|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 230 Records
-
1985 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... res referred to by us. This decision is, therefore, of no assistance to Mr. Munim in support of his contention. In the result, the question referred to us is answered as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is directed that when the matter goes back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will have to determine whether the appropriation of Rs. 17 lakhs towards gratuity reserve is in excess of the liability of the assessee on account of gratuity determined on an actuarial calculation, and if there is such an excess, only to the extent of that excess will the amount be deemed to be a reserve and includible in computing the capital of the assessee company under rule of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and as far as the sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing debenture redemption reserve is concerned, it will not be includible in computing the capital of the assessee for the aforesaid purpose. The assessee to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... apital of the assessee. It is clarified that the estimated liability will have to be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with law and the principles of accountancy applicable in the matter. As regards dividend tax reserve (item (iv) in the question relating to the assessment year 1965-66), the amount of Rs. 8,076 has to be added in the computation of the capital of the company for the purpose referred to in the question. In the eventuality referred to by Mr. Dastur, set out in page 711 , the entire amount of Rs. 7,50,000 will have to be added to the capital of the company for the said purposes. The Tribunal will compute the capital of the assessee for the aforesaid purposes, in accordance with this judgment, when the matter goes to the Tribunal without waiting for any decision on the question as to whether the assessee is a company in which the public is substantially interested. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... e of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 232, the question will have to be answered as follows (1) Only that part of the depreciation which entered into the computation of the taxable income of the assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years prior to 1050-51 could be treated as depreciation actually allowed and not the total depreciation which went into the computation of its total world income. As far as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the counsel agreed that they will have to be answered in the negative and against the Revenue in view of our decision just delivered in Income-tax Reference No. 84 of 1975 CIT v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. 1986 160 ITR 650 (Bom) . Question No. 4 has been raised at the instance of the assessee and Mr. Vyas states, on instructions, that he does not desire that the said question should be answered. In view of this, we decline to answer the said question. There will be no order as to the costs of this reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... relates to the interpretation of the said Industrial Tax Rules and the notifications under which those Rules were framed. It was submitted by him that the said notification and the said Rules constitute foreign law. Foreign law has to be proved as a fact and the construction of foreign law and the determination of the true nature of foreign law are also questions of fact just like the existence of foreign law itself. It was submitted by him that the Tribunal had taken the view that the said Rules levied a tax on cotton mills and not on income or profits of business and that finding was finding of fact of which the Tribunal was the final judge. In our view, we are not required to consider or determine this question at all in view of what we have already decided. We, therefore, do not wish to go into this controversy. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. The applicant to pay to the respondent the costs of the reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 66 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there was no gift by the retiring partners liable to gift-tax. Even if the right of a partner to share the profits of a firm is property, a retiring partner has no right to share the future profits. It is no doubt true that gift-tax is not necessarily restricted to gifts effected by written documents. If it is possible to effect a gift without an instrument in writing, gift-tax is payable on the same. But the subject-matter of a gift may be such that a written instrument is necessary to perfect a gift. Gift-tax is payable in spite of gifts made during the previous year (sic). Completed gifts alone attract liability to tax Thus, after hearing the learned counsel and after going through the case law cited, we are of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case which are placed on record, the question referred has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 65 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ry finding recorded by the Tribunal, it follows that the three members in Hindu law would constitute minor Hindu undivided families. When once it is held that the assessees constitute minor Hindu undivided families, it follows that on the ratio of the ruling of this court in Sampangiram s case 1986 160 ITR 188, the gifts made by them to their respective wives would not fall within the purview of section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. On the above discussion, we hold that the questions referred to us have to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. In the light of our above discussion, we answer the questions referred to us as hereunder Question- 1 Answer On partial partition, each of the individual members of the bigger Hindu undivided family constitute a minor Hindu undivided family. Question-2 Answer Answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... rdingly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Income-tax Officer s action. The Tribunal held that the authorities were not justified in replacing the actual value by the fair market value. The Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 597, held that section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset has been understated by the assessee. The burden of proving such understatement is on the Revenue. The sub-section has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared by him. Having regard to that decision, it is, very rightly, not disputed by Mr. Dhanuka, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 63 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Entrance Fees Received By Club, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... decision is not helpful to the revenue petitioner. Taking either view in the matter, the amount of Rs. 50,000 is to be treated as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt. In view of my discussions above, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards question No. 2, I hold that the receipt of a sum of Rs. 50,000 as donation from TISCO in the assessment year 1966-67 in the hands of the assessee is in the nature of a capital receipt and is not a revenue receipt and so question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As both the parties have partly succeeded, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who shall pass necessary orders to dispose of the case in conformity with this judgment. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (9) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income, Members' Club ... ... ... ... ..... Court cases reported in CIT v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., 1959 36 ITR 222 and Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 495 and so it is difficult to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. 1959 36 ITR 222 and Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 495, the entrance fees received from the members are not capital receipts but revenue receipts and are taxable as income of the assessee-club. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the entrance fee received by the assessee-club at the time of the entrance of the new members is a receipt of revenue nature and is chargeable to tax in the hands of the club. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in view of the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (9) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, New Industrial Undertaking, Reconstruction ... ... ... ... ..... . That is not quite the right way of looking at it. The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to have the said shares transferred to its name and required M/s. Bajaj to do so. The assessee s title to the said shares was perfected and its investment and the income thereon secured when that registration was, in fact, made. Alternatively, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that no fresh income-earning asset had been acquired by the incurring of the said expenditure, that only an obstacle had been removed, so that the said expenditure could not be regarded as capital expenditure. This submission begs the question considered in regard to the principal argument. Our conclusion upon the principal argument being what it is, the said expenditure must be held to be capital expenditure and not allowable as deduction. In the result, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee shall pay to the Revenue the costs of the reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 60 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, New Industrial Undertaking, Reconstruction ... ... ... ... ..... ndertaking of some definite kind was being carried on and the conclusion was arrived at that it was not desirable to kill that undertaking but to preserve it to continue in some altered form the undertaking in such a manner that the persons carrying it on would substantially continue to be the same. It meant that substantially the same business would be carried on and substantially the same persons would carry it on. No reconstruction as defined by the Supreme Court has, in the instant case, taken place. A plant was set up to manufacture the nyloc inserts that were previously purchased. That the new plant was set up in an extension of the premises where the assessee was carrying on its business of manufacturing nyloc nuts would seem to us to make no difference whatever. The only argument on behalf of the Revenue is, therefore, negatived. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Taxation Concession ... ... ... ... ..... er, the deed of dissolution dated March 13, 1964, contains recitals which are only consistent with the dissolution of an existing joint family business or partnership, and not with the retirement of any members or partners. In the first place, it is not altogether without significance that the document is described as deed of dissolution. What is more important is that under this deed all the assets of M/s. Rao Family Society have been partitioned or divided between the sharers in those assets. This sort of division is inconsistent with the document being a record of the retirement of certain partners from the firm and continuation of other partners. This argument also of Mr. Pandit must be, therefore, rejected. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the negative. Question No. 2 In the negative. Both the questions are answered against the assessee. The assessee to pay to the Commissioner the costs of these references in one set.
-
1985 (9) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... he sale to a party in London. In our view, the expenditure incurred on commission paid to an agent in a foreign country for promotion of export trade would attract any one of the sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (viii) of clause (b) of section 35B(1) of the Act, particularly so, when the Revenue never before had chosen to raise the point that such expenditure would not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses in section 35B of the Act for entitlement to weighted deduction. We are also not persuaded to accept the contention that the Tribunal was under legal obligation to make a further enquiry in the matter or remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer for the purpose. The result, therefore, is that we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court would be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (9) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation, whether 1946, or after the 31st day capitalised or not ... of March, 1948. Explanation 2.--The Explanation.--The expression accumulated expression accumulated profits , in sub-clauses (a), profits , wherever it occurs (b), (d) and (e) shall include in this clause, shall not all profits of the company up include capital gains to the date of distribution or arising before the 1st day payment referred to in those of April, 1946, or after the sub-clauses, and in 31st day of March, 1948, sub-clause(c) shall include and before the 1st day of all profits of the company April, 1956. up to the date of liquidation, but shall not, where the liquidation is consequent on the compulsory acquisition of its undertaking by the Government or a corporation owned or controlled by the Government under any law for the time being in force, include any profits of the company prior to three successive previous years immediately preceding the previous year in which such acquisition took place.
-
1985 (9) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... r in initiating proceedings against the assessee under section 147(a) is held to be justified and this preliminary issue is decided against the assessee . There being a final determination of this issue against the assessee, the assessee was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal. Certainly, the assessee could have waited until the Income-tax Officer had made the inquiries that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had directed him to make, until the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had considered the remand report and until the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed a final order before filing the appeal. The point is not what the assessee could have done. The point is, was the assessee entitled to file an appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order of remand. She was, as we have said, entitled to do so. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of this reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... id land for some years did not lead to the conclusion that it had ceased to be an agricultural land. In the case before us, the facts are completely different just to mention two, the intention with which Govindram Brothers purchased the land was to put it to non-agricultural use. On the portion of the land leased out to Govindram Brothers, they actually constructed a studio and the entire land was occasionally put to non-agricultural use, namely, for shooting of films. In these circumstances, the decision in CWT v. H. V. Mungale 1984 145 ITR 208 (Bom) has no application to the case before us. In the result, the question referred to us is answered as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the balance of 13,200 square yards of land was non-agricultural land and, therefore, the entire excess price realised by the assessee-company on the sale of such land was liable to assessment under the head Capital gains . The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... use which has been amended with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, shows that no deduction can be allowed, inter alia, under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the said Act where in any previous year a deduction has been allowed under section 35 of the said Act for the assets in question. In the present case, the facts found clearly show that deductions to the extent of the full value of the assets in question had already been allowed in the previous years under section 35 in respect of the very assets for which the deduction was claimed subsequently by the assessee under section 32(1)(ii), as stated above. As far as Mr. Hariharan is concerned, he has made no submission and states that he has been instructed not to make any submission in the matter. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Looking to the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (9) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ociation to pay the said amount which they think proper having regard to their estimate of profits made by the company. On payment, the interim dividend becomes the property of the shareholders, but a mere resolution of the directors resolving to pay a certain amount as interim dividend does not create a debt enforceable against the company, for, it is always open to the directors to rescind the resolution before payment of the interim dividend. Interim dividend declared by a resolution of the board of directors of a company is not, therefore, dividend declared ......... by the company . For the purposes of the application of the afore-mentioned provisions to the assessment year in question, the amount of the interim dividend of the aggregate amount of Rs. 7,50,000 cannot be included in the computation for the purposes of additional tax. We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of this reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... or lack of the Reserve Bank s sanction. By the time the remittances could be made, devaluation had been effected and to meet the same liability in U.S. dollars, more Indian rupees were required. The excess in Indian rupees in the year in which the remittance was made was as much a trading liability as the amounts in Indian rupees required earlier and allowed as revenue expenditure. Nothing had transpired till the time of the remittance to change the character of the assessee s liability to the head office. The trading liability remained a trading liability. In the view we take, which is supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court, we find that the Tribunal was right in holding that the devaluation loss of Rs. 42,44,932 was an allowable revenue loss. We answer the questions thus Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1985 (9) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... literal construction to the proviso is given, it does not lead to any absurdity or anomalous results. On the contrary, by giving that interpretation, we are implementing the real object behind the insertion of the said proviso. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the said decision of the Supreme Court also, does not help the assessee in the present case. We are, therefore, unable to accept any of the submissions made by Shri J. P. Shah. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly come to the right conclusion on a proper interpretation of the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of section 80P(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the discussion, the assessee-society cannot have the benefit of exemption as provided inspection 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of with no order as to costs.
....
|
