|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 218 of 218 Records
-
1983 (10) TMI 18
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the sum of Rs. 2,55,500, being the value of the gold in question, was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Details:
The High Court of Bombay reframed the question to determine whether the sum of Rs. 2,55,500, representing the value of the gold in question, was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal had considered arguments based on s. 69 but ignored s. 69A. The departmental representative highlighted contradictions in the assessee's case, improvements in statements, and reports from authorities to assert the assessee's ownership of the seized gold for tax assessment purposes.
Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the importance of factual findings in determining ownership of seized goods. The Tribunal was criticized for not providing proper factual findings to establish the assessee's ownership of the gold. The court stressed that the Tribunal should consider the conduct of the assessee, explanations provided, contradictions in statements, and the burden of proof on the Department to establish ownership.
While acknowledging the Tribunal as the final fact-finding body, the court found the Tribunal's conclusion in the appellate order to be inadequate and not addressing the necessary considerations. As a result, the court returned the reference without answering the question, urging the Tribunal to reconsider the available material and reach a proper conclusion. No costs were awarded for the reference.
This judgment highlights the importance of proper factual findings and considerations in determining tax liability, emphasizing the burden of proof on the Department to establish ownership of seized goods for tax assessment purposes.
-
1983 (10) TMI 17
Issues involved: Determination of income from undisclosed sources based on seized gold, justification of separate addition of income, interpretation of previous judgments on undisclosed income.
Summary:
The assessee-firm, engaged in the business of buying and selling gold and silver ornaments, showed a gross profit of Rs. 42,428 on sales of Rs. 3,78,064 for the assessment year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) estimated sales at Rs. 3,85,000 and gross profit at 13.8% due to a previous incident where gold was seized by excise authorities from an employee of the assessee. The ITO added Rs. 10,702 to the income based on estimated turnover and Rs. 9,375 for the seized gold, considering it income from undisclosed sources. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Authority (AAC), which upheld the addition of Rs. 9,375. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later deleted this addition, leading to a reference to the High Court on whether the deletion was justified.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that undisclosed income from previous years could be a source for subsequent expenditures. The Tribunal's decision to delete the Rs. 9,375 addition was supported by the argument that the source of the disputed amount could be assumed to come from previous intangible additions. The Revenue contended that the gold acquisition could not be linked to the turnover addition made by the ITO, as the assessee did not raise this point earlier. However, the Court found no merit in this argument and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the Rs. 10,702 addition was a reasonable source for the gold acquisition.
In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to delete the Rs. 9,375 addition as income from undisclosed sources, in favor of the assessee. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1983 (10) TMI 16
Issues:
1. Interpretation of partnership deeds and implications on firm dissolution.
2. Determination of whether a change in firm constitution or succession of one firm by another occurred.
3. Application of Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessment.
4. Consideration of the Indian Partnership Act in resolving the legal position.
5. Evaluation of evidence to infer the intention of the partners regarding firm dissolution.
6. Analysis of the Tribunal's decision and its alignment with legal principles.
Analysis:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of partnership deeds to ascertain the impact on firm dissolution. The case involves a firm engaged in the jaggery business with changing partnerships over time. The court examines two partnership deeds, one from 1963 and another from 1968, to determine the continuity of the firm after the death of a partner. The absence of a specific provision in the 1963 deed regarding firm dissolution upon a partner's death raises questions about the subsequent events leading to a new partnership deed in 1968.
The key issue revolves around whether the events following the death of a partner signify a mere change in the firm's constitution or the succession of one firm by another. This distinction is crucial as per Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates separate assessments for successor firms. The court emphasizes the need to analyze the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, particularly Section 42, which outlines firm dissolution upon a partner's death unless a contrary contract exists among partners.
The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear intention among partners to continue the firm post a partner's demise. While the induction of a deceased partner's son as a new partner is noted, the reallocation of profit shares and the addition of another new partner complicate the determination of firm continuity. The court emphasizes the requirement for substantial evidence demonstrating the partners' intent to prevent firm dissolution upon the death of a partner.
Ultimately, the court concludes that in the absence of a proven contract or clear inference indicating the firm's continuation post the partner's death, the firm should be deemed dissolved. Consequently, the addition of new partners and reallocation of shares signify the succession of one firm by another. The Tribunal's decision aligns with this interpretation, emphasizing the need to assess each case based on its unique facts and the provisions of relevant partnership laws.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the legal principles governing firm continuity and dissolution in the context of changing partnerships. It highlights the significance of partnership deeds, the Indian Partnership Act, and the partners' intentions in determining the firm's status post a partner's demise. The decision underscores the need for a comprehensive analysis of factual evidence to ascertain whether a change in firm constitution or firm succession has occurred, ensuring adherence to relevant legal frameworks and precedents.
-
1983 (10) TMI 15
Issues involved: Determination of tax rate for an assessee company engaged in construction business, considering work done through sub-contractors.
Summary:
The High Court of BOMBAY considered a case where an assessee company, engaged in construction business, claimed to be chargeable to tax at a lower rate of 55% due to its engagement in processing of goods. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim without discussion, but the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) directed assessment at 55% based on Tribunal's decision. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the company did not qualify as an industrial company due to using goods in its own construction work and giving sub-contracts. The Tribunal rejected these contentions, affirming the company's industrial status and eligibility for the lower tax rate.
The Commissioner sought a reference questioning the Tribunal's decision, focusing on whether the company should be taxed at 55% as an industrial company. The High Court noted that the actual question referred for consideration was narrower, addressing only the argument related to work done through sub-contractors. Reframing of the question was deemed appropriate based on the Revenue's acceptance of the Tribunal's decision on the first argument. The Court highlighted that the case did not require a broader consideration of whether a construction company qualifies as an industrial company.
The Court analyzed the nature of work done by the company through sub-contractors and departmentally, referencing a relevant decision to support the company's entitlement to the lower tax rate despite sub-contracting some work. It concluded that the company, having sub-contracted part of its work while also performing some departmental work, should be charged at the beneficial rate of 55% instead of 65%. The Court emphasized the limited scope of the reference and the factual details provided by the Revenue in reaching this decision.
-
1983 (10) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of profits of an industrial undertaking under section 80J(1).
2. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years.
3. Priority of deductions under section 80J versus other allowances like unabsorbed depreciation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Computation of Profits of an Industrial Undertaking Under Section 80J(1):
The core issue revolves around the method of computing profits for an industrial undertaking under section 80J(1). The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) computed the income by first deducting current and brought forward depreciation, and then considering the relief under section 80J. The Tribunal, however, held that while carried forward losses and development rebates should be deducted first, the unabsorbed depreciation should be set off last, after granting the section 80J relief.
2. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation from Earlier Years:
The Tribunal's decision to set off unabsorbed depreciation last, after section 80J relief, was challenged. The Tribunal did not provide a clear rationale for treating unabsorbed depreciation differently from current year's depreciation. The High Court pointed out that section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act treats unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years as part of the current year's depreciation. Therefore, both current and unabsorbed depreciation should be treated similarly for deduction purposes.
3. Priority of Deductions Under Section 80J Versus Other Allowances:
The High Court emphasized that section 32(2) deems unabsorbed depreciation as part of the current year's depreciation, which must be deducted before section 80J relief is allowed. The Tribunal's approach of allowing section 80J relief before unabsorbed depreciation contradicts the statutory provisions and established judicial precedents. The High Court cited multiple cases to support this view, including:
- Ashok Motors Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 397: Held that unabsorbed depreciation must be adjusted against profits before granting exemption under section 15C (corresponding to section 80J).
- CIT v. Sivan Pillai [1970] 77 ITR 354: Supreme Court ruled that unabsorbed depreciation should not be distinguished from current year's depreciation for computing profits under section 15C.
- Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84: Supreme Court held that income must be computed under sections 30 to 43A before applying section 80E, implying similar treatment for section 80J.
- CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 640: Supreme Court clarified that profits for section 80J must be computed as total income chargeable to tax.
The High Court concluded that section 80J cannot override section 32(2), and the unabsorbed depreciation must be deducted before granting section 80J relief. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the High Court answered the question in favor of the Revenue, affirming that unabsorbed depreciation should be set off before section 80J relief is computed.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years must be deducted before the relief under section 80J is computed, aligning with statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal's contrary view was deemed unsustainable, and the Revenue's position was upheld. The Revenue was awarded costs from the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
-
1983 (10) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Whether the surplus amount in the sales tax account can be treated as the assessee's income and assessed to tax?
2. Whether the assessee is adopting the mercantile system of accounting for sales tax payments?
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Revenue sought a direction to the Tribunal regarding two questions. The first issue revolved around the treatment of a surplus amount of Rs. 14,138 in the sales tax account as the assessee's income for taxation purposes. The second issue questioned whether the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting specifically concerning sales tax payments.
The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper cones, was found to have an excess collection of Rs. 14,138 in sales tax over the payments made to the Sales Tax Department during the assessment year 1976-77. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially considered this excess as the assessee's income based on the cash system of accounting for sales tax. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee maintained accounts on a mercantile basis, allowing the deduction of the entire sales tax liability, including the excess collection.
The Revenue challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the assessee followed a cash system for sales tax accounting. Nevertheless, the Tribunal upheld the mercantile accounting method used by the assessee, allowing the deduction of the entire sales tax collections towards the statutory liability in the year of account.
The High Court analyzed the conflicting views on the accounting method adopted by the assessee for sales tax collections and payments. While the ITO considered it as a cash system, the appellate authority and the Tribunal found it to be on a mercantile basis. The Court emphasized that if the assessee maintained accounts on a mercantile basis for sales tax, the accrued sales tax liability should be deducted, not just the actual payments made to the Sales Tax Department. As a result, the Court concluded that the case did not warrant a reference to the Tribunal for opinion and dismissed the tax case petition.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the importance of the accounting method in determining the treatment of sales tax collections and upheld the decision that if the assessee follows a mercantile system, the entire sales tax accrued liability should be deducted for taxation purposes.
-
1983 (10) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is an educational institution entitled to exemption u/s 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether donations made to the assessee qualify for exemption from the total income of the donors.
Summary:
Issue 1: Exemption u/s 10(22) for Educational Institution
The primary issue was whether the assessee, Devi Educational Institution, qualifies as an educational institution under s. 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus, is entitled to income tax exemption. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) denied the exemption, stating that the assessee was an educational trust and not an educational institution, as no educational institution had yet come into existence. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reversed this decision, noting that the assessee had taken substantial steps towards establishing an educational institution, such as applying for college affiliation, petitioning for land allotment, and starting various educational activities. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, asserting that the steps taken by the trust qualified it for exemption under s. 10(22). However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the actual existence of an educational institution is a precondition for exemption under s. 10(22). The court directed the Tribunal to reassess whether the activities conducted by the assessee constituted an educational institution.
Issue 2: Exemption for Donations
The second issue concerned whether donations made to the assessee qualify for exemption from the total income of the donors. The AAC granted exemption, which the Tribunal upheld, based on the premise that the assessee was an educational institution. Given the High Court's directive for the Tribunal to reassess the status of the assessee as an educational institution, the question of exemption for donations also required reconsideration. The High Court noted that if the assessee did not qualify under s. 10(22), the donors might still claim exemption under s. 11, provided the donations were made to a charitable institution. The Tribunal was instructed to consider this aspect afresh.
Conclusion:
The High Court returned the references unanswered and directed the Tribunal to rehear the appeals, considering the observations made in the judgment and the precedent set in Aditanar Educational Institution's case [1979] 118 ITR 235. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the assessee's activities qualified it as an educational institution and whether the donations made to it were eligible for exemption.
-
1983 (10) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 1,30,083 as part of the general reserve for capital computation.
3. Exclusion of Rs. 1,68,000 recommended as dividend from the capital.
4. Exclusion of Rs. 1,06,795, proportionate to Rs. 37,734 dividend income, from the capital.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Reopening of the Assessment under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:
The central issue in this case was whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was valid. The Tribunal found that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not record any reasons for reopening the assessment, which is a vital requirement under the Act. The Tribunal noted that the internal audit party's note, which suggested revising the assessment, did not constitute "information" leading the ITO to reasonably believe that chargeable profits had escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the ITO must have information in his possession to justify reopening an assessment. The court cited several precedents, including Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT and Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT, to support its conclusion that a mere change of opinion does not constitute valid grounds for reopening an assessment.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 1,30,083 as Part of the General Reserve for Capital Computation:
The Tribunal had earlier accepted the assessee's claim that Rs. 1,30,083 appropriated by the board of directors to the general reserve should be considered part of the general reserve for computing the capital base. This inclusion was crucial for determining the net chargeable profits. The High Court did not revisit this issue in detail, as it was already settled in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal.
3. Exclusion of Rs. 1,68,000 Recommended as Dividend from the Capital:
The ITO excluded Rs. 1,68,000, which was recommended by the directors to be distributed as a dividend, from the capital calculation. The Tribunal found that this issue was not part of the original appeal before it and therefore had not been adjudicated earlier. The High Court noted that the ITO's action to exclude this amount was part of the reopening process, which it found invalid. Therefore, the exclusion of Rs. 1,68,000 was not justified.
4. Exclusion of Rs. 1,06,795 Proportionate to Rs. 37,734 Dividend Income from the Capital:
The ITO also excluded Rs. 1,06,795, which was proportionate to Rs. 37,734, the dividend income not included in the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that this issue was also not part of the original appeal and thus had not been decided earlier. The High Court found that the reopening of the assessment to exclude this amount was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked valid information. Consequently, this exclusion was also not justified.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the reopening of the assessment under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was invalid. The court emphasized that the ITO must have information leading to a reasonable belief that chargeable profits had escaped assessment, which was not the case here. The court answered the reference question in the affirmative, against the Revenue, and awarded costs to the assessee.
-
1983 (10) TMI 10
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was not legally justified in initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Tribunal was legally right in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Legality of Initiating Proceedings under Section 147(b)
The respondent, a P.W.D. contractor, derived income from contracts executed in his name and share income from two firms, M/s. Makhan Singh & Co. (Hanumangarh and Sriganganagar). The ITO completed the assessment for the year 1959-60, determining the total income and share of profit from both firms. However, during the assessment for 1960-61, the ITO found that the business run in the name of Makhan Singh & Co. was actually owned by Makhan Singh individually and not a genuine partnership. Consequently, the ITO refused to grant continuation of registration to the firm and treated Makhan Singh as the sole proprietor. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal.
The ITO issued a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) for the assessment year 1959-60 to reassess the income of Makhan Singh & Co., Hanumangarh, in the hands of the assessee. The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 was illegal and that no new information had come into the ITO's possession to justify the reassessment. The ITO rejected this contention and completed the reassessment, which was upheld by the AAC.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the ITO had no new information and allowed the appeal, leading to the current reference by the Revenue.
The court held that the proceedings under section 147(b) were valid as the ITO had received new information during the 1960-61 assessment, revealing that the firm was a proprietary concern and not a genuine partnership. This information constituted a sufficient basis for reopening the assessment under section 147(b). The court cited various precedents, including Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT and CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., to support the view that information regarding the true state of affairs or judicial decisions can justify reopening an assessment.
The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the ITO was not legally justified in initiating proceedings under section 147(b).
Issue 2: Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
Given the court's decision on the first issue, the logical conclusion for the second issue is that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court's reasoning was based on the premise that the reassessment was valid, and therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was also justified.
Conclusion:
1. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not legally justified in initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The Tribunal was legally not justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1983 (10) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Continuance of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Dissolution of the firm upon the death of a partner.
3. Application of partnership law principles under the Income-tax Act.
4. Validity of the declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of registration.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Continuance of Registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The primary issue was whether the appellant-firm was entitled to the continuance of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the firm was entitled to continuance of registration for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 3, 1965, when the firm was dissolved due to the death of a partner. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to accept the application in Form No. 12 for the period up to March 3, 1965.
2. Dissolution of the Firm upon the Death of a Partner
The firm, initially constituted under a partnership deed dated July 10, 1959, faced dissolution upon the death of one of its partners, Mukat Behari Lal, on March 3, 1965. The Tribunal held that the firm was dissolved on March 3, 1965, as there was no clause in the partnership deed providing that the firm would not be dissolved upon the death of a partner. The Tribunal found that the death of Mukat Behari Lal resulted in the dissolution of the firm under Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
3. Application of Partnership Law Principles under the Income-tax Act
The Tribunal and the High Court emphasized the application of partnership law principles under the Income-tax Act. The court noted that the definitions and principles of partnership law, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, are relevant and applicable under the Income-tax Act, unless explicitly contradicted by specific provisions of the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted that the dissolution of a firm upon the death of a partner is a fundamental principle under partnership law, which also applies to the Income-tax Act.
4. Validity of the Declaration in Form No. 12 for Continuance of Registration
The declaration in Form No. 12, filed by the firm on June 28, 1966, was scrutinized for its compliance with the statutory requirements. The declaration was signed by the three surviving partners and by Chand Kiran as the legal heir of Mukat Behari Lal. The court found that the declaration met the requirements of Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and was in the letter and spirit of the law. The court held that the declaration was valid for the period up to March 3, 1965, when the firm was dissolved.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant-firm was entitled to the continuance of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 3, 1965. The court affirmed that the firm was dissolved upon the death of Mukat Behari Lal and that the declaration in Form No. 12 was valid for the period up to the date of dissolution. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1983 (10) TMI 8
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in assessing capital gains.
2. Applicability of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in determining tax liability on a property transfer.
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act:
The case involved a co-owner of property in Madras, where the property was sold for Rs. 5,00,000, and the market value was Rs. 4,00,000. The Income-tax Officer invoked section 52(2) to determine capital gains based on the fair market value inherited from the co-owner's father. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that section 52(2) was not applicable due to lack of proof of undervaluation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing precedents like Sundaram Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 243. The High Court concurred, emphasizing the need for actual understatement to invoke section 52(2) and referenced previous judgments supporting this interpretation. The court also mentioned similar cases where section 52(2) was deemed inapplicable due to lack of understatement.
2. Applicability of Section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act:
Regarding section 47(iii), the Tribunal held that as the property transfer was treated as a gift under the Gift-tax Act, it could not be taxed as capital gains under sections 45 and 52 of the Income-tax Act. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that section 47(iii) applies only to actual gifts, not deemed gifts. Citing CIT v. Bharani Pictures [1981] 129 ITR 244, the court highlighted that the section pertains to transfers and not deemed transfers. Referring to previous cases with similar issues, the court answered in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the legislative intent to differentiate between actual and deemed transfers under section 47(iii).
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the interpretation of section 52(2) but differed on the applicability of section 47(iii), ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and legislative intent guiding the assessment of capital gains and tax liability on property transfers under the Income-tax Act.
-
1983 (10) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure on technical know-how is "capital" or "revenue".
2. Whether the expenditure can be considered as part of the cost of machinery for depreciation allowance and development rebate.
Summary:
Issue 1: Nature of Expenditure (Capital vs. Revenue)
The court had to decide if the expenditure of Rs. 66,899 and Rs. 33,499 incurred by the assessee for technical know-how was deductible as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had held that the payment was for the acquisition of technical know-how for all time, thus constituting an asset of an enduring nature, and classified it as capital expenditure. The court reviewed various cases, including the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 538, which emphasized that technical know-how, especially in a fast-changing technological environment, does not confer an enduring advantage. The court concluded that the payments made by the assessee were for acquiring information and guidance, which should be considered as revenue expenditure.
Issue 2: Depreciation Allowance and Development Rebate
The second issue was whether the expenditure could be considered as part of the actual cost of machinery or plant for the purposes of depreciation allowance u/s 32 and development rebate u/s 33. The Tribunal found that the payment was solely for the acquisition of know-how and not for any tangible asset like machinery or plant. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167, which allowed depreciation on interest paid before the commencement of production as part of the cost of the asset. However, since the Tribunal found no part of the payment attributable to setting up the plant, the court held that the claim for depreciation and development rebate was not tenable.
Conclusion:
1. Question 1: The amounts of Rs. 66,899 and Rs. 33,499 were deductible as revenue expenditure for the respective assessment years.
2. Question 2: Unnecessary to answer in light of the answer to Question 1.
The Revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1983 (10) TMI 6
Issues Involved: Determination of entitlement to development rebate and deduction under section 80-I for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72.
Development Rebate Entitlement:
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing bolts, nuts, and screws, claimed development rebate at 35% on the value of machinery installed during the relevant years. The Income-tax Officer allowed rebate at 20% due to machinery usage for other machinery production. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim, which was upheld by the Tribunal based on a previous decision. The High Court, following precedent, ruled in favor of the assessee regarding development rebate entitlement.
Deduction under Section 80-I:
The assessee also sought deduction under section 80-I for the assessment year 1970-71, but the Income-tax Officer rejected it due to inability to separate income sources and "nil" total income. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that relief under section 80-I should be independent of positive income. The High Court referred to a similar case and held that if total income is "nil," no deduction can be granted under Chapter VI-A, in line with section 80A(2) limitations. The court ruled against the assessee on the deduction issue.
Separate Judgement:
The High Court granted leave to the Revenue for appealing the decision on the development rebate entitlement issue, as leave had already been granted by the Supreme Court.
-
1983 (10) TMI 5
The High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the inadmissibility of surtax as a deduction in computing total income. The court also ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the entitlement to relief under section 80J without time restrictions. The judgments were based on previous court decisions.
-
1983 (10) TMI 4
The amount of wealth-tax liability relating to the assessment years in respect of which the assessments had not been finalised on the valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the net wealth, should be the wealth-tax liability on the undisputed portion of the total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of the assessments for those years after the valuation date
-
1983 (10) TMI 3
Whether assessee is entitle to deduction of tax determined payable on the basis of assessment orders passed after valuation date and created as a result of rectification order passed after valuation date - questions set forth earlier must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
1983 (10) TMI 2
Whether in computing the net wealth of the assessee, the amount deductible in respect of liability of tax for any year for which the assessment is completed after the valuation date is the liability as ascertainable on the valuation date or the actual amount of tax subsequently assessed - Held, yes - revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1983 (10) TMI 1
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the liabilities claimed by the assessee, though existence of the very liability was questioned by the assessee, should be allowed as a `debt owed` in computing the net wealth of the assessee - Held, yes
....
|
9911796707
