|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 190 Records
-
1985 (5) TMI 30
The High Court of Delhi ruled on the limitation period for passing a penalty order under section 275 of the Act. The penalty order in question was passed within the prescribed time frame of two years from the end of the relevant financial year. The court held that the amendment to section 275 is procedural, not substantive, and the penalty order was passed within the amended time limit. The judgment favored the Department and ruled against the assessee.
-
1985 (5) TMI 29
Issues:
Assessment of share income from an association of persons without the association itself being assessed to tax.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessments for the year 1963-64 of two individuals, Kailash Lamba and Madan Lal Lamba, who were members of an association of persons running a guest house in New Delhi. The primary issue in question was whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the direct assessment of the assessees' share income from the association without the association itself being taxed. The assessees contended that without a direct assessment on the association, their share income should not be included in their total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the assessees, but the Appellate Tribunal did not. The court analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act, noting that while an association of persons is a taxable entity, the income earned by the association is also considered the income of its members. The court highlighted that there is no prohibition in the Act against taxing both the association and its members for their share of income.
The court also addressed the distinction between the provisions of the old Income-tax Act of 1922 and the current Income-tax Act of 1961. Under the old Act, there was an option for the Income-tax Officer to assess either the association or the individual members, but not both. However, under the current Act, there is no such restriction, allowing for the direct assessment of a member of an association without assessing the association itself. The court emphasized that the absence of such an option in the current Act indicates that there is no impediment to directly assessing a member of an association without assessing the association.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument raised by the assessees regarding the timing of the assessment, stating that it was not permissible to raise a new point at that stage which had not been raised before the authorities or the Tribunal. Ultimately, the court held in favor of the Department, concluding that the question posed in the references should be answered affirmatively. The court awarded costs to the Commissioner, to be shared equally by the two assesses.
-
1985 (5) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the tailoring activity of the assessee-company constitutes "manufacturing or processing of goods" under section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968.
Judgment Details:
The Income-tax Officer initially considered the sale of ready-made garments as a manufacturing activity, while the sale of cloth and tailoring for customers was not. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed this view, stating that tailoring activity also qualifies as manufacturing. Subsequently, the Tribunal, on appeal by the Department, upheld the Income-tax Officer's view, asserting that tailoring services do not amount to manufacturing.
The definition of an "industrial company" under section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968, requires a company to be engaged in manufacturing or processing goods to qualify for lower taxation rates. It is crucial that at least 50% of the profits are derived from manufacturing or processing activities to be classified as an industrial company.
In this case, if the tailoring charges are considered profits from manufacturing or processing of goods, the assessee-company would qualify as an industrial company. The court referred to various precedents to support the argument that activities such as making clothes from customer-supplied cloth can be deemed as manufacturing or processing of goods.
The court emphasized that the process of converting cloth into garments, whether using the company's cloth or customer-supplied cloth, results in the same outcome. Drawing parallels to previous judgments, the court concluded that the tailoring activity should be considered as manufacturing or processing of goods, as it involves converting customer-supplied cloth into garments.
In line with the reasoning presented, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling that making clothes to the order of customers constitutes manufacturing or processing of goods. The decision favored the assessee, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 27
Issues:
Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1964-65.
Analysis:
The case involved the reassessment of an assessee's income for the assessment year 1964-65 under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment on the grounds that the assessee had transferred profits to related entities without full disclosure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the reopening but directed a proper re-assessment. The Tribunal found that the undisclosed connection between the related entities and the assessee's managing director was material. The main issue was whether there was an escapement of income due to non-disclosure of material facts.
The Tribunal highlighted that the related entities earned substantial profits that should have accrued to the assessee. The court examined whether the diverted income of the related entities should be considered the assessee's income. The court considered the tax implications of clubbing the related entities' income with the assessee's income. The court questioned if there was any actual loss to revenue by taxing the assessee instead of the related entities. The court also noted the legitimate business operation of setting up separate entities for specific business activities.
The court scrutinized the reasons provided by the Income-tax Officer for reopening the assessment, focusing on the alleged diversion of profits to avoid proper taxation. The court noted discrepancies in the reasons provided, such as the income being assessed in the hands of the related entities. The court concluded that there was no actual reduction in taxable profits due to the transactions in question. The court emphasized that section 147(a) requires an escapement of tax, which was not evident in this case.
Ultimately, the court held that the reopening of the assessment was not valid in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that the tax implications and lack of actual loss to revenue did not support the reopening under section 147(a). The court decided in the negative regarding the validity of the reassessment, based on the specific facts of the case.
In conclusion, the court found that the reassessment under section 147(a) for the assessment year 1964-65 was not justified due to the lack of escapement of tax and the legitimate nature of the business operations involving related entities. The court left the parties to bear their own costs, considering the unique aspects of the case.
-
1985 (5) TMI 26
The assessee claimed a deduction for bad debt, but it was denied by all authorities including the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to refer the questions raised by the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court dismissed the petition for mandamus as the questions did not arise from the Tribunal's order.
-
1985 (5) TMI 25
Issues:
- Refusal of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law proposed by the assessee
- Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Validity of penalty proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer
- Justification of penalty imposition based on settlement agreement
- Burden of proof in penalty proceedings
- Admissibility of settlement application in penalty proceedings
Analysis:
The case involved eight applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, where the assessee challenged the refusal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law proposed by them. The firm, engaged in the manufacture and sale of "katha," faced reassessment due to alleged non-genuine "hundi" loans. The Income-tax Officer reopened assessments for various years, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition, prompting the assessee to seek references to the High Court.
The primary contention was the validity of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee argued that the Department failed to prove concealment of income, emphasizing that mere agreement to additions and penalties during reassessment did not warrant penalty imposition. The burden of proof in penalty proceedings was crucial, as the Department relied on the settlement agreement without independent evidence of concealment.
Furthermore, the admissibility of the settlement application in penalty proceedings was disputed. The assessee questioned whether the agreement with the Revenue could justify penalty imposition in the absence of actual concealment. The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer additional questions to clarify the justification for imposing penalties based on the settlement agreement, emphasizing the need for proper evidence of concealment before penalty imposition.
In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the applications, highlighting the importance of establishing concealment of income before imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c). The case underscored the significance of evidence and burden of proof in penalty proceedings, emphasizing that agreements alone may not suffice for penalty imposition without concrete proof of concealment.
-
1985 (5) TMI 24
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1964-65?
2. Whether findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner post the penalty order can be considered in deciding the penalty appeal?
3. Whether the Tribunal's finding on the absence of fraud or neglect by the assessee is reasonable?
Analysis:
The case involved penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee, carrying on business as Asok Pictures, had a credit entry of Rs. 35,000, which was considered as income. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000, upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal canceled the penalty but upheld the quantum appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that post-penalty order actions by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be considered in the penalty order, as they were not part of the initial assessment.
In analyzing the case, the court referred to the burden of proof on the assessee to show no intention to conceal income under section 271(1)(c). The court noted the applicability of the Explanation to the section, which deems concealment if income returned is less than 80% of the correct income, unless lack of fraud or neglect is proven. The court distinguished the case from CIT v. Anwar Ali, as the applicable provision was under the 1961 Act, not the 1922 Act. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach of placing the burden on the Revenue to prove concealment, emphasizing the assessee's obligation to demonstrate lack of intent to conceal.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on the first question, stating the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty. However, the court declined to answer questions 2 and 3 as they were deemed not relevant to the case. The judgment concluded by instructing the forwarding of a copy to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.
-
1985 (5) TMI 23
Issues:
1. Impugning a notice demanding interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for delayed filing of return.
2. Whether an appeal against levying interest under section 139 of the Act is provided for.
3. Power of the Income-tax Officer to charge interest on the amount of tax without an application for extension of time.
4. Charging interest on the tax upon the share of income of a partner of a registered firm treated as an unregistered firm.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice demanding interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return. The Income-tax Officer had levied interest on the total income, including profits from two firms. The petitioner sought waiver of interest, arguing that no application for extension of time was made to the Income-tax Officer, thus questioning the jurisdiction of charging interest without such an application. Additionally, it was contended that charging interest on the tax of a partner of a registered firm treated as an unregistered firm lacked legal authority.
The court examined whether an appeal against levying interest under section 139 of the Act was permissible, citing precedents. It was established that interest is not a tax but an adjunct of tax assessed, and no appeal lies against an order charging interest under section 139(8) as per previous decisions. Despite no application for extension of time, the court upheld that interest could be charged under section 139(4) without the need for such an application, as clarified in a Full Bench decision.
Regarding the power to charge interest on the tax of a partner of a registered firm treated as unregistered, the court affirmed that both entities are separate for assessment purposes. The liability of partners to be charged interest on their share of income remains even if the registered firm is treated as unregistered only for interest calculation. The court followed the majority decision's interpretation, emphasizing the independent assessment of registered firms and partners under the Act.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the charging of interest without an application for extension of time and reaffirming the liability of partners of registered firms to be charged interest on their share of income. The judgment aligned with previous decisions and did not find reason to deviate from the established legal interpretation.
-
1985 (5) TMI 22
Issues:
1. Apportionment of expenses against dividend income for rebate under section 235 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of relief under section 235 based on gross dividend without deduction for proportionate expenses.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 regarding the apportionment of expenses against dividend income for the rebate under section 235. The Income-tax Officer had allocated expenses against dividend income, reducing the net dividend income for rebate calculation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal disagreed with this apportionment, holding that expenses should not be deducted from the gross dividend income. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that if dividend income is reduced by expenses, the relief under section 235 would also be reduced. The court relied on previous decisions to support the view that when dividend income is earned as business income, expenses should be allowed under the business income head without apportionment.
Issue 2:
The second issue pertained to the determination of relief under section 235 based on gross dividend without deducting proportionate expenses. The court referred to a previous case where it was held that relief under section 235 should be calculated on the total amount of the dividend without apportionment. The court further cited a Kerala High Court decision emphasizing that relief under section 235 is based on the entire dividend paid to the shareholder, not just a portion included in the shareholder's total income. Therefore, the court answered the second question in favor of the assessee, affirming that relief under section 235 should be calculated on the total amount of dividend paid to the shareholder.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, holding that expenses should not be apportioned against dividend income for rebate calculation and that relief under section 235 should be based on the total amount of dividend without deduction for proportionate expenses.
-
1985 (5) TMI 21
Issues:
1. Inclusion of Reserve for Contingencies in computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1972-73.
2. Inclusion of Reserve for Debenture Reduction in computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1972-73.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Inclusion of Reserve for Contingencies
The primary question revolved around whether the Reserve for Contingencies should be considered in the computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer initially excluded the reserve, but the Tribunal reversed this decision. The assessee argued that the reserve was statutorily created under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and was not specific to certain contingencies. The Tribunal agreed that the reserve was created as per the Sixth Schedule of the Electricity (Supply) Act and was for general contingencies directed by the State Government. The High Court, relying on previous decisions, held that the reserve for contingencies should indeed be included in the computation of capital.
Issue 2: Inclusion of Reserve for Debenture Reduction
Regarding the Reserve for Debenture Reduction, the Tribunal had accepted evidence that the reserve was not created for paying debenture-holders but to preserve working capital. However, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the amount as a reserve, citing the need for a scientific basis for such appropriations. The High Court noted the absence of crucial details like the debenture trust deed and scientific basis for payments, leading to a lack of clarity. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further examination based on principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The High Court declined to provide a definitive answer on this issue due to insufficient information.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the inclusion of the Reserve for Contingencies in the computation of capital but deferred a decision on the Reserve for Debenture Reduction pending further examination. Each issue was analyzed based on statutory provisions, previous court decisions, and the specific circumstances of the case, highlighting the importance of legal clarity and factual evidence in determining the treatment of reserves in tax assessments.
-
1985 (5) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 2,98,000 encashed by the assessee can be assessed in the assessment year 1947-48.
2. Whether the rectification order by the Income-tax Officer was valid under section 35(6) of the 1922 Act or section 155(3) of the 1961 Act.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order.
4. Whether section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act barred the Revenue from rectifying the assessment order.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessment of Rs. 2,98,000 in the Assessment Year 1947-48:
The Tribunal and the High Court examined whether the sum of Rs. 2,98,000 encashed by the assessee from high denomination notes on January 19, 1946, should be assessed in the assessment year 1947-48. The Tribunal held that the amount was covered by a settlement under section 34(1B) of the 1922 Act, and thus, the assessee could not claim it should be assessed in the assessment year 1946-47. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that the settlement was conclusive under section 34(1D) and barred the assessee from reopening the issue. Consequently, the sum of Rs. 2,98,000 was rightly assessable in the assessment year 1947-48.
2. Validity of Rectification Order:
The rectification order by the Income-tax Officer was initially passed under section 155(3) of the 1961 Act. However, the Tribunal and the High Court held that since the original assessment was made under the 1922 Act, the rectification should be deemed to have been made under section 35(6) of the 1922 Act. The High Court relied on precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, to conclude that rectification proceedings are part of the assessment process and should follow the provisions of the Act under which the original assessment was made.
3. Competency of Appeal Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:
The Tribunal held that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order, as it should be deemed to have been made under section 35(6) of the 1922 Act, which does not allow for an appeal. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the rectification order, although purportedly made under section 155(3) of the 1961 Act, should be treated as an order under section 35(6) of the 1922 Act, and thus, no appeal was competent before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
4. Bar Under Section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act:
The Tribunal and the High Court examined whether section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act barred the Revenue from rectifying the assessment order. The High Court held that section 34(1D) barred the assessee from reopening matters settled under section 34(1B), but it did not preclude the Income-tax Officer from rectifying an order, especially when it was not the subject of any settlement. The High Court noted that the settlement order allowed for future adjustments if new facts came to light, and thus, the rectification by the Income-tax Officer was justified.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the sum of Rs. 2,98,000 was rightly assessable in the assessment year 1947-48 and upheld the Tribunal's view that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order. The rectification was validly deemed to have been made under section 35(6) of the 1922 Act, and section 34(1D) did not bar the Revenue from making such rectifications. The questions referred in the taxation cases were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1985 (5) TMI 19
Issues:
- Deductibility of liability due to devaluation of Indian currency for assessment year 1967-68
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the deductibility of a liability of Rs. 57,103 arising from the devaluation of Indian currency for the assessment year 1967-68. The dispute centered around whether this liability was allowable as a deduction. The assessee, a company engaged in hiring out navigation receivers and equipment, had taken these on hire from a London company. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the liability as a deduction, stating it was a provision in the accounts towards the difference in exchange and no remittance was made during the relevant year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal disagreed, considering the liability as part of the original transaction of payment of hire charges and allowed it as a deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that the liability accrued during the year under consideration and was wholly and exclusively laid out for the assessee's business, thus meeting the criteria for deduction.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a liability would be allowed as a deduction under the same head under which a part of it had been allowed in earlier years. The Tribunal noted that the liability was not separate from the original transaction and that the additional liability accrued due to the devaluation of the Indian currency. Citing the assessee's maintenance of accounts on a mercantile basis, the Tribunal concluded that the liability was a business liability and had to be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal's reasoning aligned with the court's previous decision in Bestobell (India) Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that the loss or expenditure arising from devaluation was of a revenue nature and connected with the business, making it deductible.
In light of the above analysis and the principles laid down in previous judgments, the High Court answered the reference question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the mercantile basis of accounting, the business nature of the liability, and the connection between the additional liability and the original transaction of hire charges, leading to the allowance of the deduction. The decision underscored the importance of considering the nature of the loss or expenditure in connection with the business for determining deductibility under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1985 (5) TMI 18
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Payment: Whether the payment of Rs. 87,200 made by the assessee company to M/s. K. Laier A. G. Switzerland constitutes revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
Summary:
Nature of Payment:
The primary issue in this case is whether the payment of Rs. 87,200 made by the assessee company to its Swiss collaborator constitutes revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The Income-tax Officer initially classified the payment as capital expenditure. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal later treated it as revenue expenditure, allowing it as a deduction.
The agreement between the assessee and the Swiss firm was a licence contract for manufacturing motor concrete vibrators in India. The agreement stipulated a lump sum payment of 50,000 Swiss francs for "know-how" and drawings, along with a royalty of 3% on net sales. The contract was for a period of five years, and the assessee was restricted from sharing the information with third parties. Unlike in some other cases, there was no clause for the return of the drawings and know-how to the Swiss party after the contract period.
The court examined several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692, where it was held that the payment for technical assistance without the transfer of an asset or enduring advantage was revenue expenditure. The court also referred to Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 746, where the High Court held that payments for technical assistance without the transfer of ownership of the information were revenue expenses.
In this case, the court noted that the agreement did not result in the transfer of an asset of enduring nature to the assessee. The know-how and drawings were provided to facilitate manufacturing but were not to be shared with others. The court concluded that the payment was for obtaining access to information necessary for manufacturing and not for acquiring an asset. Therefore, the payment was classified as revenue expenditure.
The court emphasized that the agreement was a form of collaboration, where the Swiss party provided the necessary know-how and drawings for a limited period. The lump sum payment was considered a method of compensating the Swiss party for granting the manufacturing rights for five years. Consequently, the court held that the amount paid was revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
The question referred to the court was answered accordingly, and due to the complexity of the case, the parties were left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 17
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Application of section 52(2) in determining capital gains liability
- Burden of proof on the Revenue for invoking section 52(2)
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner canceled the Income-tax Officer's order regarding capital gains, stating that the transfer was not made with the intention of tax avoidance but for the benefit of a relative out of love and affection. The Tribunal also found that section 52(1) did not apply as there was no evidence of tax avoidance in the transfer. The Department argued that section 52(2) was applicable, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the previous decisions were based on section 52(1) and not section 52(2.
The main question referred to the court was whether section 52(2) was applicable in this case. Section 52(1) deals with transfers made to connected persons with the intention of tax avoidance, requiring the Income-tax Officer to have a reason to believe in such avoidance. The Supreme Court's ruling in K. P. Varghese v. ITO emphasized that section 52(1) does not apply if the fair market value exceeds the consideration received, without evidence of tax avoidance intentions.
Section 52(2) allows for adjustments if the fair market value exceeds the declared consideration by a specified percentage. However, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to show understatement of consideration. The Tribunal found that section 52(2) could not be invoked in this case as there was no evidence of understatement or concealment by the assessee. Therefore, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee, concluding that neither section 52(1) nor section 52(2) applied to the transaction in question.
In agreement with the above analysis, the court decided that the Revenue failed to establish tax avoidance or understatement of consideration, leading to the dismissal of the departmental appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence and burden of proof in invoking provisions related to capital gains taxation under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1985 (5) TMI 16
The High Court of Calcutta ruled that payments made by the assessee to employees for medical bill reimbursement did not constitute a benefit or perquisite under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on previous rulings by other High Courts supporting this interpretation. The question was answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. (Case citation: 1985 (5) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA High Court)
-
1985 (5) TMI 15
The High Court of Delhi ruled in a case involving penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 was levied but was found unjustified as certain amounts were not considered as the assessee's income. The court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, and the penalty case did not survive. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the profit of Rs. 2,10,000 made by Raisina Cold Storage and Ice Co. Limited was the assessee's income.
2. Whether the payment of Rs. 41,039.67 made to Surjit Singh, Sham Singh, and Rajinder Singh was the assessee's income.
3. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,78,329 was the income of the assessee liable to tax.
4. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,78,329 was the assessee's income during the relevant year ending on October 31, 1960.
5. Whether the payment of Rs. 10,402 made to A. D. Gupta, Kartar Singh, and S. K. Burman was the assessee's income.
6. Whether the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the amounts referred to in questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are otherwise legally justified.
7. Whether the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was justified.
8. Whether, while levying penalty, the tax sought to be evaded is to be calculated by including in the income returned the amounts shown in Part F of the return.
9. Whether, for calculation of the penalty, the item of Rs. 3,78,379 has to be disregarded as being income not liable to be returned.
10. Whether, for the purpose of calculation of the penalty, assessed income has to be modified by making suitable adjustment in the value of the closing stock consequent upon disallowance of a portion of the purchase price.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Profit of Rs. 2,10,000
The court examined whether the sum of Rs. 2,10,000 received by Raisina Cold Storage and Ice Co. Ltd. from the assignment of the right to purchase three-fourths share in the land could be treated as the assessee's income. The court found that the entire transaction was financed by M/s. Delhi Land and Finance Co. Ltd., not the assessee company. The funds for the purchase came from the Finance Company, and not a penny had passed from the assessee company for the purchase of the land. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no evidence to show that the profit of Rs. 2,10,000 earned by Raisina was the assessee's income. The answer to question No. 1 was in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2: Payment of Rs. 41,039.67
The court considered whether the payment of Rs. 41,039.67 to Sham Singh, Surjit Singh, and Rajinder Singh was the assessee's income. The court noted that these individuals were necessary intermediaries due to the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which restricted land purchases. The payments made to these individuals were part of the necessary expenditure for purchasing the land and could not be treated as the assessee's income. The court found no evidence to show that this amount came back to the assessee company. The answer to question No. 2 was in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Issue 3: Sum of Rs. 3,78,329
The court examined whether the sum of Rs. 3,78,329, which was the profit of Raisina from the land it purchased, could be treated as the assessee's income. The court found that the profit was shown in Raisina's balance sheet and not in the assessee's accounts. The expenses for developing the plots were also met by Raisina. Therefore, the court concluded that the profit of Rs. 3,78,329 could not be considered the assessee's income. The answer to question No. 3 was in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Issue 4: Income During Relevant Year
Given the court's answer to question No. 3, it was not necessary to answer whether the sum of Rs. 3,78,329 was the assessee's income during the relevant year. However, if it were considered the assessee's income, it would have to be during the year ending on October 31, 1960, as shown in Raisina's books. The answer to question No. 4 was in the affirmative, assuming the income was of the assessee.
Issue 5: Payment of Rs. 10,402
The court considered whether the payment of Rs. 10,402 to A. D. Gupta, Kartar Singh, and S. K. Burman was the assessee's income. The court found that this transaction was similar to the one involving Sham Singh, Surjit Singh, and Rajinder Singh. The land was purchased via intermediaries due to legal restrictions, and the extra amount received by these individuals was necessary expenditure for acquiring the land. There was no evidence to show that this amount came back to the assessee company. The answer to question No. 5 was in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Issue 6: Legal Justification of Tribunal's Findings
This question only survived if questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were answered in the affirmative. Since they were answered in the negative, question No. 6 was not answered.
Penalty Issues (7 to 10)
The court did not provide a detailed analysis of the penalty issues as they were consequential to the original assessment orders. Given the answers to the primary questions, the court implied that the penalty issues would not survive.
Conclusion
Questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Department. Question No. 4 was answered in the affirmative, assuming the income was of the assessee. Question No. 6 was not answered as it did not survive. The reference was answered accordingly, with costs awarded to the assessee.
-
1985 (5) TMI 13
Issues:
- Registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, regarding the registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The firm was established on April 1, 1970, with a partnership deed executed on April 6, 1970, for running a liquor contract under government licenses. The firm applied for registration under section 184 of the Act, detailing individual partners' shares. However, during a search of the business premises in November 1970, it was found that the firm had violated provisions of the Punjab Excise Act. The Income-tax Officer initially denied registration, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed this decision, emphasizing that the partnership was not illegal. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the partnership was lawful, and any violations were adequately covered by the Punjab Excise Act, not the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal affirmed that the partnership was legally established with a deed and aimed to conduct licensed activities. The presence of illegal activities did not invalidate the firm's constitution or its entitlement to registration. The court highlighted that its role is not to correct factual errors or inferences but to assess if the registered firm legally existed as per the Act. Referring to previous cases, the court emphasized that the presence of a partnership instrument and mutual agency justified firm registration, even if some activities were unlawful. The court distinguished a prior case where a reconstituted firm engaged in illegal liquor sales from the current situation, where the partnership's legality was not in question.
In conclusion, the court declined the request for a mandamus, stating that the cases did not warrant such an order. The judgment underscores that the legality of the partnership and the presence of mutual agency support the firm's registration, despite isolated illegal activities. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions under the Income-tax Act and the Punjab Excise Act.
-
1985 (5) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the assessee company to relief under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the relief under section 80M should be on the gross dividend or the net dividend after deducting proportionate management expenses.
Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Relief under Section 80M
The first issue revolves around whether the assessee company, which carries on general insurance business and is assessed under section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is entitled to relief under section 80M. The Tribunal held that the income of the insurance company is computed under section 44 read with the First Schedule as profits and gains of the business of insurance. The Tribunal further held that section 80M provides for deduction on income from dividends irrespective of the head under which the income is included in the assessee's total income.
The Revenue contended that since the assessee's income is computed under section 44, the dividend income loses its character as such after merging with the business income, making section 80M inapplicable. However, the Tribunal, referencing the decision in CIT v. Darbhanga Marketing Co. Ltd. [1971] 80 ITR 72, concluded that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80M on the entire dividend income.
The judgment emphasized that section 44 deals with the computation of profits and gains of insurance business, and the First Schedule outlines the manner of computation. Despite the special provisions for insurance companies, the dividend income retains its character and is eligible for relief under section 80M. The court cited multiple precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the view that insurance companies are entitled to such relief.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the assessee, which carries on business in general insurance and is assessable under section 44, is entitled to relief under section 80M. The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2: Relief on Gross or Net Dividend
The second issue concerns whether the relief under section 80M should be allowed on the gross dividend or the net dividend after deducting proportionate management expenses. The Tribunal had upheld the assessee's contention that deduction should be allowed on the gross dividend income, following the decision in Darbhanga Marketing Co. Ltd.'s case [1971] 80 ITR 72.
The Revenue argued that section 80AA, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968, mandates that the deduction under section 80M should be computed with reference to the income by way of dividends as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, and not the gross amount of such dividends. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that section 80AA requires that the deduction under section 80M should be computed after considering the expenses incurred in earning the dividend income.
The court noted that the assessee's contention that no expenditure should be deducted in computing the relief under section 80M was not raised before the Tribunal. The only contention raised was that the deduction should be allowed on the gross dividend income. The Tribunal had upheld this contention, but the court, having regard to the provisions of section 80AA, could not accept this.
The court concluded that in cases where deduction is allowable to an assessee under section 80M, the deduction is to be allowed with reference to the amount of dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, which includes deducting the proportionate managerial expenses. Therefore, the second question was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The judgment concluded with the first question answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, confirming their entitlement to relief under section 80M. The second question was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, establishing that the relief under section 80M should be computed on the net dividend after deducting proportionate management expenses. There was no order as to costs.
-
1985 (5) TMI 11
The High Court of Delhi held that relief under section 80M should be allowed with reference to gross dividends without considering related expenditure. The court noted an amendment to the Income-tax Act and stated that if the new provision is held ultra vires, the assessee can seek review. The court also mentioned that the deduction from gross dividend for expenditure must be determined by the Tribunal.
....
|
9911796707
