|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 203 Records
-
1981 (8) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Return ... ... ... ... ..... e of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in deciding for itself whether a reasonable cause was shown while passing the order upholding the ITO s contention. The appropriate order should be, in our opinion, that the Income-tax Tribunal should remand the matter to the ITO with a direction to consider the application made by the assessee for an extension of time on merits and then pass a speaking order whether a reasonable cause was shown or not. Thereafter, the authorities concerned would proceed to pass orders accordingly. We, therefore, answer the question by saying that the Tribunal was in error in upholding the order of the ITO and the Tribunal should remand the matter for consideration of the application of the assessee for an extension of time by the ITO giving a reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned and thereafter should proceed to pass orders accordingly. The question is answered accordingly. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Goodwill, Question Raised Before Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... directors of the said public company which had approved the said draft agreement on April 5, 1948, and that there is nothing to show that the said agreement was approved by the said company in any general meeting. It is true that the said agreement dated April 5, 1948, has been executed on behalf of the said public company, but from that it does not follow either that it was approved by the said public company in a general meeting or if it was in fact so approved, that such general meeting took place prior to April 1, 1948, assuming even it were possible to construe the said agreement dated April 5, 1948, as a transfer. In the result, we answer the one question referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 146 of 1970 and the two questions referred to us in Incometax Reference No. 66 of 1979 in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessees and against the department. The respondent will pay to the applicants the costs of both these references quantified in all at Rs. 1,500.
-
1981 (8) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... hareholders who had stood personal security was for the legitimate business needs of the company and that the payment at the rate of 10 of the interest payable to the bankers was not excessive. It was also held that the tests laid down under cl. (c) of s. 40 are satisfied. For the year under consideration, the facts and circumstances being the same, we agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the entire claim in this regard was allowable as a deduction under s. 40(c)(i) of the Act. In this situation question No. 2 is merely academic and also does not arise. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in favour of the assessee and against the department and the Appellate Tribunal would now determine the quantum of incremental liability for the year under consideration. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 2 is returned unanswered. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (8) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... computation of capital loss on the basis of the value of the shares as on January 1, 1954, in the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. In any case, the assessee was not under an obligation to disclose what value he had shown in his return of wealth for the assessment year 1957-58. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that he had failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. In our opinion, he had disclosed all the facts which were material, truly and fully. Under the circumstances, the condition precedent for acquiring jurisdiction under s. 148 and for reopening assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act was not satisfied. The ITO, therefore, had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. In the result, the petition succeeds. Notice dated March 12, 1979, issued by the first respondent under s. 148 read with s. 147(a) of the Act is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... rn compelling necessities for such expenditure. He has also observed that this expenditure has not brought into existence any enduring asset. According to the AAC and his view appears to be correct this is one of the formalities which any assessee has to incur after the business is set up. The amount of Rs. 38,792 incurred on the inauguration ceremony appears to be a legitimate business expenditure, and, in our opinion, both the AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were right in allowing the same as deduction in terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The questions are accordingly answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee as concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 167. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (8) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... nt of half month s salary for every completed year of service. It is clear from the wording of the resolution that what the board did was, not to sanction the gratuity of Rs. 35,000 for the first time, but to approve and ratify the payment already made. There is no dispute that the actual payment was made during the relevant accounting year. The fact that the resolution of the board was passed later cannot, therefore, be relied upon by the Department for disallowing the expenditure. The question of law which we are asked to answer in the present reference is couched as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity of Rs. 35,000 paid to Mrs. Akhila Raman is a legitimate business expenditure and not ex gratia payment ? For the reasons which we have recorded, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and against the Department. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (8) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... 1, 652 and 654, upon which learned counsel for the assessee strongly relied. It is clear that the position is totally different in the present case. As we have already pointed out, the ITO could not be visited with the knowledge Of the relationship between the assessee, and the minor children. If there had been some indication of the relationship between the assessee and the minor children and still the ITO had failed to apply s. 64 it could be said that the escapement was due to his negligence but that is not the situation in the present case. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the assessee have no force and that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of s. 147(a) were rightly invoked. The question referred to us, is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. As the assessee has failed he will pay the costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (8) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains
... ... ... ... ..... nbelow I.T.R. No. 68/76 Question Answer Whether, on the facts of the In the affirmative and against case, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee the assessee had made capital gains on the reduction of preference share capital which was exigible to capital gains tax ? I.T.R. No. 369 Whether, on the facts and in In the affirmative and against the circumstances of the case, the the assessee. Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had made capital gain of Rs. 28,710 as a result of reduction in preference share capital of Sarabhai Ltd. ? Both the references answered accordingly with no order regarding costs. Counsel for the assessee makes an oral request for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court as envisioned by s. 261 of the Act. In view of the fact that we are taking a view different from the view taken by the Madras High Court, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Certificate is, therefore, granted.
-
1981 (8) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , even if the same amounts were paid back on the same day by the assessees to the managed company towards the existing liability. The said contention of the learned counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted. If, therefore, in this case factually the assessees have received the said two amounts towards compensation in connection with the termination of the managing agency agreement, then in that case the said amounts in the hands of the assessees would be covered by the provisions of the said s. 10(5A)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In our view, the language of the said section was wide enough to cover such payments received by the assessees, even if they were purported to have been made towards compensation in connection with the termination of the managing agency, which was found not to be bona fide. In that view of the matter, we answer the question as under The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessees to pay the costs to the Revenue.
-
1981 (8) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty, Return ... ... ... ... ..... assessee-company to execute the unfinished contracts. We are also unable to agree with the income-tax Officer that the payment was part and parcel of the sale consideration for the sale of the business as a going concern. There is absolutely no foundation to come to this conclusion. The true profit of the assessee-company cannot be determined without deducting this payment. In our view, the payment made is on revenue account. It was rightly allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In our opinion, what was required to be said about the claim of the assessee and the true nature of the transaction and the payment, has been said by the Tribunal in the aforesaid extracted portion. We are in total agreement with the approach of the Tribunal. If that be so, we must accept and concur with the final conclusion. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties, however, will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (8) TMI 33 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Tests For Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... ion 47(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the In the affirmative and against circumstances of the case, the Tribunal the assessee in view of Smt.was right in holding that the interest Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT deficit to the extent of Rs. 6,453 was 1975 101 ITR 153 (Guj) not deductible while determining the total income ? Question referred at the instance of the Revenue. Question Answer 4. Whether, on the facts and in the In the negative and against circumstances of the case, the Tribunal the assessee was justified in law in holding that the lands in question were, on the date of their transfer, agricultural lands ? Reference answered accordingly. There will be no order regarding costs. The learned counsel for the assessee applies for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act. We do not consider this to be a fit case for the grant of a certificate. The certificate is, therefore, refused.
-
1981 (8) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Intercorporate Dividends, Interest On Borrowed Capital
-
1981 (8) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... t in the case of B. A. R. Abdul Rahman Saheb v. ITO 1975 100 ITR 541, and reliance was placed on the observations at p. 546 of the report. Whether any appropriate step is to be taken under s. 153 or s. 147 or s. 148 or not, is not the issue before us. We are concerned with the question whether by the expression finding or direction , as these have been construed by the Supreme Court, after holding that the AAC had no jurisdiction, could the Tribunal still decline to delete the direction given by the AAC ? Our attention was also drawn to another decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. J. Udani v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 766. But in view of the view the Supreme Court has taken, it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decision in detail. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... ed. In the appeal it would be permissible to the assessee-company to question the basis of imposition of penalty, and once this conclusion is reached it would be apparent that the basis could be impugned or could be challenged only by impugning the failure to exercise the discretion conferred on the ITO under s. 220(6). The question whether the assessee-company is or is not in default would indeed appear to be the primary question, and the quantum of penalty, the subsidiary question, which can be decided in the appeal. Were the other view to prevail, namely, that the only question to be decided in such an appeal is the question of quantum of penalty, then the very purpose of providing the appeal would be substantially rendered nugatory. It would appear to us that the view taken by the Tribunal is proper and correct. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal in the affirmative and against the Commissioner. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 29 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a) one of us (T. C. Das J.), speaking for the court, has taken the view that when the decision reached by the Tribunal on a question of law is obvious or self-evident, the Tribunal need not refer the question. We have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that when the answer to a point of law is too obvious or self-evident no reference u/s. 256 of the Act need be made. In the instant case, the conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal on the interpretation of law is correct and there is no, nor can there be any, debate on the point as to the answer. In the application asking for a reference the Commissioner has not questioned the correctness of the decisions. The learned standing counsel has not been able to show that the point of law decided by the learned Tribunal is erroneous or at least requires a second look. In the result, we hold that the learned Tribunal was justified in refusing the question and the applications stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he order of the Tribunal and the said extract shows that the capital account consisted of the opening balance and interest and profits earned during the year. On this slender evidence, it is not possible to hold that the assessee had initially contributed any amount as capital. Besides, the amount standing to the credit of the assessee in the said account cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to consist only of the capital which was intrinsically connected with his share. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion, that the Tribunal was right in the view that it took as regards the assessability of the income derived as and by way of share from the profits of the partnership firm in the hands of the assessee. The reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the fact that the assessee is not represented at the hearing, there shall be no order as to the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (8) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Profits Rebate, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... penditure. It further held that the amount having been spent before the 1st of April, 1971, s. 35D would not apply. Reliance was also placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 1972 86 ITR 549 and our attention was drawn to the observations of the court at p. 553. When an expenditure was made with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade there is good reason in the absence of special circumstances leading to the opposite conclusion for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital. In the light of the observations stated hereinabove and in view of the facts as noted by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the question posed before this court must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are to pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ily arrangement was not HUF property. We have already on an interpretation of the different clauses of the family arrangement, and particularly cl. 21A, held that the nature of the property coming to him was not altered by reason of restriction placed on the power of alienation by virtue of the clauses of the family arrangement. Under these circumstances, the question referred to us by the Tribunal must be answered in the negative, as it must be held that in the light of our acceptance of the fourth and the fifth contentions of the learned Advocate-General, each of them being in the alternative, that the correct status of the assessee was that of a Hindu undivided family as claimed by the assessee and not that of an individual as determined by the ITO and as held by the Tribunal. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (8) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hold that no referable question of law at all is involved in the present case. For all the above reasons we hold that the appeal filed by the Department before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the AAC dated December 24, 1973, was perfectly maintainable. The Tribunal was in error in holding that the appeal did not lie. The result is that the question of law is answered in favour of the Department. The implication of this answer of ours is, that the order passed by the Tribunal is no longer there. The appeal of the Department is again at large, and the Tribunal has to re-hear the appeal and decide it on merits. A reference to the last paragraph of the judgment in CWT v. Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam 1981 127 ITR 175 (Mad), gives an indication of the manner in which the Tribunal will have to proceed in a case of this kind. The reference is answered in favour of the Department on the above terms. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (8) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Scientific Research Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... er which appealed to the ITO and the AAC in the instant case, namely, related to the present business of manufacturing activities of the assessee-company. The activities of the assessee-company in the years in Which the expenditure was incurred were, inter alia, the manufacture of rayon yarn. The research activity pertained to substitution of the raw material currently being used. Assuming that the narrower approach, namely, that the present activities alone are to be considered is acceptable, even then, in our opinion, the research undertaken must be properly regarded as being related to the business of the assessee-company. To take any other view must be regarded as impractical and contrary to Commonsense. In our opinion., therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing this deduction to the assessee. In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
....
|
