|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 231 of 231 Records
-
1995 (5) TMI 11
The High Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its decision regarding the computation of income under section 115J. However, the Tribunal's decision on the applicability of section 80-I(8) was overturned, and the Tribunal was directed to refer this question of law to the court.
-
1995 (5) TMI 10
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the issue regarding sales tax liability had already been settled by a Division Bench decision. The addition to the declared income of the assessee was not justified as per the decision in Sirsa Industries' case [1984] 147 ITR 238 (P & H), which had been reversed. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the Revenue's application for reference was rejected. The court found that deduction is claimable only in the year in which the liability accrues for an assessee following the mercantile system of accounting.
-
1995 (5) TMI 9
Issues:
- Allowance of deduction for interest paid to the Government of Tamil Nadu under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the deduction of interest paid by the assessee to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the allotment of an industrial unit under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee, an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling industrial thermostats, applied for and was allotted an industrial unit by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The terms of allotment required the assessee to pay a specified amount in instalments along with interest. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of interest paid by the assessee, stating that the assessee did not borrow capital for the business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, leading to an appeal by the Department to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of whether the interest paid to the Government of Tamil Nadu could be claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) P. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52, where it was held that interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the business is a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal concluded that the interest paid by the assessee to the Government of Tamil Nadu should be allowed as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal further analyzed the timing of the instalment payments made by the assessee and allowed the deduction for the aggregate of the second and third instalments paid during the relevant previous years. The Tribunal held that the payment of interest by the assessee to the Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of the allotment of the industrial unit should be allowed as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principles established in the Bombay Steam Navigation Co. case.
The High Court upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, stating that there was no error of law in allowing the deduction of interest paid by the assessee to the Government of Tamil Nadu. The High Court referred to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, highlighting that any expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the business purposes shall be allowed. The court affirmed that the assessee's payment of interest to the Government of Tamil Nadu in relation to the industrial unit allotment was a permissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Consequently, the court answered the question referred in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (5) TMI 8
Issues:
Challenge to constitutional validity of amended provision of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding court fee for appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
Analysis:
The petitioner contested the constitutional validity of the amended provision of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 1992. This provision pertains to the payment of court fee for appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, with fees set at Rs. 250 for income assessed at Rs. 1 lakh or less, and Rs. 1,500 for income exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner argued that the basis for fee levy has shifted from initiation of proceedings to income assessed, deeming the provision arbitrary and the fee excessive.
The court held that the Legislature has the authority to choose a relevant basis for fee imposition as long as it is connected to the subject matter. The court found that the amended provision's basis of fee differentiation according to income assessed is justified and has a nexus with the subject matter. The court rejected the contention of arbitrariness, stating that the provision clearly outlines the guidelines for fee payment based on income levels, demonstrating legislative consideration. The court emphasized that in fiscal matters, alleged arbitrariness must be evident on the face of it, citing the decision in P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court recognized the Legislature's discretion in economic regulations.
Considering the complexity of economic regulations and the Legislature's freedom in choosing economic and social policies, the court concluded that the amended provision cannot be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness or excessiveness of the prescribed fee. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments against the constitutional validity of the amended provision of section 253(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1995 (5) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
The interpretation of whether the carriage of goods constitutes "carrying out" of "any work" under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The petitioners, transport operators, challenged the applicability of section 194C and Circular No. 681 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to transport contracts. They argued that transport contracts do not fall under the purview of "carrying out any work." The respondents contended that the circular was in line with the Act.
The court analyzed the definition of "work" and concluded that transporting goods qualifies as work under section 194C, even if it does not involve loading and unloading labor. The court disagreed with the petitioners' interpretation of the circulars and emphasized that income derived from carrying out work must have tax deductions applied.
Referring to decisions by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, the court disagreed with their interpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment on section 194C. It held that the circular's provision including transport contracts under section 194C was valid and legal, differing from the other High Courts' views.
Despite reluctance, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the circular's application to transport contracts under section 194C. No costs were awarded in this case.
-
1995 (5) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on running the kitchen is in the nature of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1973-74?
Analysis:
For the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding the disallowance of Rs. 10,220 under kitchen expenses by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee, a commission agent in pulses, claimed the expenditure as a deduction, stating it was necessary to provide meals for beoparies as a business custom. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure as entertainment expenditure. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim, leading to an appeal by the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the provision of meals to beoparies was a business necessity, not entertainment expenditure, based on previous decisions and its own findings in earlier assessment years.
The question referred to the High Court depended on whether the kitchen expenditure was entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act. The court noted a divergence of views among High Courts on entertainment expenditure, leading to a retrospective amendment through Explanation 2 in section 37(2A) of the Act, treating hospitality expenses as entertainment expenses after April 1, 1976. However, this amendment did not apply to the assessment year in question. Referring to previous cases, the court cited CIT v. Supreme Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Santlal Kashmirilal v. CIT, where similar expenses were considered permissible deductions as part of business operations before April 1, 1976.
Based on the precedents and the similarity of facts with previous cases, the High Court agreed with the view that the expenditure on providing meals to beoparies was not entertainment expenditure but a customary business expense. Following the decisions in CIT v. Supreme Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Santlal Kashmirilal v. CIT, the court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (5) TMI 5
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of respondents to process Form No. 37-I without petitioner's agreement.
2. Issuance of prohibition writ against respondents.
3. Quashing of any order to issue a no-objection certificate.
4. Direction to not issue a no-objection certificate.
5. Quashing of any issued no-objection certificate.
6. Grant of further relief and costs.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the jurisdiction of respondents 1 to 3 to process Form No. 37-I without their agreement. Form No. 37-I is filed under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules and pertains to the transfer of immovable property under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, as a transferor, had entered into agreements for the property in question with different parties. A suit for specific performance was filed by a previous party, J. K. Rajgarhia, against the petitioner. The current dispute arose from an agreement with the 4th respondent, who claimed compliance with the terms and submitted Form No. 37-I with necessary documents. The petitioner contended that the appropriate authority should not act on the form without hearing them. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition, stating that there was no basis to challenge the actions of the appropriate authority, which is presumed to act in accordance with the law.
The petitioner also requested the court to issue a prohibition writ against respondents 1 to 3, restraining them from proceeding with the issuance of a no-objection certificate. Additionally, the petitioner sought the quashing of any order or decision made by the respondents regarding the issuance of the certificate. The court, however, did not find grounds to support the petitioner's claims. It emphasized that every authority is presumed to act lawfully, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, indicating that the petitioner's apprehensions of adverse orders were unfounded.
Furthermore, the petitioner urged the court to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to issue any no-objection certificate under section 269UC(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of mandamus or appropriate order. The court, after evaluating the arguments, concluded that there was no justification for such a direction. It reiterated that authorities are expected to act within the bounds of the law, and the petitioner's concerns lacked substantial evidence to warrant intervention by the court. Therefore, the court dismissed this aspect of the petition as well.
In addition to the above requests, the petitioner asked for the quashing of any already issued no-objection certificate and sought further relief deemed fit by the court, along with costs. The court, after thorough consideration, found no legal basis to grant the requested reliefs. It emphasized the presumption of regularity in the actions of authorities and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in its entirety, denying the requested reliefs and costs to the petitioner.
-
1995 (5) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of 23 books of account by the Income-tax Department.
2. Non-availability of seized books for inspection by the petitioner.
3. Allegations of missing books and possible collusion.
4. Responsibility and negligence of the Income-tax officers.
5. Legal consequences and remedies for the petitioner.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Seizure of 23 Books of Account by the Income-tax Department:
The primary issue in the writ petition concerns the seizure of 23 books of account by the authorized officer of the Income-tax Department on September 20, 1989. A panchnama (annexure "A-1") was prepared and signed by the authorized officer, witnesses, and the petitioner. The inventory list attached to the panchnama indicated the periods the books pertained to, ranging from April 1, 1981, to December 31, 1986. The books varied in size, containing between 9 to 193 pages.
2. Non-availability of Seized Books for Inspection by the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed that the seized books, for which a panchnama was prepared on September 20, 1989, were not made available for inspection. This non-availability hindered the petitioner from explaining various entries for which notices had been issued. The file of the Income-tax Department revealed a panchnama dated September 14, 1989, listing 11 books of account for the period from November 18, 1982, to November 12, 1985. However, the panchnama for the 23 books dated September 14, 1989, was missing, although the inventory list was dated September 14, 1989, and the panchnama was prepared on September 20, 1989.
3. Allegations of Missing Books and Possible Collusion:
The respondents alleged that the petitioner might have removed the books in collusion with a member of the raiding party. The books mentioned in annexure "A-1" were reported missing, and the Assessing Officer at Alwar reported on December 19, 1989, that the seized material was not handed over to him. The matter was subjected to a thorough vigilance inquiry by the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) and Directorate of Income-tax (Vigilance).
4. Responsibility and Negligence of the Income-tax Officers:
The court observed that the inspector of the Department noted on December 8, 1989, that the account books as per annexure "A-1" were not received. This was corroborated by the order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, dated January 17, 1990. The court highlighted that the authorized officer is responsible for the safe custody of seized records and that the protection under section 293 of the Income-tax Act is not available for actions not done in good faith. The court outlined possible scenarios for the removal of the books, including negligence or collusion by the officers.
5. Legal Consequences and Remedies for the Petitioner:
The court emphasized that the act of search and seizure must be conducted with proper care and that the seizure of the books indicated their relevance. The court criticized the lack of effective steps taken by the Directorate of Income-tax (I & G) and Directorate of Income-tax (Vigilance) even after five years. The court stated that the officers responsible could face disciplinary action and prosecution. The petitioner could also claim damages for the loss of books, but the determination of such loss or compensation is not within the scope of proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to file a suit for damages.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the Central Board of Direct Taxes to take immediate action against the responsible officers and submit a compliance report within four months.
-
1995 (5) TMI 3
Issues involved: Conduct of survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Seizure of books without apparent authority; Abuse of power by Income-tax Officers.
Judgment Summary:
Conduct of Survey u/s 133A:
The income-tax authorities visited Dr. Vijay Pahwa's chamber for a survey u/s 133A. A document confirmed no obstruction by Dr. Pahwa during the survey. However, officers acted in an autocratic manner, serving immediate summons for document production, which seemed unjustified as there was no hindrance from Dr. Pahwa. The books were swiftly impounded without valid reason, raising questions about the legality of the actions taken on the same day.
Seizure of Books without Apparent Authority:
Dr. Pahwa's assessments were up to date, with no pending adjudication warranting summoning powers. The officers bypassed other available powers like search and seizure or reopening of assessments. Seizing the books under the guise of a simple survey u/s 133A was deemed unauthorized. The court emphasized that income-tax authorities must not exceed their powers and infringe on citizens' rights, stressing the need for strict adherence to legal boundaries to maintain a free society.
Abuse of Power by Income-tax Officers:
The judgment issued interim orders in favor of the writ petitioner, with costs imposed on the respondent who led the operation. The respondent was directed to pay costs promptly, failing which enforcement measures were outlined. The court underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for any abuse of power by government officials.
This judgment highlights the significance of respecting legal procedures and curbing misuse of authority by government officials, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the law to safeguard individual rights and maintain a free society.
-
1995 (5) TMI 2
Deduction of expenditure incurred in providing ordinary meals and refreshments to outstation customers according to the customary hospitality and trade usage satisfying the general test of commercial expediency - prior to April 1, 1976 impugned expenditure cannot be termed as entertainment expenditure - because explanation 2 to s. 37(2A) is not clarificatory and is applicable only w.e.f. 1/4/1976
-
1995 (5) TMI 1
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of applications for extension of time under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made after the expiry of the stipulated period.
2. Interpretation of the proviso to section 139(2) and its procedural implications.
3. The discretion of the Income-tax Officer in extending the time for filing returns.
4. Relevance of procedural rules and prescribed forms in interpreting statutory provisions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Applications for Extension of Time under Section 139(2):
The primary issue was whether an application made under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for an extension of time for filing the return of income, after the expiry of the stipulated period, could be regarded as legal and valid. The assessees argued that they had made applications for extension, which were not expressly rejected, leading them to reasonably presume that the extensions were granted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that applications for extension of time could be made even after the expiry of the initial period, as there were no words of limitation in section 139(2) to preclude such applications.
2. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 139(2) and Its Procedural Implications:
The proviso to section 139(2) allowed the Income-tax Officer to extend the date for furnishing the return. The Supreme Court noted that the proviso did not explicitly limit the timing of the application for extension. The prescribed Form No. 6 indicated that an application for extension could be filed even after the due date. The Court emphasized that the procedural nature of section 139(2) and the absence of explicit limitations allowed for post-expiry applications.
3. Discretion of the Income-tax Officer in Extending the Time for Filing Returns:
The Court highlighted that the Income-tax Officer had discretion to extend the date for filing returns and that this discretion was not limited by the number of times or the period for which the date could be extended. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the word "extend" implied that the application must be made before the expiry of the original period. The Court drew an analogy with section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for the enlargement of time even after the original period has expired, to support the interpretation that the Income-tax Officer could consider belated applications.
4. Relevance of Procedural Rules and Prescribed Forms in Interpreting Statutory Provisions:
The Supreme Court referred to rule 13 and Form No. 6, which supported the view that applications for extension could be made after the due date. The Court noted that procedural rules and prescribed forms, while not overriding statutory provisions, provided context and clarity in interpreting the statute. The Court criticized the contrary views of the Andhra Pradesh, Patna, and Gauhati High Courts, which had held that belated applications were invalid. The Supreme Court found these interpretations too narrow and inconsistent with the procedural flexibility intended by section 139(2).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision, affirming that applications for extension of time under section 139(2) made after the expiry of the stipulated period were maintainable and valid. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the procedural nature of section 139(2) and the discretionary power of the Income-tax Officer to extend the filing period, even for belated applications. The judgment clarified the interpretation of procedural provisions and reinforced the importance of considering prescribed forms and rules in statutory interpretation.
....
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
