Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 214 of 214 Records
-
1987 (5) TMI 14 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , it can claim the deduction under section 37 during the assessment year 1971-72 since the liability was of the year 1970-71. Reliance has been placed by Mr. B. K. Mohanty, on a, decision of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Nathmal Tolaram 1973 88 ITR 234. Mr. S. C. Roy, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the decisions of the Kerala High Court in L. J. Patel and Company v. CIT 1974 97 ITR 152 (Ker) and of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tata Chemicals Limited 1986 162 ITR 556. Each of the decisions is correct on its own facts. Accordingly, they are not required to be discussed. Thus, on analysis, it can safely be concluded that an assessee who maintains regularly the mercantile system of accounts can claim deduction in the year when the liability to the sales tax was finally determined by the Sales Tax Tribunal in second appeal. In the result, the question is answered in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. R. C. PATNAIK J.-I agree.
-
1987 (5) TMI 13 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... n the second question referred to us. It is patent that the proviso, clause (i), to section 187 was a bar to continuation of registration. This is a case of continuation of registration and not of grant of registration. In that view of the matter, the answer to the second question obviously has to be that the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in giving direction to the Income-tax Officer to consider the contention of the assessee and to pass a fresh order in regard to the granting of continuation of registration. For the reasons stated above, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The second question, however, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1987 (5) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... , 1958, it cannot be said that the income of the, assessee could be used for noncharitable purposes and that the income of the trust was not used wholly for charitable purposes. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that the income of the trust is not entitled to exemption under section II of the 1961 Act. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and the questions referred are answered as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that by the amended trust deed of 1958, tile assessee-trust has not acquired the status of a trust wholly for charitable and religious purposes in order to be entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee-trust is not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (5) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... liery completely to the lessee. The assessee thus was not running the business of the colliery. The royalty or minimum guarantee amount was not the income of the assessee from business. Since the income was not from business, the firm was not entitled to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee, M/s. Central Alkusa Colliery Company, was carrying on business through the managing contractor nor could it be held that the income of the assessee was income from business. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was entitled to registration for the year 1968. The question referred to us is thus answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Act.
-
1987 (5) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Lease ... ... ... ... ..... lier decisions of this court having been overruled, it follows that the income in the present case also must be held to be income from other sources and not income from business. Following the law laid down by the Full Bench, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of the assessee which was received from the managing contractors, M/s. Sinha Coal Syndicate, on the basis of the agreement dated June 8, 1969, was assessable under the head Business and not under Other sources . The question is thus answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since the assessee had valid grounds for agitating the matter relying upon the two Bench decisions of this court, we do not consider that this is a fit case for awarding costs against them. The references are thus answered. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Patna, under section 260 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1987 (5) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... his asset in a subsequent assessment year and be allowed to lead evidence justifying such revaluation. In the instant case, the assessee has insisted on a revaluation not on the basis of any fresh evidence but on the basis of a statutory rule which has become applicable in the said subsequent assessment years. For the above reasons, the assessee succeeds in this reference. We answer the questions referred as follows Question No. 1 is answered in the negative questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, all in favour of the assessee. The answers are returned accordingly. We, however, make it clear that we have not adjudicated as to to what extent the said rule I BB would be applicable in respect of the said premises and what would be the computation of value of the said premises if the said rule is applied. The same has to be determined by the authorities below. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (5) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Royalty ... ... ... ... ..... Indian company and not to be disclosed to any third parties. Therefore, it is clear that the non-resident assessee itself treated the method of manufacturing process carried on by it as its exclusive secret process over which it had exclusive domain and wanted the same to be kept a secret and not meant for the public and granted the company right to utilise the same only in the aforesaid restricted manner. This secret knowledge in this case is as much its capital asset as is a patent, a monopoly and a capital asset of the patentee as observed by Romer L.J. in the case of Handley Page 1935 19 TC 328. This secret process which the non-resident assessee-company is parting with in this case is analogous to the parting of a monopoly right of the patentee and, therefore, the remuneration received by the assessee for the same should be treated as royalty and for the reasons as aforesaid, the answer to the question referred should be in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1987 (5) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nnot be sustained. In the instant case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the accounts of the assessee are not reliable. The plea of the assessee was that the material relied on to hold that the accounts are not reliable is not sufficient. The assessee has no case that the findings of the Tribunal are not supported by any materials or the materials relied on are irrelevant or that the findings are irrational. In the absence of such plea and proof, the conclusion of the Tribunal, rejecting the accounts on the basis of facts found, which have not been assailed, is a pure question of fact and is not open to any challenge. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the accounts. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee and in favour of the Department. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1987 (5) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Leave To Appeal To Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... ed a judgment of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman All Khan v. CWT 1986 162 ITR 888 as also Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1987 167 ITR 897 (SC). It appears to us that inasmuch as one aspect of the question raised, namely, the allowability of loss arising out of devaluation in the case of the same assessee has already been referred to the Supreme Court, the question in the instant application may also be so referred. In our view, the question is one of substance and was not directly involved in the decision of the Madras High Court referred to hereinabove. In the assessment years involved in the said decision, section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not promulgated. For the reasons as aforesaid, this application is allowed. Let a certificate be issued as prayed for. There will also be an order in terms of prayer (b). Let the order for issue of the certificate be drawn up separately. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1987 (5) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Reference Proceedings, Trade Loss Due To Exchange Rate Fluctuation ... ... ... ... ..... ed that a certificate should also be issued on the following question Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation should be allowed in respect of the assets used by the assessee for scientific research (at the instance of the Revenue) ? It was stated that the question involved the construction of clause (iv) of the amended section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been given retrospective operation and the vires of which was under challenge before the Supreme Court in a proceeding under article 32 of the Constitution. In the present proceedings before us under the Income-tax Act, the question of vires of a section of the statute cannot be agitated. In that view, the said question of law cannot be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, reject the contentions of the applicant. Let the order for issue of the certificate be drawn up separately. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1987 (5) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... these circumstances, a direction could be given to the Tribunal to refer this question. Same is the position regarding question No. 2 in both the cases No submissions regarding the facts on which reference on question No. 2 is sought were also made before the Tribunal and they have not been dealt with by the Tribunal. As such, question No. 2 also does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Questions Nos. 3 to 6 in the two cases relate to the finding of the Tribunal that the Collector (Customs) was justified in coming to the conclusion that Dalip Singh, the petitioner, was the owner of the contraband goods and that he was the person concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing and dealing with them. This finding of the Tribunal has been arrived at on an appreciation of the material that was adduced before it and is a finding of fact. No question of law arises out of this finding of the Tribunal. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... lding that the sum of Rs. 10,01,000 received by the assessee in the assessment year 1977-78 and Rs. 20,00,000 received in the assessment year 1978-79 did not constitute income liable to tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee ought to be taxed at a rate applicable to an association of persons and not at the flat rate of 65 as held by the Income-tax Officer ? The applications are disposed of No costs.
-
1987 (5) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Estoppel, Res Judicata Not Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner, being of the opinion that these assessments were erroneous took proceedings under section 263 which were challenged by means of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court quashed those proceedings. It took the view that the assessment order could not be held to be erroneous when it followed the decision of the Tribunal being a decision of a superior authority. The said decision, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case which is clearly distinguishable. There was no dispute on the facts in the case before the Calcutta High Court and the question was decided by the Tribunal on admitted facts as an abstract question of law. The correct facts in the instant case are yet to be determined and the matter was remanded for this purpose only by the Commissioner (Appeals). For what has been stated above, we hold that it is not a fit case where we should interfere under article 226. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily.
-
1987 (5) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Non-resident, Residence ... ... ... ... ..... red, her successor-in-office is directed to assess the income of the petitioner in accordance with law on the basis of the return filed by him on July 29, 1983, for the assessment year 1983-84 after excluding Rs. 1,00,000 from the computation of income as the said sum is exempt from taxation. The petitioner has complained that the sum of Rs. 1,268 refundable to him for the assessment year 1982-83 (annexure M to the affidavit-in-reply) has been illegally withheld by respondent No. 1. The said amount should be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The estimated income from vacant house property whose annual value is Rs. 2,160 has been computed at Rs. 12,000. This seems to be unreasonably high. The Assessing Officer will compute the same on the basis of previous assessments. Respondent No. 1 or her successor-in-office shall complete the assessment and inform the petitioner about the assessment order within 3 weeks from the date of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|