|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 228 of 228 Records
-
1983 (12) TMI 8
Issues:
Calculation of net profits for a construction contract, Inclusion of materials supplied by the State Government in gross receipts.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where an assessee-firm undertook a construction contract for canals under the Vallabh Nagar Project, with the State Government supplying materials for the project. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the firm's accounts and applied a net profit rate of 12.5%. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) maintained the profit rate for contracts executed directly by the assessee at 12.5% but reduced it to 7.5% for contracts supervised by others. Upon appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), it upheld the 12.5% profit rate for direct contracts and 7.5% for supervised contracts. However, the Tribunal ruled that the value of materials supplied by the State Government should be excluded from the gross receipts of the assessee.
The Tribunal referred the question of whether the cost of materials supplied by the State Government should be included in the gross receipts for calculating profits. The High Court relied on a previous decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Brij Bhushan Lal's case, emphasizing that when materials are supplied by the government for exclusive use in the project, no profit element is involved in the turnover represented by the cost of such materials. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the cost of materials supplied by the State Government should not be included in the gross receipts when calculating the net profits of the business. Consequently, the question was answered in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that when materials are supplied by the government for a specific project, the cost of those materials should be excluded from the contractor's gross receipts for profit calculation. The ruling aligns with the principle that no profit element is involved in such materials supplied exclusively for project execution.
-
1983 (12) TMI 7
Issues:
1. Claim for interest on a refund under section 244(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of provisions under section 297(2)(a) of the Act of 1961 and continuation of proceedings under the Act of 1922.
3. Applicability of Circular No. 30-D of 1962 issued by the Central Board of Revenue concerning interest on refunds.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner claimed interest on a refund under section 244(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on Circular 30-D of 1962 issued by the Central Board of Revenue to support the claim. The Commissioner rejected the application for interest, leading to a writ petition. The court examined the provisions of section 244(1), which mandate interest payment on refunds due to the assessee. The court analyzed the applicability of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 240 of the Act of 1961 to determine if the refund was due under the said provision.
Issue 2: The interpretation of section 297(2)(a) of the Act of 1961 was crucial in this case. The court deliberated on whether the proceedings for assessment could be continued under the Act of 1922 or the Act of 1961. The petitioner argued that the ITO had the discretion to proceed under either Act, while the Revenue contended that the proceedings must continue under the Act of 1922. The court referred to relevant case law, including the Supreme Court decisions, to establish that the ITO was bound to continue the proceedings under the Act of 1922 for returns filed before the commencement of the Act of 1961.
Issue 3: The petitioner also sought interest based on Circular No. 30-D of 1962. The court examined the provisions of the Circular and their alignment with section 297(2)(i) of the Act of 1961. The court analyzed whether the petitioner's claim for interest fell within the scope of the Circular, specifically paragraph 5(a, which related to refunds in cases where assessments were completed before a certain date. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for interest based on the Circular was not valid as the refund was not pursuant to an appellate or revisional order.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's decision to reject the application for interest on the refund. The judgment clarified the mandatory nature of continuing proceedings under the Act of 1922 for assessments initiated before the Act of 1961. The court also emphasized the limitations of relying on Circulars for claiming interest on refunds under specific circumstances.
-
1983 (12) TMI 6
Issues Involved: Liability for penalties under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62; Necessity of obtaining previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax for levying penalties after the amendment of section 18(1)(a) by Act No. 46 of 1964.
Issue 1: Liability for Penalties under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act
The assessee failed to file wealth returns for the years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62 by the due dates. Notices under section 17 of the Act were served, and the returns were eventually filed with delays ranging from seven to eight months. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) imposed penalties for these delays, which were upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), arguing that there was a reasonable cause for the delays and that penalties were imposed without obtaining the necessary approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). The Tribunal's members were divided on whether there was a reasonable cause for the delays but agreed that the procedural requirements for imposing penalties were not clear after the amendment of section 18(1)(a) by Act No. 46 of 1964.
Issue 2: Necessity of Previous Approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 18(1)(a) before the amendment by Act No. 46 of 1964 applied to the assessee's case because the defaults occurred before the amendment. The Tribunal gave the benefit of the doubt to the assessee regarding the necessity of obtaining the IAC's approval for imposing penalties. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax sought a reference to the High Court on whether this interpretation was correct.
Analysis and Judgment:
Procedural Requirements Post-Amendment:
The High Court analyzed whether the amended section 18(1)(a) applied retrospectively. The amendment removed the requirement for the WTO to obtain the IAC's approval before imposing penalties. The High Court concluded that procedural amendments generally apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. Thus, the amended procedural requirements of section 18(1)(a) applied to penalty proceedings initiated after the amendment came into force, even if the defaults occurred earlier.
Reasonable Cause for Delays:
The High Court noted the difference of opinion between the Tribunal members on whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing returns on time. The accountant member believed there was a reasonable cause, while the judicial member disagreed. The High Court emphasized that in cases of such disagreement, the matter should be referred to the President of the Tribunal or a third member for a final decision.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee regarding the necessity of the IAC's approval after the amendment. The procedural requirements of the amended section 18(1)(a) applied retrospectively. However, the computation of penalties should follow the law as it stood at the time of the default. The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the issue of reasonable cause for the delays to the President of the Tribunal for a final decision.
Summary:
1. The High Court determined that the procedural requirements of the amended section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act apply retrospectively.
2. The necessity of obtaining the IAC's approval for imposing penalties was not required after the amendment.
3. The Tribunal must refer the issue of reasonable cause for the delays in filing returns to the President of the Tribunal for a final decision.
-
1983 (12) TMI 5
Issues:
1. Whether the cost of materials supplied by the Government should be included in the gross receipts for estimating the net income of the assessee?
Analysis:
The case involved a building contractor who had undertaken contracts for construction of buildings for Central Government departments. The Government supplied materials worth Rs. 1,02,196 to the contractor for the execution of the contracts. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the accounts maintained by the assessee and applied a net profit rate of 15% to the turnover. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) reduced the net profit rate to 12.5%. The Tribunal, on further appeal, excluded the value of materials supplied by the Government from the turnover while estimating the net income, as no profit accrued on those materials. The Commissioner of Income-tax applied for a reference to the High Court under the Income Tax Act, 1961, questioning whether the Tribunal was right in excluding the cost of materials from the gross receipts for estimating the net income.
The High Court referred to judgments by various High Courts and a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which supported the Tribunal's view. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had taken a contrary stance. The Supreme Court, in a related case, held that when materials are supplied by the Government at fixed rates for incorporation in works, there is no element of profit involved in the turnover represented by the cost of such materials. The Supreme Court clarified that the total value of the contract should be calculated excluding the cost of materials supplied by the Government. Following the Supreme Court's principles, the High Court held that the value of materials supplied by the Government should be excluded while determining the turnover of the contractor-assessee. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Department, citing the Supreme Court's decision.
In conclusion, the High Court affirmed that the value of materials supplied by the Government for execution of works should not be included in the turnover of the contractor-assessee for the purpose of estimating net income. The judgment aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, settling the legal position on the matter. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1983 (12) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the profits from transactions in shares of Hindustan Motors Ltd. are includible under the head 'Business' for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64.
2. Whether the profits from transactions in shares of Century Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. are includible under the head 'Business' for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64.
Issue-wise Summary:
Issue 1: Transactions in Shares of Hindustan Motors Ltd.
The Tribunal concluded that the transactions in Hindustan Motors Ltd. shares were in the nature of trading transactions based on several factors:
- The preference shares had an option for conversion into ordinary shares.
- Ordinary shares were quoted at a higher rate, offering an advantage in conversion.
- The assessee-company converted the preference shares into ordinary shares.
- The magnitude of the purchase was significant.
- The shares were quoted on the Stock Exchange and were easily disposable.
- The conduct of the assessee in converting shares, selling them through brokers, and borrowing money for the initial purchase.
The Tribunal's conclusion was challenged by the assessee-company on grounds that:
- The Tribunal considered neutral factors and conjectures.
- Certain material facts were omitted from consideration.
- The time-lag in transactions and the magnitude of the purchase were not substantial.
- The Tribunal ignored the falling price of shares during the sale period.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on relevant evidence and applied the correct legal tests. The cumulative effect of all facts indicated that the transactions were in the nature of trading activity. The High Court thus answered Question No. 1 in the affirmative, against the assessee-company and in favor of the Department.
Issue 2: Transactions in Shares of Century Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the transactions in Century shares were not trading transactions, based on factors such as:
- The assessee placed a significant portion of the shares in its investment account.
- There was only one transaction of sale in each of the two years under consideration.
- No further transactions of sale occurred until 1972.
- The Revenue treated the profit from the sale of shares in 1972-73 as a capital gain.
The Department challenged this finding, arguing that:
- The Tribunal did not consider the presumption that right shares are accretions to stock-in-trade.
- The balance of 605 shares was not sold until 1972-73.
- The Tribunal's reliance on the 1972-73 assessment year was erroneous as the principle of res judicata does not apply in income-tax matters.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on a comprehensive consideration of all relevant materials and was a finding of fact. The Tribunal correctly applied the rule of consistency, and the Department failed to show differing circumstances for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. Therefore, the High Court answered Question No. 2 in the negative, in favor of the assessee-company and against the Department.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the reference accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the excess amount of Rs. 2,08,739 realized by the assessee is income from business.
2. Whether the transaction in question constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the excess amount of Rs. 2,08,739 realized by the assessee is income from business.
The petitioner purchased land that was already notified for acquisition by the government. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation, which was later enhanced by the District Judge. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated the increased compensation as business income. The petitioner contended that the land was agricultural and the realized amount was a capital accretion, not taxable as business income. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, asserting that the purchase was an adventure in the nature of trade. The Appellate Tribunal also supported this view, leading to the petitioner filing an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act to refer the matter to the High Court.
The High Court analyzed whether the transaction could be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. The court emphasized that the petitioner purchased the land with the knowledge of the notification and did not intend to hold or enjoy the land but to receive compensation. The court concluded that the transaction was not made with the sole intention of making a profit and that the compensation was a result of legal proceedings, not a business venture. The court ruled that the excess amount of Rs. 2,08,739 was not income from business.
Issue 2: Whether the transaction in question constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade.
The court examined the definition of "adventure in the nature of trade" under section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act and relevant case law. It was noted that the expression implies the presence of certain elements that would characterize the transaction as trade or business. The court referred to several precedents, including Venkataswami Naidu & Company v. CIT and Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT, which established that a single or isolated transaction with the intention to resell at a profit could be considered an adventure in the nature of trade.
However, the court found that the petitioner's transaction did not meet these criteria. The petitioner purchased the land knowing it was subject to government acquisition and sought compensation, not profit from resale. The court emphasized that the intention to receive compensation, which was determined by legal proceedings, did not equate to a business venture. The court also noted that the burden of proof was on the department to show that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade, which it failed to do.
The court distinguished the petitioner's case from other cases cited by the department, where transactions were clearly intended to make a profit. The court concluded that the petitioner's transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade and, therefore, the excess amount received could not be taxed as business income.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that the excess amount of Rs. 2,08,739 received by the petitioner was not income from business and the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade. The decision was in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded.
-
1983 (12) TMI 2
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the receiver was appointed to carry on the cinema business of Shri Padmanabha Theatre.
2. Whether the receiver carried on the business in question.
3. Whether the receiver represented the individual interests of the co-owners, making the assessment as a single unit unsustainable.
4. Whether the assessment on the receiver in the status of an "association of persons" was correct.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Appointment of Receiver to Carry on Cinema Business:
The court examined whether the receiver, Thiru M. S. Menon, was appointed to carry on the cinema business of Shri Padmanabha Theatre. The order dated July 10, 1969, appointing the receiver, empowered him to take possession of the theatre and collect rents, issues, and profits. The receiver was not directed to carry on the business but to manage the property and collect income. Hence, the court found that the receiver was not appointed to carry on the cinema business, but merely to collect rents.
2. Receiver's Role in Carrying on Business:
The Tribunal found that the receiver was only collecting rents from the theatre, not conducting any business. The receiver's role was limited to managing the property and distributing the income among the quondam partners. The Tribunal distinguished this case from N. V. Shanmugham & Co. [1971] 81 ITR 310, where the receivers were directed to continue the business. The court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the receiver was not carrying on the business and was merely collecting rental income.
3. Representation of Individual Interests:
The court considered whether the receiver represented the individual interests of the various co-owners. It was established that the receiver was collecting rents as an agent or trustee for the quondam partners, who were joint owners of the theatre with equal shares. The receiver was not conducting a joint venture but merely collecting rental income from the property. Consequently, the receiver could not be assessed as an "association of persons" but should be assessed based on the individual shares of the co-owners.
4. Assessment as an "Association of Persons":
The court examined the applicability of sections 160 and 161 of the Income-tax Act, which deal with the liability of a representative assessee. The receiver, as a representative assessee, should be assessed in the same manner as the beneficial owners. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C. R. Nagappa v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 626, which clarified that the assessment of a representative assessee should follow the status of the persons entitled to the income. The court concluded that the receiver should be assessed based on the individual shares of the quondam partners, not as an "association of persons."
Conclusion:
The court held that the receiver was not appointed to carry on the cinema business but to collect rents. The receiver did not conduct any business and merely collected rental income. The receiver represented the individual interests of the co-owners, and the assessment should be made based on the individual shares of the quondam partners. The assessment of the receiver as an "association of persons" was not sustainable. The common question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
-
1983 (12) TMI 1
Whether the WTO was justified in making a reference of the question of valuation of those buildings to the valuation officers under section 16A and the notices issued to the assessee under section 38A(1)(b) by the valuation officers in pursuance of that reference were also valid- Held, yes
....
|
9911796707
