|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 71 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Industrial Undertaking, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... t in the case of Dhandia Gems Corporation 1994 208 ITR 923. After detailed discussion, the answer has been given in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Considering the detailed discussion in the case of Dhandia Gems Corporation 1994 208 ITR 923, the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act can only be allowed when the small scale industrial undertaking is owned by the assessee. In the case in hand, there is not an iota of evidence which shows that any plant or machinery regarding manufacturing of the precious stones is owned by the assessee. Even learned counsel for the assessee has admitted that no plant or machinery is owned by the assessee. Considering the undisputed fact and the decision of this court in thecase of Dhandia Gems Corporation 1994 208 ITR 923, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act. Accordingly, the question posed is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (4) TMI 70 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ers had supervised the work of their daily labourers, electricians and the like, such supervision would be collective disposal of the labour of its members. It is conceivable that while the work was executed by the paid labourers, their work was supervised by the members of the society because of their special training and skill. Such a case would be governed by the decision of the learned single member Tribunal as in annexure 3. But the facts here are quite different with a specific finding that no such supervision was made by the members and their only job was restricted like any other businessman to supervision by way of office management. It was as such not necessary to refer the matter to any higher Bench and at any rate a Division Bench of the Tribunal had also the authority to depart from the view expressed by the learned single member. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ application which is, therefore, dismissed. D. M. PATNAIK J.-I agree.
-
1994 (4) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ugh the concerned file and are satisfied that information received was taken down by the officers concerned and some other information was also solicited from some source. The file also discloses that the proposal was discussed by higher officers and it was thought necessary that except for the action under section 132 any other action would not serve the purpose. Though Mr. Usgaokar, learned counsel for the petitioners, made attempts to show that there is no justification for holding that there is a difference between the production of ore in mines and the sale and consequent export as also certain amounts in fixed deposit are covered by duplication in the same panchanama, the fact remains that the matter is at large before the authorities. Once we accept that the exercise of power under section 132 was based upon information and is not arbitrary, we do not think that any useful purpose would be served in entertaining these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Arbitration Award, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... itself is a question of law. At this stage, we are not called upon to examine the merits of the question or to see how the question would be answered. We are concerned only with examining whether the question arises as a question of law from the order of the Tribunal in opinion, in so far as the interest amount of Rs. 11,812.50 is concerned, that has already been held to be a revenue receipt and taxed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not chosen to challenge that part of the assessment. It is not necessary to retain that amount of interest as part of the question. The remaining part does arise as a question of law from the order of the Tribunal and we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the facts of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,59,748 be treated as a capital receipt ?
-
1994 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Tax Deducted At Source, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... t in the case of CIT v. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 636 would govern the present case. Since the question in the present reference does not relate to double taxation relief, we refrain from expressing any view thereon. In the premises, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 433 of 1982. The question referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1986 is as follows "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tax deducted by the companies in the United Kingdom and paid into the Treasury in the United Kingdom after deducting the same from the dividends and interest on securities paid to the assessee in the United Kingdom, is includible in the chargeable income of the assessee ?" This question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in both the matters. Certified copy expedited.
-
1994 (4) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Search And Seizure, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... lery weighing 65 tolas and of the petitioner regarding jewellery weighing 194.2 grams. The explanations were also accepted regarding F. D. Rs. of the amount aggregating to Rs. 37,205 of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite order dated December 31, 1993 (annexure 1 to the counter affidavit), the jewellery and the F. D. Rs. for which the explanations were accepted, have not yet been released in favour of the petitioner. From the aforesaid order, it appears that no tax liability has been determined against the petitioner and no order for retaining the aforesaid assets has been passed by the respondents against the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to take back the aforesaid jewellery. Hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing respondent No. 3 to return the aforesaid assets of the petitioner within a week from the date an application in this behalf is made by her and a copy of this order is produced before him.
-
1994 (4) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Penalty Proceedings, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... question of the authority in penal proceedings coming to any conclusion different from the one arrived at in the reassessment proceedings does not arise. The above decision is not an authority for the position that where the reassessment is not challenged in appeal, the order as such can be collaterally challenged in penalty proceedings. If the assessment order or reassessment order becomes final, that is binding on both the parties and neither party can seek to reopen it in a penalty proceeding. This conclusion, of course, does not affect the settled position of law that the assessment order or reassessment order is not conclusive in penalty proceedings. We, therefore, hold that question No.2 has to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Question No.1 is answered in the affirmative and question No. 2 is answered in the negative. Both are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as it costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 64 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... Bombay allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and directed the Income-tax Officer to revise the order of assessment and grant refund to the extent of the tax levied on the excess dividends. By the time the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. s case 1956 30 ITR 841 was affirmed in CIT v. Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. 1960 40 ITR 189. The Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the assessee was entitled to refund of the amount. This ruling is a clear authority for the proposition that a subsequent decision can validly form the basis for rectifying an order of assessment under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in rejecting the plea of the assessees to refer the two questions of law stated supra to this court under section 256(1). For the foregoing reasons, the three income-tax cases are rejected.
-
1994 (4) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... 990-91 granted registration to the firm by his proceedings, exhibit P-12, dated January 23, 1993. The registration was granted on the same set of facts and if that be so there is no reason why exhibit P-11 proposing to cancel the registration for the prior years should be sustained. This is all the more so because the registration has been proposed to be cancelled on some technical ground that the signature of one M. S. P. Subramanian, who was the executor of the will of one of the partners known as M. Lakshmi Achi in the application for renewal of the registration of the firm, is not authenticated. The genuineness of the firm as such is not in dispute. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am inclined to quash exhibit P-11 though, as stated earlier, in the normal course I am not inclined to interfere with what in effect is only a notice to show cause. For the reasons stated above, I allow the original petition and quash exhibit P-11. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Income Tax Act, Retrospective Effect, The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... on of tax, and such a legislation intended for purposes ancillary to the correct assessment of the income or the loss, and to prevent evasion of tax cannot be branded as arbitrary or struck down as such. The section is invoked only when the return filed does not accord with the realities. Therefore, and quite apart from the lack of pleadings in the case, I do not also find any merit in the contention that the impugned provision is violative of articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution. The petitioners have raised various other contentions in the writ petitions. But they are matters which could be agitated before the Departmental authorities. I leave those questions open for being agitated by the petitioner before the statutory authorities. I may also make it clear that nothing stated in the judgment will preclude the petitioners from raising their contentions before the statutory authorities in appropriate proceedings. The original petitions are, therefore, dismissed in limine.
-
1994 (4) TMI 61 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Business, Income From House Property, Managing Agent ... ... ... ... ..... or personal purposes and as such section 38 may be attracted. Even otherwise, we feel that sections 22 and 38 of the Act deal with different matters and situations and do not appear to be dependent on each other. We do not think that while interpreting section 22, the provisions of section 38 must be adverted to or dealt with. No other point has been urged before us. In view of the foregoing discussion, we endorse the view taken by the Tribunal that the income from Modi Bhawan should be assessed under the head Profits and gains of business and not under the head Income from house property and, consequently, the assessee would be entitled to deduction for the actual amount spent by it on repairs of the said building as also the depreciation while computing its income under the head Profits and gains of business . Accordingly, we answer the questions in both the references in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 60 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ase, we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that a few of the persons named above were holding powerful posts and, therefore, it was not possible for the assessee to take legal action against them as his business would have adversely been affected. We need not go into the merits of the case at this stage with regard to bad debts as it has to be decided objectively on the actual facts and not on hopes or fears or position of the creditors. A person having a high position or status in the society must pay any sum which is due and payable by him. It is also to be seen that while submitting the original returns, these debts were not considered as bad debts. The burden is on the assessee and whether it has been discharged by him has to be interpreted on the basis of law as it was in existence during the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the application is allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to refer the above question.
-
1994 (4) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Computation Of Capital, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... capital base in respect of relief with reference to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 could no longer to be entertained in view of the retrospective amendment did not extend to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 and that the assessee, therefore, was entitled to the benefit of the view of the Madras High Court in 110 ITR 256 (supra). It is now stated by Mr. J. Jayaraman, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, that the view of the court in the decision in Madras Industrial Linings Ltd. v. ITO 1977 110 ITR 256, which has been followed by the Tribunal, was not accepted by the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308. The Supreme Court has held that borrowed capital cannot be included as part of the capital base. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, accepts the above position. In the above circumstances, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 58 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A Firm, Agricultural Land, HUF Property, Individual Property, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... members on such partition would retain its character as individual property. There may be other assets of the Hindu undivided family which have not been partitioned, the income therefrom shall continue to be Hindu undivided family income in spite of this partial partition of the assets, namely, agricultural land, or income accrued therefrom and capital of the Hindu undivided family of the firm, Sohanlal and Sons. The assets which have once been given to an individual on partition retains its character as such. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the agricultural lands and accumulated income received at the time of partition of the Hindu undivided family were the individual properties of Shri Sohanlal Kukar and not of the Hindu undivided family consisting of Shri Sohanlal Kukar, his wife and minor daughters. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (4) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, HUF Business, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... was found that no work was done by them. Both the concerns were dealing in yarn. Ignorance of the partners with regard to shares, profit, capital, place of business, etc., are the factors on the basis of which the Tribunal has given a finding that no genuine firm is in existence and it is only a branch of Dalichand Tejraj (Hindu undivided family) and that finding is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference by this court. In these circumstances, it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that during the accounting period of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, there was no genuine firm in existence entitled to registration under section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm Parasmal and Company was the benami of Dalichand Tejraj. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... ng to the assessee directly or indirectly within the meaning of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that was not deductible from the cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation ? The above matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. 1991 191 ITR 494, wherein it was held that the amount of subsidy granted by the Government was not deductible from the cost of assets. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy granted to the assessee by the Central Government was not granted with the intention to meet out the cost of assets belonging to the assessee directly or indirectly within the meaning of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that it was not deductible from the cost of assets for the purposes of allowing depreciation. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Contingent Interest, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... till that event happens and the finding that it was contingent cannot be disturbed without there being any evidence on record. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had given a definite finding that the assessee had only a contingent interest. An opportunity was given to the Revenue by the Tribunal and despite specific opportunity the Revenue failed to rebut the same and, therefore, there was no option with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal except to come to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be disturbed. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had only a contingent interest in the trust and did not have a vested interest and, therefore, no income accrued and, consequently, in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,000 made by the Income-tax Officer. The reference is, accordingly, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1994 (4) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... he Additional Sessions Judge is legal and within his jurisdiction. The petitioner did not file any application before the trial court for superdari of this amount. He also did not file a revision petition when the application of the company was declined on March 2, 1993. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he was simply interested in opposing the application of the company for superdari of the amount of Rs. 40,58,412. The interest of the petitioner has been properly safeguarded by the learned Additional Sessions judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that in case the accused (petitioner) is found to be entitled to the payment of the amount, the company shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period of retention of the amount. Therefore, no injustice has been done to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Institution, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 166 (Mys), the courts have decided the matter in favour of the assessee while in the cases CIT v. Gopal Krishna Singhania 1980 121 ITR 260 (All) CIT v. Amonbolu Rajiah 1976 102 ITR 403 (AP) (sic) and CIT v. Sint. Dhirajben R. Amin 1983 141 ITR 875 (Guj), the other High Courts have taken the view in favour of the Revenue. The matter has now been settled by the decision of the apex court in the case of H. H. Sri Rama Verma v. CIT 1991 187 ITR 308, wherein it was held that as section 80G(2)(a) contemplates only cash amount of money as donation and it does not refer to any donation made in kind. In the light of the decision of the apex court in the case of H. H. Sri Rama Verma 1991 187 ITR 308, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled for deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act in respect of the donations made in kind. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (4) TMI 52 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Cash System, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee. All the assets of the assessee, barring those expressly exempted by the statute, are to be taken into account. It was further observed that it is apparent that what accrues as a right also falls to be included within the assets of an assessee under the Act. That being so, the conclusion is inescapable that even though the accounts of the assessee are maintained on the cash basis, interest due on accrual basis, though not realised, on the outstandings of the money-lending business is liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. In view of the above decision of the apex court, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that interest of Rs. 41,750 for each of the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80 and of Rs. 2,06,250 for the assessment year 1980-81 was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee for these years. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|
