|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 103 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... a High Court in Damji Jairam v. CWT 1980 126 ITR 245, held that the property gifted by an assessee to his wife and included in his net wealth should be treated as held by the assessee for the purpose of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The Orissa High Court also cited with approval the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Naganathan s case 1975 101 ITR 287. In the light of the above Division Bench decisions of the Madras, Karnataka and Orissa High Courts, we are of the view that the respondent-assessee is entitled to claim exemption in respect of the residential house belonging to his minor son and included as belonging to the respondent-assessee. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (2) TMI 102 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rged all his liability in respect of the said income under the income-tax law. The Supreme Court approved the Bench decision of this court in Babu Naidu s case 1978 112 ITR 341. We are of the view that the fact that the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, was promulgated after the valuation date for this assessment year, in the case of the assessee herein, is irrelevant and does not in any way alter the situation. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the tax liability in respect of the disclosure made under section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1989 (2) TMI 101 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... not be treated as remuneration for services rendered within the meaning of section 309. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case under which the commission was paid, in our opinion, this will not come within the ambit of the phrase remuneration or benefit or amenity. Mr. Bagchi, appearing for the Revenue, has contended that this language has not been used in the reference. I am unable to uphold this contention. The language of the three questions the assessee sought to refer was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal consolidated the same in one question and has referred the same. The controversy is, if the guarantee commission is not included, then the disallowance of Rs. 1,13,000 in excess over the limit of Rs. 72,000 will not be made. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 100 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reassessment In Wealth Tax, Reference To Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the Act, was the valuation report. Since the valuation report was obtained unauthorisedly or illegally, the reassessment proceedings founded on the said valuation report are equally tainted. We hold so. We are fortified in taking the above view by the decisions of various High Courts-vide Bella Cajeton Travasso v. Third WTO 1987 166 ITR 49 (Bom) Satyendra Chunder Ghose v. WTO 1980 126 ITR 102 (Cal) Smt. Uma Debi Jhawar v. WTO 1982 136 ITR 662 (Cal) Ramdas Prabhu (K. M.) v. First WTO 1987 166 ITR 706 (Kar) Onkarji Kasturchand (HUF) v. WTO 1982 135 ITR 188 (MP) Brig. B. Lall v. WTO 1981 127 ITR 308 (Raj) and CWT v. Master Kairas Tarapore 1987 163 ITR 311 (Raj). In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1989 (2) TMI 99 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessee, Payments Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... atter, we proceed to decide the question as referred. I. T. C. No. 48 of 1982 is dismissed as not pressed. Whether the commission paid is reasonable or not is largely a question of fact and it has been so held by the Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 569 and by this court in Narain Motors v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 106. We have gone through the agreement of sole selling agency and the order of the Tribunal, and are of the opinion that considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law or even a mixed question of law and fact is found to have been made out. Moreover, on the basis of facts taken into consideration by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in law in allowing further 2 per cent. commission which came to Rs. 15,033 as admissible under section 40A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the affirmative, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 98 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... when they filed their respective returns before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer accepted the valuation report filed along with the returns. Therefore, the assessments already made by the Income-tax Officer cannot be reopened merely because another Income-tax Officer had some suspicion in his mind about the concealment of some income and the report of the Departmental Valuer being different from the report of the approved valuer. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer could not issue the impugned notices for reopening the assessments on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer and the suspicion about the escapement of taxable income from assessment. The petitions filed by the petitioners are accordingly allowed and the notices (annexure F ) issued by the Income-tax Officer are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs as incurred. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners after verification.
-
1989 (2) TMI 97 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... l facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant year. It is also well-settled that the expression material facts used in clause (a) of section 147 of the Act refers only to primary facts. Now, in the instant case, it is not disputed that the assessee had disclosed the amount of interest accrued on the fixed deposit in the assessment year 1981-82. It is, however, contended that the details relating to the amount of interest were not furnished by the assessee. But the primary facts having been disclosed by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to institute proceedings for reassessment. The impugned notice is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed. The notice annexure D and the reassessment proceedings commenced in pursuance of that notice are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1989 (2) TMI 96 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... f the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A reading of the provisions of the Explanation to this sub-section leaves no manner of doubt that the applicability of the provisions of the second proviso to section 23(1) of the Act clearly stands excluded by the expression nothing contained in that proviso shall apply in computing the annual value of that residential unit . There is clearly no warrant for accepting the contention of counsel for the Revenue that by this Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 23, the applicability of the second proviso to section 23(1) is excluded only for the limited purpose of computing the annual value of residential unit but not for other purposes. On a plain reading of the relevant statutory provisions, therefore, the question referred has clearly to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 95 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... hat effect cannot be interfered with unless the same is based on no material or such finding is arbitrary and perverse. The position in the instant case is not so. As to the second question, learned standing counsel was again not in position to point out as to which wrong fact formed the basis of the Tribunal s decision and which relevant facts and findings came to be ignored by the Tribunal while passing its order in dealing with the appeal giving rise to these reference applications. We have also not been able to lay our hands on any such wrong facts or material which may have influenced the decision of the Tribunal. On the contrary, the decision of the Tribunal is based on relevant facts and consideration and appreciation of the material brought before it. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact and does not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, all the three applications are rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 94 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... cture of an article or thing in terms of section 32A of the Act. After giving our careful thought to the matter, we fully concur with the view expressed by the Tribunal, namely ....Such a plant does fulfil the condition of producing an article or thing first and the thing produced is later on used for carrying on the business of preservation of articles and goods. Again, the language of the relevant section will be fully satisfied if, in the production of an end product, several intermediate articles are produced. It will be obviously not possible to say that the Legislature intended to grant investment allowance only in respect of the machinery and plant used in the last process and no investment allowance will be available in respect of intermediate processes of manufacture, which may be producing any article or thing. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 93 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dependent, Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... fts for the education of their children. In what form the gift-the property-should be and in what way it should be utilised by the donees for the purpose of their education are beside the point. The sole question that will arise for consideration is whether the intention of the donor-assessee in making the gift was for the education of his children. When once such an intention on the part of the donor-assessee is established, the manner of utilisation of that amount, in whatever form or manner, will not in any, way derogate from the purpose of the gift and entitlement to exemption. In this view of the matter, we concur with the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessees are entitled to the exemption of the entire gift of Rs. 20,000 made by each one of them to the two daughters, under section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. We answer the latter part of question No. 1 and questions Nos. 3 and 4 in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.
-
1989 (2) TMI 92 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e regular assessment for the assessment year immediately following the said financial year. This further shows that after adjustment of advance tax at the time of regular assessment, if some balance remains to the credit of the assessee, that balance is treated as advance tax and the amount adjusted therefrom is treated as payment of tax. If the amount adjusted towards tax is found refundable in pursuance of the appellate order or other proceedings under section 244(lA) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to interest thereon at the rate specified in section 244(1) of the Act. Hence, the Tribunal was right in allowing payment of interest to the assessee under section 244(lA) of the Act on the amount which was found refundable on the basis of the appellate order. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative. Question No. 1 does not arise in view of the answer to question No. 2 and is returned unanswered. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 91 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct to the learned judges of the Allahabad High.Court, we are unable to concur with the observations contained in CIT v. M. Habibullah 1982 136 ITR 716, 719, which have been extracted hereinabove , as representing the correct law on the subject. The observations of the learned judges militate against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mussadilal Ram Bharose s case 1987 165 ITR 14 and three Bench decisions of this court in Saraf Trading Corporation s case 1987 167. ITR 909, Pawan Kumar Dalmia s case 1987 168 ITR I and Annamalai Reddiar s case 1964 53 ITR 601. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its reasoning and conclusion in holding that no penalty is exigible. The findings arrived at are pure findings of fact. We are of the view that no referable question of law, as formulated in para 10 of the original petition, arises for consideration in this case. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Development Rebate Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... he circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing that the development rebate should be determined and carried forward for being set off in the assessment year in which the assessee makes a profit and creates the requisite reserve ? The question posed has clearly to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, keeping in view the judgment of this court in Acropolymers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1985 151 ITR 158, where it was held that where the total income had been computed before allowing development rebate and there is a loss, there is no legal obligation to create any statutory reserve in that year as no development rebate is actually to be allowed in that year and that the assessee could not, on that account, be denied the benefit of development rebate in the subsequent assessment years when profit is made and such a reserve is created. The reference is answered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rest paid by him to the firm should be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, irrespective of the fact that the amount of interest is received by him in a capacity other than the capacity in which he paid interest to the firm or is a partner in the firm ? Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the above question for the opinion of this court. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 88 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eference, but as the application made by the Revenue in that behalf was rejected, the Revenue has filed this application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following questions of law do arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was void ab initio ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in not directing the Income-tax Officer to frame assessment afresh in accordance with law ? Consequently, this application is allowed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1989 (2) TMI 87 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by directing the Tribunal to refer the proposed question for the opinion of this court, assuming that any question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order. It is by now well-settled that every question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal need not be referred to the High Court. Where the answer to the question is self-evident or is concluded by decision of the Supreme Court, it would be futile to make a reference and in such a case to decline the request for a reference would be well justified. (See CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38 (SC)). In circumstances somewhat similar to those with which we are concerned, the Supreme Court refused to call for a statement of the case against the orders passed by the High Court rejecting the application under section 256 (2) of the Act. For what has been stated above, no statable question of law arises in the instant case on which any directions could be issued to the Tribunal for stating the case to this court.
-
1989 (2) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... Scheme on the principle of promissory estoppel and in the light of the public circulars and the orders or not, and whether the revised returns were filed by the petitioners voluntarily making a full and true disclosure of their income of the relevant years before the detection of the concealed income by the Income-tax Officer or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the case may be. It will be open to the Income-tax authorities, in particular, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax on the administrative side, to deal with the case of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. In the result, the petition is allowed with the observations as made above. The Commissioner of Income-tax on the administrative side and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are directed to deal with the petition and the appeals, respectively, in accordance with law. No order as to costs of this petition in the circumstances of the case.
-
1989 (2) TMI 85 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act, The other point again becomes necessary to be repeated here to reject the argument, namely, that if partial partition is to be ignored, the amount belonged to the Hindu undivided family and the question of treating that amount as loan for doing business would not arise, with the result that section 36(1)(iii) of the Act would not be applicable. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the interest paid in this case is not allowable under section 36(1) (iii ) of the Act and is disallowable under section 40(b) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal was not right in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that in spite of partial partition effected on March 31, 1979, which is not valid as per section 171(9) of the Act, the interest was an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee-firm The question is answered in favour of the Revenue, in the negative, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 84 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessee had taken necessary steps by changing munims to get the accounts finalised. The Tribunal also found that it was the assessee s first year of account In view of all these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. In CIT v. Dwarkadas Moolchand 1982 134 ITR 392, Division Bench of this court has held that the finding that there was reasonable cause for the assessee for the delay in filing the return inasmuch as the assessee was unable to ascertain his income till such time as the accounts of the firm of which he was a partner were finalised, is a finding of fact and no question of law arises in such a case. Following that decision, it must be held that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal and we, therefore, decline to answer the question referred to this court for its opinion. The reference is answered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
............
|
