|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 272 Records
-
1993 (7) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ttach the F. D. R. of Karnail Singh and recovered an amount of Rs. 57,527. This course was not at all permissible as it is an admitted position that, under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, while raising a demand for recovery, the concerned assessee has to be issued a notice and it is only after hearing him that an appropriate order can be passed. Nothing of the kind was done in this case. In the circumstances of the case, there is thus no option but to allow this petition and direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 57,527, which was illegally recovered by attaching the F. D. R. of Karnail Singh. Since no justification has been pleaded by the respondents for the impugned action, they are directed to refund the amount with 15 per cent. interest. Let the refund be given to Karnail Singh or his attorney, Mohan Singh, through whom the present petition has been filed, within a period of one month. This petition is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1993 (7) TMI 71 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e Act, Parliament treated some of the minerals and ores under a single category of "minerals". This is a strong indication of Parliament's intention as to the manner in which it would normally describe the particular subject-matter in case it is to be confined to some of the goods only, In the absence of any such specification of the several kinds of minerals, we do not think it proper for us to limit the scope of the term, only because the said term is found along with the term "ores". The terms "minerals" and "ores" usually travel together in several of the legislations and therefore it cannot be straightaway held that one of them restricts the scope of the other. For the reasons stated above, we are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with the contentions of the assessees. Consequently, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, against the assessees and in favour of the Revenue. References are answered accordingly.
-
1993 (7) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Question Of Law, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... d to allowability of the deduction when this question did not merit any discussion as it already stood concluded in the first order of the Tribunal passed on April 10, 1984. Having missed the opportunity of seeking reference of this question which was decided in the first order of April 10, 1984, and which was not really decided in the second order of April 30, 1990, and the Tribunal merely directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to implement the Tribunal s earlier order of April 10, 1984, in our opinion, no question of law arises. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of April 10, 1984, is a nullity because it directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to follow the Bombay High Court and not the Delhi High Court. In our opinion the order of the Tribunal in this regard may be wrong but it is not correct to contend that the order is a nullity. The concept of nullity does not in this regard apply. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tribunal, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... d to apply before the appellate authority to grant a stay until disposal of the reference by the High Court or until such time as the appellate authority thought fit. In view of this, it cannot be argued that the remedy available to the petitioner is not an equally efficacious remedy. Further, even if an application for interim relief is rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, the aggrieved assessee still has the remedy in an appropriate case to approach the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuing a proper writ, if the order passed by the Tribunal, refusing to grant stay has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. In view of what has been stated above, we decline to interfere with the impugned order dated August 21, 1992, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under law. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
-
1993 (7) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evant and the Competent Authority is enjoined by law to adopt only that method which is most efficacious to determine the fair market value of the property sold. The mode of fixation of the value is just providing a machinery or procedure for the purpose. Since the amendment made in the rules specifically provides in rule 1(2) as already referred to above that rule 1BB was to come into force on April 1, 1979, the Tribunal was in error in Corning to the conclusion that to the pending cases the aforesaid rule could be made applicable being procedural law. In view of rule 1(2), rule 1BB, even though procedural law, cannot be made applicable retrospectively to cases pending with respect to the assessment orders prior to April 1, 1979. Rule 1BB would apply to the assessments for the period April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1989, during which period the said rule remained in force. For the reasons recorded above, all the four questions referred to this court are answered in the negative.
-
1993 (7) TMI 67 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Assessment, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... rs of controversy. It is open to the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that the matter in controversy was not considered properly or lawfully by the Income-tax Officer or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and direct such consideration. Question No. 7 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 1 and 9 are general questions which arise on the basis of answers to the other questions and have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, Questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 4 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. There will be no direction as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 66 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... The judgment is dated March 2, 1987.. It is agreed before us that the decision reported in CIT v. Fertilisers and Chemicals (Travancore) Ltd. 1987 166 ITR 823 (Ker) and the unreported decision in Income-tax Reference No. 92 of 1982 between the same parties will govern the issue in this case as well. Following the earlier Bench decisions of this court, we decline to answer the questions referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its statement of the case dated October 20, 1989. But, at the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to file and decide the matter afresh for the assessment year 1970-71, bearing in mind the earlier decision on the subject in CIT v. Fertilisers and Chemicals (Travancore) Ltd. 1987 166 ITR 823 (Ker). The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (7) TMI 65 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... charge is the income of the previous year and each previous year is a distinct unit for the purposes of assessment. The previous account of the liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing the profits of that year. In the present case, the Tribunal was concerned only with the profits and gains for the assessment year 1974-75 and not profits and gains and liabilities, if any, after March 31, 1974. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in its observation that the question of disallowance to be made in later years in respect of the benefit derivable by way of interest by the owners on the deposit of Rs. 50,000 was left open. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 3. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the court shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (7) TMI 64 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... sed to be deposited in banks on short-term deposits and earned interest thereon. On this fact, the question which had fallen for consideration before this court was as to whether the interest so received was liable to be assessed as income of the assessee or such interest should reduce the cost of construction of the assessee and, therefore, would not constitute income. This is question No. 4 at page 547 of the said report. This court, after considering various authorities on the issue, answered the question against the assessee by holding that the interest so received constitutes the income of the assessee. In the above view of the matter, both the questions referred to us are answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Department. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, for passing appropriate orders in terms of section 260 of the Act. AFTAB ALAM J.-I agree.
-
1993 (7) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... nd whether in fact it has resulted in profit or loss to the assessee. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the entire amount of loan which had been advanced to the other company for the purchase of machinery had been repaid by that company to the assessee by way of adjustment against the price of iron ore supplied to it which was its stock-in-trade. That being so, it cannot be disputed that whatever might have been the original object of the loan, at the time of devaluation, the amount of loan was utilised by the assessee as circulating capital. That being so, the loss which occurred due to devaluation of the Indian rupee was clearly a revenue loss and was allowable as a deduction in computation of the income of the assessee for the assessment year concerned. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to furnish a supplementary statement of case, incorporating the order of assessment made on the assessee, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 740/(Coch.) of 1977-78, dated March 31, 1980, and the letter of the Income-tax Officer dated March 31, 1976, sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal will also forward to this court its finding as to whether there was any other letter or order of reference on the question of penalty to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and if so forward copies of the said reference also to this court along with the supplementary statement. The Tribunal shall forward the supplementary statement of the case as mentioned above so as to reach this court on or before August 7, 1993. Post for orders on August 9, 1993. Communicate a copy of this order forthwith to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1993 (7) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... t view of the matter, we do not find any force in the submission of counsel for the assessee that the approach channel should be treated not as road but as Plant . In our opinion, the distinction sought to be made between the Supreme Court case and the present case is not well-founded. Accordingly, we hold that the approach channel constructed by dredging the sea is on par with the toads and culverts constructed in the factory premises and the depreciation allowable at the rates applicable to the factory will be allowable thereon. It cannot be held to be plant as contended by the assessee. In that view of the matter, question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The other three questions have already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by us earlier. This reference is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Income ... ... ... ... ..... r. The conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal is solely based on appreciation of facts and the finding entered by the Appellate Tribunal is a pure finding of fact based on material. We are of the view that no question of law arose out of the appellate order. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 1,92,232 received by the assessee during the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1983-84, in view of the finding that this amount had already been accounted for in the bills for the earlier years. There is nothing to show that the bill amount had not been fully reflected in the assessee s accounts for the earlier years. The question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative-against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (7) TMI 59 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... on of the chargeable profits. Since the question referred does not reflect the real issue between the parties, we reframe the question as follows Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of surcharge on income-tax payable by the assessee-company, which had made deposit under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income tax) Scheme, 1976, was not liable to be deducted in the computation of the chargeable profits of the assessee-company during the year in question? We hold that the said amount was not deductible in the computation of the chargeable profits of the assessee for the year in question, namely, 1977-78. We answer the question, as reframed by us, in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue, though on different grounds. No costs. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court to the Assistant Registrar of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (7) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... refore, answer question No. 2 in the negative and hold that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim solely by referring to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We answer question No. 1 in the negative and hold that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in allowing weighted deduction in respect of interest on packing credit. Before doing so, the Tribunal should enter a specific finding on an evaluation of the evidence that, the expenditure was incurred in connection with the execution of a contract for the supply of goods outside India. We answer question No. 1 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The references are answered as above. The Appellate Tribunal shall restore the appeal to file and consider the appeal on the merits and pass fresh orders. A copy of this judgment, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1993 (7) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... on 164 of the Act. Without going into the question whether such trust can be said to be a discretionary trust or not, it can be said that the said trust, at the relevant time, was governed by the provisions of section 164 of the Act. As stated earlier, the purpose of the trust cannot be said to be charitable or religious. Therefore, subsection (2) of section 164 did not have any application. For that very reason, it will have to be stated that even sub-section (3) of section 164 was not applicable. The case of the assessee-trust, therefore, clearly fell within subsection (1) of section 164. Its income at the relevant time was chargeable at the rate of 65 per cent. For the reasons stated above, we answer questions Nos. 1 to 4 in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 5 by stating that the assessee-trust did fall within the purview of section 164 of the Act. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 56 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Direct Fire Glass Melting Furnace ... ... ... ... ..... an be allowed provided it is otherwise admissible. Though not directly on the point, the decision of this court in CIT v. Bhavnagar Salt and Industries Works P. Ltd. 1987 163 ITR 265 also supports our view. In that case, it is held that even in respect of old salt pans, depreciation at 100 per cent. was admissible. From this decision, it becomes clear that irrespective of the fact whether an asset is old or, new if the other conditions are satisfied, depreciation would be admissible. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. on the written down value of the furnaces which were acquired and that the written down value of the furnaces was to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost of these furnaces less depreciation. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cifically provided that such penalty may be imposed in a proceeding in connection with regular assessment for the assessment year commencing from April 1, 1970, provided the Income-tax Officer had the requisite satisfaction. In view of this clear language of section 273, it is difficult to appreciate how the general principle that penalty cannot be imposed for a default committed when no provision for penalty for such default was in existence could be applied in this case. As the Tribunal decided the question without reference to the language of section 273, it must be stated that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that no penalty could have been imposed under section 273(c) for the default committed by the assessee in not complying with the provisions of section 212(3A). We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... nt Commissioner also found that the provisions of section 36(1)(v) were not complied with by the assessee and the conditions laid down by section 40A(7)(b)(ii) were also not fulfilled and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Taking this view, he dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal also agreed with the findings recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that the claim of the assessee was rightly disallowed. The appeals filed by the assessee were, therefore, dismissed. In our opinion, in view of the facts found by the Tribunal and the authorities below and the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills case 1985 156 ITR 585, it will have to be held that the claim of the assessee was rightly disallowed. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... accepted) penalty had been imposed and that penalty had been confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated September 27, 1978, in Income-tax Appeal No. 20/(Ahd) of 1977-78. The Tribunal, in this context, relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. R. Ochhavlal and Co. 1976 105 ITR 518 (Guj). In the context of these facts, it appears to us that the question referred to us is not really a question of law, but is merely a question whether the material on record, or rather the inference and conclusions drawn by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of no material on record , has been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is entirely correct, and, therefore, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
