|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 256 Records
-
1983 (9) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 230(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 due to lack of notice.
3. Reasonableness of restriction under Articles 19 and 21.
4. Consistency regarding the amounts due.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 230(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to Pan American Airways, arguing that the foundation of jurisdiction under Section 230(1) depends on the formation of an opinion by the ITO that the assessee is not likely to return to India. The court found that the ITO's opinion must be based on some material. The petitioner had lived mostly outside India, and his presence could not be secured during prosecutions, necessitating extradition proceedings. The court concluded that these facts were sufficient to warrant the formation of an opinion by the ITO that the petitioner was not likely to return to India.
2. Arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 due to lack of notice:
The petitioner argued that the action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as no notice was given before issuing the impugned notice. The court acknowledged that the right to go abroad is part of the right to liberty under Article 21. However, it held that while the law does not explicitly require notice before forming an opinion under Section 230(1), a post-decisional hearing can satisfy the mandate of natural justice. The court emphasized that an opportunity of being heard after the issuance of the notice under Section 230(2) to the owner of the aircraft would suffice.
3. Reasonableness of restriction under Articles 19 and 21:
The petitioner contended that the imposition of a restriction by way of an income-tax clearance certificate was unreasonable, especially for an assessee without assets. The court noted that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to appear before the tax authorities to disclose his assets but had failed to do so. The income-tax clearance certificate had not been refused, as the petitioner had not cooperated in the inquiry. Therefore, the question of the reasonableness of the restriction could not be addressed at this stage.
4. Consistency regarding the amounts due:
The petitioner argued that there were inconsistencies in the amounts claimed as due. The court found that this issue did not relate to the validity of the impugned notice and could be settled at a hearing. It was not disputed that some amounts were due from the petitioner.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the notice issued under Section 230(1) was valid and that the petitioner had not been deprived of his rights without due process. The court held that the petitioner could still make a representation to the concerned ITO, which would be considered within four weeks. The court also clarified that the issuance of a fresh passport did not absolve the petitioner of his tax liabilities. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and advocates' fees were set at Rs. 500.
-
1983 (9) TMI 75
The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee on two questions regarding relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to relief based on the inclusion of certain capital assets and the exclusion of interest not due on the first day of the accounting year for computing the capital employed. The court referred to relevant rules and previous judgments to support its decision. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1983 (9) TMI 74
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether interest under section 215 could be levied in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1971-72?
2. Whether tax is deductible at source under section 194A in the assessee's case and if there is no assessed tax as defined in section 215(5) on which interest could be levied?
Judgment Details:
Issue 1:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had made an assessment for the assessment year 1971-72 on the Madras Fertilisers Limited, levying interest under section 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The interest was computed based on the assessed tax and the period for which it was due. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and then to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remitted the question of interest levy back to the AAC for fresh consideration. The AAC upheld the levy of interest under section 215. However, the Tribunal set aside the levy of interest under section 215, stating that tax was deductible at source under section 194A for the interest assessed, and hence, there was no deficit as per section 215(5). The Revenue challenged this view, leading to a reference to the High Court.
Issue 2:
The High Court considered the provisions of section 215 and section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the expression "deductible" in section 215(5) should be understood as "deducted." It was acknowledged that tax was deductible at source on the interest income of the assessee, but no tax had been deducted in this case. The Court highlighted the implications of section 201, which holds that if tax deductible at source is not deducted and paid to the Department, the party responsible for deduction can be treated as an assessee in default. The Court emphasized that the concept of "assessed tax" under section 215(5) includes the tax deductible in accordance with various provisions. It was concluded that interest could not be levied on the assessee for tax deductible at source, as it would lead to double payment of interest on the same income. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that interest under section 215 could not be levied. The costs were awarded to the assessee.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of sections 215 and 194A of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of tax deduction at source and the implications for interest levies on assessed tax amounts.
-
1983 (9) TMI 73
Issues: Assessment of income for two different periods under two different firms, application of section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determination of whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm or succession, interpretation of various judicial decisions on similar matters.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment of income for the assessment year 1968-69 for a partnership firm engaged in a wholesale business in cotton cloth. The primary question was whether there were two separate firms in existence for different periods or if it was a case of a change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187 of the Act. The firm was initially constituted under a partnership deed dated April 9, 1962. Following the death of a partner on March 30, 1967, a new partnership deed was executed on April 25, 1967, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1967. Two separate returns were filed for the income earned during different periods, one for the period June 23, 1966, to March 31, 1967, and the other for April 1, 1967, to June 30, 1967.
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made a single assessment for the entire period but allocated the income for the two periods separately. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, considering it a reconstitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Act. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, citing the legal effect of the death of a partner leading to the dissolution of the old firm and the creation of a new firm. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and directed the ITO to make separate assessments for the two firms. The Tribunal's decision was based on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court, Allahabad High Court, Madras High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, and Calcutta High Court.
The High Court, after considering the precedents and the Division Bench's analysis in a previous case, concluded that in situations where a partner's death leads to the formation of a new partnership with the surviving partners taking on a new partner, it constitutes succession rather than a mere change in the constitution of the firm. Therefore, separate assessments must be made for the income earned during different periods under the respective firms. The court sided with the assessee, ruling against the Department. The judgment highlighted the importance of partnership deeds in determining the legal implications of partner changes and affirmed the need for distinct assessments in cases of succession within a partnership firm.
-
1983 (9) TMI 72
Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of an agreement dated August 20, 1963, regarding the transfer of assets and the allowance of claimed loss by the assessee.
Issue 1 - Interpretation of Agreement:
The assessee firm, engaged in timber business, entered into an agreement with Mr. W. L. Kohli to sell shares in a company. The agreement involved transferring debt against the company to the purchaser. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim of the assessee, stating the agreement was not valid. The Appellate Tribunal, however, found the agreement to be valid and commercially expedient. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement and concluded that the distribution of the total price over the assets was in accordance with commercial principles. The Tribunal held that the loss in respect of the debt was Rs. 1,50,000, not the claimed Rs. 4,27,898. The High Court determined that the taxing authority cannot rewrite the terms of a valid agreement unless there are cogent circumstances suggesting otherwise.
Issue 2 - Allowance of Loss Claimed:
The agreement involved the transfer of a debt against the company to the purchaser for Rs. 5 lakhs, payable in instalments. The Tribunal found the loss in respect of the debt to be Rs. 1,50,000, contrary to the assessee's claim of Rs. 4,27,898. The High Court emphasized that the valuation of shares and debt involves divergent considerations and unless there is solid material suggesting otherwise, the terms of a valid commercial agreement cannot be rewritten. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal was not justified in restricting the allowance of the claimed loss.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the taxing authority cannot alter the terms of a valid commercial agreement unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The Court found that the Tribunal's restriction of the claimed loss was not legally justified, and therefore, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee.
-
1983 (9) TMI 71
Issues:
- Assessment of difference between market value and cost of acquisition of shares as revenue profit
- Tax liability on distribution of dividends in specie
- Deduction in computation of business income
- Exclusion of sum from assessment
- Withdrawal of corporation tax rebate for levying super-tax
Analysis:
Assessment of Difference Between Market Value and Cost of Acquisition of Shares:
The case involved the distribution of shares held as stock-in-trade by the assessee as dividends, leading to a dispute on the taxability of the difference between market value and acquisition cost. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered this difference as taxable profit due to the assessee being a dealer in shares. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that no profit arises when dividends are distributed in specie. The High Court concurred, emphasizing that distribution of dividend in specie does not constitute a trading activity, and the value of the distributed asset in the hands of shareholders is irrelevant for assessing the company's profit or loss. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, negating tax liability on the difference.
Tax Liability on Distribution of Dividends in Specie:
The dispute also centered on the tax liability arising from distributing dividends in specie. The Tribunal's view that there was no profit in such distributions was upheld by the High Court. The court clarified that dividend distribution in specie does not involve profit or loss, emphasizing that the assessment should focus on the company's perspective rather than the value of the asset in shareholders' hands. Consequently, the court ruled against tax liability on dividends distributed in specie, favoring the assessee.
Deduction in Computation of Business Income:
Regarding the deduction in computing business income, one of the questions raised by the assessee was not pressed for opinion. Therefore, the court did not provide an answer to this question, indicating that it was not addressed in the judgment.
Exclusion of Sum from Assessment:
In another assessment year, the issue of excluding a specific sum from assessment was raised. The court's decision on this matter was intertwined with its previous rulings on dividend distribution and tax liability. Based on the established principles regarding dividend distribution in specie and the absence of profit or loss in such transactions, the court answered in favor of the assessee, supporting the exclusion of the sum from assessment.
Withdrawal of Corporation Tax Rebate for Levying Super-Tax:
The final issue pertained to the withdrawal of corporation tax rebate for levying super-tax, considering the amount of dividend distributed in cash and shares. The court rejected the Tribunal's approach of calculating the rebate based on the market value of shares distributed as dividend, emphasizing that dividend distribution in specie does not involve profit or loss. By aligning with its earlier findings, the court upheld the assessee's contention against the Revenue, ruling that the corporation tax rebate should not be determined based on the market value of shares distributed as dividend.
-
1983 (9) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the partnership constituted by the partnership deed dated October 1, 1958, was genuine.
2. Whether there was material to conclude that the partnership was not genuine.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the partnership constituted by the partnership deed dated October 1, 1958, was genuine:
The assessee, M/s. Young India Mining and Transport Co., applied for registration under the Partnership Act and was granted a certificate of registration on February 20, 1959. The firm was granted registration under the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. However, the ITO, during the assessment proceedings for the year 1962-63, expressed the opinion that no genuine partnership had come into existence on October 1, 1958. The ITO's opinion was based on the reasons recorded in his order under s. 186(1) of the Act for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both agreed with the ITO's finding and concluded that the partnership was not genuine.
2. Whether there was material to conclude that the partnership was not genuine:
The Tribunal considered the statement of Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal, the material on record, and the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal noted several inconsistencies and gaps in the knowledge and involvement of Shri Aggarwal in the partnership's business activities. For instance, Shri Aggarwal was unable to provide details about the mining work, the transport business, the weight of iron ore, the names of petty contractors, and the salaries of employees. The Tribunal observed that Shri Aggarwal continued to be an employee of the enterprises of Shri Didwania and had very little time to attend to the affairs of the partnership. The Tribunal found that the address of the alleged firm was the same as that of the Didwania concerns, and no rent was paid for the use of the business premises during the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62.
The Tribunal concluded that if the firm had been genuinely constituted, Shri Aggarwal and Shri Bhagirath Bhushan would have been actively engaged in the business of the firm. However, the statement of Shri Aggarwal indicated that he was not actively involved in the partnership's business. The Tribunal found that the partnership was a sham and not genuine.
The court examined whether the Tribunal had considered the material on record fairly and with due care and attention. The court found that the Tribunal had addressed the relevant question of whether Shri Aggarwal and Shri Bhagirath Bhushan were carrying on the business of the partnership. The Tribunal's finding that the two persons were not carrying on the business was supported by the material on record. The court held that it was not its function to reappraise the entire material or review the evidence to come to a different finding, as it was not acting as a court of appeal.
The court distinguished the present case from the cases cited by the counsel for the assessee, noting that the facts and circumstances of those cases were different. The court concluded that there was material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the partnership constituted by the deed dated October 1, 1958, was not genuine.
Conclusion:
The reference was answered against the assessee, and the court held that there was material before the Tribunal to conclude that the partnership constituted by the partnership deed dated October 1, 1958, was not genuine. The court made no order as to costs.
-
1983 (9) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment order for the assessment year 1961-62.
2. Validity of the settlement under s. 41 of the I.T. Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the authorities to assess income under s. 41(1) of the Act.
4. Allegations of coercion and duress in the settlement process.
5. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies.
Summary:
1. Legality of the Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 1961-62:
The petitioner, a dealer and broker in shares, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1961-62. The ITO added a sum of Rs. 11,84,062 as the petitioner's income from undisclosed sources and Rs. 1,67,145 under "estimated dividend income on shares purchased from the Rana" due to the petitioner's failure to prove the credit balance. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order.
2. Validity of the Settlement under s. 41 of the I.T. Act:
During recovery proceedings, the petitioner offered a settlement under s. 41 of the Act, admitting certain amounts as income due to cessation of liability. The Commissioner accepted the offer for taxation of Rs. 28,51,593, Rs. 4,27,168, and Rs. 2,57,500 under s. 41 for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68, respectively. The petitioner filed revised returns accordingly, and the assessments were made based on the settlement.
3. Jurisdiction of the Authorities to Assess Income under s. 41(1) of the Act:
The petitioner contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to assess income under s. 41(1) as the twin requirements of allowance or deduction in previous assessments and subsequent remission or cessation of liability were not met. The court held that these were pure questions of fact, and the petitioner had admitted the existence of these facts in his settlement application. The court found no evidence to show that the trading liability was not allowed in previous assessments.
4. Allegations of Coercion and Duress in the Settlement Process:
The petitioner alleged that he was forced into the settlement under duress and coercion due to the attachment of his property and bank accounts. The court noted that the petitioner did not resile from the settlement before the ITO, AAC, or the Appellate Tribunal and acted upon the settlement by filing revised returns. The court found no merit in the allegations of coercion and duress.
5. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Remedies:
The court emphasized that the Income-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment and relief against improper actions by the authorities. The petitioner had the right to move an application u/s 256 of the Act to refer any question of law to the High Court, which he did not avail. The court cited precedents stating that a writ of certiorari is discretionary and not issued merely because it is lawful to do so, especially when an adequate alternative remedy exists.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition with costs, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the impugned settlement or assessment order for the assessment year 1965-66 suffered from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the validity of the settlement and the assessment orders based on it.
-
1983 (9) TMI 68
Issues:
1. Allowability of penalty paid under section 3(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 as a business expenditure.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the allowability of a penalty of Rs. 20,095 paid by the assessee under section 3(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, as a business expenditure. The assessee, a sugar mill company, claimed a deduction for interest and penalty paid for late payment of cess under the Cess Act. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the penalty, considering it as a fine and not for the purpose of business. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal upheld the decision, leading to the reference before the High Court.
The counsel for the assessee argued that the penalty was a civil liability, not a penalty for a criminal offense, and should be allowed as a business expenditure. The statutory provisions of the Cess Act were examined, highlighting that the penalty under section 3(5) is imposed for default in payment of cess, distinct from the criminal penalties under section 4. The counsel contended that the penalty was incidental to the business due to financial constraints. However, the Court emphasized the distinction between cess, interest, and penalty under the Cess Act, noting that penalties for breaches of law are not normal incidents of business and are not wholly and exclusively laid out for business purposes.
The Court referenced previous judgments, including the Supreme Court decision in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. case, to establish that penalties for breaches of law cannot be considered as expenditures for the purpose of business. The Court concluded that the penalty paid by the assessee was a result of a breach of law, not automatic, and not incidental to the business. Therefore, the penalty was not allowable as a business expenditure. The Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the penalty paid was not deductible as a business expense, aligning with the principle that expenses permitted as deductions must be incurred for the purpose of carrying on the business.
In light of the above analysis, the High Court answered the reference question in the negative, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Department. No costs were awarded in the judgment. The decision underscores the principle that penalties incurred for breaches of law are not considered legitimate business expenditures, emphasizing the distinction between business expenses and penalties imposed for non-compliance with legal obligations.
-
1983 (9) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.
Summary:
Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure (Capital vs. Revenue)
The primary issue was whether the expenditure of Rs. 30,000 incurred by the assessee on repairs was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee, a private limited company dealing in Tata Mercedes Trucks and hire-purchase business, had taken premises on lease and spent Rs. 47,186 on repairs, out of which Rs. 37,787 was claimed as revenue expenditure. The ITO disallowed Rs. 30,000, considering it capital expenditure, as the repairs involved significant modifications and long-term benefits. The AAC reversed this, allowing the expenditure as revenue, stating no new assets were created, and the modifications were necessary for business needs. The Tribunal, however, restored the ITO's order, viewing the expenditure as capital due to the enduring benefits and substantial structural changes.
Legal Analysis:
The court analyzed s. 30 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which allows deductions for repairs if the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant and the cost of repairs is borne by the assessee. The Tribunal's conclusion that the expenditure was capital was deemed erroneous. The court emphasized that the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense is crucial. If the expenditure facilitates business operations without creating a capital asset, it is revenue expenditure. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, highlighting that not all enduring benefits result in capital expenditure.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on redesigning the premises, better fittings, and marble flooring was for business purposes and did not create a capital asset. The expenditure was necessary for commercial expediency and thus constituted revenue expenditure. The court answered the question in the negative, favoring the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1983 (9) TMI 66
Issues Involved:
1. Is the suit maintainable as framed?
2. Are the deeds of settlement dated March 22, 1957, and registered on March 25, 1957, void and not binding upon the plaintiff?
3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Is the suit maintainable as framed?
The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable, contending that under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer must defraud the whole body of creditors, not just a single creditor like the plaintiff. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, but no advertisement was made, thus losing its representative character.
The court, however, noted that the defendant did not provide specific reasons in the written statement for why the suit was not maintainable. Citing Dr. D. M. Lahiri v. Rajendra Nath, the court emphasized that issues should be framed to pinpoint the real and substantial points of difference between the parties, and a vague recital in the written statement is insufficient.
Moreover, the court referred to Abdul Hakim v. Abdul Gani, which held that the failure to issue a notice under Order 1, Rule 8 is the court's duty and should not result in dismissing the suit. Kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar further supported this by stating that it is the court's duty to direct notice once permission under Order 1, Rule 8 is granted.
Issue 2: Are the deeds of settlement dated March 22, 1957, and registered on March 25, 1957, void and not binding upon the plaintiff?
The plaintiff argued that the deeds of settlement were executed with the intent to defraud creditors, particularly the income-tax department, which had substantial claims against Ram Peary Debi Kanoria. The plaintiff provided evidence through various witnesses and documents, including the demand register, to substantiate the claim of outstanding taxes.
The court examined Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that any transfer made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of any creditor. The court found that the transfers were made fraudulently with an intent to defraud the creditors, as no evidence was provided in rebuttal by the defendant.
The court also referred to various case laws, including Tharu Cheru v. Mary and Bhaskara Chalamiah v. Body of Creditors of Piler Khasim Sahib, which held that even a single creditor could file a suit under Section 53 to set aside a fraudulent transfer.
Issue 3: To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
The court noted that the defendant did not plead or provide evidence indicating that Ram Peary Debi had other creditors. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to claim relief under Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, which voids any transfer made during the pendency of tax proceedings unless it is for adequate consideration and without notice of the tax proceedings.
Given the facts and circumstances, the court answered Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2 in the affirmative. For Issue No. 2, the court passed a decree in terms of prayers (b) and (f), thereby declaring the deeds of settlement void and not binding upon the plaintiff.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit was maintainable as framed, the deeds of settlement were void and not binding upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.
-
1983 (9) TMI 65
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of hundi credits addition of Rs. 70,000 u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,050 representing interest alleged to have been paid on hundi loans.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of hundi credits addition of Rs. 70,000 u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The assessee, a proprietor of a rice mill, was assessed for the year 1965-66. The ITO noticed five hundi loans of Rs. 20,000 each, totaling Rs. 1,00,000, which were treated as income from undisclosed sources due to lack of satisfactory proof of genuineness. The AAC directed a reassessment, but the assessee failed to produce the bankers or their books. Only one banker, Paramanand Kishindas, appeared and admitted to being a name lender. The ITO concluded the transactions were fictitious and added Rs. 70,000 as income from undisclosed sources, disallowing Rs. 4,050 as interest.
The Tribunal, on appeal, found the transactions genuine and deleted the additions. However, the High Court noted that the Tribunal did not have sufficient material to establish the identity, capacity, or genuineness of the creditors and the transactions. The Tribunal's reliance on the broker's conflicting statements was also found unreasonable. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal acted without proper material and answered the first question in the negative, favoring the Revenue.
Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,050 representing interest alleged to have been paid on hundi loans
Given the conclusion on the first issue, the High Court also found the Tribunal in error for deleting the addition of Rs. 4,050 as interest on the hundi loans. The second question was answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings were not supported by valid materials and were unreasonable. Both questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, with costs awarded to the Revenue.
-
1983 (9) TMI 64
Issues:
1. Application of Section 306 of the Cr. P.C. in a case involving immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act.
2. Examination of an accused as a witness for the prosecution.
3. Provision of copies of proceedings to the accused before examination of a witness.
4. Constitutionality of Section 291 of the I.T. Act under Article 14.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of whether Section 306 of the Cr. P.C. could be applied in a case where immunity from prosecution was granted under Section 291 of the I.T. Act. The court held that the provisions of Section 306, Cr. P.C., do not apply in the case of a person to whom immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act was given. The power to tender pardon under Section 306 and the power to tender immunity from prosecution under Section 291 are to be exercised by different authorities, and thus, the request to proceed under Section 306 was rightly denied by the Special Judge.
2. Another issue addressed was the examination of an accused as a witness for the prosecution. The court noted that while a previous case had disallowed the prosecution from examining an accused as a witness without recourse to Section 306, Cr. P.C., in this case, the accused had been granted immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act. The court directed that before the accused could be examined as a prosecution witness, the prosecution must make available the statement leading to the immunity for inspection by the accused and their counsel to enable effective cross-examination.
3. The judgment also discussed the provision of copies of proceedings to the accused before the examination of a witness. It was emphasized that Section 291 of the I.T. Act does not provide for the grant of copies of proceedings leading to immunity from prosecution. However, the court directed the complainant to allow inspection of the statement of the witness to the accused and their counsel a day before the witness is examined to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial.
4. Lastly, the constitutionality of Section 291 of the I.T. Act under Article 14 was challenged. The court rejected the argument that Section 291 violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held that the Central Government has the discretion to choose one of the accused to testify based on the need for evidence, and the section was not found to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The court upheld the validity of Section 291 of the I.T. Act in this regard.
In conclusion, the revision was partly allowed to direct the complainant to provide the statement of the witness for inspection before examination, while dismissing the revision on other grounds.
-
1983 (9) TMI 63
Issues: Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under section 18(1)(c) after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976.
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) after an amendment to section 18(3) on April 1, 1976. The assessee had filed her return for the assessment year 1975-76 declaring the value of her ornaments at Rs. 50,000, but the Wealth Tax Officer assessed the actual value at Rs. 85,000 and initiated penalty proceedings. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000 on December 3, 1977. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the IAC had no jurisdiction post the amendment of section 18(3). The High Court directed the Tribunal to provide a supplementary statement of the case, revealing that the reference was made by the WTO to the IAC on March 11, 1977. The court considered the amendment brought by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which removed the jurisdiction of the IAC to impose penalties after April 1, 1976. The court relied on a previous decision and held that the jurisdiction of the IAC is derived from a valid reference made by the WTO, and in this case, since the reference was made before the amendment to section 18(3), the IAC had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty. Therefore, the court answered the question against the Department, concluding that the IAC had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty under section 18(1)(c) after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976.
In this judgment, the primary issue was whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had the jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act after an amendment to section 18(3) came into effect on April 1, 1976. The court considered the timeline of events, where the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) had initiated penalty proceedings and referred the matter to the IAC on March 11, 1977, before the amendment date. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act post-amendment and emphasized that the IAC's jurisdiction to impose penalties was contingent upon a valid reference made by the WTO. The court referred to a previous decision to establish that the validity of the reference is determined by the provisions in force at the time of the reference. Since the reference in this case was made before the amendment to section 18(3), the court concluded that the IAC lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty post-amendment, thereby ruling against the Department.
The court also delved into the legislative changes brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which altered the provisions related to the jurisdiction of the IAC in imposing penalties under the Wealth Tax Act. The court highlighted the specific amendment to section 18(3), which limited the IAC's authority to impose penalties exceeding a certain amount without the prior approval of the IAC. By analyzing the impact of this amendment, the court concluded that the IAC's jurisdiction was curtailed after April 1, 1976, and any penalties imposed after that date without a valid reference were without jurisdiction. This interpretation was crucial in determining the outcome of the case and formed the basis for the court's decision against the Department, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in determining jurisdictional matters related to penalty imposition under the Wealth Tax Act.
-
1983 (9) TMI 62
Issues:
Challenge to legality of action by ITO under Section 226(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding recovery of tax arrears from a petitioner-company.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner-company challenged the legality of the actions taken by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in issuing notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, demanding tax arrears from the partnership firm and its partners. The petitioner-company was formed to take over a partnership concern, and the machinery had already been transferred to the petitioner-company before the formal agreement. The petitioner-company and the partnership firm were sister concerns. The ITO issued a notice demanding an amount of Rs. 1,61,000 as arrears of income tax on July 1, 1974, and also issued prohibitory orders on June 24, 1974, restraining the petitioner-company from disposing of their property.
The petitioner-company claimed that they provided a certificate from a chartered accountant stating no amount was due from them to the partnership concern. Despite this, the Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice on July 20, 1974, threatening to recover the arrears in accordance with the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tax Recovery Officer attempted to recover the amount on July 25, 1974, leading the petitioner-company to approach the court and file a petition, obtaining interim orders.
The court examined Section 226(3) of the I.T. Act, which allows the ITO to recover tax from a garnishee of the assessee. It was highlighted that if a person objects to the notice and states on oath that the demanded sum is not due, they are not required to pay unless the statement is found to be false. The petitioner had submitted affidavits under this provision, and the court emphasized that unless the ITO determines the statements to be false, recovery proceedings cannot be initiated.
The court directed that the ITO should ascertain the correctness of the statements made in the affidavits before proceeding with recovery. If the statements are found to be false, the ITO is entitled to recover the arrears in accordance with Section 226 of the Act. The court discharged the rule but prohibited enforcement of recovery until the correctness of the statements was determined. A Chamber Summons taken out by former partners of the partnership firm was dismissed, and an inquiry was ordered to determine why the petition had remained pending since 1974.
-
1983 (9) TMI 61
Issues:
1. Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return.
2. Consideration of advance tax paid by partners in penalty calculation.
3. Interpretation of penalty rate under the relevant statutory provision.
4. Applicability of retrospective amendment on penalty calculation.
Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the late filing of the return by an assessee-firm. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,250 on the firm, leading to an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The AAC partially allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to consider the tax paid on provisional assessment while calculating the penalty. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal partially, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 to determine that there was no delay warranting penalty. However, the Tribunal rejected other contentions and cross-objections by the Revenue based on legal precedents.
The High Court addressed seven questions referred to them, including the compliance with section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, extension of return filing period, initiation of penalty proceedings, and consideration of advance tax in penalty calculation. The court relied on previous decisions like CIT v. R. S. Deshpande [1982] 136 ITR 1 and CIT v. Abdul Hamid Shah Mohamed [1983] 141 ITR 413 (Bom) to answer the questions conclusively in favor of the Revenue, except for the question regarding the advance tax paid by partners. The court held that the advance tax paid by partners cannot be considered as advance tax payable by the firm for penalty calculation.
Regarding the penalty rate, the court determined that the statutory provision at the relevant time prescribed a flat rate of penalty per month, leaving no discretion to the taxing authority. Additionally, the court addressed the impact of a retrospective amendment on penalty calculation. The amendment substituted "assessed tax" for "tax" and clarified deductions for sums paid as advance tax, negating previous court decisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that only tax deducted at source and advance tax paid by the firm were deductible for penalty calculation. The court highlighted that the view taken by the AAC and Tribunal was correct based on the interpretation of the provision at that time, but the subsequent amendment rendered it erroneous. The court directed the Commissioner to recover the costs of the reference from the assessee.
-
1983 (9) TMI 60
Issues:
Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act for failure to file a return of income under section 139(1) for the assessment year 1963-64. Interpretation of the Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964 in relation to the imposition of penalties.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, a resident of Daman, had income in both Daman and Bombay for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,43,140 on the assessee for not filing a return of income under section 139(1). The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who directed a small relief without specifying the exact amount and upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(a). The matter was then taken to the Tribunal, where the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,000 based on the interpretation of the Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964.
The key issue revolved around whether the assessee was entitled to the benefits under para. 17 of the Taxation Concessions Order for income received in Bombay. The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the relaxation under para. 17, reducing the penalty to Rs. 1,000. The High Court analyzed the provisions of para. 17 and concluded that the relaxation was available to the assessee, as he fell within the scope of the Order. The Court emphasized that there were no limitations or qualifications in para. 17 regarding the income source for which the penalty reduction could be applied.
The Court rejected the argument that the relaxation under para. 17 should only apply to income earned in the erstwhile Portuguese territory and not in India. It clarified that para. 17 did not contain any such restrictions and that the relaxation applied to the total penalty levied. The Court highlighted that the intention of the Legislature was not to limit the relaxation to a specific income source but to provide a broader benefit under para. 17. The judgment emphasized that the Court could not alter statutory provisions based on assumed legislative intent.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred questions affirmatively in favor of the assessee, stating that the relaxation under para. 17 was applicable to the entire penalty amount, irrespective of the source of income. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee, concluding the judgment.
-
1983 (9) TMI 59
Issues:
Whether the sum received on transfer of import entitlements is taxable as income.
Whether the sum received is a capital receipt or a casual receipt.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference made by the assessee regarding the taxability of a sum received on the transfer of import entitlements. The assessee, registered under the Special Export Promotion Scheme for Engineering Goods, sold its import entitlements during the relevant year for a substantial amount. The assessee argued that the sum received should not be taxable as it was a capital receipt or a casual receipt. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this contention, leading to subsequent appeals by the assessee.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal also ruled against the assessee, holding that the sum received was connected with the assessee's business and constituted income. The Tribunal specifically noted that the sum was not of a casual and non-recurring nature. The court referred to a previous judgment in Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, where it was held that amounts realized from the sale of import entitlements were profits of the assessee's business and not capital receipts or casual receipts. The court emphasized that the import entitlements were obtained directly in the course of the assessee's business, making the sum taxable as business income.
In contrast, the assessee relied on CIT v. Modiram Laxmandas (P.) Ltd., which dealt with the taxability of profits arising from the transfer of quota rights and import licences. However, the court distinguished this case from the current matter, stating that the judgment in Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. directly addressed the issue at hand.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the sum received on the transfer of import entitlements was taxable as the assessee's income from business. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Revenue.
-
1983 (9) TMI 58
Issues: Application for income tax certificate based on false information, conviction under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, applicability of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, imposition of sentence, concurrent running of sentences.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a revision petition where the respondent had applied for an income tax certificate under false pretenses, leading to a conviction under section 277 of the Income Tax Act and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had initially claimed to have minimal income and assets, but upon investigation, it was discovered that he owned additional properties and was running a petrol pump. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment for each offense, along with a fine. The Sessions Judge, upon appeal, maintained the conviction but ordered the respondent's release on probation of good conduct for a year under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
However, the revision petition challenged this order, citing section 292-A of the Income Tax Act, which bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to individuals above eighteen years convicted under the Income Tax Act. The court acknowledged the enactment of section 292-A post the offense and emphasized the gravity of economic offenses like the one committed by the respondent. The court rejected the leniency plea, stating that the concealment of property and income was a serious offense, leading to the introduction of specific provisions denying probation benefits to defaulters.
The court highlighted the applicability of section 277(ii) of the Income Tax Act, prescribing rigorous imprisonment ranging from three months to three years, along with a fine. While probation could have been an option for the offense under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, the concurrent conviction under section 277 necessitated a sentence for both offenses to avoid contradictions. Consequently, the court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the probation order and sentencing the respondent to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine under section 277, and an additional three months of rigorous imprisonment under section 193. In case of default in fine payment, the respondent would undergo an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment, with both sentences running concurrently.
-
1983 (9) TMI 57
Issues involved: Determination of whether the sale of land was an adventure in the nature of trade and the computation of profit on the sale of land during the assessment year 1975-76.
Issue 1: Adventure in the nature of trade
The High Court considered the case where the assessee purchased agricultural land and subsequently sold it in small portions. The court referred to previous cases to establish that the intention behind the purchase is crucial in determining if it constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade. It was noted that if the purchase is solely for resale at a profit without any intention of personal use, it is likely an adventure in the nature of trade. The court found that the assessee had a history of buying and selling properties, was not an agriculturist, and quickly entered into agreements to sell the land in parts after purchase. Based on these facts, the court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the transaction was indeed an adventure in the nature of trade.
Issue 2: Computation of profit
The court addressed the argument that there was no evidence of the assessee entering into agreements for sale immediately after the land purchase. However, the court clarified that this specific finding was not under question in the reference. Additionally, the fact that the land was agricultural and not divided into building plots did not alter the assessment, as the crucial factor was the intention of the assessee to sell the land for profit by dividing it into smaller portions. Consequently, the court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the department and against the assessee.
The judgment highlights the importance of intention in determining whether a land transaction constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade, emphasizing the need to consider the circumstances and actions of the parties involved.
....
|
9911796707
