|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 267 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Partner, Additional Tax, Business Premises, Let Out, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee is a partner ? The questions are common for both the cases as the assessee is the same. However, the assessment years are different. The assessee is a co-owner of the property in question, which is used for business purposes in partnership with two other co-owners. The question that was raised before the Tribunal was whether the use of the business premises in partnership would amount to the use by the assessee. The Tribunal answered the said question in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by it, the Revenue has come up to this court seeking answers to the above two questions. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the principles laid down by this court in the case of CIT v. K. M. Jagannathan 1989 180 ITR 191, interpreting the scope of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, will apply to the facts of these cases. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision stated supra, we answer the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Donation For Charitable Purposes, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction
-
1994 (1) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... interfered with, Further, it has also been held by the Supreme Court that it is not for this court to interfere with a best judgment assessment unless it is so perverse or unreasonable. The petitioner has also been given an-opportunity to put forth his contention before the authorities. But, unfortunately, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. That apart, the petitioner has not even produced any material before the revisional authority to substantiate his contention that the best judgment assessment is erroneous in law. In the absence of any assistance from the petitioner/assessee, the first respondent himself has inspected the estate personally and then only arrived at the net income of the petitioner/ assessee and levied the tax for the assessment year 1987-88. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the second respondent, confirming the order of the first respondent. This writ petition fails and it shall, therefore, stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Companies Profits Surtax, Company Surtax, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... re not required to be carried out towards such liabilities. Learned counsel for the assessee tried to contend that there is already a finding arrived at that there was an excess provision for other expenses. He submitted that even in the question referred there is reference to admitted excess provision for other expenses. We do not accept this submission for the simple reason that all the authorities below, have clearly found that the original provision was made against specific liability for expenses, which continued to be shown even in the year under consideration and this factual finding has not been disputed at any level. We, therefore, hold that in the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 14,24,627 was correctly treated as provision and not reserve . Question No. 2 is therefore answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Income Tax Act, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... r the business for a long time and found that the amount of Rs. 2,000 was adequate consideration for the transfer. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the deed of settlement executed on August 30, 1963, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 64(iii) could not be invoked in the assessee s case for bringing to tax the income from Model Lodge transferred to the assessee s wife ? This question challenges only the finding of fact that there was adequate consideration for the transfer of the business and, therefore, no addition can be made under section 64(iii) of the Act. The Revenue was not able to persuade us to interfere with this finding of fact as the Tribunal had taken into account all relevant facts in giving its finding. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue, with costs of Rs. 500.
-
1994 (1) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Enduring Advantage ... ... ... ... ..... ly granted by the Income-tax Officer was later withdrawn on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the structure. Even though it is mentioned in the orders of the appellate authorities that a new room was put up, we find no evidence to indicate the nature of such structure. From what is stated by the Income-tax Officer in the order of assessment, it appears that the assessee has only carried out some improvements for better enjoyment of the leasehold property. Since the benefit derived by the assessee was co-terminous with the lease, it is obvious that there could not be any enduring benefit for the structure, whatever be the nature of the same, whether old or new. In the circumstances, we have to affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred was not capital in nature and the assessee was entitled to deduction of the amount as revenue expenditure. The question referred, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Bona Fide, Delay In Filing Estimate, Delay In Filing Return, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ner. But the Appellate Tribunal also found that this explanation was supported by the fact that the assessment itself was made only by adding the income found in the books of the assessee s brother-in-law, and, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee s belief that since his brother-in-law was actually carrying on the business, he was under no legal obligation to file the return or the estimate, constituted reasonable cause, inasmuch as the assessee had an honest belief that he had no income which was liable to be returned. Even if this belief was erroneous, it constitutes reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return and failure to file the required estimate. The finding of the Tribunal that the default was not without reasonable cause is, therefore, a correct finding on the facts on record, and has to be upheld. The questions referred are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... cash flow statement prepared on the basis of a diary which itself was not produced for verification, and even in respect of the entries in the diary, there was no proof of actual expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal has taken pains to demonstrate that even the available funds such as income-tax refunds had not been properly taken into account for the preparation of the cash flow statement, with the result that a proper recasting of the account may even indicate excess of funds instead of deficit as indicated by the cash flow statement prepared by the Department. Thus, on both the issues, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no proof of actual expenditure which was required to be explained by the assessee was based on valid materials and has to be upheld. Consequently, the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was also correct. It follows that our answers to all the three questions are in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, In The Nature Of Entertainment Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Mutual Concern
-
1994 (1) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Finding Of Fact, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law
-
1994 (1) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution, Reference Pending, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax
-
1994 (1) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ments of the assessments of the subsequent years, then, such amendments would be practically impossible in any case. Even in the present case, it is stated that an appeal to the Supreme Court is pending against the decision of the High Court. On the same reasoning advanced by the assessee, if the assessee were to succeed in the Supreme Court, the benefit would not be available because of the bar of limitation. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the limitations prescribed under section 154 or under section 147(b) were not meant to be applied to amendments made consequential to the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court even though the power of the Income-tax Officer to amend the assessments in consequence of these decisions may be traceable to either section 147(b) or section 154. Our answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2 referred to above are in the affirmative. Questions Nos. 3 and 4 do not arise. Our answer to question No. 5 is in the negative. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s and material available on the record. There is another aspect of the matter. We have seen earlier that in these two cases the tax effect involved is very nominal, that is, Rs. 80 for the assessment year 1984-85 and Rs. 475 for the assessment year 1985-86. In CWT v. Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi 1991 189 ITR 319, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected an application for reference where the tax effect was less than Rs. 8,500 in a year saying that no reference application could be made in view of the policy decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes not to file references in the cases where the tax effect was less than Rs. 30,000 per year, contained in its Circular F. No. 279/26 of 1983-ITJ, dated July 12, 1984, and Circular F. No. 319/11 of 1987-WT dated July 14, 1987. For that reason also, these two applications are liable to be rejected. In the result, these applications are without any merit and are accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Income Tax Act, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Original Assessment, Share In Firm
-
1994 (1) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Interest On Refund, Tax At Source, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... ad as modified in the following manner. The respondents will pay the petitioners interest at the simple rate of 15 per cent. per annum from April 1, 1988, until payment upon the sum of Rs. 26,21,523. They shall also refund the said principal amount or such part of it as yet remains unrefunded. In case any part or parts of the principal sum have already been paid, interest upon the said sum or sums shall naturally cease to run from the respective date or dates of payment. All payments ordered above are to be completed within four weeks of service of a copy order upon the respondents or their concerned officers. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for on the part of the respondents but the same is refused. The rule shall be drawn up as a rule absolute in the form of a mandamus. The parties and all others concerned will, however, act upon a signed xerox copy of this dictated order upon the undertaking of the petitioners to have the same duly drawn up, completed and filed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Company Surtax, Computation Of Capital Reserves, Gratuity Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... ve to be regarded as a reserve under clause 7(2) of Part III to the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act. We do not find any material on record as to whether the appropriation of the amount was based on any actuarial valuation or whether it was an appropriation of an ad hoc amount-an aspect which has a great bearing in deciding the question whether the appropriation could be treated as a provision or a reserve. In the absence of proper material touching this vital aspect, we are of the view that the question will have to be remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.. Ltd. s case 1981 132 ITR 559. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us is unanswered. The Tribunal will decide the matter in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. s case 1981 132 ITR 559. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, Let Out ... ... ... ... ..... t even if a part of the property was let out, the assessee would be entitled to the relief, if the major portion of the property had been used for the residence of the assessee for two years prior to sale. Learned counsel for the Revenue also placed before us a decision in CIT v. C. Jayalakshmi 1981 132 ITR 82 (Mad), where the expression mainly had been considered and contended that a substantial portion of the house should have been used to qualify for the relief. But we find that even in that decision a word of caution was expressed that the benefit of the provision should not be lost merely because a small portion of the building had been let out for rent. The facts of this case are almost similar to both the decisions cited above. Hence, we see no infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1994 (1) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Estate Duty Gift ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal has held-rightly or wrongly-that the gift is valid and has taken effect. That being so, it cannot be said that bona fide possession and enjoyment was not immediately assumed by the donee. Therefore, section 10 of the Act is also not attracted to the facts of the case. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue strenuously contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the trust deed was never acted upon is unsustainable. Such a contention is not the subject-matter of the question referred to us and, therefore, we cannot consider the same. We answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The finding of the Tribunal is in keeping with the provisions of section 10 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this case. A copy of the judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court will be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. There shall be no directions as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, High Court, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Supreme Court, Writ Petition
-
1994 (1) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Steel Limited v. State of Orissa 1972 83 ITR 26 applies to the facts of these cases. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Revenue in CIT v. Kalyan Das Rastogi 1992 193 ITR 713 (SC) is not opposite to the facts of these cases, for the ratio laid down in that case was to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for levying penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act which is analogous to section 18(1)(a) of the Act (?) We are satisfied with the finding of the Tribunal and we also find that the finding is on the basis of the material placed before it and we also find that the Tribunal has not taken into account any irrelevant matter and has not omitted to take into account relevant factors. There is no cause for interference with the common order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
....
|
