Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 1984 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 224 of 224 Records

• 1984 (4) TMI 5
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the sale proceeds of import entitlement constitute income chargeable to income-tax under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, an exporter of sea foods, sold the import entitlement granted by the Government instead of importing goods. The contention was that the sale proceeds of the import entitlement, being a right conferred by the Government, constituted a capital asset and not a trade or income receipt. The petitioner argued that the amount represented the value of an asset and should not be taxed under section 28 of the Act. The Revenue's case was that the sale proceeds were a benefit arising from business under section 28.
  
  The definition of income under section 2(24) includes profits and gains, and the value of any benefit taxable under section 28. Section 28 specifies that profits and gains of business or profession shall be chargeable to income-tax. The question was whether the sale proceeds of import entitlement fell under section 28 or constituted capital.
  
  The petitioner's counsel argued that the import entitlement was not stock-in-trade or any excluded item under section 2(14)'s definition of capital asset. The counsel contended that the sale proceeds of the import entitlement represented a capital asset and should not be taxed under section 28.
  
  The court considered previous decisions and the nature of the entitlement. It was noted that the entitlement was a right to import goods, capable of being valued in money, and directly arising in the course of business. The court held that the sale of this right constituted profits or gains taxable under section 28. The Commissioner of Income-tax was upheld in adding the amount as part of the total income of the assessee. The original petition was dismissed.
  
  The judgment highlighted that income, profits, and gains could be realized in various forms, including assets with monetary value. The court emphasized that the determining factor for taxation is the nature of the trade in which the asset is employed. In this case, the import entitlement was deemed to give rise to taxable profits or gains under section 28, as it was a right directly related to the business activities of the assessee.

  ---

• 1984 (4) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of the order directing payment of interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73.
  2. Discriminatory treatment of registered firms for the purpose of interest calculation.
  3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  4. Interpretation of section 139(8) as compensatory or penal.
  5. Conflict between judgments of different High Courts on the issue.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, a firm engaged in business as Esso dealers, challenged the order directing the payment of interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer assessed the firm to income tax at Rs. 70,300, including interest of Rs. 3,416 for being treated as an unregistered firm. The petitioner contended that treating registered firms as unregistered for interest calculation was discriminatory. The petitioner relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in M Nagappa v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 32, arguing that the levy of interest is compensatory and should be uniform for delayed filers. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the contention, leading to the writ petition.
  
  The High Court considered conflicting judgments on the issue. While the Karnataka High Court viewed interest under section 139 as compensatory, the Madras High Court, in Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal & Co. v. Union of India [1974] 94 ITR 65, upheld treating registered firms as unregistered for interest levy. The court held that the legislature could withdraw privileges for defaulting registered firms without discrimination. The court emphasized that the levy was compensatory and not penal. The decision in Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal & Co. v. Union of India [1974] 94 ITR 65 was supported by other High Courts, including Gauhati, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, and Calcutta. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of section 139(8) and denying the oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  
  The court refused to reconsider the decision based on the Karnataka High Court's view, as the Madras High Court's stance had wider acceptance. The court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, given the consistent view on the constitutional validity of section 139(8) across High Courts. The judgment highlighted the uniformity in the interpretation of the Income-tax Act's provisions, emphasizing the compensatory nature of interest levies and the legislative authority to regulate privileges for defaulting registered firms.

  ---

• 1984 (4) TMI 3
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the seizure of silver bullion.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Ownership of the seized silver bullion.
  4. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  5. Availability of alternative remedies under Section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  6. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Seizure of Silver Bullion:
  The petitioner claimed that the seized silver bullion belonged to him and not to the bullion dealer, Chetmani Enterprises, from whose premises it was seized during an income-tax raid. The petitioner contended that the order dated January 29, 1981, under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was illegal as it did not recognize his ownership of the silver.
  
  2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The court examined the scope of Section 132(5) and (7) of the Income-tax Act. Section 132(5) pertains to the seizure of goods from the person against whom the search was conducted, while Section 132(7) deals with the procedure if the seized goods belong to a third party. The court noted that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to seize the silver and make an order within 90 days of the seizure after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned.
  
  3. Ownership of the Seized Silver Bullion:
  The Income-tax Department argued that the seized silver belonged to Chetmani Enterprises, as determined by the Income-tax Officer in the order passed under Section 132(5). The court held that the determination of ownership by the Income-tax Officer was a question of fact based on relevant evidence. The court emphasized that it was not open to the petitioner to challenge this factual determination under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it was shown to be unsupported by any evidence.
  
  4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution:
  The court observed that the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay and could be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. However, the court proceeded to decide the case on merits. The court reiterated that disputed questions of fact, such as the ownership of the seized silver, could not be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226.
  
  5. Availability of Alternative Remedies under Section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 132(11) of the Act to file an objection against the order passed under Section 132(5). The petitioner did not avail this remedy within the stipulated time. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy.
  
  6. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
  The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Officer did not consider his claim of ownership, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Income-tax Officer was not required to decide the ownership of the silver bars unless there was a finding that the silver did not belong to Chetmani Enterprises. Since the Income-tax Officer found that the silver belonged to Chetmani Enterprises, there was no need to proceed under Section 132(7) or to consider the petitioner's claim.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the writ petition with costs, holding that the determination of ownership by the Income-tax Officer was based on relevant evidence and was not vitiated by any error of law. The petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy under Section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act, which he did not pursue. The court also found no violation of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings.

  ---

• 1984 (4) TMI 2
  
  The High Court of Patna decided in favor of the assessee, ruling that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was not justified. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld as it was based on the acceptance of the assessee's case regarding the inclusion of Rs. 20,000 in its income. The High Court's opinion was against the Department, and the decision was made on 23rd April, 1984.

  ---

1 ....89101112