|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 94 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d unserviceable parts, in order to run its business smoothly, efficiently and profitably is allowable as revenue expenditure. We are of the view that what has been done by the assessee is just to replace old and worn out parts in order to make the unit function effectively. No new machinery or plant was installed and no new asset came into existence. On the facts of this case, and in the light of the findings of the Tribunal, the conclusion is inescapable that the expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for modernising its machinery by replacing old, worn out and unserviceable parts in order to run its business smoothly and efficiently is only revenue expenditure. The conclusion of the Tribunal is in accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. 1967 66 ITR 710. We are of the view that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. These original petitions are without merit. They are dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 93 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... say whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to any relief or not on that score. So, we decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer question No. 1 formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petition for the decision of this court. Regarding question No. 2, we find that an identical question has been directed to be referred for the decision of this court for the earlier assessment year 1979-80 in Original Petition No. 10796 of 1987. So, we are of the view that question No. 2 formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petitions arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal and we direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer question No. 2, formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petitions for the decision of this court. Question No. 2 runs as follows 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) should be given on the gross total income before deducting the relief? The original petitions are disposed of as above.
-
1989 (1) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reference, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petition are referable questions of law. Regarding the first question, we feel that there is no definite finding by the Appellate Tribunal except referring to its earlier decision in Peermade Tea Co. s case in S. T. A. Nos. 4 and 5/Coch/81. So, question No. 1 is a referable question of law. Regarding question No. 2, we are of the view that the impact of section 80AA introduced in the Income-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1968, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, and the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. case 1985 155 ITR 120, falls for consideration. So, question No. 2 is also a question of law. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the two questions for both these years for the decision of this court along with the statement of the case. It shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petitions are allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 91 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... preferred by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1972-73, the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing adjustment in the opening stock deserved to be rectified as it became erroneous. But rectification in that order could be effected only by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had passed that order. The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the mistake in the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the Tribunal was not right in holding that in implementing the Tribunal s order for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer was justified in revising the assessment for the year 1973-74, in the absence of any rectification order having been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (1) TMI 90 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... been examined in proper manner. We are of the view that on a reading of the appellate order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated March 30, 1987, as a whole, questions Nos. 1 and 2, formulated in para 7 of the original petition and extracted hereinabove, do arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1 and 2, formulated in para 7 of the original petition and extracted herein above, for the decision of this court along with the statement of the case and other materials within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Question No. 3, formulated in para 3 of the original petition, is purely a hypothetical and legal one. The scope of a legal decision is well settled. legal decision declares the law. We do not think that question No. 3 formulated in para 7 of the original petition is a referable question of law. The original petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
-
1989 (1) TMI 89 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... iginal petition. The Tribunal, by its order dated June 18, 1987, held that no referable questions of law arose and, therefore, rejected the application. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed this original petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. We heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the Revenue. Admittedly, the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. 25 of the net realisations of each month accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal only followed the decision of the Supreme Court in E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1954 26 ITR 27. There is no case that the amount advanced is unrealisable. The only case is that it is not appropriated in the year in question towards commission. The decision CIT v. Devi Films (P.) Ltd. 1983 143 ITR 386 (Mad) has not dealt with this aspect of the matter. We, therefore, feel that no referable questions of law arise out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 88 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Firm, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... er disbelieved the explanation offered by the assessee for the cash credits and added a sum of Rs. 1,90,000 to the income of the assessee for the year as income from other sources . Prima facie, it is for the assessee to explain the cash credits. That cash credits appeared in its journal-cum-ledger on March 31, 1978, is admitted. In such circumstances, the applicability of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calls for consideration. Prima facie, we are of the view that the questions of law, formulated as questions Nos. 1 and 2, arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal dated February 17, 1986, in I. T. A. No. 234 of 1985 for the assessment year 1978-79. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer questions Nos. 1 and 2 formulated in paragraph 8 of the original petition for the decision of this court along with a statement of the case. This shall be done within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
1989 (1) TMI 87 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ory orders pertaining to the bank accounts of the petitioners while assessing the income of the firms in which the husbands of the petitioners are the partners. The amnesty is available to the petitioners, since the amount declared by each of them is in their names. Therefore, their failure to explain the source of income would not deprive them of the amnesty under the Scheme under which they have declared their income and have been assessed to tax accordingly. In the result, all the five petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. The prohibitory orders passed by the respondents in relation to the savings bank accounts of the petitioners bearing Nos. 9216, 9217, 9218, 9383 and 9220 with the Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore, are quashed. The petitioners are free to operate their accounts as they wish without any restriction. Counsel s fee in each of the petitions is Rs. 250. The amount of security deposit, if any, after due verification, be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1989 (1) TMI 86 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Gift Tax, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ed by the Gift-tax Officer is stated to be arbitrary or the value of the rubber estate fixed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), even for the year 1980-81, at Rs. 6,750 per acre is not acceptable . The Appellate Tribunal has not indicated any definite reason for any one of these factors. We are of the view that from the appellate order passed by the Tribunal dated November 6, 1985, the following question of law does arise for consideration Is not the valuation of and by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,500 per acre most unreasonable, arbitrary, unsupported by any material and based on surmises and conjectures ? We are of the view that the said question of law does arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the said question of law, for the decision of this court, along with a statement of the case, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon ble Tribunal was legally right in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,436 made by the Income tax Officer ? The application is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 84 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... bunal to refer questions Nos. 1 and 4, extracted hereinbelow, along with the statement of the case for the decision of this court. Questions 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the assessee had declared the value of stock as on December 19, 1975 at Rs. 37,74,953 in a statement furnished to the bank , the Tribunal is right in relying on the profit and loss account wherein the assessee had declared the closing stock value at Rs. 3,22,061 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his deleting the addition of Rs. 12,65,658 although for a different reason and is not the deletion and the reasons of the appellate authorities for the deletion wrong, untenable, unwarranted, illogical and unsupported by relevant materials ? The original petition is allowed to the above extent.
-
1989 (1) TMI 83 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... penalty could not be a live issue and in order that, proceedings for levy of penalty may survive, the assessment proceedings should be alive and when once the assessment had been set aside, the penalty proceedings could not have been terminated by cancellation of the penalty levied, as, whether penalty was leviable or not had to be considered in the light of the findings given in the fresh assessment order to be made as a result of the directions given by the Tribunal while, setting aside the same. The ratio of this decision would squarely apply to this case also. We are, therefore, not disposed to accept the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that despite the setting aside of the order of assessment, it was open to the Tribunal to examine the question of the levy of penalty on merits. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (1) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng to the assessee s case, the disputed payments were made in cash at the instance of the creditors after banking hours. To substantiate his case, the assessee produced the persons to whom those payments were made for cross-examination by the Assessing Officer. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal does give rise to mixed question of law and fact. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no unavoidable or exceptional circumstances to warrant payment after banking hours to the representative of the payees who did not have a bank account at Qaimganj which is the place at which the transaction of payment took place The application is allowed in part. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the entering into of the agreement for the sale of the property by the assessee in October, 1973, we cannot project backwards the value reflected in the agreement entered into in October, 1973, to the valuation date March 31, 1973. In other words, the value reflected in the agreement entered into in October, 1973, cannot be considered to be the value as on March 31, 1973. So looked at, the assessee cannot be stated to have concealed any particulars even with reference to the value of the property. There is, therefore, no question of the assessee having concealed particulars of any asset or furnished inaccurate particulars of any asset attracting the levy of penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Act. We hold that the Tribunal was right in the view it took that no case is made out for the levy of penalty. We, therefore, answer the questions referred in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (1) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... o in error in venturing to think that materials should be made available, presumably by the Revenue, to show that the assessee had concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. We are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has totally misdirected itself and has also not adverted to considerations which would be relevant with reference to the applicability of the Explanation and had, on an erroneous view that the Revenue should establish concealment of income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, deleted the penalty. We also hold that there has been no explanation at all by the assessee with reference to the unexplained part of the additions and there was, therefore, no justification whatever for the deletion of the penalty. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (1) TMI 79 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the year in dispute is distinguishable from that of the earlier year when the books of the assessee were accepted as a result of the orders by the appellate authorities. The net result of those orders, particularly the one passed for the assessment year 1977-78, was that the assessee had maintained its accounts in accordance with the system of accounting regularly employed by it and that further the accounted version of profit was wholly deducible from the books of account and records maintained by the assessee (see order dated July 31, 1986, on appeal passed by this court in ITA No. 81 of 1984). The questions, whether the accounts are reliable or not or whether the income, profits and gains could or could not properly be deduced from the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee are essentially questions of fact. Following the earlier orders passed by this court mentioned above, we reject this application also. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 78 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Municipal Tax On Building ... ... ... ... ..... ference, if any, in the concept of succession and inheritance is immaterial (iii) Section 2 of the Mysore Act I of 1943, affects the rules as to joint family property, its distribution according to the rule of survivorship) and the right of a son in it by birth (iv) The assessee s sons had not acquired any right by birth and the corresponding liability of the assessee in respect of the property in question and section 3 of the Mysore Cutchi Memons Act 1 of 1943 does not save their rights as they were not born before the Act came into force, inasmuch as the Hindu undivided family in so far as the assessee was concerned stood extinguished on the commencement of the Cutchi Memons Act, and (v) The property and the assessable income are not the property and income of the joint family but constitute separate property and income of the assessee. Therefore, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, while the other questions are answered as stated above.
-
1989 (1) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... any assistance to the accountable person. CED v. Melnikoff 1982 134 ITR 583 (Bom), relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue, lays down that the ties which bind a person to the country of his domicile of origin are extremely strong and there must be cogent and reliable evidence to show that he intended to settle in some other country before he can be said to have given up his domicile of origin and applying this to the facts of the present case, on the available evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the accountable person has not clearly established that the deceased, M. T. Veerappa Pillai, acquired a domicile of choice in Ceylon by manifesting clear and settled intention to live permanently and forever in Ceylon abandoning his ties and connections with India and not to return here. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the accountable person. The Revenue will be entitled to costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (1) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... for the opinion of this court. The said reference is pending final adjudication before this court. In deciding the appeals for the years in dispute, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on its earlier decision which was given in the estate duty matter. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the common question raised in these applications does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and is a question of law. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that one-fourth of the entire assets left by Sri Niranjan Lal Bhargava at the time of his death was his separate property representing the property inherited by him from his mother ? The applications are, accordingly, allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Hotel ... ... ... ... ..... each individual room, for which depreciation at 100 has been allowed) are intended to serve all the rooms as a whole and not only a particular room and have also to be regarded as one integrated unit and there is thus no possibility of apportioning the expenditure relating to that with reference to each room for purposes of the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and to allow depreciation in terms of the said proviso as claimed by the assessee. We, therefore, hold that as the electrical system and the sanitary pipelines and fittings, excepting those mentioned already, have to be considered as an integrated whole pertaining to the electricity and water supply to all the rooms and not individually, the Tribunal was quite right in holding that the allowance of depreciation thereon has to be restricted to 10 . We answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|
