|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 231 of 231 Records
-
1989 (12) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... elopes were posted in the post office and were beyond the reach of the donor. The post office is only an agent of the donee the wife in the circumstances. In this perspective, the gifts were of movable property situate outside India. The donor was at all times not a citizen of India. He was non-resident. For the above reasons, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the gifts made by the assessee in the previous years relevant to the assessment years were properly taxed by the Gift-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal should have held that the gifts were made with reference to the remittances made by the assessee by way of drafts from the foreign country and such gifts are not exigible to tax. Question No. (a) is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act. We answer question No. (b) in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1989 (12) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... and gains of company is not includible in the total income as computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, its capital shall be the sum ascertained in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 3 diminished by an amount which bears to that sum the same proportion as the amount of the aforesaid income, profits and gains bears to the total amount of its income, profits and gains. Therefore, Notes 8 and 9 make it quite clear that the phrase income not includible in its total income cannot be confined to the items of income which have been specified in section 10 of the Act. In the case of non-resident company, income which has not accrued or arisen in India will come within the phrase income, profits and gains not includible in the total income. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a correct decision in this case. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Speculation ... ... ... ... ..... from such business income. The Income-tax Officer will have to take into account not only the entire amount of the income disclosed but also the loss sought to be deducted. If such deduction is not permissible in law, the Income-tax Officer has no option but to delete such deduction. I am of the view that the Income-tax Officer has approached the problem correctly and that the Tribunal fell into an error in holding that the speculation loss should be set off against the business income of the assessee notwithstanding the provisions of the Act. On behalf of the assessee, I was referred to the cases of Laherchand Dhanji v. Union of India 1982 135 ITR 689 (Bom) and D. M. Chinnapapaiah Setty v. CIT 1985 154 ITR 318 (Kar). Neither of these two cases throws any light on the controversy that has been raised in the instant case. The question, therefore, is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Explanations To Provisions, Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India ... ... ... ... ..... any, the original employer with whom the assessee was working, even when he was not sent out to India on this particular assignment, had assured him that he would be required to pay for his stay either at Delhi or elsewhere. We concur with the above observations also. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the salary was not paid by FACT but by the foreign company. Messrs. Davy Powergas Inc., is a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the salary and living allowance received by the assessees were not assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. We answer questions Nos. (1) and (2) in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. The references are answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (12) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... Risks Insurance Act, 1971, for the purpose of realising the shortfall and came to its decision. It observed that, on a perusal of the order passed by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Emergency Risks Insurance, Ahmedabad, it was found that the sum of Rs. 10,778 was part and parcel of the liability to pay premium under the Emergency Risks Insurance Act. In this case, what was realised was the shortfall in the premium. It was not paid in time. Thereafter, an order was passed and, pursuant to that order, this shortfall was paid. In this particular case, there was no question of imposition of penalty for infraction of law and as such the said amount is allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly decided on this point. Accordingly, the question of law referred in this case is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest, Reassessment, Return ... ... ... ... ..... rles DSouza v. CIT 1984 147 ITR 694. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal is filed. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act, though not leviable in reassessments under section 147 of the Act, the respondent is liable to pay interest levied under the original assessment. This contention is plainly untenable in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd. 1986 157 ITR 531. In that case, after making a review of the case law, this court considered the question as to the effect of reopening an assessment and held that the original assessment gets totally effaced in that event. When there is a total effacement of the original assessment order, it is impossible to understand the contention raised and how the interest levied thereunder still survives. In that view of the matter, we affirm the common order of the learned single judge (see 1992 197 ITR 692) and dismiss these appeals.
-
1989 (12) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... tion could be attributable to activities falling within the meaning of manufacture or processing of goods cannot, therefore, be entertained. As observed by the Kerala High Court in Casino (Pvt.) Ltd. s case 1973 91 ITR 289, a restaurant, by and large, is a trading concern and the object of the restaurant is not the manufacturing or processing of goods for the purpose of sale. It is implicit in the above finding that merely because some articles may undergo some kind of processing, the entire income cannot be attributed to the processing of the said articles. It is also implicit in the finding that the object of the activity carried on by the assessee is relevant to consider the nature of the main activity of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee in this case was rightly held, as not an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(9)(c) of the Finance Act, 1976. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1989 (12) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... s it could be shown that the income is received or deemed to have been received or accrued in India, such income could not be taxed. The Tribunal found that no service whatsoever has been rendered by the assessee-company to the Indian companies during the previous year. In that event, the said sum received in India could not be taxed. In view of that finding of fact made by the Tribunal which has not been challenged as perverse, this court has to accept that finding and proceed accordingly. In view of such a finding, it must be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the payment of Rs. 22,50,000 received by the non-resident assessee-company from the Indian companies accrued or arose in India or was deemed to accrue or arise in India and was subject to tax. Accordingly, the question of law referred to this court in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... The Tribunal held that the income was received by way of interest by the custodian and he was under a statutory obligation to disburse the same in a certain manner. The income was in the nature of trust money and the custodian was under an obligation to spend it for certain definite objects. Therefore, the remuneration of the custodian and various disbursements made by the custodian must be allowed as deductions before the amount of interest received by the custodian against deposit of the said sum of Rs. 30 lakhs can be brought to tax. The obligation to pay arose by virtue of the statutory provisions. The question of paying income-tax does not arise as the receipt of the income was subject to certain statutory obligations. Therefore, we are of the view that the question must be answered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... hree questions by saying (1) The entire amount received by the assessee from the company must be treated as dividend income without any deduction of the face value of the shares or the purchase price of the shares. (2) The purchase price of the shares must be treated as business expenditure as the assessee had done in his share-trading account and such expenditure should be allowed as deduction in the share-trading account under the business head. (3) The assessee will be entitled to relief under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the amount of dividend received from the company as the shareholder on the reduction of the company s capital. The relief will be calculated on the net amount of dividend which has been included in the gross total income of the assessee. The Tribunal will dispose of the case conformably with the answer given above. The case is disposed of finally as above. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (12) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India ... ... ... ... ..... to participate in the employees retirement plan of the parent company. The employees would continue to be covered by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act ( Social Security of the United States ) as regular employees Of Great Lakes Technical Services Incorporated for any injury or death while in work. The employees would get compensation under the New York Compensation Laws. The employees had to undergo physical check-ups, from time to time and such check-ups had to be to the satisfaction of Great Lakes. Having regard to all these facts, in our view, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. It is also to be seen that the Tribunal has not given any opinion on the amount or quantum of the income that had accrued in India. The Tribunal had remanded the case for this purpose. Therefore, the question that has been referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
....
|
