Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 233 of 233 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Amounts Deductible, Business Expenditure, Contribution To Employees' Welfare Trust, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction
-
1987 (6) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... unable to hold that the assessee incurred no liability to pay gratuity to its employees as the same was not imposed by a statute but arose under a scheme. The scheme was binding on the assessee and enforceable by the employees. In fact, part of the liability pertaining to the relevant year has been allowed by the Income-tax Officer. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer question No. 3 also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. On the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Oral application was made by learned advocate for the Revenue only in respect of question No. 3 for certificate that the said question was of sufficient importance for appeal to the Supreme Court. In our view, we have answered the question following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. s case 1985 156 ITR 585 and Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd. s case 1986 158 ITR 416. Such application of the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Cinema Film Production ... ... ... ... ..... as June, 1984. There is a delay of nearly three years. It is after a delay of three years that the present petitions to correct the name of the respondent as Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, are filed. As against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, if the petitions are filed today, the delay of nearly three years has to be condoned. No petition has been filed in these cases either to implead the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, as a respondent or to condone the delay of nearly three years, supported by a proper affidavit. In these circumstances, C.M.P. Nos. 14525, 14526, 14527 and 14528 of 1987 are not maintainable. We are also of the view that no sufficient reason is disclosed in the said petitions either to rectify the cause-title of the respondent or to take out notice to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, as prayed for therein. C.M.P. Nos. 14525, 14526, 14527 and 14528 of 1987 are dismissed. The above four original petitions are dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... dividual partners. As stated, Haridas transferred his share on April 8, 1974. The release deed by the other partners was on April 17, 1974. Title to the property could pass to the transferee only after the execution of the release deed. If so, the transfer effected could only be by the firm. The Appellate Tribunal by reference to various facts and, in particular, the deed of dissolution dated June 24, 1974, and other evidence and circumstances in the case found that the plea of the assessee, that the firm had been dissolved on April 12, 1974, is absolutely untenable. The detailed reasons given in paragraphs 8A and 9 of the appellate order demonstrate that the firm was not and could not have been dissolved on April 12, 1974. In our opinion, no referable question of law, as specified in paragraph 4 of the original petition, arises in this case. We decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law formulated to this court. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of 1981 dated July 7, 1983. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer questions Nos.1 and 3 specified in paragraph 12 of the original petition for the decision of this court along with the statement of the case. The said questions are extracted hereinbelow 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of section 129 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in interfering with the penalty order by confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be deemed to have declined to avail of the opportunity by demanding to have a rehearing or reopening of the case, nor could he be deemed to have waived it ? A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1987 (6) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Rubber Estate ... ... ... ... ..... iled in this court. We heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the Revenue. The old and unyielding rubber trees will certainly be a capital asset and for sale thereof, tax on capital gains can be levied thereon, cannot admit of any doubt in view of the decisions in Commissioner of Agricultural Incometax v. Kailas Rubber and Co. Ltd. 1966 60 ITR 435 (SC), Beverley Estates Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 302 (Mad) and Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1974 93 ITR 314 (Ker). By relying on the said decisions, the Appellate Tribunal held that the amounts received on the sale of rubber trees, cut and sold by the assessee/petitioner is liable to tax as capital gains. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. The matter is settled by a series of decisions of this court. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. There is no merit in this original petition. It is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... f of another foreign technician on the same day as the judgment involved herein. It was recorded in the said jugdment in Income-tax Reference No. 329 of 1977 that the question referred did not involve either the taxability of the amount earned by the foreign technician while working in India nor the method of grossing up of income on the basis of the tax that had been paid by somebody else. The said reference was disposed of on the short ground that there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the foreign technician was not an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board and that this court would not interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal on a reappreciation of the evidence. The judgment in the instant case has followed the other judgment. In our view, no substantial or any question of law arises from the judgment in this reference. The application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... r section 139(4) ? We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Menon. The decision in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. s case 1970 77 ITR 518 rendered by the Supreme Court, as also the other decisions, which have followed the said case, requires a fresh appraisal, in view of the provisions contained in section 139(1) read with section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act. We should state that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sections 22 and 23, were far different from the provisions contained in the 1961 Act. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the questions of law formulated by the Revenue in paragraph 7 of the original petition (quoted above) do arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the above-mentioned two questions of law for the decision of this court. The original petition is allowed. A copy of this judgment may be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for compliance.
-
1987 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1961 12 STC 150 and Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1986 162 ITR 846, where the Supreme Court considered and construed the meaning of the expressions production and products . It has been held in the judgment that mere preservation of an existing article by subjecting it to a process of cold storage does not amount to any production. The judgment is based mainly on the facts of the instant case and, in our view, the law appears to be settled. Learned advocate for the applicant drew our attention to subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in excise matters where the Supreme Court has further considered the concepts of processing and production . The said judgments, in our view, are not applicable to the facts of this case. For the reasons as aforesaid, this application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... use (iv) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, which has since been omitted by the Finance Act, 1976, with effect from April 1, 1977. We are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that the said question remains a substantial question of law which needs to be considered by the Supreme Court. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the same., in our view, has been answered by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559. The said decision was followed in Income-tax Reference No. 143 of 1975 in the case of the same assessee and in the present reference. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to hold that the other question is also a substantial question of law requiring further consideration by the Supreme Court. For the reasons as aforesaid, the application cannot succeed. The application is dismissed without any order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1987 (6) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... d rubber trees adopted by the Tribunal as on January 1, 1954, for the purpose of determining the capital gains is factually incorrect. To this extent, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. At the time of the arguments, it was agreed that, when an estate with yielding rubber trees is sold, capital gains could not be assessed, treating the trees as an asset, apart from and independently of the land separately. This aspect of the matter is governed by the decision of this court in CIT v. Alanickal Co. Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 630. In the light of the above decision, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so and we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The income-tax reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar may be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... llate Tribunal to refer for our decision in the various original petitions. In that light, a consideration of the questions referred to us in the various income-tax referred cases is superfluous or unnecessary at this stage. We decline to answer the question referred to us in the various income-tax referred cases in the light of our direction in the original petitions and also in view of the fact that the question referred to us is rather vague and cannot be satisfactorily answered without further materials and further amendment of the question itself. We decline to answer the question referred to us in Income-tax References Nos. 91 to 102, 203 and 211 of 1984, in the light of our decision in the original petitions. The original petitions and the income-tax references are disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (6) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Income ... ... ... ... ..... prized subscriber on defaulted instalments will be interest paid on a loan or advance made by the foreman. Accordingly, the interest realised by the assessee from prized subscribers in the kuri conducted by it should be exigible to tax under the Interest-tax Act. In this view, we hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in allowing the assessee to deduct the entire amount of interest realised from subscribers in the kuries conducted by it and the deduction in so far as it relates to interest realised by the assessee from prized subscribers in the kuri is improper and not permissible. Therefore, the third question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee to the limited extent mentioned above regarding interest realised from prized subscribers. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
....
|