|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 228 Records
-
1994 (8) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Sales Tax, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... f purchase tax the assessee has to establish all relevant facts which would attract the application of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is not the case of the Department that the assessee has automatically become entitled to exemption from payment of purchase tax by reason of the above decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the assessee s liability to pay purchase tax in the State of Kerala has not ceased. In order to attract the provisions of section 41(1)(a), the assessee should have obtained any amount or any benefit in respect of his trading liability, inter alia, by way of remission or cessation thereof. Such is not the case here. The Tribunal has rightly declined to frame a statement of the case and refer questions Nos. 1 to 3 to us. No useful purpose will be served by directing the Tribunal to refer the above questions Nos. 1 to 3 to us. In the premises, the petition is partly allowed as above.
-
1994 (8) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings
-
1994 (8) TMI 27 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Income Tax Act, Tax At Source, Transfer Of Case
-
1994 (8) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities, Question Of Law, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e was no reason why simply because the assessee requested the Department to invest the money in National Savings Certificates, the same should be deemed to have actually been invested. Though learned counsel for the assessee did riot concede that the claim is untenable, he could not advance any argument in support of the claim of the two assessees. We, therefore, do not find any force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, which we feel right, the provision of section 80C, for granting deduction, is admissible only in case same is paid in the previous year in specified investment. In view of the said finding, it is clear that the sums are not actually paid for purchasing National Savings Certificates and hence the finding recorded by the Tribunal refusing the claim of deduction has rightly been done. As such no question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... (sic). The argument on behalf of the Revenue is that since no order has been passed as yet by the appellate authority for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee s claim and dismissing the Departmental appeal. This argument of the Revenue is unsustainable in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal while rejecting the reference application of the petitioner and the said finding is quoted as under The facts contained above were neither brought to the notice of the Tribunal nor considered by it. A reference under section 256 can be made to the High Court on the facts admitted and/or found by the Tribunal. We accordingly decline to make a reference to the High Court on the basis of the facts not found by the Tribunal. In view of this finding, the present application has no merit. No question of law arises out of the Income-tax Tribunal s order and as such the application under section 256(2) is hereby rejected. Costs on parties.
-
1994 (8) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Computation Of Capital, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... under section 80J, it is necessary to find out whether any borrowed capital was applied by the assessee in the new industrial undertaking. For this purpose, we remit this issue to the Tribunal to find out this aspect and grant relief in accordance with section 80J of the Act. In such circumstances, we reframe the question suggested as question No. 3 in the following manner Whether the Tribunal was correct in not remitting this issue to the authorities below for the purpose of finding out what is the borrowed capital that was utilised for the new industrial undertaking in the assessment years under consideration in order to give relief under section 80J ? In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer this question also in the negative and in favour of the Department. Accordingly, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative and in favour of the Department, and question No. 3 is also answered in the negative and in favour of the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 one set.
-
1994 (8) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Attributable To, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Route Permits, Transport Operator
-
1994 (8) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, sufficiently indicate that sub-section (5) of this provision would not apply to the trust in question. In such a situation, no benefit of section 80G of the Act would be available to the assessee. This court would, therefore, find no illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal in the matter. The argument of learned counsel that though the trust deed mentions charitable and religious purposes but in actuality only a school has been run, has no relevance in view of the clear language of clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. It is not the actual user but the likelihood of its being used and the capacity of the trust to do so, which is important. In this view of the matter our answer to the question is in the affirmative and against the assessee and is to the effect that the assessee is not entitled to the relief under section 80G of the Act in respect of the donations made to the said trust. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 one set.
-
1994 (8) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Route Permits, Transport Business ... ... ... ... ..... of acquisition of the route permits and hence no capital gains could be brought to tax on the transfer of such route permits. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in Tax Case No. 1301 of 1981 in the affirmative and against the Department. In view of the legal position that the sale proceeds of the route permits could not be subjected to capital gains tax, the questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 do not arise and hence they need not be answered and accordingly they are rejected. In that view of the matter, the question referred to us at the instance of the Department for the assessment year 1972-73 is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. So far as the questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 in Tax Cases Nos. 1150 and 1151 of 1981 are concerned they are rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel s fee fixed at Rs. 1,000 (one set only).
-
1994 (8) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... on by the assessee s firms directly and whether the work got done through the skilled labourers is not the entire manufacturing or processing activity. Without these findings of fact, it is not possible to decide the question of applicability of the statutory provision, of which the assessee has claimed the benefit . We have carefully gone through the Division Bench judgment of this court in CWT v. Vimal Chand Daga (HUF) 1988 172 ITR 264 and we find ourselves in full agreement with the view that in the absence of the findings as indicated by the Division Bench of this court in the case of CWT v. Vimal Chand Daga (HUF) 1988 172 ITR 264, the Tribunal committed an error in granting exemption to the assessee under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. We, therefore, decline to answer the question and require the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the dictum laid down by this court in CWT v. Vimal Chand Daga (HUF) 1988 172 ITR 264. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (8) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Reference To Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... n relation to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76 only. In view of the discussion aforesaid, these petitions succeed and are allowed. The notices dated September 13, 1982, and September 14, 1982, in so far as they relate to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76 are hereby quashed. Those notices are also quashed in relation to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 inasmuch as the original assessment orders for those two years are pending consideration of the appellate authority and hence no such notice could be issued. The notices would, however, survive for the period thereafter. Similarly, Writ Petitions Nos. 4159 to 4165 of 1982 are also allowed. The assessment order for the year 1970-71 dated March 23, 1984, and the assessment orders dated March 24, 1984, for the years 1971-72 to 1976-77 are also quashed. The Assessing Officer would, however, be free to act according to the appellate order and make assessment in terms of the directions contained therein. No costs.
-
1994 (8) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company Director, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e heard the rival contentions. The fact remains that the enhancement of remuneration to one of the directors was made and such enhancement was not placed before the first general body meeting. But it was placed before the extraordinary general meeting which took place subsequently and approved. It remains to be seen that in the earlier decisions of this court on this point it was held that even if the amount was paid in violation of the provisions contained in the Companies Act as remuneration towards its directors, it is not for the Income-tax Officer to disallow the same, since it is a payment for the services rendered by the director. Therefore, it is an admissible deduction. In view of the foregoing reasons, we consider that the Tribunal was not correct in disallowing the enhancement of remuneration paid by the company to one of its directors. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (8) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy ... ... ... ... ..... the statute. When orders are challenged as having been passed without jurisdiction resort can be had to the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution. This broad proposition is of course subject to the condition that if the facts on the basis of which the jurisdiction of the authority taking action under the statute is questioned are disputed, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the exercise of the powers under article 226 of the Constitution. The parties should be relegated to the remedy available under the statute to raise disputed questions of fact on the merits as well as on the question of jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is relegated to the remedies available under the Act and to comply with the notices issued under section 147 of the Income-tax Act and raise all available grounds before the Income-tax Officer. Parties are directed to appear there on September 19, 1994.
-
1994 (8) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ntered into the facts of the case and set aside the judgment of the Tribunal holding that the firm was entitled to registration. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the apex court, the apex court reversed the order passed by the High Court and restored the order of the Tribunal. The dictum laid down by the apex court in Ratanchand Darbarilal s case 1985 155 ITR 720 was that the question whether a firm is genuine or not is a pure question of fact and not a question of law. We have carefully perused the judgment of the apex court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by either party and in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Ratanchand Darbarilal 1985 155 ITR 720 and we are of the opinion that the question proposed by the Revenue is a pure question of fact and not a question of law. For the reasons stated above, the application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) is rejected. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1994 (8) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gratuity Liability, Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... considered in the case of Ganga Devi 1987 166 ITR 325 (Raj) and it was found that a firm is not an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act and the property of the firm ceased to be the exclusive property of the partners during the subsistence of the partnership firm. Following the aforesaid judgment, which has taken into consideration the provisions of section 2(e), (m) and section 4(1)(b), rule 1A(m) and rule 2 of the Rules, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that a partner of the firm is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the property owned by the firm. Similarly, the provisions of section 7(4) cannot be invoked in respect of the house which is belonging to the firm and not to the assessee. The view taken by the Madras High Court, therefore, appears to be the correct view. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (8) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... t cover any payment made directly by the assessee-company to the widow as pension and that too for the whole of her lifetime extending beyond the period of fifteen years after the date of retirement of an employee. If this scheme is taken into consideration, it will be difficult to hold that the payment made to the late director s widow marked the beginning of the implementation of a scheme. In the absence of a similar provision in the scheme subsequently, it is reasonable to hold that the payment was made by the company as a mark of respect to the late director and to provide omnibus facilities to his widow during her lifetime. This scheme has nothing to do with the commercial consideration of the company and for that reason we would not find any difficulty in the Income-tax Officer disallowing the claim and the appellate authorities accepting the said decision as legal and valid. In the circumstances, we would answer the question against the assessee and in the affirmative.
-
1994 (8) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities, Question Of Law, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ition and recorded a finding. We are of the opinion that this is a statutory requirement which the Assessing Officer failed to comply with in the instant case. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was fully justified in remanding the matter with a direction to the assessing authority to decide the question of partial partition. The other question regarding 50 per cent. deduction out of the profit depends upon the finding as to partial partition. Since that finding is not recorded, we decline to answer the said question. The statutory consequences of the finding under section 171 would automatically follow even in the absence of any answer from this court in that regard. In the result, the sole question referred in R. A. No. 29 of 1976-77 and the fourth question referred in R. A. No. 1344 of 1975-76 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We decline to answer the other questions. The references are answered accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s not granted. Thus, for the assessment year 1976-77, relief was granted under section 35B on a sum of Rs. 52,352. So also for the assessment year 1977-78, relief was granted under section 35B on a sum of Rs. 2,52,672 (trade samples Rs. 4,915, export promotion Rs. 5,471, packing and forwarding Rs. 62,845 and in respect of samples Rs. 40,000) expenditure under electricity, printing and stationery, etc., Rs. 90,180 (half of 34.4 per cent. claim). Thus, in the absence of proper particulars, the Tribunal estimated the expenditure relating to the export trade and allowed 50 per cent. of the expenditure claimed for weighted deduction under section 35 of the Act. Thus, the relief granted under section 35B, on the estimated basis, appears to be quite correct and reasonable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us for the assessment years under consideration in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (8) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... iaries and there is no law to alter its status for other purposes. Therefore, the status fixed for the purpose of assessment cannot get altered for the purpose of section 194A of the Act, while distributing the income to its members. In other words, the status of the first respondent remains unchanged for the purpose of the Act and the first respondent, which has to be treated as an individual under section 161(1) of the Act, has to be treated as the same individual under section 194A of the Act also. As an individual is exempted under section 194A of the Act to carry out the direction, certainly, the Department cannot prosecute the first respondent and its trustees for its failure to deduct the tax at source. Hence, I concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II) for the acquittal of the respondents and the result of it will be the dismissal of these revisions. Accordingly, all these criminal revisions are dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Computation Of Capital, Foreign Company, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... company, it could not be treated as anything other than capital. The fact that it is described as goodwill in the balance-sheet is also important and indicates that the benefit thereof was made available to the assessee from the beginning of its business. It is not correct to say that mere goodwill has been purchased by the assessee in the instant case. The agreement details the use of not only the technical know-how, but also patent, design, etc., which would be a commodity like any other capital asset. For this reason, the argument that the amount paid will have to be treated as a revenue expenditure cannot be accepted. The Bombay High Court in a similar situation in CIT v. Indabrator Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 842 has also taken this very same view. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the view taken by the Tribunal must be accepted as the correct view of the matter. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000.
....
|
