|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 231 Records
-
1989 (4) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer under section 34. Consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court if the court has no jurisdiction and the reassessment proceedings were invalid. From this point of view, we find that the observation in Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam v. CIT 1963 50 ITR 798 (Mad) extracted above cannot be held to be applicable to the present case. Once we come to the conclusion that the trust is not an assessable unit, we are unable to see how the decision in Coimbatore Club v. WTO 1985 153 ITR 172 (Mad), which relates to a club which is an association of persons and wherein the term individual came up for interpretation and it was held that a body of individuals would fall within the meaning of the term individual , could advance the case of the Revenue. Therefore, in this case, we hold that the notice itself is invalid. For all these reasons, we allow these appeals. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... the industrial undertaking had functioned only for a part of the period of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 ? The question posed stands covered by our judgment in I. T. R No. 140 of 1979 (CIT v. Bhushan Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. 1989 177 ITR 11), decided on November 16, 1988, where it was held that deduction under section 80J of the Act was admissible for the entire year irrespective of the period during which the new unit had worked in that assessment year. Following this judgment, this reference, is consequently hereby answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tands concluded in favour of the Revenue by the following judgments of this court CIT v. Mehanga Ram Baldev Singh 1989 179 ITR 624, CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Rai and Co. 1981 132 ITR 897 and CIT v. Mohinder Lal 1987 168 ITR 101 FB . According to the rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, penalty proceedings stand initiated when the Income-tax Officer takes the decision for issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and not from the date the notices are actually issued or the penalty order is passed. In this case, the proceedings were initiated on March 6, 1975, and, according to the aforesaid decisions, the law as it stood at that time has to be seen. Undisputably, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction on March 6, 1975, to impose the penalty. Hence, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, we answer this question in favour of the Revenue, and in the negative. No costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 69 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Notice, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ustries v. CIT 1982 135 ITR 652, which has been approved by the highest court of the land in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987 165 ITR 14 and Chuharmal v. CIT 1988 172 ITR 250, the presumption has to be raised against the assessee that the additions made were the income of the assessee and that he failed to return the correct income because of fraud or gross or wilful neglect and has to be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, for the purposes of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act. Since the additions are 100 per cent., that is, more than 20 per cent. of the assessed income, these presumptions have to be raised and since the assessee has not given any explanation or produced any evidence to rebut them, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was . Accordingly, this question is also answered in favour of the Revenue, in the affirmative. The references stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 68 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Penalty, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... section 140A(1) requires the petitioner to pay tax on self-assessment on the basis of the returns filed under section 139 or revised return filed under section 139(5) but the assessee has failed to pay such tax on self-assessment which obviously attracts the penalty. Before levying penalty, a notice under section 140A(3) has been issued in accordance with law. The scheme of the Act is complete in itself. There is neither any lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice in question nor is there mala fide or bad faith appearing from the record. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the respondents in issuing the impugned notice under the facts and circumstances of the case are found to be justified and this court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. Regard being had to the materials on record, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition. As a result thereof, the rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... xplanation is not applicable as the returned income was more that 80 per cent. of the assessed income and thus the burden of proof was on the Department but in this case, on reading of the Tribunal s order, it appears as though the burden of proof was on the assessee and since he failed to give any satisfactory explanation, the penalty was leviable. Since the Tribunal proceeded to consider the matter from a wrong view-point, it is a case which deserves to be sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in sustaining the penalty by wrongly placing the burden of proof on the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the Tribunal to hear the appeal of the assessee afresh and take a fresh decision after placing the burden on the Department in accordance with law. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms in favour of the assessee, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 66 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Income ... ... ... ... ..... greement to sell dated March 17, 1964, and no payment was made at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed dated April 11, 1969. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the self-occupied property was includible in the assessee s income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. There, the Department wanted to tax the income received by a person who was in occupation of the property but did not possess title and here the Department wants to tax a person who has given up possession on the basis of the agreement after squaring up the debt payable against the value of the building. This cannot be permitted. Following the aforesaid decision, we hold that for all intents and purposes, the directors were the owners of the building and thus the rental income received by the directors could not be included in the income of the company. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
HUF, Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... he family s share interest in the firm, Prabhu Singh Tirlok Singh, with effect from April 1, 1973 ? . The answer to the question posed is provided by the Explanation to section 171 of the Act, the relevant part of which reads as under Explanation. -In this section, - . . . (b) partial partition means a partition which is partial as regards the persons constituting the Hindu undivided family, or the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family, or both. A plain reading of the provisions of this Explanation would show that there can be a partial partition merely as regards the persons constituting a Hindu undivided family too. In other words, possession of property or assets has not been prescribed therein as an essential pre-requisite for partial partition. This being so, the reference has, clearly to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 64 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... hat was brought to its notice. Hence, in view of S. Kanwal Tej Singh v. ITO 1966 60 ITR 23 (P and H), the limitation of eight years contained in section 153(1)(b) of the Act would clearly apply to the case. On behalf of the assessee, reliance was placed on certain observations in M. B. Mercantile Co. v. CIT 1988 169 ITR 201 (Cal) and CIT v. Surajpal Singh 1977 108 ITR 746 (All). There is a slight over-statement of law in these two cases. The facts of the case are such that even on the basis of these judgments, he cannot succeed. On, the other hand, counsel for the Revenue had relied on T. B. Hanumantharaj v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 414 (Mad). There appears to be slight understatement of law. Be that as it may, the facts of the case are such that we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the extended limitation provided in section 153(1)(b) of the Act was applicable and the referred question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Chit Fund ... ... ... ... ..... 1965 56 ITR 52 (SC), bear no resemblance to the point in issue here and, therefore, call for no discussion. Faced with this situation, counsel for the assessee sought to contend that the nature of a chit fund was not raised in the question referred and, therefore, the court was precluded from going into this matter. This is, indeed, a contention wholly devoid of merit as the very basis and foundation of the point in issue is founded upon the nature and quality of a chit fund and the transactions involved therein. In the circumstances, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the transactions involved did not give rise to any income assessable to income-tax nor any corresponding revenue loss in respect of which any deduction could be claimed. This being so, the question referred, has of necessity, to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Business, Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Income, Interest Payable By Government, Regular Assessment
-
1989 (4) TMI 61 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ndispensable. But unless meters are installed in the office premises or residental accommodation of the customers, essential supply of energy cannot be made and the assessee would not be able to carry on its business. Having regard to the entire provision of section 33 and its context, we are of the view that the office premises or residential accommodation referred to in sub-section (6) of section 33 relates to the office premises or residential accommodation of the assessee concerned, that is, either belonging to the assessee or in its occupation otherwise, i.e., on lease or licence, etc. The disallowance contemplated by section 33(6) does not relate to the plant and machinery installed in the office premises or residential accommodation of persons other than the assessee concerned. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1989 (4) TMI 60 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... we have heard the matter at length and have rendered this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that, on the same point, a Division Bench of this court has issued rule in C. W. J. C. No. 1868 of 1989. This order was passed on February 24, 1989. We would have refrained from disposing of this application but for the amendment in the law by the enactment of the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, which received the assent of the President on March 15, 1989. We have not considered it expedient to admit the application and stay the realisation of the tax the dearness allowance. In regard to refund of income-tax already deducted, there is no case for it. Even if there was a case, that relief could not be granted in a writ application. The process would be by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. For the reasons stated above, we do not see any merit in this application. It is dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 59 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, submitted an application under section 254(2) of the Act on the ground that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the application under section 254(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the application preferred by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, the Revenue has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this application deserves to be rejected. It cannot be held that any question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application under section 254(2) of the Act. The application under section 256(2) of the Act, therefore, deserves to be rejected. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this application.
-
1989 (4) TMI 58 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mention in this context that the amendment to section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act brought about by the Central Act 3 of 1989 is only clarificatory in nature. Salaries , which is one of the heads of income under which the total income of an assessee under the Act is subjected to tax, is always understood to include the special allowances paid to the salaried persons in addition to the basic salary. Any type of remuneration of an employee by an employer is taxable under the category Salaries . The term income is very wide in its import. All allowances received by salaried persons are taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted. These payments made in the form of allowances and special allowances accrue and are received by the salaried person by virtue of his office and employment. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition does not survive and is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the amendment to section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1989 (4) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... t reference, but as the application made in that behalf was rejected by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed this application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-I, Indore, on August 23, 1980, as void ab initio on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Indore, had no jurisdiction to give directions to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-I, Indore, under section 144B of the Act ? The application is, accordingly, allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1989 (4) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... to be revised. No question of construction and the legal effect of the amended provision that has to be applied does arise for consideration. The provision for gratuity cannot be allowed if any one of the conditions of section 40A(7) is not complied with. In our view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the order under section 154 was illegal. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to get deduction of the amount of gratuity although there was no compliance with the provision of section 40A(7) of the Act which came into effect from the relevant assessment year cannot be sustained. In our view, the Income-tax Officer was justified in revising the assessment order in the light of the provisions of section 40A (7) inserted retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1973. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (4) TMI 55 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Effect Of Cancellation Of Penalty, Penalty And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... . As such, in cases where a statutory authority under a provision of the Act has passed an order on merit in favour of the assessee in relation to the very same default which is the subject-matter of a criminal prosecution and the order has attained finality, the prosecution of an accused is fit to be discontinued irrespective of the fact whether prosecution was launched after the amendment of section 276B of the Act in the year 1986 or the same was pending from before such amendment. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution of the petitioner in the present case is not fit to continue as continuance thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and to prevent the same, it would be just and expedient to quash the proceeding. In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners is set aside and their prosecution pending in the court of the Special Court in the instant case is hereby quashed.
-
1989 (4) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... during the proceedings, even if such a deduction was not claimed in the return filed by it. Moreover, it has been held in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 1987 163 ITR 484 (P and H) that after completion of the assessment proceedings, at the appellate stage, benefit of weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act can be claimed and such a point can be allowed to be raised. For claiming such deduction, we find it makes no difference as to whether the assessment proceedings are being made under section 143 or section 144B of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in allowing the point to be raised at the appellate stage and in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh decision. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, the second question is academic and is returned unanswered. The reference stands disposed of, accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Insurance Policies ... ... ... ... ..... ler had rightly included 1/4th share of the deceased in the property of the Hindu undivided family in the net principal value of the estate of the deceased. This finding of the Assistant Controller was not affirmed by the Controller and the Tribunal only because they held that they were bound by the observations of this court in Maharaja Bahadursingh Kasliwal v. CED 1979 116 ITR 96. These observations, as we have already observed, do not lay down the correct law. In these circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in holding that the amount payable on the three policies became the property of the nominees on the death of the deceased and that the sum of Rs. 45,000 representing the value of the insurance policies did not pass on the death of Harchamal and was not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs.
....
|
