|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 264 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 65
This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Two questions have been referred to the High Court. The first question is about the deductibility of estate duty under section 5 of the Act, and the second question concerns the inclusion of the value of the interest of male lineal descendants in joint family property for rate purposes. The High Court decided both questions against the assessee, in favor of the Department, based on previous decisions. The Department is entitled to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a petition filed u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act seeking reference of a question of law to the High Court regarding the effect of a Tribunal's order on a previous assessment.
Summary:
The case pertains to an assessment year where the Income-tax Officer made an assessment, which was appealed by the Department to the Tribunal and decided in their favor. Subsequently, the assessee raised a contention regarding the assessment being time-barred, which the Tribunal rectified u/s 254(2) in favor of the assessee. The Department's reference application u/s 256(1) was dismissed. A second miscellaneous application by the assessee led to the Tribunal's decision that all subsequent proceedings would be infructuous due to the time-barred assessment. The Department's application u/s 256(1) was also dismissed, leading to the current application u/s 256(2) seeking reference of the question of law.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that if an assessment is barred by time, any decision on merits would be of no consequence, rendering subsequent proceedings infructuous. The Court emphasized that the assessment being within the limitation is crucial for the validity of any decision. The Court concluded that there is no question of law arising in this order and dismissed the petition. Additionally, a reference to previous legal decisions was made but deemed unnecessary for the current judgment.
Therefore, the petition seeking reference of a question of law was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the impact of a time-barred assessment on subsequent proceedings.
-
1989 (7) TMI 63
The High Court of Delhi directed the Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the court regarding income tax assessment for the year 1969-70. The questions relate to concealment of income and annulment of assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1989 (7) TMI 62
The High Court of Allahabad heard a case involving the deletion of certain additions made by the Income-tax Officer. The court identified several questions of law related to the additions, including issues with personal expenses, allowance claims, development rebate, excess price on sale of sugar, and deduction for development rebate on new electric fittings. The court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to provide a statement of the case for the High Court's opinion on these questions.
-
1989 (7) TMI 61
Issues:
1. Assessment of accrued interest on "sticky advances" for the assessment year 1978-79.
2. Dispute regarding the quantum of interest brought to tax.
3. Taxability of a specific amount transferred from the suspense account to the profit and loss account.
4. Rejection of reference applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The High Court of Allahabad addressed two connected applications concerning the assessment year 1978-79, involving the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Interest-tax Act. The assessee, a bank, had maintained accounts on a mercantile basis previously. In the relevant year, the assessee did not calculate accrued interest on "sticky advances," leading the Income-tax Officer to estimate it at Rs. 15 lakhs and include it in the tax assessment.
In the first appeal, the assessee raised three contentions. Firstly, they argued against taxing the accrued interest on "sticky loans," citing doubts about recovering the principal amount. However, this contention was dismissed based on a Supreme Court decision. Secondly, the assessee disputed the quantum of interest taxed, leading to a remittance for fresh adjudication. Lastly, a specific amount previously taxed and transferred was contested, with the appellate authority directing the Assessing Officer to await a final decision from higher authorities before allowing a deduction.
Upon second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner's decision was upheld. The assessee sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Act, which was rejected, prompting the current applications. However, the High Court found no statable question of law warranting a reference to the Tribunal. The court noted that the issue of tax liability on "sticky advances" interest was settled by precedent and that proposed questions were academic. Additionally, questions on the quantum of interest and the disputed amount did not arise from the Tribunal's order.
Consequently, the court deemed both reference applications meritless and rejected them, along with imposing costs. The judgment emphasized the lack of substance in the applications and the absence of grounds for further adjudication on the issues raised by the assessee.
-
1989 (7) TMI 60
The High Court of Delhi directed the Tribunal to refer two questions of law regarding the payment of interest to a joint Hindu family and the exclusion of a loss from assessable income. The questions arose from pending cases and required clarification.
-
1989 (7) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 176(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Taxability of professional receipts received after discontinuance of profession.
3. Interpretation of legal fictions and their scope.
Summary:
1. Applicability of Section 176(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the assessee's professional receipts were assessable u/s 176(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The Tribunal held that the sums received by the assessee as arrears of professional fees were not taxable under section 176(4) of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that section 176(4) creates a fiction by which sums received after the discontinuance of the profession are deemed to be income, but it does not further deem such income to be from the profession. This interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S. A. L. Narayan Row, CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428.
2. Taxability of Professional Receipts Received After Discontinuance of Profession:
The assessee, who had retired as a judge, received arrears of professional fees for services rendered before his elevation to the Bench. The Income-tax Officer charged these sums to tax u/s 176(4), but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, stating that section 176(4) did not apply. The Supreme Court's decision in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody was cited, which held that professional receipts received after discontinuance of the profession were not chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources."
3. Interpretation of Legal Fictions and Their Scope:
The court emphasized that the fiction created by section 176(4) is limited and cannot be extended to deem such receipts as income from the profession carried on during the relevant year. The court referred to the Supreme Court's caution against stretching legal fictions beyond their intended purpose, as seen in CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 741 and CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 59. The court concluded that section 176(4) does not introduce a further fiction to treat the receipts as income from the profession for the relevant year, and thus, such receipts cannot be taxed under section 28 or section 56 of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court answered the reference in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, holding that the professional receipts received after discontinuance of the profession were not taxable under section 176(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was no order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 58
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest prior to production commencement
2. Usage of machinery in premises of another company
3. Insurance charges on machinery
4. Development rebate eligibility
5. Disallowance of income on security deposit
6. Addition of closing stock based on estimation
7. Disallowance of foreign tour expenses
8. Disallowance of presentation expenses
9. Deletion of legal charges addition
10. Claim of relief under section 80J
11. Computation of depreciation for scientific research assets
12. Depreciation rate for SSF and tyre cord units
13. Deduction in first-grade production
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the Tribunal to refer various questions of law, including the disallowance of interest prior to production commencement. The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question for consideration.
2. The issue of machinery usage in another company's premises was considered, and the High Court found that the questions related to this issue did not arise as questions of law. Therefore, these questions were not directed to be referred.
3. Regarding insurance charges on machinery, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of whether the assessee was entitled to full insurance charges despite a previous confirmation of disallowance to the extent of 50% in a prior assessment year.
4. The eligibility for development rebate on units not falling under priority industries was disputed. The High Court found that this question did not warrant a reference as it did not raise any legal issue.
5. The disallowance of income on security deposit was challenged, and the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question for consideration.
6. An addition to closing stock based on estimation was contested. The High Court deemed this a question of fact and not a legal issue, as it involved an estimate ordered to be deleted by the Tribunal.
7. Disallowance of foreign tour expenses was examined, and the High Court concluded that this was a question of fact, especially when the expenses had been allowed for executives and directors.
8. The disallowance of presentation expenses was disputed, and the High Court found that this disallowance, related to foreign business associates, did not raise a legal question upon deletion by the appellate authority.
9. The deletion of legal charges addition was challenged, and the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question for consideration.
10. The claim of relief under section 80J was examined, and the High Court found that the issue was self-explanatory, not warranting a reference.
11. The computation of depreciation for scientific research assets was disputed, and the High Court found that the Tribunal's direction to follow the Supreme Court's judgment did not raise a legal question.
12. The depreciation rate for specific units was contested, and the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question for consideration.
13. The deduction in first-grade production was challenged, and the High Court found that this question did not warrant a reference, following a similar decision by the Allahabad High Court for a prior assessment year.
The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer specific questions for consideration, disposing of the petition without costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 57
Issues:
1. Development rebate on machinery for manufacturing Nylon-6 yarn.
2. Depreciation on machinery installed at specific premises.
3. Computation of deficiency under section 80J(3) for certain assessment years.
4. Levying of interest under section 216 by the Income-tax Officer.
5. Treatment of security deposit for cops received by the assessee-company.
6. Addition made by the Income-tax Officer on account of excessive waste of yarn.
Analysis:
1. The court found that the question of allowing development rebate at a higher rate on machinery for Nylon-6 yarn production had been settled by previous Supreme Court decisions. Hence, no reference was necessary for this question.
2. The court noted that a similar question regarding depreciation was considered a question of fact by the Allahabad High Court previously. Consequently, no reference was required for this issue as well.
3. Since assessment proceedings for certain years were stayed by the Supreme Court, the court held that the computation of deficiency under section 80J(3) would only occur after those assessments were completed. Therefore, no direction was issued for this question.
4. The court addressed the issue of levying interest under section 216 by the Income-tax Officer. It was determined that the question of whether the underestimation was deliberate should be referred as it involved the interpretation of section 216.
5. Regarding the treatment of security deposits for cops received by the assessee-company, the court found that the question raised was indeed a question of law, contrary to the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, a reference was necessary for this issue.
6. The court concluded that the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on account of excessive waste of yarn was a factual finding by the Tribunal, not involving any legal principle. Hence, no reference was required for this question.
In the final decision, the court partly allowed the petition and directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two specific questions related to the levied interest under section 216 and the treatment of security deposits for cops. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 56
Issues Involved:
1. Prematurity of the complaint.
2. Application of mind by the Commissioner for prosecution.
3. Alleged fabrication of the agreement of sale.
4. Applicability of Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act.
5. Compliance with Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Prematurity of the Complaint:
The court examined whether the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer was premature. The search was conducted on September 26, 1986, and the order under section 132(5) was passed on January 22, 1987. The complaint was filed on March 31, 1987. The respondents had until July 31, 1987, to file their return for the assessment year 1987-88. The court noted that the respondents had ample time to file the return and that the Commissioner of Income-tax had directed that the issues, including the genuineness of the agreement, be decided during the regular assessment proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution was premature.
2. Application of Mind by the Commissioner for Prosecution:
The court scrutinized whether the Commissioner applied his mind while directing the prosecution under section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner's order stated that the assessment records for the year 1987-88 were perused, but no return had been filed for that year. The court held that the Commissioner did not apply his mind properly, as there was no assessment record for the year 1987-88. Thus, the court found non-compliance with section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Alleged Fabrication of the Agreement of Sale:
The Income-tax Officer alleged that the xerox copy of the agreement of sale was fabricated, showing a correction of the date from September 29, 1986, to September 25, 1986. The court noted that the original document was not produced and that the Commissioner had directed that all objections be raised during the regular assessment. Therefore, the court concluded that there could be no proceedings against the respondents based on the alleged fabrication of the document.
4. Applicability of Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The court examined whether the respondents committed an offence under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, which penalizes willful attempts to evade tax, penalty, or interest. The court held that since the respondents had time to file their return and the regular assessment proceedings were yet to be completed, it could not be concluded that there was an attempt to evade tax. The court emphasized that the wilful attempt to evade tax must be established through an assessment of the return filed.
5. Compliance with Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The court analyzed whether the prosecution was initiated "at the instance" of the Commissioner, as required by section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court interpreted the term "at the instance" to mean "on the authority" of the Commissioner, which necessitates an application of mind. The court found that the Commissioner's order was based on non-existent assessment records, indicating a lack of proper application of mind. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no compliance with section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the criminal revision case, upholding the lower court's decision to discharge the respondents under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the complaint was premature, the Commissioner did not apply his mind properly, and there was no final decision on the alleged fabrication of the agreement. Additionally, the court held that the respondents did not commit an offence under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, as the regular assessment proceedings were yet to be completed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 55
The High Court of Kerala declined to answer a question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the application of section 68 of the Income-tax Act to cash credits found in the books of a firm where the assessee was a partner. The court held that the question did not arise out of the Tribunal's order as it was not raised or considered by the Tribunal. The judgment was delivered by Judge K.S. PARIPOORNAN.
-
1989 (7) TMI 54
Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act for recovery of dues from a company, Validity of the notice issued, Liability of the National Textile Corporation Limited for income-tax dues of another company, Application of the Acquisition Act in suspending liabilities, Principles of natural justice in tax recovery process.
Analysis:
The petition challenged a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act demanding payment from the National Textile Corporation Limited for income-tax dues of Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Limited. The petitioner argued that the amount in question had been adjusted against outstandings and that the National Textile Corporation Limited did not possess any funds from Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Limited. Additionally, it was contended that the tax dues could be recovered from the Central Government under the Acquisition Act. The High Court noted that the demand could not be recovered from the petitioner as the liability of Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Limited was suspended under the Acquisition Act. The Court highlighted that the Income-tax Officer failed to consider whether the commission payable had already been settled and whether any funds were available for payment to the Income-tax Department.
The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax could not enforce the dues against the National Textile Corporation Limited as the liability of Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Limited was suspended by the Central Government's notification. The Court emphasized that the proper course of action was to pursue recovery from Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited under specific statutory provisions. It was also noted that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to address the issue, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act.
In conclusion, the judgment delved into the intricacies of tax recovery, liability transfer under the Acquisition Act, and the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in such proceedings. It clarified that the petitioner could not be held accountable for the income-tax dues of another entity whose liabilities were suspended under the law. The decision underscored the necessity of a fair and thorough assessment before demanding payments from third parties and upheld the petitioner's challenge against the notice.
-
1989 (7) TMI 53
Haji Ismail and Company filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for imposing penalty. The petitioner filed the return late, but without any notice. The Commissioner wrongly refused to waive the penalty without considering relevant circumstances. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter.
-
1989 (7) TMI 52
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee is a charity entitled to exemption under the Income-tax Act?
2. Whether the benefit of the trust enures to the public at large and not to any particular religious community?
Analysis:
- The respondent, a trust, claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the exemption, stating that the trust's object of constructing Shadi Mahal involved profit-making and was for a specific religious community. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, emphasizing the unbridled powers of the trustees and the specific nature of the trust's activities.
- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, found that the trust's benefits extended to the public at large, not just a particular religious community. It noted that the trust aimed to establish various charitable institutions beyond Shadi Mahal, aligning with charitable principles under Muslim law applicable to all communities. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the respondent trust the benefit under section 11 of the Act.
- The High Court observed discrepancies in the Tribunal's understanding of the trust deed, particularly regarding the preamble, clarificatory resolution, and trustees' powers. It highlighted the need to interpret the entire document holistically, considering the preamble's legal effect and the interplay of different clauses.
- The Court criticized the Tribunal for overlooking crucial aspects of trust interpretation and failing to ask the correct questions during its decision-making process. Consequently, the Court declined to answer the questions referred and instructed the Tribunal to rehear the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a proper interpretation of the trust deed and adherence to legal principles.
- In conclusion, the Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter in light of the Court's observations, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of the trust deed and a lawful decision-making process.
-
1989 (7) TMI 51
Issues:
- Taxability of amount received by sale of tender forms as per Income-tax Act, 1961
- Determination of whether the amount is agricultural income or taxable under the Central Act
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of whether the amount received by the sale of tender forms is taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a State Government undertaking engaged in sugarcane cultivation, argued that the income from sale of tender forms is closely connected with agricultural operations and should be considered agricultural income not taxable under the Central Act. However, the Income-tax Officer contended that the income from sale of tender forms was not linked to agricultural activities and therefore should be taxable.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the receipts arose from a substantial agricultural activity and thus could not be taxed under the Central Act. On appeal, the Tribunal disagreed, holding that the income from sale of tender forms did not qualify as agricultural income and was therefore taxable under the Central Act. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the assessee through petitions for reference of questions of law, which were initially dismissed but later referred to the High Court.
The High Court considered the arguments presented and referred to the definition of "income" under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that income includes any monetary return coming in, even if linked to a profession or occupation. The court also highlighted the definition of "agricultural income," which requires the income to be derived from land used for agricultural purposes. Citing precedent cases, the court clarified that receipts from the sale of tender forms did not qualify as agricultural income as they were not directly related to agriculture.
Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the amount received by the sale of tender forms was not agricultural income but income taxable under the Income-tax Act. The judgment affirmed that the sale of tender forms was not sufficiently connected to agricultural operations to be considered part of agricultural income. The court's decision was communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for further action.
-
1989 (7) TMI 50
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition filed by Barnwal Abhushan Kendra, a registered firm, challenging the rejection of their application for waiver of penalty and interest for late filing of income tax return for the assessment year 1980-81. The court found that the Commissioner of Income-tax erred in not considering the power under section 273A of the Income-tax Act to reduce or waive the penalty. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter.
-
1989 (7) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of annual letting value of the ground floor in the income of the assessee u/s 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of reopening the assessment.
Summary:
1. Inclusion of Annual Letting Value u/s 22:
The core issue was whether the annual letting value of the ground floor of a building owned by the assessee and occupied by a firm in which the assessee was a partner should be included in the assessee's income u/s 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the annual letting value was not includible in the assessee's income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the assessee, as the managing partner, was carrying on business in the premises, and the business profits were chargeable to income-tax. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Rasiklal Balabhai [1979] 119 ITR 303, which stated that when a partnership carries on a business, each partner thereof carries on that business, and thus, the partner is deemed to be in occupation of the premises.
2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The reopening of the assessment was challenged on the grounds that the annual value of the ground floor was not chargeable to tax as it was exempt u/s 22. The Tribunal confirmed that the reopening was not sustainable since the conditions for exemption under section 22 were satisfied. The assessee was in occupation of the property for the purpose of his business, and the business profits were chargeable to tax. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the reasoning that the occupation by the firm could be treated as occupation by the partner, aligning with the Gujarat High Court's interpretation.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the annual letting value of the ground floor occupied by the firm in which the assessee was a partner is not includible in the assessee's income u/s 22. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable. The judgment favored the assessee and was against the Revenue.
-
1989 (7) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for revising assessment orders.
2. Interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Validity of the notice issued under section 263 of the Act.
4. Compliance with court directions in assessment proceedings.
Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed the jurisdictional issue under section 263 of the Income-tax Act in a case involving a writ petition by a jute factory. The petitioner sought the cancellation of a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on the grounds that the assessment order for the relevant year had been set aside previously by the court. The petitioner argued that the subsequent assessment made by the Income-tax Officer should be considered the "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Act. The court examined the legality of the notice issued under section 263 and the contention that the assessment orders were in compliance with legal principles established in previous cases such as Chloride India Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 38. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the impugned notice did not suffer from any infirmity and did not infringe upon the petitioner's rights. The court found no merit in the writ petition and discharged the rule, vacating all interim orders.
The court delved into the interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Act, analyzing the assessment history in the case. It noted that the original assessment had been set aside, leading to subsequent assessments and rectifications by the Income-tax Officer. The court examined whether interest under section 214 should be allowed based on the subsequent assessment and whether the Income-tax Officer's orders were erroneous in law. The court referred to the decision in Chloride India Ltd. case to understand the concept of "regular assessment" and emphasized that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer initially or following the court's direction should be considered as such. The court concluded that the impugned notice was issued within the jurisdiction and did not warrant intervention from the writ court unless there was a lack of jurisdiction or procedural error.
The judgment highlighted the compliance with court directions in the assessment proceedings, noting that the Income-tax Officer had rectified the assessment orders to allow interest under section 214 of the Act. The court examined the contentions raised by both parties regarding the legality of the assessment process and the notice issued under section 263. It emphasized that the petitioner would have the opportunity to present relevant facts during adjudication by the proper authority. The court found no grounds to quash the proceedings and ruled against the petitioner, discharging the rule and ordering a stay of operation for a fortnight without costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 47
Issues:
Allocation of unabsorbed depreciation in a registered firm among partners.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala pertains to the allocation of unabsorbed depreciation in a registered firm among partners. The case involved a partnership firm that had undergone a name change and was registered for the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer initially allocated the unabsorbed depreciation among the partners of the firm. However, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the firm for adjustment against future profits. Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm should not be allocated among partners but carried forward for adjustment against future profits of the firm.
Upon hearing arguments from both the Revenue and the assessee, the High Court observed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had erred in their approach by considering the wrong question regarding the allocation of unabsorbed depreciation. The Court clarified that in the case of a registered firm, the net loss, including depreciation allowance, is to be allocated among the partners as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, allowing them to set off the loss in their individual assessments and carry forward any unabsorbed loss.
The Court emphasized that the issue at hand was whether the unabsorbed depreciation of the current year in a registered firm should be allocated among the partners or not. The Court cited conflicting decisions from various High Courts on the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation, some holding that it should be carried forward and set off against subsequent profits, while others favored allocating it among partners without carry forward. However, the Court clarified that the specific question in this case was limited to the allocation of unabsorbed depreciation for the current year among partners.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm for the current year should be allocated among the partners and upheld the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. The Court answered the question referred to them in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment would be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.
-
1989 (7) TMI 46
The High Court dismissed the Commissioner's request for reference of two questions of law to the court. The first question pertained to cash credits assessed as income from undisclosed sources, which the Tribunal found to be advances received for supplies made. The second question related to an addition of income from undisclosed sources due to an alleged undervaluation of hypothecated stocks, which the Tribunal concluded lacked evidence to support the Income-tax Officer's decision. The court deemed both questions to be questions of fact and dismissed the petition with no costs.
....
|
9911796707
