The issue of a notice under section 139(2) cannot per se have the effect of wiping out the earlier period of default. This view was supported by precedents from CIT v. Hindustan Industrial Corporation and Shiv Shankar Lal v. CGT. The court decided that the default under section 139(1) continues until the return is filed or the assessment is made, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the ITO was entitled to consider the period of default under section 139(1) as five months in I.T. Reference No. 83 of 1972 and two months in I.T. Reference No. 109 of 1972.
2. Onus to Establish Reasonable Cause Under Section 271(1)(a):
The assessee argued that the initial onus of establishing the lack of reasonable cause was on the I.T. authorities, citing decisions from the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. I.M. Patel and Co. and the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Rawat Singh and Sons. The court held that the department had shown that the assessee had no reasonable cause for filing the return late. The conduct of the assessee indicated a deliberate defiance of law or conscious disregard of its obligation. The slight initial onus had been discharged by the department, and it was for the assessee to show reasonable cause, which he failed to do. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.
3. Interpretation of "Amount of Tax Payable" in Section 271(1)(a)(i):
Question No. 3 in I.T. Reference No. 83 of 1972 was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee in view of the retrospective amendment of the section subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions regarding the imposition of penalty and the onus of establishing reasonable cause in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue. The question regarding the interpretation of "the amount of tax payable" was not pressed by the assessee's counsel. As a result, the revenue was entitled to one set of costs in I.T. Reference No. 83 of 1972.
-
1980 (4) TMI 72
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the claim of depreciation on gas cylinders used for storing oxygen gas by a private limited company, the interpretation of the term "plant" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the eligibility of gas cylinders for depreciation allowance.
Depreciation Claim on Gas Cylinders:
During the assessment year 1965-66, a private limited company claimed depreciation on cylinders used for storing oxygen gas. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim stating that the cylinders were not used but merely purchased and stored. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) also denied depreciation, considering the cylinders as containers returnable by customers. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the gas cylinders constituted "plant" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed depreciation on them for the relevant years.
Interpretation of the Term "Plant":
The Tribunal relied on the definition of "plant" in the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes various items like ships, vehicles, books, and scientific apparatus. Referring to past decisions, the Tribunal concluded that gas cylinders fell within the scope of "plant" as they were used in the business operations of the company. The High Court endorsed this view, emphasizing that the term "plant" has a broad meaning and includes any object used in carrying on a business, not limited to mechanical or industrial operations.
Eligibility of Gas Cylinders for Depreciation:
The High Court considered the primary meaning of "plant" and observed that gas cylinders, being essential for the business operations of the company, qualified as plant assets. The Court highlighted that the Schedule to the Income Tax Rules allows for depreciation on gas cylinders at 100%, indicating their recognition as plant assets. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to allow depreciation on the gas cylinders and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the respondent in one of the cases.
This judgment clarifies the eligibility of gas cylinders for depreciation under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term "plant" and the importance of considering the function of assets in business operations when determining depreciation allowances.
-
1980 (4) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 1,10,000 under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Applicability of the proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act to gifts made prior to the assessment year 1964-65.
3. Exemption of ornaments gifted to the wife and daughter under Section 5(1)(viii) on the ground of household use.
4. Exemption of ornaments and jewellery gifted to the wife and daughter from wealth-tax, assuming they would have been exempt in the hands of the wife and daughter.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Exemption of Ornaments and Jewellery under Section 5(1)(viii)
The Tribunal's view that ornaments worth Rs. 1,10,000 belonging to the assessee were exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act was challenged. The retrospective amendment to Section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance Act of 1971, effective from April 1, 1963, excluded jewellery from articles intended for personal or household use. Therefore, the ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 1,10,000 were not exempt from tax under Section 5(1)(viii). This interpretation was supported by the decision in Smt. Mukundkumari v. K. V. S. Namoondari, where it was held that jewellery intended for personal use is not exempt from wealth-tax from April 1, 1963.
Issue 2: Applicability of the Proviso to Section 4(1)(a)
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the proviso to Section 4(1)(a) was not restricted to gifts made in the assessment year commencing after March 31, 1964, but also applied to earlier gifts. The revenue contended that the proviso only applied to gifts chargeable to gift-tax in the assessment year 1964-65 and subsequent years. The court agreed with the revenue, stating that the proviso was intended to exclude from net wealth computation only those gifts chargeable to gift-tax for assessment years commencing after March 31, 1964, but before April 1, 1972. This interpretation was consistent with decisions from other High Courts, including Calcutta, Madras, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab and Haryana.
Issue 3: Exemption of Ornaments Gifted to Wife and Daughter
The Tribunal's view that ornaments gifted to the wife and daughter were exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) because they were intended for household use was challenged. Given the retrospective amendment to Section 5(1)(viii), jewellery was excluded from articles intended for personal or household use from April 1, 1963. Therefore, the ornaments gifted to the wife and daughter were not exempt under Section 5(1)(viii).
Issue 4: Exemption of Ornaments Gifted to Wife and Daughter from Wealth-tax
The Tribunal held that if the ornaments were exempt from wealth-tax in the hands of the wife and daughter, they should also be exempt in the hands of the assessee. The court disagreed, stating that the retrospective amendment to Section 5(1)(viii) meant that the ornaments were not exempt in the hands of the donees from April 1, 1963. Consequently, the ornaments were not exempt in the hands of the assessee.
Conclusion:
1. Question No. 1: In the negative and in favor of the revenue.
2. Question No. 2: In the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.
3. Question No. 3: In the negative and in favor of the revenue.
4. Question No. 4: In the negative and in favor of the revenue.
Costs:
Due to the ambiguity in the proviso, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to initiate reassessment under Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Competence of the ITO to Initiate Reassessment Under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act
The primary issue in this case is whether the action initiated by the ITO under Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, for the reassessment of the income was competent.
Facts and Background:
The assessee, a company, purchased a building named "Recluse," part of which was used for business purposes and the rest was occupied by tenants. The rental income from the building was credited to the profit and loss account as business income, and deductions were claimed accordingly. The ITO initially assessed this income under Section 10 of the Act and allowed depreciation on the building's cost. However, the ITO later issued a notice to recompute the income under Section 9 instead of Section 10, leading to reassessment proceedings under Section 34(1)(b).
Arguments and Findings:
1. Assessee's Objections:
- The assessee argued that all necessary information was provided during the original assessment, and there was no new information to warrant reopening under Section 34(1)(b). The reopening was merely due to a change of opinion by the ITO.
- On merits, the assessee challenged the correctness of the income computation under Section 9.
2. Assistant Commissioner's (AAC) Findings:
- The AAC found that the information provided by the assessee was insufficient for the ITO to make a correct assessment initially. He concluded that the reopening was justified as the ITO received new information long after the original assessment, particularly from the assessment proceedings of a subsidiary company occupying part of the premises.
3. Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts necessary for the assessment. The ITO's duty was to infer the correct legal position, and no new information was obtained after the original assessment. The reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, making it unjustified.
Legal Provisions and Precedents:
- Section 34(1)(b) allows reassessment if the ITO has "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment due to new information in his possession.
- The court referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT and Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT, which clarified that mere change of opinion without new information does not justify reopening an assessment.
Court's Analysis:
- The court noted that the ITO's reassessment was based on the same facts and material available during the original assessment. There was no new information that came to light post the original assessment.
- The ITO's notice and subsequent actions did not indicate any new information but rather a re-evaluation of the same facts, constituting a mere change of opinion.
- The court reiterated that an internal change of opinion does not authorize reassessment under Section 34(1)(b).
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the ITO was not competent to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 34(1)(b) as there was no new information obtained after the original assessment. The reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is outside the purview of the said section.
Judgment:
The court answered the referred question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and awarded costs to the assessee.
-
1980 (4) TMI 69
Issues involved: Assessment of share income, violation of principles of natural justice, annulment of assessments.
Assessment of share income: The individual assessee had not been assessed before back assessment proceedings were initiated for two years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim of non-taxability of share incomes shown by the assessee in the returns. The Assessing Officer (AAC) annulled the assessments, concluding that the assessee was not a partner in the firm but an employee. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the ITO did not provide the material relied upon to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal affirmed that there was no evidence to establish the assessee as a partner in the firm.
Violation of principles of natural justice: The Tribunal found that the assessments were against the principles of natural justice as the material relied upon by the ITO was not communicated to the assessee. The Tribunal held that assessments based on such material could not be sustained. The AAC and Tribunal both concluded that the assessee was wrongly implicated as a partner in the firm without proper evidence.
Annulment of assessments: The High Court, after reviewing the orders of the AAC and the Tribunal, upheld the annulment of assessments in favor of the assessee. It was determined that the assessments were not based on facts and material, and the assessee was entitled to rebut any material placed before him. The Court agreed that the revenue could not rely on material not disclosed to the assessee and that there was no valid evidence to establish the assessee as a partner in the firm. The Court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, affirming the annulment of assessments.
-
1980 (4) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of proportionate estate duty in computing capital gains.
2. Interpretation of "cost of acquisition" and "cost of improvement" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Impact of estate duty as a charge under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Proportionate Estate Duty in Computing Capital Gains:
The primary issue was whether the proportionate estate duty paid on the death of Ramanathan Chettiar and Umayal Achi should be deducted in computing the capital gains on the sale of properties. The Tribunal held that the estate duty paid did not qualify as a deduction for capital gains computation. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 45, 48, and 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court concluded that estate duty paid does not constitute an expenditure incurred in making additions or alterations to the capital asset. Therefore, it cannot be deducted in computing capital gains.
2. Interpretation of "Cost of Acquisition" and "Cost of Improvement" Under the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court analyzed the definitions of "cost of acquisition" and "cost of improvement" under sections 55(1)(b) and 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the estate duty paid does not amount to the acquisition of an interest in the capital asset. The court stated, "The subsequent discharge of the said two liabilities will not amount to acquisition of any interest in the assets which had already been acquired by him." The court also rejected the alternative contention that the estate duty paid should be considered as the cost of improvement, noting that "unless there is a physical alteration or addition to the assets concerned or an addition of an incorporeal right as a result of the expenditure, the same cannot be treated as cost of improvement."
3. Impact of Estate Duty as a Charge Under the Estate Duty Act, 1953:
The court examined whether the estate duty, being a first charge on the property, could be considered as creating an interest in the property. The court distinguished between a charge and a mortgage, stating, "only in the case of a mortgage there is a transfer of an interest in the property while there is no such transfer of an interest when a mere charge is created over it." The court concluded that the payment of estate duty does not result in the acquisition of an interest in the property and, therefore, cannot be considered part of the cost of acquisition or improvement.
Case References:
The court referred to several cases to support its judgment, including:
- CIT v. V. Indira [1979] 119 ITR 837: The court upheld the view that expenses incurred to perfect the title to a property do not qualify as "cost of improvement."
- CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd. [1969] 72 ITR 319: The court distinguished this case, noting that the expenses incurred were necessary to perfect the title to shares, which is different from the current case where the title to the property was already complete.
- Ambat Echukutty Menon v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 880: The court agreed with the view that discharging a mortgage does not count as an improvement to the asset.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions in the negative, ruling against the assessees. The estate duty paid cannot be deducted in computing capital gains, nor can it be considered as part of the cost of acquisition or improvement. The court emphasized that the title to the property was already full and complete upon acquisition, and the payment of estate duty did not alter or improve the asset. Each assessee was ordered to pay Rs. 950 as costs to the revenue.
-
1980 (4) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessments under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. The impact of the assessee's disclosure petition on penalty proceedings.
4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Reopening of Assessments under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The original assessment for the year 1957-58 was completed on October 28, 1957. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly the particulars of income. The notice under Section 148 was issued on March 15, 1966, subsequent to the filing of the disclosure petition by the assessee on February 3, 1966. The assessee did not file a return or produce books of account in response to the notice under Section 148, leading the ITO to complete the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147(a) ex parte.
2. Validity of the Penalties Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961:
For the assessment year 1957-58, the ITO found cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,80,000 in the accounts of six parties and treated these as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Similarly, for the assessment year 1961-62, the ITO found fresh cash credits of Rs. 1,92,500 in the names of eight parties and added these as the assessee's income from other sources. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for both years, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) imposed penalties of Rs. 1,59,000 for 1957-58 and Rs. 90,000 for 1961-62.
3. Impact of the Assessee's Disclosure Petition on Penalty Proceedings:
The assessee's disclosure petition admitted that the unexplained cash credits represented its own income. The Tribunal noted that the additions in the cash credits were held to be bogus and disallowance of interest on the bogus loans formed the basis for the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the penal provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are to punish contumacious conduct for willful fraud or deliberate and utter disregard of the law. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made a clean breast of the amounts in the disclosure petition before the department started the assessment proceedings or detected the concealments.
4. Whether the Tribunal was Justified in Cancelling the Penalties:
The Tribunal cancelled the penalties imposed, reasoning that the penal provisions should not be invoked merely because the law provides for it and it will be lawful to make the imposition. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, emphasizing that penalty should not be imposed unless the conduct was contumacious or dishonest.
However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view. The Court noted that the disclosure petition indicated that the interest shown in the return was falsely and deliberately shown. The Court held that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars for both assessment years. The High Court emphasized that the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the orders of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1961-62. The quantum of the penalty will have to be re-examined by the Tribunal in light of the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal and Brothers v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 546. The question was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue, with directions for the Tribunal to consider the quantum of penalty accordingly. The assessee was directed to pay and bear the costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 66
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Jaipur Charitable Trust to exemption from income tax for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64.
2. Eligibility for exemption of Dalmia Jain (Jind State) Charity Trust (renamed as M/s. Jagdamba Charity Trust) for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1966-67.
3. Eligibility for exemption of Dalmia Jain Charity Trust (renamed as Durga Trust) for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement of Jaipur Charitable Trust to Exemption from Income Tax:
The court examined the entitlement of the Jaipur Charitable Trust to tax exemption for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64. For the year 1961-62, the claim was based on the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and for the subsequent years, on the Income-tax Act, 1961. The trust's claim for exemption under the 1922 Act was previously denied by the Supreme Court in Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777, due to clause 5(a)(v) of the trust deed which allowed the establishment of commercial or industrial concerns. The court held that the trust's income was not exempt from tax under s. 4(3)(i) as the trust deed allowed for non-charitable purposes.
For the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the court referred to the definition of "charitable purpose" under the 1961 Act, which included the phrase "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit." The Supreme Court's decision in Surat Art Silk Cloth Mills Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) clarified that if a trust has both charitable and non-charitable objects, and the trustees can apply the income to any of those objects, the trust would not be considered charitable. The court found that the Jaipur Charitable Trust's deed contained independent objects, including commercial activities, which disqualified it from being considered wholly charitable. Consequently, the trust's claims for exemption for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 were also denied.
2. Eligibility for Exemption of Dalmia Jain (Jind State) Charity Trust:
The references for the Dalmia Jain (Jind State) Charity Trust, renamed as M/s. Jagdamba Charity Trust, related to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1966-67. The trust deed, dated June 14, 1948, contained similar provisions to those of the Jaipur Charitable Trust, including clauses that allowed for commercial activities. Following the same reasoning as in the Jaipur Charitable Trust case, the court held that this trust was also not entitled to any exemption under s. 4(3)(i) of the 1922 Act or s. 11 of the 1961 Act. The question was answered in the negative and against the assessee.
3. Eligibility for Exemption of Dalmia Jain Charity Trust (Durga Trust):
The references for the Dalmia Jain Charity Trust, renamed as Durga Trust, related to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The trust deed, executed on June 1, 1946, contained 18 objects, most of which were charitable. Clauses (x) and (xi) were the only ones that could be construed as similar to those in the Jaipur Charitable Trust but were fundamentally different. These clauses did not envisage the carrying on of any business concern by the trustees. The court found that the dominant purpose of the trust deed was clearly charitable and that any profit-making activities were incidental to the charitable purposes. Therefore, the Durga Trust was held to be eligible for the exemption under s. 11 of the 1961 Act. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the Jaipur Charitable Trust and the Dalmia Jain (Jind State) Charity Trust were denied tax exemptions due to the inclusion of non-charitable objects in their trust deeds. However, the Durga Trust was granted exemption as its trust deed was found to be dominantly charitable.
-
1980 (4) TMI 65
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Taxability of cash credits of Rs. 9,000 for assessment year 1960-61.
- Applicability of section 297(2)(d)(ii) in reassessment proceedings.
- Characterization of section 68 as substantive or procedural provision.
Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the taxability of cash credits totaling Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee, a Kirani Store proprietor, had cash credits in the name of another person, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) deemed as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The assessee contended that section 68 was merely procedural and could only apply for the assessment year 1961-62. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disagreed, stating that the cash credits were assessable for the relevant year. The Tribunal held that section 68 applied, rejecting the assessee's argument based on section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Act.
The court analyzed whether section 68 was a substantive or procedural provision. The assessee argued that the provision was procedural, akin to the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and could only apply for the subsequent assessment year. However, the court held that section 68 was a charging provision, determining the tax liability on unexplained cash credits found in the books of the assessee for any previous year. The court emphasized that section 68 created a statutory liability for the assessee to pay income tax on such amounts, making it a substantive provision of law.
Furthermore, the court distinguished a previous decision related to sections 69 and 69A, highlighting that the applicability of procedural provisions in reassessment proceedings under the old Act did not affect the substantive nature of section 68 under the new Act. Citing a Calcutta High Court decision, the court reinforced that section 68 was substantive, making unexplained cash credits taxable income for the assessee.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the sum of Rs. 9,000 was assessable for the assessment year 1960-61, rejecting the assessee's argument that it should be taxed for the subsequent year. The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue, and directed the assessee to pay costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 64
Issues involved: Assessment of accrued interest income under the mercantile system of accounting.
Summary:
The High Court of Madras considered the case of a private limited company engaged in hire-purchase financing for motor vehicles. The company did not account for accrued interest income from two firms due to doubts about recovering the principal amounts. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the accrued interest in the company's income, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disagreed, citing the impracticality of recognizing unrealized interest. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing the unrealistic nature of expecting interest income from the two firms. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that under the mercantile system of accounting, accrued interest must be recognized. The revenue relied on legal precedents to support their position. However, the Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, which emphasized that the mercantile system of accounting should not lead to taxing hypothetical income. The Court considered the commercial realities of the situation, where recovery of interest was deemed highly unlikely. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that no liability to tax accrued interest existed based on the mercantile accounting system. The Court highlighted that the timing of tax liability is determined by the accounting system, but the actual realization of income is crucial in assessing tax liability.
In a separate judgment, the Court referenced legal precedents to support the view that income tax is levied on actual income, not hypothetical or unrealized income. The Court emphasized that the mercantile system of accounting determines the timing of tax liability, but the actual materialization of income is essential for taxation. The Court considered the business realities of the situation, where the assessee faced challenges in recovering interest income due to external factors. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that no tax liability existed for the accrued interest income based on the mercantile accounting system and the commercial circumstances of the case.
-
1980 (4) TMI 63
Issues Involved:
1. Basis for determining "excess" income under Article IV of the DTAA between India and Pakistan.
2. Competence of the Income-tax Officer in India to determine income from sources in Pakistan for the purposes of Indian assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Basis for Determining "Excess" Income under Article IV of the DTAA
The central question was whether the "excess" income for abatement in tax should be calculated based on the income determined by the Indian authorities under Indian laws or the income assessed by the Pakistan authorities under Pakistan laws. The assessee, a cement manufacturing company with factories in both India and Pakistan, contended that the "excess" should be based on the income assessed in Pakistan.
The court examined the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Pakistan, specifically Articles IV and VI. Article IV mandates that each Dominion (country) makes an assessment under its own laws and allows abatement equal to the lower amount of tax payable on the "excess" income in either country. The court noted that the first step under Article IV is to make separate assessments in each Dominion according to their respective laws, which form the basis for abatement.
The court referred to the case of CIT v. Shanti K. Maheshwari, which emphasized that separate assessments by each Dominion under its own laws are fundamental for determining the "excess" income. The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh R. Saraiya v. CIT, which supported the view that each Dominion can assess income in the ordinary way under its laws, and the DTAA does not limit this power but only the liberty to retain the assessed tax.
Further, the court considered the decision of the Calcutta High Court in ITO v. State Bank of India, which clarified that the Pakistan income as assessed in India should be used for calculating the "excess" for abatement purposes. The court agreed with the Calcutta High Court's reasoning that using different figures for income assessed in India and Pakistan would lead to inconsistent results.
Therefore, the court concluded that the income arising from the factories in Pakistan, as calculated in India according to Indian laws, should be taken into consideration for determining the "excess" under Article IV of the DTAA.
Issue 2: Competence of the Income-tax Officer in India
The second question addressed whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) in India is competent to determine the income from sources in Pakistan for the purposes of Indian assessment. The court affirmed that the ITO in India is competent to make such determinations. The DTAA allows each country to make assessments in the ordinary way under its own laws, and the ITO's competence is in line with this provision.
Conclusion
The court answered the two questions as follows:
1. For the purposes of abatement in tax to be allowed in India with reference to the "excess" in terms of Article IV of the DTAA, the income derived from the factories in Pakistan as determined and included in the Indian assessment under Indian laws is to be taken into consideration, not the income as determined in Pakistan under Pakistan laws, for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63.
2. The Income-tax Officer in India is competent to determine the income from sources in Pakistan for purposes of the Indian assessment.
The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
....
|
9911796707
