|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 68 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Time Limit For Returns ... ... ... ... ..... he same should be accompanied by a balance-sheet or the company s profit and loss account as approved and adopted at its annual general body meeting. Every company, as pointed out, has to submit its return along with an audited report for the period ending with the closure of the accounts. We do not think that any extraordinary hardship would be caused to the petitioners as contended and it should not drive us to strike down the amendment which, as we have already discussed, is to bring about the same degree of uniformity in the matter of time for filing returns. Companies may get the audit report and profit and loss account for the accounting period. Such an exercise cannot be said to be a hardship. Therefore, we are convinced that the petitioners who are really not aggrieved by the amendment cannot challenge its constitutional validity. For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss all these writ petitions. Under the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure, Deduction, Developement Rebate, Income, Paper And Pulp Industry, Priority Industry, Special Deduction, Straw Board Manufacture
-
1990 (10) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm, HUF, Inclusions In Total Income, Partial Partition In HUF, Sub-Partnership, Total Income
-
1990 (10) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... e firm and the method to be adopted in the valuation of the assets of the dissolved firm. That decision cannot, therefore, be of any assistance to the assessee. CIT v. K. Sankarapandia Asari and Sons 1981 130 ITR 541 (Mad), dealt with a case of the entitlement of the assessee to amortisation in full, on the basis of the consistent method of accounting adopted by the assessee, by which the entire cost of the distribution rights in the year of acquisition had been written off, which had also been accepted by the Department. There was, in that case, also no dissolution of the firm and the need for any revaluation of the assets as such. Thus, the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the assessee do not at all in any manner assist it. Thus, on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs in this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (10) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court, Territorial Jurisdiction, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... against the said two respondents. In our opinion, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the points raised in this writ petition. We, therefore, direct that the petition be returned to the petitioner by the Registry immediately so as to enable the petitioner to file the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, if the petitioners so desire. The interim orders granted by us will continue for a period of one week. Mr. Jain opposes our continuation to the interim orders. But, in our opinion, as the demand raised is very high and as the petitioner is a Government-Corporation and also considering the fact that a limited stay has been granted by the income-tax authorities themselves, in our opinion, no injustice would be done if the interim orders are continued for a period of one week. We make it clear that the interim orders are continued subject to the condition that the undisputed demand, if any, has to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents immediately.
-
1990 (10) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interference By High Court, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... dings are over, the issuance of the show-cause notice proposing to cancel the registration even for the two years for which the matter had become final, is clearly uncalled for and unwarranted. Mr. Markandey Katju, learned counsel for the Department, contended that the principle of res judicata does not apply to tax proceedings and that at least in so far as the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 are concerned, the notice is good and the petitioner must be relegated to the Income-tax Officer, to submit his explanation. It is not so much the question of res judicata. The more relevant aspect is that on these very facts, the Tribunal has opined that registration cannot be refused. If so, it would be an exercise in futility for the petitioner to submit his explanation and follow the remedies as provided by law. In our opinion, it is a fit case where the court should interfere even at this stage. The writ petition is allowed and the notice under section 186 is quashed. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... wable as a deduction for the assessment year 1964-65. It is not in all cases correct to say that a statutory liability discharged in a particular year becomes eligible for deduction in the year in question under the mercantile system of accounting. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the statutory provisions. In our view, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision will apply to the facts of this case. The proper year for deduction of such liability as business expenditure is the assessment year 1976-77 as the liability became real and enforceable in that year after revisional applications were rejected by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, upholding the assessment for the period ending on September 30, 1956, under the 1954 Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Return ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee had applied for extension of time to file the return up to October 15, 1975. The main ground for deleting the penalty appears to be that two different returns can be filed for two different periods and that, for the first period, the Income-tax Officer himself deleted the penalty and there was no reason why the penalty for the second part of the year also cannot be deleted. The facts which were placed before and considered by the Commissioner in this case were not placed before and considered by the Tribunal. It must also be noticed that time was extended by the Income-tax Officer for filing the return for that assessment year which may save the petitioner from penalty but would not save him from levy of interest under section 139(8) of the Act. Moreover, we cannot read the said order into the order of the Commissioner. The order of the Tribunal is subsequent to the order of the Commissioner. For the above reasons, the writ petition, accordingly, fails. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee has been found guilty of only giving a false explanation. In our opinion, the said approach is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue argued that the ratio of the decision in Anwar All 1970 76 ITR 696, cannot be understood in absolute terms and if it is so done, it, would amount to asking the Department to prove the impossible. We do not know. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding upon us. Indeed, the facts in the case of Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC) were more prejudicial to the assessee and yet it was held that, in the absence of any material other than the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 271 (1) (c) of the present Act) cannot be imposed. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1990 (10) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... g its earlier order in a similar matter. The Tribunal was of the opinion that purchase of the said Government Bonds was necessary for carrying on of the business of the assessee and was a matter of common occurrence. In other words, its finding is that business expediency required such purchases. In an identical matter in 1. T. R. No. 862 of 1978 (CIT v. S. B. Sugar Mills 1991 187 ITR 441), we answered identical questions in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in Patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 161 ITR 365, also leads to the same conclusion. There too, the assessee, dealing in automobiles, purchased certain Government Bonds with a view to induce the authorities to place an order for vehicles upon the assessee. The loss resulting from the sale of such Government Bonds was held deductible as a revenue loss. For the above reasons, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Firm, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... order of the lower court does not, therefore, call for interference by this court. Accordingly, Tr. Criminal Appeal No. 1636 of 1989 is dismissed. Coming to Appeal No. 209 of 1988 of the Income-tax Department, it is filed for enhancement of sentence against A-2 and A-3. No appeal is filed against the acquittal of A-1. Apart from this, it is elicited in evidence that except one or two partners, the remaining partners are hut-dwellers and as stated supra, the Department also assured that it was not going to initiate penalty proceedings or prosecution. It is a fact that, under the provisions of sections 276, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act has to be imposed by the court. But the court below has given cogent and proper reasons for not awarding the said minimum sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to impose higher punishment. The Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1988 is also dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income, Special Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee has failed to deposit that amount in a separate account, it does constitute his income and to direct further that if and when the assessee s right to the said amount is negatived finally, he may claim deduction in that behalf in that year. Having regard to the facts of this case and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to comply with the condition subject to which he was allowed to collect the excess amount (namely, its deposit in a separate account) we would be justified in adopting the second course. It is evident that the petitioner chose to treat the said amount as his trading receipt, notwithstanding his claim to the contrary. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with the observation that, in case the assessee s right is finally negatived, he shall be entitled to claim deduction of the said amount in that year. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1990 (10) TMI 56 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d shares. Quoted shares are those which are daily quoted with the opening prices and closing prices at each stock exchange. The rule provides to go by the rate prevalent on the average of the relevant assessment year having regard to the prices quoted in the stock exchange. In regard to the other shares, i.e., unquoted shares, a particular method is evolved under rule 1 D extracted as above in the course of this order. In the absence of any material produced before the assessing authority, the assessee authority had no choice but to follow the method given as a device of law. In that manner, it is but mandatory inasmuch as the authority is left with no other choice but to compute in accordance with the rule. Therefore, no such question arises, on the facts of this case to be answered by us when the shares in question were not quoted shares. The rule is imperative and, the assessing authority is bound to obey the statutory rule. No merit in the petition. Petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Authorised Capital ... ... ... ... ..... To uphold the submission of the Revenue that expenditure incurred for obtaining registration would not be allowable either under sub-section (2)(c)(iii) or sub-section (2)(c)(iv) of section 35D would defeat the obvious intention of the Legislature and would produce a wholly unreasonable result. To achieve the obvious intention and produce a reasonable result, we have to hold that under subsection (2)(c)(iv) of section 35D, the expenditure incurred for obtaining registration would be liable to be deductible. AP We, consequently, hold that the fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for raising authorised capital of the assessee-company was covered by subsection (2)(c)(iv) of section 35D of the Income-tax Act. Let the papers of this case be returned to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with the answers mentioned above. Since we have answered one question in favour of the Revenue and the other against it, we do not consider it to be in the interest of justice to award any costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... t whereunder the agent was obliged to indemnify the assessee against all losses caused by non-recovery of bills, debts outstanding and other losses caused by the break or non-performance on the part of any person whatsoever of any contract entered into between such person and the assessee-company through the agent. Indeed, the Tribunal referred to instances where the sole selling agent indemnified the assessee for amounts not collected by them. It was also shown that the selling agent was preparing the bills and also procuring orders for the products of the assessee-company. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no material before the Tribunal to show that services were actually rendered by the sale selling agent. It may be noticed that the justifiability of the quantum of commission is not referred to us. In the circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... person, male or female, cannot constitute a family and that the plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant and upheld the order of the Karnataka High Court in C. Krishna Prasad s case 1970 75 ITR 526 (Mys). Same is the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in G. E. Thippaiah v. Agrl. ITO 1991 187 ITR 668 (Kar) (W. P. No. 22493 of 1981 disposed of on June 22, 1988). The Division Bench quashed the notice issued under the Agricultural Income-tax Act on the son of the deceased karta who was the sole surviving member of the family. The Division Bench referred to Seethammal s case 1981 130 ITR 597 (Mad) which, in turn, applied the ratio of the decision in C. Krishna Prasad s case 1974 97 ITR 493 (SC) for quashing the notice. For the same reasons, the above notices issued in the present case also have to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Loss, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... and that only three wagons were actually supplied. The assessee s case was that it could not supply two wagons because Messrs. Hira Lal Oils Mill, Sitapur, did not supply goods to him. The fact that, out of five wagons contracted, three wagons only of oil cakes were actually supplied is a strong factor in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the observation of the Tribunal that the said amount was paid not by way of damages but by way of settlement of difference of prices of goods which the assessee could not supply, is rather thin. After all, damages are ascertained with reference to difference of prices prevailing on the date of contract and on the date of breach. It was not necessary for the assessee to prove that the Gujarat party actually purchased two wagons of oil cakes from a third party and suffered loss on that account. For the above reasons, we have to answer the question referred in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Time Limit For Returns ... ... ... ... ..... the father and guardian of the minor shall not interfere with the conduct of the business of the firm. The Tribunal also relied upon the affidavit filed by the minor s father and guardian that he had given his consent for such admission. On this basis, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the guardian s consent was there for the admission of the minor. Another fact was incidentally referred to by the Income-tax Officer, viz., transfer of a sum of Rs. 29,000 by the grandfather of the said minor to the minor by way of a book entry when the cash amount available in the books of the firm was very small. But it does not appear that this line was pursued further by the Income-tax Officer. The first appellate authority has not even referred to this aspect. There is also no finding by the Income-tax Officer that the firm is not genuine. In the above circumstances, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... are initiated by issuance of a notice, then the earlier assessment order becomes non est in the eye of law and, therefore, what actually commences is a fresh proceeding and as such the mandatory requirement for a fresh return has to be called for. If such a fresh return was not called for in conformity with sub-section (2) of section 18 as mandated in section 36 of the Act itself, then the authority did not acquire jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment because the earlier assessment orders remained intact. It is in that view that, for want of jurisdiction, we must set aside the impugned orders and demand notices as at annexures E to L and remand the matter to the respondent-Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Hassan, to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law, if such proceedings are not barred by time as specified in section 36 of the Act. Writ petitions are allowed in terms above and the rule issued earlier is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... o say anything different or inconsistent with what the Rules provided. In fact, no such intention can be attributed to the Board. The power conferred upon the Board to issue instructions and directions by section 119 is for the proper working of the Act. It cannot be presumed that the Board has issued any circular which runs counter to , or is inconsistent with, the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Unless the language is quite implicit, we shall not presume so. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the mere fact that the Board s circular aforementioned was not considered by the Full Bench of this court or by other Hight Courts is no reason to depart from the principle of the said decisions. The Full Bench decision is binding upon us. Indeed, the view taken by it is consistent with the view of other High Courts in the country. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
....
|
