Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 201 Records
-
1980 (3) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Valuation Of Break-up Value Of Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... re, no dispute that bonus was payable to the employees in accordance with this agreement. The amount which was required to be paid as bonus in accordance with this agreement was, therefore, clearly liability in respect of which deduction should have been made for the purposes of determination of the break-up value notwithstanding the fact that such a provision was not made in the balance-sheet. The auditors had made a note with regard to this omission and, in any case, the liability having accrued to the company, the said amount was clearly liable to be excluded. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered as follows (a) The provision in respect of additional super-tax was not liable to be deducted in computing the break-up value of the shares. (b) The liability for bonus was liable to be deducted in computing the break-up value. Having regard to the partial success and failure of both the parties, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (3) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Flat Rate ... ... ... ... ..... fits. It is now well settled that while making a best judgment assessment, though there must necessarily be guess-work in the matter, it must not be arbitrary. In the instant case, the basis on which the computation is made is not disclosed in the order. Learned counsel for the department was unable to support the impugned order. The assessment order cannot but be held to be arbitrary. The order dated 7th August, 1976, passed by the ITO and that dated 23rd September, 1977, passed by the Commissioner, therefore, deserve to be set aside. The ITO, however, shall be at liberty to pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order dated 7th August, 1976, passed by the ITO and that dated 23rd September, 1977, passed by the Commissioner are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1980 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Residential House Property ... ... ... ... ..... because what should be considered with reference to the user as residence is the property which was sold and which has given rise to the capital gains. Under these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in its application of s. 54 to the facts of this case as found by it and, therefore, we answer the first question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. As far as the second question is concerned, nowhere does the order of the Tribunal refer to the assessee herein being entitled to exemption in respect of 50 per cent of the capital gains, unless it be that that was the claim made by the assessee before the AAC who negatived it and the Tribunal, when it allowed the appeal, must be deemed to have granted that relief. In our opinion, in view of our answer to the first question, it is unnecessary to answer the second question and we hold so. The Commissioner is entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (3) TMI 18 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assets, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ing the net wealth and, therefore, the addition of Rs. 35,000 made by the Wealth-tax Officer was quite in accordance with law. In another unreported judgment dated 28-6-1963, R.C. No. 54/61 (Chekka Suryanarayana v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax) a Bench of this court consisting of Chandra Reddy C.J. and Narasimham J. held that the loans and advances owing to the assessee occurring in annexure III are wide enough to include interest. The mere fact that the term interest does not occur as such in this description of asset would not convey or compel an inference that interest was deliberately omitted and cannot be taken into account. Accordingly, the answer of the Bench was that the interest accrued due was properly includible in the value of the money-lending asset. We, therefore, reject this argument also of the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1980 (3) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... rospectively, it should resolve the doubt against such operation. The criminal conspiracy in this case was to commit offences under ss. 193 and 196, IPC, alleged to have been committed is a proceeding before the ITO. Therefore, viewed in any angle, I am of the view that a consent in writing of the State Govt. is not necessary for the prosecution for offences under ss. 193 and 196, IPC, in this case. Furthermore, the complaint alleged not merely offences under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the IPC but also offences under ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, even if it is to be held that a sanction of the State Govt. is necessary for the offences under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the IPC, even then, there are the other offences u/ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act, the trial of which would not be barred at all. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to quash the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 16 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Priority Industry Tax Relief ... ... ... ... ..... as follows The real point for consideration is whether the payment of royalty to the two Japanese companies was for the right to manufacture the licensed articles or for the actual user of the technical know-how, data, and information supplied by the Japanese companies. In our opinion, the royalty payments are clearly attributable to the latter and hence they are payments of a revenue nature. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal on the material on record, appears to us to be correct. It must be pointed out that the earlier decision of this court in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT 1968 67 ITR 23, has been reversed in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 443 (Kar) FB , when a similar question arose subsequently in regard to the very same Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. The view taken by the Tribunal is in accord, with the principle enunciated in this later decision. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Trusts, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... support and The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, ruled that the second proviso to s. 21(4) of the Act would fully apply to the facts of this case entitling the assessee to the benefits of the normal rates of taxation. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The main question in this case is whether the conditions of the, second proviso to s. 21(4) of the Act are satisfied or not. The Appellate Tribunal has found that all the conditions mentioned in the second proviso, namely, (a) the execution of a trust deed before the 1st day of March, 1970, by a non-testamentary instrument, (b) bona fide for the benefit of the relatives of the settlor, (c) who are dependent on the settlor for their support and maintenance at the date of the execution of the trust deed, were fully satisfied. There is sufficient material on record to support these contentions of the Appellate Tribunal. We, accordingly, reject this W.T.C. No. 1/79.
-
1980 (3) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... correct and the necessary rectification was made by reversing the entries. The explanation was not accepted and the registration was cancelled. The assessee, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, held that the Mistake committed by the assessee in the allocation of profits was an honest and innocent mistake which did not militate against the grant of registration and which was rectifiable on discovery and in fact was rectified on discovery by reversing the entries. The Tribunal also went through the entries in the books and found that they were genuine. Accordingly, it held that the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the registration. On the finding of the Tribunal that the allocation of profits under cl. 4 and not under cl. 5 was the result of a genuine mistake, we are of the view that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion. No question of law is involved. The application is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Annuity, Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... at the exclusive jurisdiction to enforce s. 220(2) is on the department and that the liquidator cannot be permitted to usurp it. The plain answer is that if the section cannot apply at all to a case like the present, there is no question of any one exercising or usurping the power thereunder. That apart, by virtue of the judgment in A.S. No. 563/74 ITO v. Offl. Liq., Catholic Bank of India Ltd. (see below) and what followed, the department had obviously submitted to the liquidator s jurisdiction to decide its claim in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and that alone has been done. The liquidator has only exercised the power conferred upon him by the Companies Act and the Rules, and specifically referred to in A.S. No. 563/74 and all that he has done is to indicate that the company s funds in his hands are not available for meeting the department s demand under s. 220(2). The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
HUF, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ate. The amended provision in s. 4(6) of the W.T. Act became effective from April 1, 1965, and, therefore, for the assessment year 1965-66, the Darbargadh palace will have to be included as a part of the net wealth of the assessee. We are not concerned with the valuation of the Darbargadh because that question obviously did not arise either before the AAC or the Tribunal as the finding on the basic question of includibility was recorded in favour of the assessee by the AAC and the Tribunal. So far as that question is concerned, it will be open to the assessee to pursue the matter when the question arises for a decision before the appropriate authority. Having regard to the view which we have taken, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No.1 (a) In the negative for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65. Question No.1 (b) In the affirmative for the assessment year 1965-66. Question No. 2. Does not arise. The assessee to get the costs of this reference.
-
1980 (3) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... culars regarding the profits derived by the sale of import licences. It is with reference to these findings it was argued before the Tribunal that the date on which the revised return was filed, viz., June 5, 1970, that was relevant for the purpose of imposing the penalty. But the Tribunal held that the penalty is leviable for the concealment of the income made by the assessee in the original return only as per the provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) as it stood prior to the amendment by the Finance Act of 1968. In those circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel that the question referred does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. There could be no doubt that if the offence of concealment was committed in the original return, the reduction of the penalty by the Tribunal was in order. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the references in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to his costs (counsel fee Rs. 500 one set).
-
1980 (3) TMI 10 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
High Court, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... before the Tribunal and which arises out of the appellate order, provided, of course, it is a question of law. The court can even reframe the question of law so as to bring out the real nature of controversy. In our opinion, both these questions of law should have been referred to this court and the order of the Tribunal refusing to make a reference is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court for opinion 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, reliance could be placed by the Tribunal on the statement of Dr. Malhotra, recorded by the Income-tax Inspector, who had no power to administer oath under section 131 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether the statement recorded by the Income-tax Inspector, on oath, if not otherwise admissible, could constitute material gathered by the Income-tax Officer and acted upon by the Tribunal or the Income-tax Officer?
-
1980 (3) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finality, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... assessee did not disclose the extent and nature of land is based on no evidence. It is too late for the assessee, at this stage, to ask the High Court to direct the Tribunal to refer that question for its opinion. As we have held that no case is made out for reframing the question as prayed for by the assessee or to ask the Tribunal to furnish a supplementary statement of case, the prayer of the petitioner to call for the order of assessment for the year 1960-61, and the connected records has also to be rejected as they are only intended for the purpose of satisfying the court that the assessee had disclosed the extent and nature of the land in those proceedings. In the result, the question referred to us for a decision is answered in favour of the Revenue as follows On the facts and circumstances of the case, reassessment proceedings are not barred by limitation as they are covered by s. 147(a) of the Act but not by s. 147(b) of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Money Lending Business ... ... ... ... ..... l, as mentioned earlier, was disposed of on September, 7, 1962, which is prior to the accounting year under consideration. The balance that was due under the decree was paid during the year and irrespective of the question of entry of satisfaction of the decree, the amount could be allowed as deduction in this year to the extent of Rs. 7,437.86. If the judgment of the appellate court had been rendered daring the accounting year under consideration, then the position would be different. As by reason of the judgment in the appeal the amount has gone in satisfaction of the decree in the earlier year, to that event, there could be no allowance in this year. The assessee would thus be entitled to a deduction of only Rs.7,437.86. We, therefore, answer the question by stating that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of Rs. 7,437.86 only and not to the entire amount of Rs. 25,655. As neither party has wholly succeeded, there will be no order as to costs in this reference.
-
1980 (3) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... e assessment order, at Ex. B, bearing the date April 28, 1979, passed by the respondent is set aside. Consequently, the order of penalty imposed for concealment under s. 22 of the Act as also the demand notice tinder s. 21(2) of the Act, at Exs. C and D, respectively, are also set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Agrl. ITO, Dharwar, to continue the proceedings from the stage of issue of the proposition notice. It is made clear that it is unnecessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice in Form No. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Agrl. ITO on April 30, 1980, and show cause to the proposition notice received by them on March 19, 1979, and co-operate with the respondent to complete the assessment proceedings in accordance with law. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Shri Venkatachalaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within 14 days from today.
-
1980 (3) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
HUF, Income ... ... ... ... ..... out initially all the assets, in the hands of Shri Mool Singh, belonged to joint family of himself and his son. Now, these assets were slowly transferred and put into the business. It is also very clear that the business could not have taken such leaps and strides after its initial slow progress but for the utilisation of these funds belonging to the family to improve its position. There is no dispute that all the assets, which are presently in question, were acquired out of the proceeds of this business which had such a humble beginning. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that there are large number of facts on the record which clearly show that the business was developed only by detriment to the joint family funds. We, therefore, concur with the opinion given by the Tribunal and answer the question which is referred to us in the affirmative and against the applicant. The applicant will pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (3) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charge, Deduction, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rmination will relate back to the respective assessment years, and, therefore, in place of what was an estimated amount of debt due, the assessee will be entitled to ask for the exact amount of debt due in the form of liability for the payment of direct taxes. We have, therefore, no doubt that the assessee was, justified in asking for a deduction of the exact amount of taxes which came to be determined finally during the pendency of the assessment proceedings under the Act. We are, therefore, unable to find any infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal when it reversed the order of the AAC. Consequently, questions Nos. 1 and 3 will have to be answered by holding that the taxes ultimately found payable are to be deducted. The questions referred to us are thus answered as follows Questions Nos. 1 and 3 The taxes ultimately found payable are to be deducted. Questions Nos. 2 and 4 In the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1980 (3) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... amalgamated company and the amalgamation will not bring any additional managerial expertise can also not be a ground for not recommending the application of the petitioner. Neither s. 72A nor the guidelines empowered the specified authority not to grant approval for such a reason. In any event, this observation of the specified authority is a mere surmise which is not supported by any fact. It will be seen that the petitioner, namely, the amalgamated company, is being run efficiently and is making huge profits. With the amalgamation of the two units the managerial expertise as well as the financial resources of the amalgamated company would be utilised for making the unit viable. We accordingly allow the writ petition, quash the decision contained in the letter No. 2(34) 78-CUS, dated 16th November, 1978, and direct the specified authority to deal with the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above. No order as to costs.
-
1980 (3) TMI 3 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income ... ... ... ... ..... e. In the schedule we find mention of the land, machinery, plant and equipment, all assets and liabilities of the firm including the stock-in-trade, etc., etc. A look at the schedule clearly points out that the interests in movable and immovable properties were transferred by the outgoing partners, and compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 received by them included the capital assets. With a view to answer the questions referred to this court, we deem it necessary to call upon the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case on the following points (1) Did the compensation, paid to the outgoing partners, relate to the capital assets? If so, what is the amount of compensation payable in that regard ? (2) Did the compensation also represent the capitalised profit ? If so, what is the amount of compensation payable in that regard ? We accordingly direct the Tribunal to make a supplementary statement of the case and submit the same to this court within two months from today.
-
1980 (3) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ender certain services specified in the collaboration agreement to enable the assessee-company to follow the latest technical developments of the foreign company in the manufacture of card clothing. The services rendered are in the nature of instructions and information relating to the foreign company s latest technical development in the manufacture of card clothing and is related to the carrying on or conduct of the day to day business of the assessee-company. Thus the services rendered in pursuance of clause 9 has not resulted in the acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character. The Tribunal is, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the fee paid in pursuance of clause 9 is in the nature of revenue expenditure and is an allowable deduction in the computation of the assessee s income under s. 37. The reference is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|