|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 233 Records
-
1982 (2) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Public, Widely Held Company ... ... ... ... ..... third condition with regard to the affairs of the company or the shares carrying more than 50 of its total voting power being at no time, during the relevant previous year, controlled or held by five or less persons, is fulfilled or not is a matter on which no finding has been recorded. But the argument before the Tribunal itself seems to have proceeded on the fact that more than 50 of the shares are concentrated in the hands of the three trusts. All the joint trustees will have to be treated as a single unit for the purposes of the control and since the three trusts control 81 of the shares, in our view, even the third condition is not satisfied. Looking at the matter either way, therefore, it is difficult for us to uphold the view of the Tribunal that the assessee-company is a company in which the public are substantially interested. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the High Court took, the decision of the Tribunal was upheld. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Madras High Court. In the present case also, if the amount of Rs. 31,695 and the amount of Rs. 11,523 were received by the assessee as trading receipts, the mere fact that the said amounts were transferred to the suspense account for few years and were later carried to the profit and loss account could not alter or transmute the character of the receipt which was in the nature of a business or trading receipt. In that case the said amounts could have been taxed in the relevant assessment years in which they were received by the assessee and the failure on the part of the Department to tax them in those years cannot give the Department the right to tax the assessee in the assessment year 1971-72 so far as the income therefrom is concerned. For the above reasons we answer the question reformulated by us in the affirmative. We make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of that question would be merely academic. We may, in this regard point out that in Misc. Petition No. 335 of 1971 filed in this court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City III, Bombay, and another against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee and others, including the said LIC, the Commissioner has made it quite clear that the I.T. Dept. does not regard the income of the assessee from the life insurance business in respect of the period from January 1, 1956 to January 18, 1956, as the income of the assessee and that no attempt will be made to tax the assessee in respect of the said income. This also makes it further clear that the decision on the aforesaid question No. 1 in Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1972 will be wholly academic and we decline to answer the said question. In view of the divided success which the parties have achieved in these references there will be no order to the costs thereof, and the parties will bear their own respective costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... ct to appeal, which was taken before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority itself was likewise provisional during the period allowed for filing an appeal or during the pendency of the appeal. When the order of the AAC concerning the petitioner was finally set aside by the Tribunal, thereby affirming ex. P-2A order of the ITO, the cloud hanging over ex. P-2A was removed and its finality was affirmed. Consequently, for the relevant period, ex. P-2A is deemed to have operated in full vigour to make the petitioner liable in law by reason of the Tribunal s affirmative order. If this is the position in law, which I think it is, s. 220(2) of the I.T. Act was attracted in respect of the amount due from the petitioner as per ex. P-2A dated December 1, 1973. It is that interest which is now demanded by the ITO, vide ex. P-6, and affirmed by the Commissioner by ex. P-7. The challenge against the impugned orders accordingly fails. The O.P. is dismissed. No costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assets, Leasehold Interest, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ted in respect of the properties of the assessee except 30A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, was a multiple of ten times of the annual rental income. For this property the basis was the cost of its construction. For the years under consideration, for this property as well, the basis of rental income has been adopted. In doing so, the reason given by the Appellate Tribunal is that the value of a building very much depends on its location which is certainly relevant for determining its market value. So far as this property is concerned, looking to its location and the rent which it is fetching, it has been considered proper to estimate its value on the net rental basis. In our opinion, the finding is based on consideration of relevant facts and there is no occasion for taking a contrary view. Our answers to these questions, therefore, are in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The respondent, Commissioner, is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 750.
-
1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ciary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent s account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, nor can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. In view of this, the Tribunal was, with respect, justified in holding that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee in the present case could not be regarded as a book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative. Question No. 2 In the negative. It is clarified that both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1982 (2) TMI 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... to this court for its opinion. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this reference deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee. The learned counsel for the Department contended that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and hence the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 28,000 was not includible in the total income of the assessee. The contention cannot be upheld. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the income of Rs. 28,000 had not accrued to the assessee and was, in fact, not received by her. The assessee had credited the amount of Rs. 28,000 under a suspense account, as the assessee had lodged a claim in that behalf. The right to recover the same had not accrued to the assessee. In our opinion, therefore, our answer to the question referred to us by the Tribunal is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Practice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ned. Mr. Bajoria, who is known for his fairness, did not contend otherwise. But, he contended that as in the rectification proceeding the assessee had succeeded, there was no new material or information, on the basis whereof, the action as taken could be justified. There, in my view, is ample substance, in such submissions of Mr. Bajoria. Thus, even though the first point fails, the second one should succeed, viz., as there was no new information and it cannot be stated that on the date of the notice, any income had escaped assessment, particularly when the relevant facts were available and known to the authorities concerned, through the different proceedings as mentioned hereinbefore. On the specific facts of the case and the circumstances as disclosed hereinbefore, that since there was thus no mistake apparent from the records, rectification under s. 154 of the said Act was neither possible nor permissible. The rule is thus made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessee to the ITO. If on these facts the Tribunal, having considered also the view of the AAC, came to the conclusion that the assessee s claim that these debts could be considered to be bad and irrecoverable was not established, we cannot say that the Tribunal has acted without relevant materials or on wrong principles of law. It may be that on these facts or some of these facts and some others, the Tribunal might have come to the conclusion that the assessee was justified but having regard to the findings of the Tribunal we are not in a position to say that the findings were perverse or based on wrong principles of law or ignored any relevant piece of evidence. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, the Tribunal had not acted wrongly. If that is the position then the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (2) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... ned indicates that it could not be anything but sharing of the expenses because if it had Provided that the information would belong either to the parent company or to the subsidiary, then perhaps it might have been contended that payment were either royalty or hiring charges of the information as such could be treated as income. But the very fact that the technical data was jointly obtained and the expenses were shared together indicates that it could not be treated as income. The fact that only 0.67 of the turnover was allowed is because of the restrictions imposed by the Government. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal arrived at the correct decision keeping in view the background of the agreement. In the aforesaid view of the matter the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1982 (2) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... t could only be reopened within four years as provided by s. 149 of the Act of 1961. It was further submitted by the assessee that it had filed its books of account, profit and loss accounts, and its balance-sheet for the relevant accounting years and had disclosed all material facts for assessment. In those circumstances, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that it was impossible to accept the view that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts within the meaning of s. 147(a) of the Act of 1961. The assessee having placed all its documents before the ITO, it was for him to investigate the truth or otherwise of the claim made by the assessee. The impugned notices under s. 147(a) of the Act were held not sanctioned by that provision. In the present case, however, the facts are entirely different which we have already discussed. Accordingly, we answer the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... e aforesaid amount on the list day of the accounting year as compared to the date when the investment in the unexplained stocks was at its highest. All that could be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to this item is that no sale had taken place and the profit had been estimated only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. However, there being a definite reduction in the raw material and the finished products as noticed above, the inference was correctly drawn that the shortage had been sold for profit. It is also observed in the statement of the case that the Tribunal had examined the calculations regarding the profit of Rs. 15,430 and had found these calculations to be correct. This being so, there was no occasion for making a reference on this pure question of fact. No other point arises in this petition which is dismissed and the mandamus prayed for, is declined. In the circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee continued as the cancellation of the registration had no effect. The transaction of fidelity bonds is in the nature of an activity carried on under the statutory control and amounts to carrying on business within the meaning of I.T. Act, 1961. The primary liability was, and continued on the existing bonds to be that of the assessee which, in turn, was duly covered by reinsurance with M/s. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. There was no substitution of the assessee by the reinsurer and it was only a reinsurance of a risk by the assessee. There was no contract guaranteeing the Calcutta High Court for fidelity of trustees, administrators, receivers, etc., by the reinsurer. The liability continued on the existing bond to be that of the assessee and to that extent it amounted to the carrying on of business. The reference is answered in the affirmative, i,e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. On the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Reassessment, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... original order of assessment. In our view, therefore, there is no material at all to show that there was any information, on the basis of which the ITO passing the order of reassessment under cl. (b) of s. 147, could have acted and the order of reopening the assessment under that clause is clearly bad. In view of this question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the Commissioner. Regarding question No. 2, as far as the assessment year 1962-63 is concerned, the question becomes academic, because of the view which we have taken on question No. 1. As far as the assessment year 1963-64 is concerned, the said question No. 2 is concluded against the assessee by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Bassein Electric Supply Co. Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 884, and hence in respect of that assessment year, the said question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agreement To Sell Property, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... the submission of Mrs. Jagtiani. The aforesaid decision in CIT v. Zorostrian Building society Ltd. 1976 102 ITR 499 is a decision of a Division Bench of this court, and we are bound to follow the same. Moreover, we find that the Division Bench of this court has in its judgment considered the case of R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 570 decided by the Supreme Court as aforesaid and has based its decision on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. Needless to say, the interpretation put on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court by the Division Bench of this court is also binding on us. In our view, therefore, we are bound by this decision of the Division Bench of this court, and answer the question in accordance with the same. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that each party shall bear its own costs of the reference.
-
1982 (2) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... for setting aside the order imposing penalty but on account of mistaken legal advice a wrong course was adopted. Sine we are satisfied, that the wrong procedure adopted by the petitioner air account, of bona fide mistaken legal advice, it should not be penalised for approaching this court late . This question may be considered from another angle also. The order of the IAC is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner shall have right, to challenge it whenever it is sought to be enforced against it. It may be that the order was passed in January, 1977, but if, that order is sought to be enforced today, it would give rise to a, cause of action to, the petitioner to approach this court. Judged from that angle the petition cannot be said to be belated. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the IAC dated January 24, 1977, and that of the, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 21, 1978, are, quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... on during the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. As the method of accounting of the assessee was mercantile, the deduction for the said amount could be claimed only in the relevant assessment year. The argument is wholly misconceived. The assessee was made liable to pay this amount in the award not on account of its liability to pay interest but on account of the cost of the development of the road in the sugarcane area. This liability was to arise only on the withdrawal of the claim of the society regarding the said interest. The liability to pay this amount, therefore, accrued during the accounting year relevant to the present assessment year when the society complied with the arbitrator s decision and withdrew its claim. The liability thus having arisen during the accounting year 1968-69, the Tribunal rightly allowed that deduction and question No. 2 is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... pplying for registration for the year 1974-75. If that be the true legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that the Agrl. ITO, Madurai, was perfectly justified in exercising his discretion and condoning the delay in preferring the application for registration on the part of the firm, when once lie was satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the time. Once we come to the conclusion that the delay in seeking the registration of the firm was properly condoned by the Agrl. I.T.O., Madurai, by the order dated July 30, 1976, it necessarily follows that the registration granted for 1974-75, and the renewals for 1975-76 and 1976-77, and the assessment for the years 1974-75 to 1976-77, are valid. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order of the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The tax revision case is allowed, but, under the circumstances of the case, without costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allowed instalments for payment of the arrears and that the sale should not be held. It would thus be seen that the petitioner did not raise any objection that the proclamation was defective or that it was invalid because no notice was issued to him before its preparation even though he was present at the time when the sale was held. In the circumstances, this objection can be taken to be waived. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to us the ruling of the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Nath v. Subal Chandra Nath, AIR 1964 SC 1300, which related to non-compliance with s. 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. It was held in that case that non-compliance with the requirement of that provision was a material irregularity in publishing the sale and such a ground could only be taken under O. 21, r. 90. That case does not help the petitioner here. The petition fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1982 (2) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... in cls. A, B, C and D of the said Chapter. It appears to us that s. 166 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the question is concerned we must observe that the question proceeded on the assumption that the Rani was the sole heir and legal representative. It is true that the assessment should have been made on the legal representative. In view of the appointment of the administrator, the Rani was not the sole heir and legal representative at the relevant time. Therefore, the question is answered by saying that the assessment should be made on the legal representative when the Rani was not the sole heir and legal representative at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the Revenue makes an oral application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As we have proceeded on the provisions of the relevant section, in our opinion, no substantial question of law requiring consideration by the Supreme Court in this case arises. Hence.
....
|
