|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 273 Records
-
1990 (2) TMI 54
Issues:
Challenge of process in a criminal case for violation of the Customs Act, 1962 based on a retracted confession of co-accused.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by S.W. Puranik, J. pertains to a case where the Petitioner, who is the owner of a shipping vessel, was accused of violating the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner's vessel was detained and searched by Customs Authorities, leading to the discovery of contraband gold concealed on board. The Petitioner, along with his Tindel and Khalassis, was arrested in connection with the smuggling incident. The Tindel initially made a confessional statement implicating both himself and the Petitioner in the smuggling operation, but later retracted it. Despite the lack of independent evidence, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed a criminal complaint based solely on the retracted confession of the Tindel.
The Additional Collector of Customs had previously exonerated the Petitioner, stating that apart from the retracted confession, there was no other evidence linking the Petitioner to the smuggling activity. The Tindel had retracted his confession, alleging physical torture and coercion by Customs officials to implicate the Petitioner. The complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs did not mention the adjudication proceedings or the exoneration of the Petitioner by the adjudicating authority. The complaint relied heavily on the retracted confession and the testimonies of Investigating Officers and Panchas, who lacked personal knowledge of the alleged criminal acts.
The judgment highlighted the lack of reasonable grounds or a prima facie case in the complaint to proceed against the Petitioner. Continuing the prosecution against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, the court quashed the order issuing process against the Petitioner, emphasizing the necessity to uphold the ends of justice. The petition was allowed, and the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the Petitioner was set aside, ruling in favor of the Petitioner and emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence and the abuse of legal process in the case.
-
1990 (2) TMI 53
Issues involved: Detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 based on discrepancies in the Gurmukhi and English versions of the detention order and grounds of detention.
Summary:
The appellant was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The appellant challenged the detention in the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the petition. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant, who understood only the Gurmukhi script, received copies of the detention order and grounds of detention in both Gurmukhi and English. Discrepancies were found between the Gurmukhi and English versions, leading to confusion in effectively representing against the detention order.
In the Gurmukhi version, the detention order mentioned preventing smuggling and abetting, while the grounds of detention referred to concealing, transporting, and dealing in smuggled goods. This discrepancy caused confusion for the detenu in presenting his case. The detenu was unsure whether to challenge the detention for smuggling/abetting or for transporting/concealing/dealing in smuggled goods. The satisfaction recorded in the Gurmukhi version did not align with the purpose stated in the detention order, further adding to the detenu's confusion.
Due to the significant variance between the Gurmukhi and English versions of the detention order and grounds of detention, the detenu was unable to make an effective representation, thus being denied the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the detention order, and directed the immediate release of the detenu.
-
1990 (2) TMI 52
Whether the discount allowed to the Indentors in respect of some of the sales might have been described as service charge discount that name could not govern the real nature of the transaction and the discount was really a trade discount?
Held that:- No case has ever been made out right upto the Tribunal and even before the Tribunal that in respect of any particular invoice although the name of the purchaser was other than that of the Indentor, it was really the Indentor who was the purchaser and he in turn has solds the goods to the third party whose name was shown as purchaser or even that the Indentor had entered into the transaction as the agent of the purchaser. If such a contention had been raised, the factual position could have been examined and different considerations might have been applied. But it is certainly not open to the appellant to raise this contention at this stage, in this appeal, particularly keeping in mind that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 50
Whether the calcareous stone which has been imported by the appellant falling within the Tariff Item No. 25.15 of Schedule I, Appendix 1-B commonly known as I.T. Schedule is marble as mentioned in Entry No. 62 of the List of Restricted Items, Annexure 2, Part B of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988 to March 1991 and as such the import of calcareous stone made by the appellant being not covered under OGL, is liable for confiscation and penalty for illegal import without the specific import licence obtained from the respondent?
Held that:- the slabs of calcareous stone imported by the appellant are not marble as mentioned in Entry No. 62 of Appendix 2 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988 - March 1991 and so it is covered by open general licence. The imported goods cannot be confiscated by the Government under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 nor the appellant can be given the option to clear the said goods for home consumption on payment of fine of Rs. Five lakhs in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant cannot be said to have imported calcareous stones without an import licence and as such, there being no violation of the Import Control Policy the imposition of penalty of Rs. Ten lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also unwarranted and not sustainable.
In the present case, the Tribunal has itself specifically stated that the appellant has acted on the basis of bona fide belief that the goods were importable under OGL and that, therefore, the Appellant deserves lenient treatment. allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to release the goods to the appellant forthwith. We also direct the Tribunal to release the personal bond given by the Appellant for a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- on the basis of which one container was released as per order of this Court dated October 25, 1989 and also to release the appellant from payment of detention charges and demurrage for retaining the goods
-
1990 (2) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Right of being heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 254(2).
2. Requirement of a speaking order u/s 254(2).
Summary:
1. Right of Being Heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 254(2):
The primary issue addressed was whether an applicant has the right to be heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when filing an application u/s 254(2) for rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's application without granting a hearing, leading to the contention that the principles of natural justice were violated. The court emphasized that principles of natural justice must be read into the provisions of section 254(2). It was held that any order passed u/s 254(2), especially when it affects tax liability, should be made only after affording an opportunity to both parties to be heard. The court clarified that the proviso to section 254(2) does not limit the right to a hearing only to cases where the amendment affects the assessment or refund but extends to all cases requiring judicial decisions.
2. Requirement of a Speaking Order u/s 254(2):
The court also addressed whether the Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order when deciding an application u/s 254(2). It was held that the Tribunal should decide the application by a speaking order, indicating at least briefly the reasons for its decision. This requirement applies even if the application is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent. The court concluded that the impugned order dated December 6, 1988, was liable to be quashed as it was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without a speaking order.
Conclusion:
The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Tribunal's decision and directed the Tribunal to decide the application u/s 254(2) filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made regarding the right to be heard and the requirement of a speaking order.
-
1990 (2) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Writ petition for mandamus to release seized books of account and documents.
2. Interpretation of section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act regarding retention of seized documents.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions by income-tax authorities.
4. Communication of Commissioner's approval to the assessee.
5. Effect of pending writ petition on the release of documents.
6. Consideration of a fresh cause of action for a second writ petition.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to release the books of account and documents seized by the income-tax authorities. The case involved previous interim orders and modifications by the court, leading to confusion regarding the release of the seized items.
2. The petitioner's counsel referred to section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the statutory obligation for the authorities to communicate reasons for retaining seized documents beyond 180 days. Citing the decision in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works, it was argued that failure to communicate such reasons renders the retention invalid.
3. The income-tax authorities, represented by Mr. Som, acknowledged the Commissioner's approval for retention but highlighted that communication was delayed due to the interim order. The court found no failure on the part of the authorities to comply with statutory provisions, considering the pending writ petition and the confusion caused by the interim orders.
4. Despite the recorded reasons for retention and the pending writ petition, the court did not find grounds to release the seized documents under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act. It was noted that the authorities should have followed the appeal court's order but due to the pending matter, the release was not warranted.
5. The court concluded that there was no fresh cause of action for the petitioner to file a second writ petition immediately. However, it directed the revenue authorities to communicate the order within a week, emphasizing compliance with the court's directions.
6. In the final disposition, the court instructed all parties to act according to the dictated order, signaling the end of the present writ petition while ensuring communication of the relevant order by the income-tax authorities.
-
1990 (2) TMI 47
Issues Involved:
1. Evidence supporting the rejection of the assessee-firm's accounts.
2. Validity and sustainability of the addition of Rs. 1,15,000 to the assessee-firm's income.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Evidence Supporting the Rejection of the Assessee-Firm's Accounts
The primary issue was whether there was any evidence to support the rejection of the accounts of the assessee-firm. The Tribunal based its decision on various documents and books seized during a search of Narayana Swamy Iyer's premises, which indicated that the assessee had dealings with him under fictitious names and had understated purchases and sales. The Tribunal preferred these seized books over the assessee's books, considering them as records of contemporaneous transactions.
The Tribunal also relied on documents impounded from the assessee's clearing agent, Ali Moopan and Sons, which included duplicates of vouchers and a rough cash book. The Tribunal found that these documents corroborated the transactions reflected in Narayana Swamy Iyer's books. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidentiary value of these books did not depend on whether they were seized during a search but on the corroboration by other evidence and circumstances.
The Tribunal examined specific transactions, such as those covered by railway receipts and found that the clearing agent's books, maintained in the regular course of business, supported the Department's case. The Tribunal held that the books and bills were genuine and that there was sufficient evidence to establish the nexus of the purchases with the assessee.
The court noted that the Tribunal had sufficient materials for rejecting the accounts of the assessee-firm and that the findings were based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, not just individual items. The court emphasized that it could not reappreciate the evidence or sit in appeal over the Tribunal's judgment. The Tribunal's findings were not based on no evidence, and the High Court's jurisdiction was advisory, limited to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
Issue 2: Validity and Sustainability of the Addition of Rs. 1,15,000
The second issue was whether the addition of Rs. 1,15,000 to the assessee-firm's income was valid and sustainable in law. The Tribunal had restored this addition based on the evidence of suppressed purchases, payment of "on money," and underestimation of sales. The Tribunal found that the documents seized from Narayana Swamy Iyer's premises, including correspondence showing payment of "on money," were genuine and had a clear nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's grievance regarding the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. It was found that the assessee had been allowed to cross-examine Narayana Swamy Iyer and had opportunities to cross-examine other witnesses but did not avail them. The Tribunal concluded that meaningful opportunities were provided to the assessee for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer had succeeded in establishing the payment of "on money" on purchases. The court noted that it is difficult to expect direct evidence regarding the receipt of "on money," and the Tribunal's inference was based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal's findings were based on a comprehensive assessment of all materials, books of account, and witness testimonies.
The court concluded that the Tribunal's order was legal and valid, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The questions referred were pure questions of fact, and the court declined to answer them.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal had sufficient evidence to reject the assessee-firm's accounts and that the addition of Rs. 1,15,000 was valid and sustainable. The court emphasized that its jurisdiction was advisory and limited to questions of law, and it could not reappreciate the evidence or sit in appeal over the Tribunal's findings. The income-tax reference was disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (2) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Whether the income arising to the minor sons of the assessee from their admission to the benefits of partnership should be included in computing the total income of the assessee?
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed the issue of whether the income of minor sons admitted to partnership firms should be included in the total income of the assessee, Manakram. The Income-tax Officer included the income of the minor sons in the assessee's total income as per section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this decision, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed it, stating that if the assessee has no income, the minor children's income need not be included. The court analyzed the definition of "assessee" and "total income" under the Act, emphasizing that the income of minor children must be treated as the assessee's income for assessment purposes. The court highlighted that the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) empower the Income-tax Officer to include the minor children's income in the total income of the assessee, even if the assessee's total income is nil.
Moreover, the court referred to precedents from the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts supporting the inclusion of minor children's income in the assessee's total income. The court rejected the argument that if the parent's income is nil, the minor's income cannot be considered, emphasizing that the assessment is based on the total income of the assessee. The court also disagreed with a decision of the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, stating that interpreting the law to avoid tax avoidance is crucial. The court upheld the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner, ruling that the Tribunal erred in excluding the minor children's income from the assessee's total income.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that the income of the minor sons from their admission to partnership firms should be included in the total income of the assessee.
-
1990 (2) TMI 45
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 273A of the Income-tax Act regarding waiver or reduction of penalty.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise discretion under section 273A.
3. Judicial review of administrative decisions by the writ court.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of section 273A of the Income-tax Act, which provides the Commissioner with the discretion to reduce or waive penalties in certain cases. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner ignored the legal requirements of section 273A and exercised powers based on irrelevant factors. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner's order was illegal as it did not fulfill the conditions precedent as laid down in the Act. The petitioner relied on various decisions to support the argument that the Commissioner should have considered the petitioner's cooperation in the assessment process before rejecting the petition.
2. The issue of jurisdiction was raised concerning the authority of the Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties under section 273A. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's discretion in applying section 271(1)(a) exclusively belonged to another authority and could not be substituted or overruled. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the actions of the Commissioner were justified, and there was no irregularity or illegality in the decision-making process. The court examined the arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the Commissioner's actions under section 273A.
3. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions. The court clarified that a writ court does not sit in appeal on statutory authority decisions but examines the decision-making process for jurisdictional errors, manifest injustice, arbitrariness, or unfairness. After reviewing the materials on record and the reasons provided for the impugned orders, the court concluded that there was no irregularity, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction in the Commissioner's actions. The court dismissed the writ petition as misconceived and lacking merit, highlighting the principles governing judicial review in administrative matters.
In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta dismissed the writ petition challenging the Commissioner's decision under section 273A of the Income-tax Act. The court found no grounds for interference, emphasizing the limited role of the writ court in reviewing administrative decisions. The judgment underscored the importance of jurisdictional clarity and adherence to legal requirements in exercising discretionary powers under tax laws.
-
1990 (2) TMI 44
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal's interference with the disallowance of Rs. 74,000.
2. Classification of Rs. 74,000 as outgoings for the business purpose of the assessee.
3. Availability of materials for the Tribunal's findings regarding the handling of Rs. 74,000.
4. Applicability of the doctrine of real income to the facts of the case.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of the Tribunal's Interference with the Disallowance of Rs. 74,000:
The Tribunal interfered with the disallowance of Rs. 74,000, which was initially ordered by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the amount could not be treated as the income of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the amount of Rs. 74,000 had left the coffers of the assessee and was returned to Messrs. Paksons Industries through ten persons on the same day. The Tribunal concluded that there was no net gain to the assessee from this transaction, as the amount was part of a collusive arrangement to inflate the cost of a freezing plant to obtain a higher loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation.
2. Classification of Rs. 74,000 as Outgoings for the Business Purpose of the Assessee:
The Tribunal held that Rs. 74,000 should be treated as outgoings for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the payment was necessary to secure the contract with Messrs. Paksons Industries. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by CIT v. Coimbatore Salem Transport (Private) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad), stating that if the amount is considered part of the receipt, then the expenditure should also be considered as incurred in the course of the business.
3. Availability of Materials for the Tribunal's Findings Regarding the Handling of Rs. 74,000:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not retained any part of the Rs. 74,000 and that it was returned to Messrs. Paksons Industries on the same day through ten persons. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer had traced the recipients and found no specific services rendered by them. The Tribunal concluded that the amount was part of a collusive arrangement to inflate the cost of the freezing plant, which was not for the purpose of the assessee's business but to enable Messrs. Paksons Industries to obtain a higher loan.
4. Applicability of the Doctrine of Real Income:
The Tribunal applied the doctrine of real income, concluding that the Rs. 74,000 could not be considered the real income of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the amount was part of a collusive arrangement and that the assessee had not retained any part of it. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that it contained vague generalizations and inconsistencies. The High Court found that the Tribunal's order was not clear and bordered on inconsistencies. The High Court declined to answer the questions referred to it and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, considering the various aspects highlighted in the judgment.
Conclusion:
The High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were vague and inconsistent. The Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 74,000 was based on an unclear and contradictory reasoning. The High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the matter and provide clear and precise findings. The reference was answered accordingly, and a copy of the judgment was forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (2) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the tax case references u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the taxability of provision made towards estimated profit on exchange for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74.
Assessment Year 1972-73:
The assessee, a nationalized bank, estimated profit on unsettled forward exchange contracts. The Income-tax Officer taxed these amounts, which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal upheld. The assessee argued that these were provisions, not actual profits. Citing precedents, the assessee contended that notional profit cannot be taxed. The High Court agreed, stating that estimated profits were not actual and could not be taxed.
Assessment Year 1973-74:
Similar to the previous year, the assessee estimated profits on unsettled contracts. The Income-tax Officer taxed these amounts, upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal. The assessee argued that these were provisions, not actual profits. Citing precedents, the assessee contended that notional profit cannot be taxed. The High Court agreed, stating that estimated profits were not actual and could not be taxed.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the estimated profits made by the assessee on unsettled forward exchange contracts were not actual profits and could not be taxed. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that notional profits cannot be subjected to tax treatment. The court rejected the Revenue's argument and ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the amounts represented notional profits and were not assessable for tax purposes.
-
1990 (2) TMI 42
Issues:
Interpretation of section 80J for a newly established industrial undertaking.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of section 80J of the Income-tax Act for a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of durofoam. The dispute arose regarding the deduction claimed under section 80J for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessing authority initially denied the relief, stating that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction proportionately for the period the industrial undertaking worked in the previous year. Additionally, the assessing authority considered the entire capital as a loan from the head office, thereby disallowing the relief under section 80J.
Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing a flat deduction of 6% of the capital employed without any proportionate restriction. The Commissioner also held that the amount utilized in the new industrial undertaking should be considered as capital employed by the new unit. However, in the second appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the extent of own capital employed in the new unit was not specifically addressed in the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the funds invested by the assessee in the new unit constituted the company's capital and not a borrowal as interpreted by the assessing officer.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the assessing authority for recomputation of the capital employed in the new unit. The High Court, considering a previous Bench decision, held that the relief under section 80J should be available in full for a newly established industrial undertaking, without proportionate reduction based on the working period. The court directed that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 80J for the entire period, subject to verification of actual borrowals by the new unit and computation of capital as per the law.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, affirming that the assessee should receive the benefit of section 80J for the entire period, with further verification required. The judgment was to be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for necessary action.
-
1990 (2) TMI 41
The High Court of Delhi directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the valuation of property owned by the assessee. The question is whether the proper method of valuation is the land and building method or the rent capitalization method. No order was given as to costs. (Case citation: 1990 (2) TMI 41 - DELHI High Court)
-
1990 (2) TMI 40
Issues: Show-cause notice under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-payment of tax arrears, petition for a writ of mandamus to restrain prosecution, application under section 143(2) of the Act, interpretation of second proviso to section 143(2).
In this judgment, the petitioner challenged a show-cause notice issued under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-payment of tax arrears. The notice threatened prosecution if the outstanding amount was not paid within 10 days. The petitioner contended that he was not a defaulter as he had objected to the assessment for a particular year under section 143(2) of the Act. The court analyzed the second proviso to section 143(2) which states that as long as the application is pending, the assessee shall not be deemed a defaulter. The court held that if the application is not disposed of, the assessee cannot be considered a defaulter and payment cannot be enforced. Consequently, the demand notice related to the assessment year 1985-86 was quashed, allowing the petitioner to succeed to that extent. However, for the assessment year 1984-85, where no objection was filed under section 143(2), the demand was upheld.
The respondent had argued that the application under section 143(2) was filed beyond the time limit and should be ignored. The court rejected this argument, stating that the application must either be acted upon by granting the prayer or dismissed, giving the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate timeliness or request condonation of delay. The court emphasized that as long as the application is not disposed of, the assessee cannot be considered a defaulter. The court quashed the demand notice for the assessment year 1985-86 and directed the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the pending application before initiating recovery proceedings.
Overall, the court allowed the petition to the extent that the demand notice for the assessment year 1985-86 was quashed due to the pending application under section 143(2), while upholding the demand for the assessment year 1984-85 where no objection was filed. The court emphasized the importance of disposing of pending applications before initiating recovery proceedings and clarified the implications of the second proviso to section 143(2) in determining default status and enforcement of payment.
-
1990 (2) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of bonus paid during the accounting year but relating to the previous year.
2. Deduction of provision for accrued liability for bonus payable to employees.
3. Entitlement to deduction of bonus on both actual payment and accrued liability basis.
4. Disallowance of expenditure for maintenance of buildings provided for employees' residence under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Bonus Paid During the Accounting Year but Relating to the Previous Year:
The assessee, a non-resident sterling company, claimed deductions for bonuses paid during the accounting year but relating to the preceding year. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed these claims, which were upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Appellate Tribunal, however, allowed the claims on an accrual basis rather than actual payment basis, despite the absence of an appeal by the Revenue. The court held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its decision, as the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, which permits deductions based on accrued liabilities. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the precedent set in Seth Chemical Works v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 507, where the court allowed deductions on an accrual basis for an assessee following the mercantile system.
2. Deduction of Provision for Accrued Liability for Bonus Payable to Employees:
The assessee sought to deduct provisions made for accrued liability for bonuses payable to employees. The ITO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed these claims, allowing only actual payments made during the previous year. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deductions based on accrued liabilities, consistent with the mercantile system of accounting. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing that the Tribunal has the authority to grant relief based on the system of accounting followed by the assessee, as established in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 and other similar cases.
3. Entitlement to Deduction of Bonus on Both Actual Payment and Accrued Liability Basis:
The assessee argued that it should be entitled to deductions for bonuses on both actual payment and accrued liability bases. The court, however, held that under the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee is entitled to deductions only on an accrual basis. The Tribunal's decision to allow deductions solely on an accrual basis was deemed appropriate and consistent with legal precedents, including CIT v. Sundaram and Co. P. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 763 and CIT v. Edward Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 200.
4. Disallowance of Expenditure for Maintenance of Buildings Provided for Employees' Residence Under Section 40A(5):
For the assessment year 1978-79, the Tribunal disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee for the maintenance of buildings provided for employees' residence under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court upheld this disallowance, referencing the Full Bench decision in CIT v. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P.) Ltd. [1982] 138 ITR 1, which supported the disallowance under the specified section of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court affirmed the Tribunal's decisions across all issues, emphasizing the adherence to the mercantile system of accounting and the Tribunal's authority to grant relief based on accrued liabilities. The references were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee for all questions raised. The judgment directs a copy of the decision to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (2) TMI 38
The High Court of Rajasthan issued notices to the assessee regarding a question of law on depreciation of trucks. The Tribunal was directed to refer the case to the court for its opinion. The question was whether the assessee-firm, engaged in transportation business, was entitled to depreciation on trucks at 40% instead of 30% allowed by the Income-tax Officer.
-
1990 (2) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had any reason to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.
2. Whether the material forming the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment was legitimate.
3. Whether the petitioner had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment.
4. Whether the losses claimed by the petitioner were inflated and if such inflation constituted income escaping assessment.
5. Whether the reasons recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could sustain the belief that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment.
6. Whether the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts justified the issuance of notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
7. Whether the losses sustained in subsequent years could affect the determination of income escaping assessment for the years in question.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Reason to Believe Income Escaped Assessment:
The court examined whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had any reason to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The impugned notices were issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly.
2. Legitimacy of Material Forming Basis for Belief:
The court reviewed the material forming the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had relied on reports from chartered accountants and board meeting minutes indicating excess payments and inflated losses. The court found that these documents provided a rational and intelligible nexus to the belief that income had escaped assessment.
3. Disclosure of Material Facts:
The petitioner contended that it had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The court noted that the petitioner had appended a note in the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1982-83, indicating changes in the system of cotton purchases and ongoing examinations by auditors. However, the court emphasized that mere production of evidence was not enough; the petitioner was required to disclose all primary facts fully and truly.
4. Inflation of Losses:
The court examined whether the losses claimed by the petitioner were inflated and if such inflation constituted income escaping assessment. The auditors' reports indicated that the petitioner had made excess payments and inflated losses. The court observed that these findings were relevant primary facts that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly.
5. Reasons Recorded by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner:
The court reviewed the reasons recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for reopening the assessments. For the assessment year 1982-83, the reasons included excess payments to a firm and failure to verify relevant documents. For the assessment year 1981-82, the reasons included misappropriation in cotton purchases and inflated losses. The court found these reasons to be legitimate and sufficient to sustain the belief that income had escaped assessment.
6. Justification for Issuance of Notices:
The court held that the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts justified the issuance of notices under section 148. The court emphasized that the requirement of law was for the assessee to disclose all primary facts necessary for assessment, and the petitioner's disclosures were insufficient.
7. Effect of Subsequent Years' Losses:
The petitioner argued that the losses sustained in subsequent years could not be converted into income, and therefore, no income had escaped assessment. The court rejected this argument, stating that jurisdiction under section 147(a) is based on the belief that income chargeable to tax "has escaped assessment in that year," and this issue cannot be determined with reference to subsequent years' profits and losses.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had legitimate reasons to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment due to the failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly. The impugned notices under section 148 were justified, and the petitions were dismissed. The interim orders were discharged, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1990 (2) TMI 36
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding genuineness of gifts not taxed by the Income-tax Officer.
Summary:
The High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition seeking reference of a question of law regarding the cancellation of an order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax had set aside the Income-tax Officer's order due to lack of inquiry into the genuineness of gifts from abroad not taxed. The Tribunal, after reviewing the donors' balance-sheets, upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision on the genuineness of the gifts and found no error in his approach. The Court held that the Tribunal's factual determination on the genuineness of the gifts was conclusive, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence to treat foreign gifts as income in India. The petition was dismissed as no question of law was found to arise from the facts on record.
-
1990 (2) TMI 35
Issues:
1. Whether the wealth-tax liability for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 is to be treated as debts owed by the assessee on the relevant valuation dates.
2. Whether the wealth-tax liability should be deducted from the estimated value of all assets on the valuation date.
3. Whether the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax suffers from any defect.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the deduction of wealth-tax liability amounting to Rs. 1,05,274 in computing the net wealth of the petitioner for the assessment year 1976-77. The petitioner claimed this amount as a debt owed on the valuation date, March 31, 1976, and contended that it should be deducted despite the assessment orders for the previous years being served after the valuation date. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax rejected the claim, stating that the liability did not exist on the relevant valuation date. The court analyzed whether the impugned order suffered from any defect and concluded that the liability did not exist on the relevant date of assessment, thereby upholding the Commissioner's decision.
The primary issue raised was whether the wealth-tax liability for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 should be considered as debts owed by the assessee on the relevant valuation dates. The petitioner argued that the liability crystallizes on the valuation date, making it a debt owed within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act. However, the court found that the liability must exist on the relevant date of assessment, and as it did not, the claim for deduction was rightly refused.
Another crucial issue was whether the wealth-tax liability should be deducted from the estimated value of all assets on the valuation date, irrespective of the timing of assessment orders. The petitioner contended that the liability becomes an accrued liability on the valuation date and should be deducted. Conversely, the Commissioner and the court held that for a liability to be deductible, it must exist on the relevant valuation date, which was not the case here.
The final issue examined was whether the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax suffered from any defect. The court meticulously reviewed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It concluded that the Commissioner had appropriately considered the aspect of the liability's existence on the relevant date and had not committed any irregularity or jurisdictional error. Consequently, the court upheld the Commissioner's decision and discharged the rule, finding no merit in the petitioner's case.
-
1990 (2) TMI 34
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of jurisdiction u/s 273A of the Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Voluntary and good faith disclosure of income.
3. Waiver of penalties and interest under various sections of the Income-tax Act.
Summary:
1. Exercise of Jurisdiction u/s 273A:
The primary issue in these writ appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax properly exercised jurisdiction u/s 273A of the Income-tax Act. The appellants, who are assessees to income-tax, filed petitions u/s 273A after a search on January 23, 1985, and subsequent seizure of gold ornaments and account books. They sought to settle the matter by making a full disclosure of income within 15 days of the search, as per Explanation 2 to section 273A(1).
2. Voluntary and Good Faith Disclosure:
The court examined whether the revised and original returns filed by the appellants after the search could be considered as voluntary and in good faith. Explanation 2 to section 273A provides that if a full and true disclosure is made within 15 days of a seizure, it is deemed to be voluntary and in good faith. The court referred to various judgments to interpret the terms "voluntarily" and "in good faith," emphasizing that these terms should be understood in the context of the disclosure made in the returns, not merely the act of filing the returns.
3. Waiver of Penalties and Interest:
The Commissioner of Income-tax waived the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income but did not waive penalties u/s 271(1)(a) for late filing of returns and u/s 273(2)(b) for not filing the estimate of advance tax. The Commissioner also refused to waive the entire interest levied u/s 139(8) and u/s 217. The court noted that the Commissioner must exercise discretion in accordance with law and consider whether the disclosure was voluntary and in good faith.
The court concluded that the Commissioner had not adequately considered these aspects and directed a fresh examination of the matter. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Commissioner was instructed to reconsider the penalties u/s 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b).
Conclusion:
The writ appeals were allowed, and the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, particularly the penalties u/s 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b). The court emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct justice and that the Commissioner must exercise discretion judiciously.
....
|
9911796707
