|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 232 of 232 Records
-
1984 (12) TMI 12
Issues:
1. Liability of the assessee to pay interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the assessment year 1972-73, where the petitioner was required to pay advance tax on specific dates. The petitioner contended that it made the necessary payments, including a significant sum on December 22, 1971, which the respondent claimed was paid on December 16, 1971. The assessment was completed on December 31, 1974, determining a final income-tax due. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice for interest under section 215, which was imposed due to the alleged delay in payment of advance tax. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner upheld the levy of interest, albeit reducing the amount. The petitioner challenged these orders through a petition filed in 1981.
The primary argument put forth by the petitioner was that any amount treated as advance tax during assessment should be considered as such for interest calculation under sections 215 and 214 of the Act. The petitioner relied on precedents like CIT v. Traub India Pvt Ltd. and Addl. CIT v. Chitra Sagar to support this contention. The petitioner emphasized that the payment made on December 22, 1971, was treated as advance tax during assessment, thereby negating the applicability of section 215 due to the absence of any shortfall in advance tax payment.
Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel cited judgments from various High Courts, including Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Madras, which supported the view that the strict adherence to due dates for advance tax payments was not a prerequisite for interest calculation under section 215. These judgments emphasized that any payment made during the financial year, even if after the due date, should be considered as advance tax paid. The court also distinguished between penalties for late payments and interest under section 215, highlighting that interest aims to compensate for delayed payments and should not be imposed on amounts already paid.
The court analyzed the provisions of section 215, emphasizing that interest is payable on the shortfall amount of advance tax paid, calculated from April 1 following the financial year until the regular assessment date. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that interest should be paid on delayed amounts even after payment, stating that interest ceases once the amount is paid. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the orders imposing interest under section 215, as there was no shortfall in advance tax payment when considering the amount treated as advance tax during assessment.
In conclusion, the court set aside the orders dated January 20, 1979, and March 30, 1981, without any costs awarded.
-
1984 (12) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act to the gifted lands.
2. Validity and truth of the gifts made by the deceased.
3. Possession and enjoyment of the gifted properties by the donees to the exclusion of the donor.
4. Misappropriation of income from the gifted properties by the deceased.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act to the gifted lands:
The primary issue was whether Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act applied to the lands gifted by the deceased to his daughters. The Tribunal initially held that Section 10 was applicable because the donor managed the lands and might have misappropriated some income, thus not excluding himself entirely from the benefit of the gifted properties. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's inference of misappropriation due to the absence of account books was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Court emphasized that there was no legal obligation for the trustee to maintain accounts and, therefore, the absence of accounts could not justify the application of Section 10.
2. Validity and truth of the gifts made by the deceased:
The Tribunal and the Revenue did not dispute the validity and truth of the gifts made by the deceased to his daughters. It was accepted as a fact that the gifts were made on October 25, 1957, and that the donees were put in possession of the properties. The High Court reaffirmed this finding, stating that the gifts were true and valid.
3. Possession and enjoyment of the gifted properties by the donees to the exclusion of the donor:
The High Court analyzed whether the donees retained possession and enjoyment of the properties to the entire exclusion of the donor. The daughters testified that they received the profits from the land, and there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased retained any benefit or possession of the properties. The Court referenced the case of George Da Costa v. CED, which clarified that the donee must retain possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor. The Court concluded that the facts did not support the Tribunal's finding that the deceased derived any benefit from the properties after the gifts were made.
4. Misappropriation of income from the gifted properties by the deceased:
The Tribunal inferred misappropriation based on the absence of account books, suggesting that the deceased might have misappropriated part of the income. However, the High Court found this inference to be speculative and unsupported by evidence. The daughters' testimonies indicated that they received the entire income from the properties. The Court held that the absence of accounts did not justify the conclusion of misappropriation and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the deceased enjoyed any part of the income from the gifted properties.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in applying Section 10 to include the two parcels of land as part of the deceased's estate. The Court held that the gifts were true and valid, and the donees retained possession and enjoyment of the properties to the exclusion of the donor. There was no evidence of misappropriation or benefit retained by the deceased. Therefore, the answer was recorded against the Revenue and in favor of the accountable person. No costs were awarded, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 300.
-
1984 (12) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Whether penalty was leviable under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?
2. Whether the penalty imposed was beyond jurisdiction?
Analysis:
The case involves a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with two questions referred to the court for opinion. The first issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty was leviable under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee failed to file a return of net wealth by the due date, leading to a penalty imposition by the Wealth-tax Officer. The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, primarily due to waiting for the balance-sheet of a company in which most assets were held. However, both the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found no reasonable cause for the delay, leading to the conclusion that penalty was justifiable. The Appellate Tribunal also concurred that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay, establishing a factual basis for the penalty under section 18(1)(a). The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on this issue.
Moving to the second question, the issue was whether the penalty amount imposed was within jurisdiction. The assessee contended that if a penalty was to be levied, it should only be for one month instead of two. However, since it was established that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return by the due date, the penalty for two months was deemed appropriate. The court found no merit in the assessee's argument and upheld the penalty amount of Rs. 4,644 for the two months of default. Both questions were answered in favor of the Department, indicating that the penalty imposition was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1984 (12) TMI 9
Issues involved: Interpretation of exemption u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for legal representatives in case of sale and purchase of residential property by deceased assessee.
Summary:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was tasked with providing an opinion on the denial of exemption u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment year 1976-77. The case involved the sale of a residential house by a deceased individual and subsequent purchase by the legal representatives within one year. The dispute arose as the Income-tax Officer contended that the exemption cannot be claimed since the seller and buyer were different individuals. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision based on precedents from Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts.
The legal counsel for the assessee argued that exemption should be allowed u/s 54 of the Act, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term "assessee" to include legal heirs. The Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that as long as the sale and purchase are part of the same scheme, the identity of the assessee remains consistent. Referring to a decision by the Madras High Court, the Court concluded that the word "assessee" should be liberally interpreted to achieve the objective of granting exemptions. In this case, the sale and subsequent purchase were interconnected, leading to a favorable decision for the legal representatives.
In conclusion, the Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, without imposing any costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 8
The High Court of Madras dismissed the petition with costs, stating that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the power to set aside the entire order of the Income-tax Officer and remit the matter for reconsideration, without restricting the enquiry or points to be considered. The decision cited by the Revenue's counsel did not support the argument that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not do so. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 250 for the counsel.
-
1984 (12) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 10,752 paid by the assessee as annual rent is allowable as a deduction in computing the business profit.
2. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is of a capital nature or revenue nature.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deductibility of Annual Rent as Business Expenditure
The assessee, a company, entered into a lease agreement for 25.6 acres of land for excavation purposes, paying an annual rent of Rs. 10,752. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of this rent as business expenditure, considering it capital expenditure for acquiring an asset or advantage of enduring benefit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Pingle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 67. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court for opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 2: Nature of Expenditure - Capital or Revenue
The High Court examined the lease agreement, which allowed the assessee to use the land for excavation and related activities. The court noted that the lease was for the purpose of winning manganese ore, and the rent paid was for the right to excavate the land, not for securing stock-in-trade. The court found that the lease conferred an enduring benefit, making the expenditure capital in nature. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Pingle Industries' case and R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 647, which held that rent paid for acquiring rights to excavate and obtain raw materials was capital expenditure.
The court also considered the decisions in Golan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 and M.L.A. Jabbar v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 493, where the Supreme Court allowed royalty payments as revenue expenditure due to their direct relationship with the quantity obtained. However, the court found these cases inapplicable to the present case.
The court further referenced Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1, emphasizing that the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense determines whether the expenditure is capital or revenue. The court concluded that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was for acquiring an asset or advantage of enduring character, thus capital in nature.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the lease amount paid by the assessee is not allowable as business expenditure. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court also rejected the assessee's oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1984 (12) TMI 6
Issues:
Challenge to auction sales of excess vacant land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Analysis:
The petition before the court was brought by the competent authority appointed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, seeking to quash or set aside auction sales conducted by income-tax authorities for plots of land categorized as "excess vacant land" belonging to "Ranjit Villa Palace." The petitioner argued that the auctioned lands were supposed to be surrendered as excess land under the Act and should not have been sold for income-tax arrears. The petitioner contended that auction purchasers would not gain any rights through the sale and sought the sale to be set aside to prevent future claims by purchasers regarding their title under the Act. The court clarified that in an auction purchase, the purchaser only acquires the title of the owner whose property is sold, and any obligations of the defaulting income-tax assessee remain intact post-auction. The competent authority's grievance stemmed from income-tax authorities misleading prospective purchasers by implying they would obtain absolute title, which the court deemed legally incorrect. The court emphasized that representations by income-tax authorities do not alter legal rights and that the auction could not be challenged based on such representations.
The court highlighted that until delivery is completed following an auction, the income-tax assessee retains some rights, such as possession of the property until divested in accordance with the law. The court refrained from determining the exact rights of auction purchasers but concluded that the competent authority had no valid grievance as the obligations under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, remained unaffected by the auction sales. Additionally, the court referenced a prior Full Bench decision regarding the enforcement of an agreement for specific performance concerning vacant land under the Act, emphasizing that ownership rights may exist even before proceedings under the Act are initiated.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition challenging the auction sales of excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, maintaining that the competent authority lacked grounds for grievance as the Act's obligations were not compromised by the auction sales.
-
1984 (12) TMI 5
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled against the assessee's continuation of registration based on a previous decision. (Citation: 1984 (12) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court)
-
1984 (12) TMI 4
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference on the question of whether the assessee's interest in two trusts should be assessed in his individual capacity or as representing the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal had previously followed the court's decision that the interest came to him as a member of the Hindu undivided family. The court found that a question of law arises and ordered the Tribunal to make a reference on the issue. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 3
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal by the Income-tax Officer against the order of acquittal of several accused charged with offenses under the Income-tax Act. The court upheld the conviction of A-1 and A-3, with A-3 sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The appeal was admitted only against A-1, A-2, and A-11, with the appeal against A-2 abated due to his death. The court held that a firm can be sentenced to a fine only, not imprisonment, based on previous legal decisions. The appeal was dismissed in line with these precedents.
-
1984 (12) TMI 2
Search and Seizure - writ petition against the prohibitory orders which were issued under section 132(3), to the first respondent with respect to goods in the godowns - abuse of process of court by withdrawal of writ after obtaining exparte injunction - respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum by way of restitution for the quantity of the goods removed from the three godowns so that the position as it obtained prior to the removal of the goods from the three godowns is restored
-
1984 (12) TMI 1
Accepting belated filing of return and charging of interest for late filing of return of income - ITAT took the view that in cases falling under sub-s. (1), sub-s. (2) and sub-s. (4) of s. 139, the ITO was empowered to grant time for filing a return, and on such time being granted, the assessee would be liable to pay interest. - Revenue contended that, there is no material to warrant the finding that an application had been made by the assessee for extension of time and that upon such application, the ITO extended the time. - HELD THAT:- We consider that in the circumstances of this case a presumption could validly be raised that all that was done. No attempt was made by the Revenue to show that the ITO acted arbitrarily and contrary to the procedure envisaged by the statute. The Appellate Tribunal considered the matter carefully and found circumstances on the record in favour of raising the presumption. The High Court approved of the approach adopted by the Appellate Tribunal and did not find it contrary to law. We do not see any reason to differ from the opinion expressed by the High Court.
Levy of penalty - Failure to file return within time allowed - reasonable cause for failure - HELD THAT:- Since interest under s. 139(1) has been levied by ITO, it must be presumed that ITO has granted extension of time to file return on the grounds made out by the assessee - hence penalty provision of s. 271(1)(a) does not come into play at all.
....
|
9911796707
