|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 264 Records
-
1986 (1) TMI 84 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... Lords in Ashton Gas Co. s case 1906 AC 10, namely, Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT 1961 42 ITR 774 (Pat), Mannalal Ratanlal v. CIT 1965 58 ITR 84 (Cal), Waldies Ltd. v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 577, Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 654 (Bom), Molins of India Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 317 (Cal) and Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1985 153 ITR 275 (Delhi), cited at the Bar also cannot be pressed into service to sustain the plea of the Revenue because, according to me, the principles of law highlighted therein are not consistent with the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court aforementioned. The surtax paid by the assessee thus is really incidental to the carrying on of the business and hence an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and, as such, a permissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. For the reasons stated above, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1986 (1) TMI 83 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... re making any deduction under Chapter VI-A has got to be taken. In such a situation, will it be reasonable to say that the total income must be the total assessed income plus the amount of deduction allowable under Chapter VI-A of the Act? It would thus be seen that if the interpretation which is sought to be put by the Department on the expression total income is accepted, then the amended provisions would be wholly otiose and inept but it would not be so, rather it would be consistent and in consonance with the earlier Act, if the interpretation sought to be put on behalf of the corporation is accepted to be correct. The judgment of this court squarely covers the point and the submission made by Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the Revenue, is rejected in view of our decision in that case. Thus, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 82 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cations. Hence, the Revenue has filed these applications under section 256(2) of the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that these applications deserve to be rejected. The question as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was conscious concealment of income on the part of the assessee, is a question of fact. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that there was no material before the Tribunal for arriving at the finding that there was no conscious concealment. The Tribunal has referred to certain facts on the basis of which it gave its finding that there was no conscious concealment of income on the part of the assessee. No question of law, in our opinion, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The applications, therefore, deserve to be rejected. The applications are accordingly rejected. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
-
1986 (1) TMI 81 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... have been considered before taking cognizance or even before the examination of witness, has not been considered and in all fairness if the case, is remanded, then it will amount that the petitioners are further made to undergo the strain of criminal prosecution which has been hanging over their heads for the last 12 years. In this view of the matter, unless strict measures are adopted, I am afraid, neither will there be awareness on the part of the prosecutor nor will the court be alert to see that an accused is entitled for justice in the process of trial itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution deserves to be quashed and I entirely agree that a good cause of action has been made out and in the background of the discussions made above, this application is allowed and the criminal prosecution in question including the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is hereby set aside.
-
1986 (1) TMI 80 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... the absence of a question whether the findings were vitiated for any reason being before the High Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind or question the statement of facts made by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be doubted that this court cannot reappraise the evidence when the Tribunal has already found as fact that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on September 27, 1951, and he was a minor when the deed of partnership was executed on September 10, 1966. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that the deed of partnership is an invalid document and hence registration under section 185 cannot be granted. The question is thus answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, the parties would bear their own costs. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Act. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1986 (1) TMI 79 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Make, Manufacture, Produce ... ... ... ... ..... istence any new and distinct marketable commodity. The articles or goods preserved in a cold storage plant remain the same as they were prior to such preservation. There is no manufacture or production of cool air as was urged on behalf of tile assessee because no marketable product is brought into existence by the operation of a cold storage plant. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of machinery of a cold storage plant operated by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was also right in holding that the definition of the words manufacturing process in the Factories Act, 1948, could not be imported into the provisions of section 32A of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal, is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1986 (1) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act for the late filing of the return should be calculated as per law applicable in the relevant assessment year, even in respect of the continuing default of delay after the law was amended with effect from April 1, 1969, by the Finance Act, 1969 ? Two decisions, one of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Narain Agrawal 1977 106 ITR 965 and another of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1, have been brought to our notice. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, who appears for the Commissioner, brought to our notice a latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maya Rani Punj v. CIT 1986 157 ITR 330. In view of this latest pronouncement, we are of the view that questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we would accordingly direct the Tribunal to draw up a consolidated statement for all the three assessment years and refer the two questions mentioned above to this court. These petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (1) TMI 77 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ined that the Explanation added to clause (viii) shall take effect from April 1, 1972. However, prior to April 1, 1972, if such question arises, as has been done in these cases, we agree with the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Orissa and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. In the result, the answer to the question referred to us is in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was right in holding that by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, the term jewellery occurring in the words but not including jewellery inserted retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1963, after the words articles intended for personal or household use of the assessee in clause (viii) to section 5(1) of the Act did not include ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any precious metal or alloy which did not contain any precious or semi-precious stone and that such ornaments can only be included in the term jewellery on or after April 1, 1972.
-
1986 (1) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Deduction, House Property, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... nder section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Department. With reference to the second question, the position is that by a judgment dated May 27, 1967, which was during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, effected revision of municipal taxes retrospectively from the fourth quarter of 1962-63. As a result of this judgment, the assessee s additional liability to pay municipal taxes retrospectively from the fourth quarter of 1962-63 became fixed at Rs. 10,838. It was clear that the liability to pay this amount accrued during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. It was hence rightly allowed as deduction. The second question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1986 (1) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... me to time with a view to make it more attractive so as to secure larger business. The expenditure on electric fittings also, it is said, is of the same nature and should be allowed. As already mentioned, there are no facts to support the contentions of the learned counsel. On the bare facts on record, we are unable to differ from the conclusion of the Tribunal but we leave it open to the assessee, if so advised, to put forward in another year the contention that is now sought to be addressed after adducing necessary facts which may substantiate that contention. As it is, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the third question by saying that the Tribunal was justified in restricting the deduction of expenditure on electric fittings to such expenses as related to old depots only and the fourth question in the affirmative. The reference is disposed of as above. The Department will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 750.
-
1986 (1) TMI 74 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... icer not to charge interest. The question referred to us, therefore, in this reference must be answered in the same terms as our earlier decision in Tax Case No. 231 of 1976, disposed of on November 9, 1985 CIT v. Ashok Trading Company 1986 160 ITR 663 (Pat) . For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in presuming that the Income-tax Officer had exercised his discretion in favour of the assessee by not charging interest under section 139(2). For the very same reason, as decided earlier, we are of the view that the proceeding for rectification was rightly initiated and the Tribunal was not right in this regard as well. The reference is thus disposed of in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal through its Assistant Registrar in terms of section 260 of the Act.
-
1986 (1) TMI 73 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... or the parties that the Income-tax Officer s order assessing the entire amount of Rs. 2,22,173 as income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83 has already been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated September 27, 1985, wherein he has directed as follows It is further held that only that much amount of interest which is relatable to a particular account year is assessable as income of the relevant assessment year. According to Mr. Jhingan, the authorities are well entitled to comply with this direction under section 148 read with section 150 of the Act. He, however, maintains that this can be done by issuing fresh notices to him but not under the impugned notices. In the light of this position conceded by Mr. Jhingan, I hardly feel called upon to express my opinion on the latter-mentioned aspect of the matter. In the light of the above discussion, I allow these petitions and quash the impugned notices but with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ded by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior advocate for the respondent authorities, that this court may not choose to adjudicate upon the merits of this case and should relegate the petitioner to his remedies under the Act as, according to the learned counsel, the issuance of the impugned notices by the respondent authorities was not without jurisdiction. The learned counsel, however, conceded that the question as to whether the petitioner should be relegated to his remedies under the Act was dependent on my above-noted conclusion, i.e., whether the petitioner can be held guilty of not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth . Since my conclusion on this question, as already indicated above, has gone against the respondent authorities, this submission of Mr. Ashok Bhan obviously is untenable and is rejected. In the light of the above discussion, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned notices but with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 71 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ltaneous disclosure by the assessee and full knowledge of the Department regarding those other items of income which the assessee had earned. The assessee herein, in the absence of regular books of account, pending settlement with the Department filed the return disclosing the various sources of income and estimating interest from deposits and advances locked up in the accounts of the sister concern and conceded an addition after the proposals for settlement were finally accepted. In such circumstances, there is no warrant for the conclusion that there was concealment of which the assessee was conscious from the assessing authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the penalty is uncalled for and in cancelling the same. Accordingly, we answer all the questions referred to us against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1986 (1) TMI 70 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429 (SC). As earlier indicated, this case, i.e., Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills case, was a case relating to interest on cess in which the distinction between interest and penalty was indicated by the Supreme Court. We are, therefore, with respect, unable to subscribe to this view of the Karnataka High Court which appears to be in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Aziz s case 1961 41 ITR 350 and also contrary to the view taken in the earlier decisions of this court by which we are bound. Consequently, the reference is answered as follows (1) The Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of additional sales tax amounting to Rs. 2,863. (2) The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 41,000 paid by the assessee as penalty under section 17(3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, was an allowable deduction as business expenditure. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1986 (1) TMI 69 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Unexplained Money ... ... ... ... ..... in the present case. It is well-known that the contraband gold passes through the hands of several persons so that the ownership thereof cannot be attributed merely on the basis of its possession with an individual at a particular point of time as it is quite likely that he may be merely the carrier involved in the transaction of smuggling. We do not find anything in that decision to suggest that a different view should be taken from that which has been indicated earlier on the question of inference to be drawn about the ownership of cash from the fact of its possession when no acceptable explanation has been given to indicate the ownership of someone else. Consequently, this reference is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue as under The Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,000 being the cash found at the residence of the assessee as the assessee s income under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 68 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ils on this limited ground. We, however, make it clear that we are not laying down the law as to the application of rule 8 where there is loss suffered by the assessee. All that we are holding is that it is not open to the appellant in the instant appeal to make grievance as to the application of the said rule in the impugned assessment. We also agree with the learned judge in the first court that it was open to the appellant to come up by way of reference so that the questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal could be properly adjudicated. The appellant not having chosen to do so acted at its peril and it cannot be held that the appellant will be entitled to urge all the questions which it could have raised in a reference and not in an application under article 226 of the Constitution where the jurisdiction exercised by the court is necessarily more limited. For the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1986 (1) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... the presumption which arose against the assessee and the assessee s failure to discharge the burden which was on him. In such a situation, no question of law really arises out of the Tribunal s order to enable giving of a direction under section 256(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that there is material present in the record to show that the enhancement made at the time of assessment was incorrect. In our opinion, this question does not arise for consideration in these proceedings when no attempt was made by the assessee to say this at the relevant stage and the only question now before us is whether any question of law does arise out of the Tribunal s order dated July 25, 1980, affirming the imposition of penalty on the above facts beyond controversy. As earlier stated, no question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order affirming the imposition of penalty. Consequently, the application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 66 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... been expressly given up by the assessee before the Tribunal. Subsequently, on an application made under section 256(2) of the Act, a direction was given by this court to refer the above question of law and this reference has been made accordingly. In our opinion, it cannot be doubted that the above question of law does not arise out of the Tribunal s order in the present case for decision by us. It has been expressly stated not only in the statement of case but also in the Tribunal s order that the assessee gave up its claim for deduction of Rs. 2,000 as entertainment expenses on account of which the same was not required to be decided by the Tribunal. This being so, the question does not arise for decision and it is not necessary to answer the same. Consequently, the reference is answered by saying that the above question of law does not arise out of the Tribunal s order for decision of this court and, therefore, it need not be decided. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... has rendered its decision on facts as well and has accepted the explanation of the assessee. The entire reasoning of the Tribunal was by putting the onus on the Department and once that view of law is found to be incorrect, the entire complexion for decision would change and a fair decision will have to be rendered keeping in view the dictum of the Full Bench. That is why, in fairness the assessee, will have full opportunity to rebut the presumptions which arise against him in view of the Explanation with liberty to the Department to disprove the evidence led by the assessee. For the reasons recorded above, we decline to answer the referred question. However, the order of the Tribunal dated February 27, 1976, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to it to re-decide the appeal afresh keeping in view the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Vishwakarma Industries case 1982 135 ITR 652 and the directions given above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
....
|
