|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 37 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Exemption U/S 5(1)(iv), Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... n must be taken into consideration in determining the net wealth of, the firm. Where a firm owns a house and a partner resides in a portion of the house the exemption provided by s 5(1)(iv) should be taken into consideration in determining the net wealth of the firm. It is a simple formula that if a thing is available to all jointly, the proportionate share of each one individually cannot be denied to the individual. Since the matter referred to this court with regard to Sri Nand Lal Jalan, one of the partners, is identical to that of the other partner, Sri Radha Krishna Jalan, and the point of law referred being the same, the matter already stands concluded by the afore-mentioned decision of this court. We are accordingly of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question referred to this court must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Criminal Prosecution, Offences ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 909 (SC) and Parkash Chand v. ITO 1982 134 ITR 8 (P and H). The learned trial Magistrate dismissed the prayer of the petitioner being of the view that unless some evidence comes on the record, it would be premature to pronounce on the matter. It has to be borne in mind that the court s time is precious and is not meant to be employed for proceedings which are directionless. Here, concededly, the Supreme Court has pronounced in Uttam Chand s case, that if there is no case for sustenance of penalty, it equally is not a case for criminal prosecution. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is well grounded. Rather, learned counsel for the income-tax department appearing for the respondent had nothing to say against it and did not even venture to distinguish that case. Thus, the petitioner has a clean sail. The complaint, and the proceedings taken thereon, must necessarily be quashed, which is hereby done. Disposed of accordingly while allowing the petition.
-
1983 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was no concealment of income in this case. It is for the Revenue to establish a case of penalty by producing sufficient evidence. The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the income that was returned by the assessee was due to its honest belief as to what should be its gross income in the rice business and nothing else. In our opinion, the questions raised in this reference really do not bring out the controversy between the parties. The finding of the Tribunal that the income that was returned was due to honest belief was not really challenged. When no question has been raised on this aspect of the matter and so long as this finding stands, it is very difficult to find fault with the order of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the questions that have been raised have really become academic and we decline to answer the questions. In the facts of this case, there will be no order as to costs. T. K. BASU, ACTG. C.J.-I agree.
-
1983 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction From Dividend, Deductions From Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... TR 183 (SC), the principle that was laid down is that s. 16(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, imposes an obligation upon the ITO to compute the total income of an individual for the purposes of assessment by including the items of income set out in cls. (a)(i) to (iv) and (b) but thereby no obligation is imposed upon the taxpayer to disclose the income liable to be included in his assessment under s. 16(3) and that for failing or omitting to disclose that income, proceedings for reassessment cannot, therefore, be commenced under s. 34(1)(a) of the said Act. Indeed, this decision was relied on in CIT v. P. K. Kochammu Amma 1980 125 ITR 624 (SC). We reiterate that the assessee cannot derive any support from any of these decisions in support of his contention that before the dividend income of the assessee s wife is added on to the income of the assessee, the deduction under s. 80L should be made. The Revenue will have its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1983 (3) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... hands of Seth Gopaldas. Coming now to the third question, the Tribunal s view that the interest income in the hands of the assessee should be taxed at 12 instead of 8 , does not appear to be justified. We have already mentioned that when Seth Gopaldas paid interest only at the rate of 8 his taxable income would proportionately increase and the Department would get that benefit in his assessment. It is nobody s case that interest to the temple was really paid in excess of 8 and, therefore, the question of taxing the interest income at more than 8 does not arise. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows 1. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the endowment was valid. 2. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the extra income of the temple be taxed in the hands of Seth Gopaldas. 3. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the interest income of the temple should be taxed at 12 and not at 8 . There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 32 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to hold that the provisions s. 271(1)(a) were attracted. Before parting, we record that on November IC, 1982, learned counsel for the assessee stated that it was a fit case in which the assessee could have one to the Commissioner of income-tax under s. 273A of the Act, a asking for a reduction or waiver of the penalty. We, as desired by the learned counsel for the assessee, allowed the assessee to approach the Commissioner of Income-tax and to get the relief, if allowable under the law. However, we are told at the bar that the prayer has been rejected by the Commissioner, because he did not find any reasonable cause to reduce or waive the penalty imposed on the assessee. In the result, having answered the question in the affirmative, we direct that a copy of the judgment be sent under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar to the learned Tribunal, which shall pass orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment. J. C. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1983 (3) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tax Credit Certificates ... ... ... ... ..... etitioner under s. 264 of the Act in accordance with law after giving the petitioner or his representative an opportunity of being heard. Till such applications are heard and disposed of by the Commissioner, the tax recovery proceedings instituted against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid assessment years and as mentioned in para. 4 of the writ petition shall remain stayed and shall abide by whatever orders the Commissioner passes after rehearing the petitioner. Mr. Arijit Chowdhury also submits that another application by the petitioner for waiver of interest for the assessment year 1979-80 is still pending decision before the ITO. Under the circumstances, the notice of demand dated June 22, 1982, issued to the petitioner by the TRO will remain stayed until the final orders are passed by the ITO. There will be no order as to costs. All parties including the Commissioner, the ITO and the TRO concerned will act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this order.
-
1983 (3) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Tax Credit Certificates ... ... ... ... ..... prescribed any period of limitation for claiming the benefits under this chapter it is not open to the Central Govt. to transgress beyond its power to prescribe the time-limit in order to avail of the benefit of the scheme. Hence, sub-para. (3) of para. 5 which empowers the authority to condone the delay not exceeding 60 days and consequential prohibition of entertaining any application filed thereafter is ultra vires and, therefore, void. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Sub paragraph (3) of para. 5 of the Tax Credit Certificate (Excise Duty on Excess Clearance) Scheme, 1965, is hereby quashed. Consequently, orders dated December 4, 1976, and December 6, 1976, marked as annexs. C and D, respectively, made in appeal by the Director of Inspection and Audit (Customs and Central Excise) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner for grant of tax credit certificate within three months. No costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r opinion, a very important circumstance to show that the intention was not to evade payment of tax or to conceal income but it was an action under a mistaken belief that two returns could be filed for two different sources of income. In our opinion, having regard to this circumstance along with other circumstances, the assessee was able to rebut the presumption. The learned standing counsel has submitted before us that the finding reached by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. No doubt normally such a finding is a finding of fact but when an important circumstance is not taken into account in reaching that finding, then such a finding becomes erroneous in law. That is the position in the instant case. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question as follows The Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the assessee was guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in filing the return so as to justify the penalty. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... -landlords who had obtained a decree would suffer, it was open to that court to direct the respondents to get the paper-books prepared and impose the cost of the same on the appellants. It was also open to the High Court to create a sanction behind its order by providing that if the paper-books were not supplied in time the interim stay of dispossession would be vacated. Instead of these permissible modes of achieving the end, thwarting the access to justice by imposing a disproportion to penalty of dismissal of the appeal by the High Court was not justified and, therefore, must be interfered with. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the order dated May 22, 1981 (annex. P-6), and direct that respondent No. 1 shall issue the Bonds to the petitioner in the amount he is entitled to own them on his application which was received by the State Bank of India on January 28, 1981, treating that application to be a valid and competent application. No costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Cash Credits, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ses referred to above have been reviewed. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the Department by the learned senior standing counsel fails. In the result, I answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and I hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of sales tax liability has not to be excluded from the gross turnover to arrive at the gross profit disclosed in the trading account and further bold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, were not applicable for considering the cash credits appearing in the accounting years relevant to the assessment year 1961-62 and earlier years and in deleting the additions of the cash credits amounting to Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 32,344. The assessee will be entitled for costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1983 (3) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1, and a Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Lalji Ram Bhagat 1984 147 ITR 645 (Pat). It is well established by now that the provisions of law applicable to the penal proceedings would be those governing on the date on which the return is filed. In other words, the relevant date for the purpose of determining the quantum of penalty would be the date on which the delinquency was committed, namely, when the revised return was filed. As already stated above, it was filed on July 12, 1969. Therefore, the provision of law effective from April 1, 1968, shall govern the case of quantum of penalty. Thus the second question is also answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, and we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the quantum of penalty was to be governed by the provisions of law which were in force before April 1, 1968. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... ng into account the hardship that may be caused in a particular case. The Tribunal has also proceeded on the basis that the double assessment of the same amount is prohibited by s. 34(5) of the Act. We do not see how s. 34(5) will come into operation on the facts of this case. There is no question of the same property being aggregated twice nor the estate duty being levied more than once on the same death. The Tribunal is thus found to be in error in relying on the provisions in s. 34(5) of the Act in support of its conclusion. Under these circumstances, we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in this case cannot be legally sustained. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to this court in the negative and against the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs. Before parting with this case, we have to express our appreciation for the effective assistance rendered by Mr. Subramaniam, learned counsel, appearing before us as amicus curiae at our instance.
-
1983 (3) TMI 24 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion.. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the Department, brought to our notice the decision of this court in Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl. CIT 1979 119 ITR 980. In that case, it has been held by a Division Bench of this court that the word assessee , used in s. 54 of the Act, construed in its context, refers only to living persons or individuals and not to fictional or artificial juridical persons. We respectfully agree with that decision. In view of this decision it must be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under s. 54 of the Act for the purchase and construction of the house within the stipulated period. Therefore, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... have been charged at all and, in any event, the ITO had not passed any order charging interest. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the case of CIT v. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar 1979 117 ITR 603 (Cal), an appeal to the AAC on this ground should not have been dismissed in limine. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the order was appealable and the Tribunal was right in sending the matter back to the AAC for fresh consideration. The first question, therefore, is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. Learned advocate for the assessee prays orally for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that the question involved is question of public importance which need be decided by the Supreme Court. Leave for appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1983 (3) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ion referred by the Tribunal does not arise out of its order. The question was raised in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. It was also mentioned in the application made under s. 256(1). In the statement of the case disposing of the application under s. 256(1), the Tribunal does not say that the question was not raised or argued before it. We, therefore, hold that the question was raised although it remained undecided in the order of the Tribunal. A question of law which is raised before the Tribunal and not decided by it can be said to arise out of the Tribunal s order see Kanga and Palkhivala s The Law of Income Tax, Vol. I, p. 1160 . The question was, therefore, properly referred by the Tribunal. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question is that the unexplained possession of money to the extent of Rs. 20,000 could not be subjected to tax in the hands of the assessee during the assessment year 1973-74. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ny may be deemed to be an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, a State within the meaning of art. 12, but incorporated under the Companies Act, such corporation has a distinct entity of its own. The fact that the shares of the company are wholly contributed and owned by the Government, does not make it a State within the meaning of art. 289(1) of the Constitution. Unless the authority or the company is a State, it cannot claim immunity from Union taxation under art. 289(1) of the Constitution. From the fact that it is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of art. 12 of the Constitution, it does not necessarily follow that it is a State within the meaning of art. 289 entitled to claim immunity from taxation. For the foregoing discussion, the claim of the petitioner to immunity from Union taxation under art. 289(1) of the Constitution fails and is rejected. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1983 (3) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unal were, therefore, right in holding against the assessee and in applying the higher rates of tax as per Sub-para. II of Para A of Schedule I to the Finance Act, 1974. In the result, we answer the questions in favour of the Department and against the assessee. R.C. No. 62/78 is, therefore, disposed of as follows (1) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee was HUF. (2) The Tribunal was also justified in holding that the rates of tax applicable to the assessee are as per Sub-para. II of Para A of Schedule to the Finance Act, 1974, and not as per Sub-para. 1. The answers are against the assessee and in favour of the Department. R.C. No. 85/81 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the Department. In R.C. No. 38/78, the two questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. The questions in R.C. No. 9/80 and R.C. No. 84/81 are also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department.
-
1983 (3) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... nstituted for the benefit of either such armed personnel or their children or their wives, the Central Government has chosen to give expansive definition to s. 10(23C), we see no reason to adopt a restrictive interpretation of the words charitable trust vis-a-vis the personnel in the police department. From the foregoing, therefore, it is quite manifest that the assessee, A. P. Police Welfare Society which is charitable in its objects, as is quite apparent from the very objectives laid down under the rules framed thereunder, is a body that would constitute a section of the public and so, the fund founded for the benefit of such section should be treated as charitable in its object, attracting thereby the exemption from the exigibility to tax. We, therefore, concur with the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. The question under reference is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and so, in favour of the assessee. In the result, the R.C. is rejected. No costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... arts thereof sold on behalf of the Indian company at the rate of 2 1/2 of the invoice value of all low tension switchgear products at 5 in all the high tension switchgear parts and a royalty of 7 in all switchgear products exported. Thus, it is seen that the assessee paid a royalty for the acquisition of an exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling the products. The acquisition of such a right has rightly been treated partly towards capital and partly towards the revenue. The Tribunal has chosen to estimate the value of that portion of the royalty which is relatable to acquisition of right of an enduring nature. In this view, the Tribunal is right in holding that 25 of the royalty is to be disallowed. The result is, the first question is answered partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee and the second question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
....
|
