|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 197 Records
-
1990 (5) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Legal Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... e facts set out in the application under section 256(2) before the Tribunal, it appears that, in the immediately preceding assessment year also, the assessee had purchased and installed a generator in respect of which it had received certain amount by way of subsidy. The relief allowed by the first appellate authority in the year in dispute was nullified by the Tribunal on account of mixing of facts with those of the immediately preceding assessment year. It is not necessary for us to pursue the matter further as we are not required to record our final opinion in these proceedings. However, suffice it to say that question No. 4 is a question of law which does arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case with regard to question No. 4 and to refer the same for the opinion of this court. In the result, this application is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 36 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... s advanced in this case and, therefore, we are not to be understood to have held that telephone is a part of furniture. So far as the first question is concerned, with reference to the assessment year 1975-76, we answer, that the business was discontinued, in favour of the Revenue. The rents received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources. The answer is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As respects questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in view of the evidence on record, no argument is advanced. Therefore, all the questions except as to rentals are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As respects the assessment year 1976-77, to repeat, the first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are analogous, and, therefore, are answered against the assessee. No costs. SMT. M. SHARMA J. -I agree.
-
1990 (5) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee s interest in the firm, M/s. S. Zoraster and Co. ? The Tribunal held that the income from Prem Prakash Cinema building is assessed as business income. Hence, it could not be said that it was not an urban business asset. The second question sought to be referred by the Department was regarding the valuation of Prem Prakash Cinema building. Both these questions referred to above were held by the Tribunal to be basically questions of fact. Under the first question, the controversy was whether the building of Prem Prakash Cinema building was an urban business asset and the second question was about the valuation of the said building. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and, in our opinion, the application made by the Department for referring of the two questions, mentioned above, is misconceived inasmuch as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly found that they were questions of fact. No legal question has been raised, and, therefore, we reject the application.
-
1990 (5) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Power To Acquire Immovable Property U/S 269UD ... ... ... ... ..... to make out a saleable right having title to the property and it is for the appropriate authority either to take steps as envisaged under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act or if it is not inclined to purchase, it may very well issue a no objection certificate in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the appropriate authority in passing the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is thus allowed. Let a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned orders. There will be a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents-appropriate authority to consider Form No. 37-1 afresh in accordance with law within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of this order to take effective steps either under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act or to issue a no objection certificate in the event there is no inclination to exercise the right of purchase. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offence, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nals and, if need be and if a request is made, to postpone its decision by a short period. The Supreme Court has also categorically stated that such a postponement ought not to frustrate the criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings, therefore, cannot be quashed. Learned counsel also relies upon Ashwini Kumar Vadilal Patel (Dalal) v. P. T. Mehta, ITO 1989 178 ITR 385 (Guj) and Gopal Lal Dhamani v. ITO 1988 172 ITR 456 (Raj) and contends that this court may at least give a direction to the learned Magistrate not to pronounce the judgment till the departmental proceedings are over.The decisions make it clear that this direction cannot be given by this court at this stage. If, after the conclusion of the trial and before the pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner feels that he should make such a request to the trial court, he is free to do so and the learned Magistrate will deal with this request according to law. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exemption In Regard To Profits, Foreign Project ... ... ... ... ..... 0HHB(3) because the Central Board of Direct Taxes had accorded approval to the agreements under section 80-O and, therefore, the petitioner naturally expected that relief would be granted under section 80-0. We have, however, held that, on the facts of the present case, the petitioner was entitled to the relief not under section 80-0 but under section 80HHB and this is what in fact was argued before us by learned counsel for the Department. This being so, the Income-tax Department should not stand on mere technicalities and must give an opportunity to the petitioner to fulfil the requirements of section 80HHB(3) and, on such compliance within a reasonable time, it should grant the benefit to the petitioner under that provision. No serious contention was raised before us with regard to the validity of section 80HHB and we have no hesitation in holding that the said provision is valid. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, CBDT, Deduction, Foreign Project, Indian Company, Industrial Company, Project, Restrictions
-
1990 (5) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Effect Of Amendment Of S. 220(2a), Interest, Rule Against Retrospectivity, Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... ar that, unless provided in the statute, the law is always presumed to be prospective in nature. There cannot be any implied inference of any retrospective operation of law. The retrospective operation must be clear and unambiguous. Nothing could be inferred by any stretch of imagination. Admittedly, the introduction of section 220(2A) of the said Act has been made in the year 1984. The assessee asked the Commissioner to exercise his jurisdiction for the periods prior to the introduction of such law in the proper perspective. This court has given its anxious consideration to the matter but could not reconcile with the submission made by Mr, Chatterjee that the concessions given should be extended and the impugned order should not be sustained. This court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, does not find that the impugned order suffers from any irregularity and this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is thus rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... e question extracted earlier. It is pertinent to point out that, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee alone was in appeal. The Revenue had not filed any appeal or cross-objection. It is settled that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with the appeal, in the absence of any cross-appeal or objection, cannot give a finding adverse to the appellant which would make his position worse than it was under the orders appealed against. It is true that the question suggested by the Commissioner is, no doubt, one of law, but the answer to it is, in our opinion, self-evident because the Tribunal has no power of enhancement. See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 232 (SC). In these circumstances, it would be futile to require the Tribunal to refer the question sought for by the Revenue to this court. Accordingly, no statable question of law arises. The application filed by the Revenue is also rejected. In the result, both the applications are rejected.
-
1990 (5) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... nds that section 241 of the Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not, however, propose to express any opinion on the applicability of section 241 of the Act. Since the appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the Department far back, it ought to be disposed of soon. We are of the opinion further and do hereby direct that the cash and gold jewellery, still being retained by the Department, shall be returned to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee in sum of Rs. 75,000 to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. This order shall, however, be subject to the final order that may be passed in the appeal pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The Appellate Tribunal may dispose of the Department s appeal as early as possible. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges, within three days.
-
1990 (5) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To CIT(A), Depreciation, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... vation made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order that the assessee has made admission regarding the income from house building and cinema machinery as property income without any material on the record can be treated as the conclusive admission of the assessee ? Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to prepare a statement of case and refer the above two questions under section 256(2) of the Act for the opinion of this court.
-
1990 (5) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... quantity of finished goods. This, in the opinion of the Tribunal, was a recognised and well-defined method in the commercial world to value the closing stock. It was also found that the Income-tax Officer had not noticed any discrepancy in the quantity of finished goods. The adjustments made by the Income-tax Officer while disturbing the value of the closing stock were not found sustainable. Learned standing counsel was unable to point out any factual or legal discrepancy in the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether the stock-in-trade has been properly valued or not is a question of fact. In our opinion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal committed no error of law when it accepted the method of valuation adopted by the assessee. Question No. 3, being a pure question of fact, is not fit for reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. The application is allowed in part. In view of the divided success of the parties there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accounting, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... included large turnover of trading only, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the ad hoc addition of Rs. 75,000 towards the trading results, thereby also ignoring acceptance of trading results by the sales tax authorities ? We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. We do not think that the questions of law, as suggested by the assessee, do arise from it. The assessee is a private limited company. It was found that it did not maintain accounts in a proper manner they were maintained on loose sheets. Accordingly, they were rejected. Having rejected the accounts, the authorities made an estimate of the income on the basis of material available and the past assessment orders. In the circumstances, it cannot be suggested that the estimate made is a pure guess or that it is not based on relevant material. No question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal within the meaning of section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The application is dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... ore, when there is a registered valuer s report, the Valuation Officer s job is not merely to report the value as assessed by him but also to clarify where the registered valuer has erred. We have already stated that in this case the registered valuer s report had been made available to the Valuation Officer and yet he chose not to comment on its accuracy. We, therefore, find no justification for the plea that the case should be sent back to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) for examination of the accounts. If he chose not to do so he must have his own reason for the same and a second innings would be thoroughly unjustified. We agree with learned standing counsel that this part of the reasoning of the Tribunal may not be strictly correct in law, but the said observation, in our opinion, has not vitiated the finding of the Tribunal which has been arrived at independently on the basis of the material on record. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... nd, in this manner, the land in question reverted to the joint Hindu family. It was the case of the plaintiffs themselves in the application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the specific amendment was being sought in order to elaborate the plea of pre emption which existed in the plaint. There is nothing wrong in the view taken by the trial court that evidence cannot be led since the amendment was only for the purpose of elaborating an existing plea. In fact, much can be said about the plea of benami transaction in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988 and the case law available on the point but since the amendment has been allowed and no revision has been filed by the defendant-vendees, this court is disinclined to take suo motu action for setting aside the order allowing the amendment. The revision petition is, thus, dismissed. No costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on May 31, 1990.
-
1990 (5) TMI 22 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... rate identity of its own and treated the amount as an income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The appeal carried by the assessee was allowed and in further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal, following the decision in CIT v. Biju Patnaik 1974 ILR (Cuttack) 374, that Kalinga Foundation Trust was an independent and separate entity, negatived the plea of the Revenue. An application filed by the Revenue for making a reference was rejected. Hence, this application to call for a statement of case, and reference of the question. Having regard to the fact that, in the past, Kalinga Foundation Trust has been held to be an independent and separate entity and advances by it have been held to be real and genuine and such a holding, having been upheld by this court, as stated by the Tribunal, which is not disputed by the Revenue before us, we see no merit in this application and decline our jurisdiction. In the result, the application is dismissed. S. C. MOHAPATRA J. - I agree.
-
1990 (5) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y which was hitherto the Hindu undivided family property, no longer, remains the property of the Hindu undivided family ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that section 171(9) has no applicability to the present case ? Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up statement of the case and refer the same to this court for its opinion. The application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (5) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Firm, Offences And Prosecution, Promissory Estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... sued and, thereafter, after adjourning the hearing, petitioner No. 1 was not granted any further opportunity of hearing. Under these circumstances, the launching of such a prosecution cannot be sustained and it deserves to be quashed. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The penalty imposed against the petitioners cannot be interfered with at this stage because an appeal against the penalty proceedings is pending before the Competent Authority. The order rejecting the waiver petition as also the review petition filed under section 154 of the Act also cannot be interfered with but the order, annexure 2l, whereby prosecution was ordered to be launched against the petitioners as also the complaint filed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Income-tax) (Investigation), Udaipur, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) bearing No. 153 of 1989 and consequential proceedings taken thereunder are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lief in a particular State, the same cannot be denied in other States similarly situated. The Government of India should have taken a uniform decision and the petitioners should not have been discriminated against in the matter. Therefore, we hold that the petitioners holding L-14 licences before us are also entitled to the same relief which is being given to their counterparts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. For the foregoing reasons, we allow these petitions and issue a writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to deduct/charge income-tax from the L-13 licensees in view of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 44AC of the Income-tax Act and to implement the circular dated 26th June, 1989, annexure P-1. They are also directed not to charge/ deduct income-tax on the excise duty payable by the petitioners., holding L-14 licences. No costs. Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 39 of 1990 and 20963 of 1989 in CWP No. 7161 of 1989 also stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (5) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... be treated as a registered firm ? It is now agreed before us that it was a case of succession of one firm by another firm with effect from September 4, 1973, within the meaning of section 188 of the Income-tax Act and that it was not a case of reconstitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187 of the Income-tax Act., In this view of the matter, questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, it pertains to the period October 17, 1972, to September 4, 1973, i.e., up to the date of succession. Since it is found that an application for registration was filed within time, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm is entitled to be treated as a registered firm till the date of succession. Accordingly, this question also is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly.
....
|
