|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 280 Records
-
1992 (7) TMI 60
Issues Involved:
1. Summary rejection of settlement applications by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Jurisdiction and reasoning of the Settlement Commission in rejecting the applications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Summary Rejection of Settlement Applications:
The core issue revolves around the summary rejection of applications for settlement by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, consisting of six firms and one individual, had moved applications under section 245C for settlement of their cases. The Commission rejected these applications on the grounds that the applicants had taken contradictory stands regarding their status as assessees and the association of persons (AOP).
The Commission noted that the applicants initially claimed to be genuine partnership firms but later shifted to claiming they were benamis of an AOP. This inconsistency led the Commission to view the AOP as an afterthought, intended to evade penalties and prosecution for concealed income. Consequently, the Commission summarily rejected the applications, deeming them unfit for settlement.
2. Preliminary Objection on Maintainability:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the decision of the Settlement Commission, considered a Tribunal by the Supreme Court, could not be challenged via a writ petition. They contended that such proceedings were barred by section 245-I of the Act and that the appropriate remedy was an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The court rejected this preliminary objection, clarifying that section 245-I only applies to orders of settlement passed under section 245D(4) and not to orders under section 245D(1). The court emphasized that the conclusiveness attached to orders under section 245-I pertains to the Income-tax Act and does not preclude constitutional remedies under Article 227. Furthermore, the court noted that the Supreme Court had not ruled out the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 in such matters.
3. Jurisdiction and Reasoning of the Settlement Commission:
The court critically examined the reasoning adopted by the Settlement Commission in rejecting the applications. The Commission's primary rationale was the alleged fictitious nature of the AOP, which it deemed an afterthought. The court found this reasoning flawed, particularly concerning the six firms whose status as assessees was undisputed. The court held that the Commission erred in summarily rejecting these applications based on the AOP's alleged fictitious nature.
The court also addressed the application of Kanubhai P. Patel, individual, noting that the Commission provided no specific reasons for its rejection. The court criticized the Commission for failing to explain why there was no complexity of investigation involved and how it agreed with the Department's stance on this matter.
The court concluded that the Commission had committed a grave error of jurisdiction and a patent error of law by summarily rejecting the applications. It directed the Commission to proceed beyond the stage of section 245D(1), treat the applications as admitted for settlement, and deal with them in accordance with law, ultimately passing appropriate orders on the merits as per section 245D(4).
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions, quashing the orders of the Settlement Commission and restoring the applications to the Commission's file for further proceedings. The court emphasized the need for the Commission to consider the applications on their merits and in accordance with the law, thereby providing the petitioners an opportunity for a fair settlement process.
-
1992 (7) TMI 59
The petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1989-90, claiming payments to foreign collaborators were not taxable. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 148, challenged in a writ petition. The court found the Officer had recorded sufficient reasons for the notice, and the petitioner could raise further points in response to the notice. The writ petition was dismissed.
-
1992 (7) TMI 58
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on value of roads, walls, and fences.
2. Inclusion of work-in-progress, machinery, and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for relief u/s 80J.
3. Deduction u/s 35 of capital represented by work-in-progress and machinery in transit and under erection in the assessee's research division.
4. Exemption u/s 80J on commercial profits.
Summary:
Issue 1: Depreciation on Value of Roads, Walls, and Fences
The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the value of roads, walls, and fences. This decision follows the precedent set in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 23 and the Supreme Court's view in CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149, where roads within factory premises are considered part of the building. The question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Issue 2: Inclusion in Computation of Capital for Relief u/s 80J
The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to include the value of work-in-progress, machinery, and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for relief u/s 80J. This follows the decision in Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 459. The question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Issue 3: Deduction u/s 35 for Work-in-Progress and Machinery in Transit
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing deduction u/s 35 of the capital represented by work-in-progress and machinery in transit and under erection in the assessee's research division. This decision is consistent with the court's earlier rulings. The question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Issue 4: Exemption u/s 80J on Commercial Profits
The court provided a detailed consideration of the fourth issue. The assessee claimed relief u/s 80J based on commercial profits, not profits computed under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld this claim, relying on earlier orders and decisions, including CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 301 and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 640. The court discussed the interpretation of section 80J, emphasizing that profits and gains for the purpose of this section should be computed in the same manner as for determining total income chargeable to tax. The court rejected the Revenue's contention that deductions for depreciation and investment allowances must be made from the unit's total income. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's rulings in Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 777 and the Calcutta High Court's observation in CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. [1983] 139 ITR 763. The fourth question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1992 (7) TMI 57
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the share income from Hind Automats was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as an individual or as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Tax Liability as an Individual or HUF:
The primary issue was whether the share income from Hind Automats should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as an individual or as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessee claimed that after his marriage, the share income should be considered as HUF income, which was initially rejected by the Income-tax Officer but accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the existence of a wife does not convert the income derived from ancestral property into HUF income, thus considering it as individual income.
2. Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
The court referred to several precedents to interpret the term "Hindu Undivided Family" within the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 526, it was established that a coparcener with his wife and unmarried daughters can constitute an HUF. The Supreme Court in Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 also affirmed that a single individual cannot form an HUF but can do so upon marriage.
3. Ancestral Property and Coparcenary Rights:
The court discussed the nature of ancestral property and coparcenary rights. The share obtained by a coparcener on partition is ancestral property concerning his male issue, who take an interest by birth. However, until a coparcener has a male issue, he holds the property as his separate property. The court emphasized that the property retains its character as joint family property even if temporarily held by a single coparcener.
4. Distinction Between Individual and Joint Family Property:
The court distinguished between two scenarios: (1) property not originally joint acquiring the character of joint family property, and (2) property already impressed with the character of joint family property coming into the hands of a single coparcener. The Supreme Court in N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 clarified that a Hindu joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including their wives and unmarried daughters.
5. Role of Wife in Constituting HUF:
Under Hindu law, the wife of a coparcener is a member of the family, and upon marriage, she has a right to claim maintenance from the joint family property. Therefore, the court held that upon the assessee's marriage, his wife became a member of his family, thus forming an HUF. The property in the hands of the assessee should be considered as held by him in the capacity of karta of the HUF.
6. Rejection of Contrary Views:
The court disagreed with the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Shankar Lal Budhia [1987] 165 ITR 380, which held that mere marriage does not convert individual property into HUF property. The court emphasized that the test is whether the wife is a member of the family with a right to seek maintenance, not whether she can challenge the alienation of property.
7. Affirmation of Previous Decisions:
The court affirmed the decision in Krishna Prasad's case [1970] 75 ITR 526, which stated that upon marriage, the sole member would be entitled to be assessed in the status of an HUF. The Supreme Court's affirmation of this decision further supported the assessee's contention.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the share income from Hind Automats should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as HUF income, not as individual income. Consequently, the question referred was answered in the negative and against the Revenue.
-
1992 (7) TMI 56
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition as premature, directing the Department not to effect recovery until the appeal and revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are decided. The petitioners have the right to file a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act against the impugned order/intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
-
1992 (7) TMI 55
Issues:
1. Inclusion of compensation amount in net wealth for assessment year 1977-78.
2. Exclusion of amount from compulsory deposit account as an asset.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought reference of two questions to the High Court. The first question pertained to the inclusion of a compensation amount of Rs. 23,309 in the net wealth for the assessment year 1977-78. The amount was initially awarded and remained in dispute until August 23, 1982, but was received on April 5, 1984. The petitioner argued that this amount should not be added to income on the relevant valuation date of March 31, 1977, or only a discounted value should be considered. However, the court disagreed, stating that once the Collector makes an award, the amount offered cannot be reduced. As the acquisition proceedings were finalized, and possession of the land was taken before the valuation date, the petitioner's right to receive the amount became final. The court held that the amount was indeed an asset of the assessee on the valuation date, and the petitioner had the option to receive it even during a dispute over enhancement of compensation.
Regarding the second question, which concerned the exclusion of Rs. 7,890 from the compulsory deposit account as an asset, the court noted a similar question had been raised in a previous case and needed to be referred. The petitioner contended that there should be no distinction between original and enhanced compensation based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the court found that case irrelevant to the current matter, emphasizing that the issue was whether the amount was due to the petitioner as an asset on the valuation date. The court concluded that the amount of Rs. 23,309 was unquestionably an asset of the petitioner at that time, and no provision of law deprived the petitioner of that amount after finalization of the acquisition. Consequently, the court ruled that the first question did not require a reference, but the second question needed to be referred to the High Court.
In summary, the High Court partially allowed the application, directing the Tribunal to refer question No. 2 to the court while rejecting the need for a reference on question No. 1. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1992 (7) TMI 54
Issues:
Interpretation of accrued liability under the Income-tax Act for computing net income.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm claiming a deduction of Rs. 1,20,000 under "Forest compensation" for the assessment year 1983-84. The firm argued that the liability was statutory and had accrued during the assessment year, even though quantification had not been done as per the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to lack of quantification, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea and directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which found the claim to be imaginary as there was no determined liability. The Tribunal rejected the application under section 256(1) of the Act, leading to the High Court directing the Tribunal to state a case for opinion.
The dispute centered around whether the liability was accrued or contingent. The assessee argued that the liability was accrued, despite lack of quantification, while the Revenue contended that it was contingent and unascertained, spanning two years. Rule 17 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules was crucial, stating that compensation for damage in a Government forest by a contractor shall be assessed by the Divisional Forest Officer, with the decision being final and binding, subject to appeal to the Conservator of Forests.
The High Court analyzed the rule and held that the liability for compensation only crystallized upon quantification by the authority, not before. The reports served on the assessee were notifications of infractions, not immediate liabilities. The absence of a scheduled rate for compensation meant the liability could not be precisely fixed without quantification. Therefore, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that a contingent liability, which may or may not arise, cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and rejecting the assessee's claim. The judgment was concurred by both judges, leading to no costs being awarded.
In conclusion, the High Court clarified the distinction between accrued and contingent liabilities, emphasizing the necessity of quantification for a liability to be considered accrued for deduction purposes under the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and factual circumstances of the case, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's view on the matter.
-
1992 (7) TMI 53
The High Court of Orissa disposed of two cases with an identical dispute regarding the taxability of interest received by an assessee in relation to an arbitration award. The court held that such interest is of capital nature and not taxable as a revenue receipt, following the precedent set in Govinda Choudhury and Sons v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 497. The judgment was in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was accordingly disposed of with no costs. Judge D. M. Patnaik agreed with the decision.
-
1992 (7) TMI 52
The High Court of Orissa ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the allowance of interest paid to a partner in his individual capacity when representing the Hindu undivided family in a firm. The court referred to previous cases and held that the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act were not attracted in this situation. The decision was made for the assessment year 1981-82.
-
1992 (7) TMI 51
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of interest on borrowed capital.
2. Allowability of deduction for interest payable to a bank in computing taxable income.
3. Dispute over the nature of rental income and corresponding deduction under different heads.
4. Consideration of accrual basis for claiming deductions under section 24(1)(vi) of the Act.
Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the allowability of a deduction for interest payable to a bank. The dispute arose from the assessment year 1983-84, where the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 73,414 as interest payable to the bank on borrowing invested in constructing godowns. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, citing reasons such as the absence of maintained books of account and indirect use of borrowing for non-commercial purposes. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned this decision, allowing the deduction under section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, considering the borrowed capital's direct investment in the godowns.
The key contention revolved around the interpretation of section 24(1)(vi) which permits deductions for interest on borrowed capital used for property acquisition, construction, etc. The court emphasized that once the connection between borrowed capital and property investment is established, the deduction for interest payable becomes admissible, irrespective of actual payment. Unlike certain other deductions under section 24(1), the allowance for interest on borrowed capital is not contingent on actual payment, making it permissible on an accrual basis. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction, emphasizing the nexus between borrowed capital and property investment as the determining factor.
The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision did not raise any statable question of law, as the answer was evident from a plain reading of the relevant provision. Therefore, the court rejected the application, with no order as to costs. The judgment clarified the applicability of section 24(1)(vi) in allowing deductions for interest on borrowed capital, highlighting the importance of establishing a direct link between borrowed funds and property investment for admissibility, regardless of actual payment, under the accrual basis of accounting.
-
1992 (7) TMI 50
The High Court of Allahabad rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Meerut. The Tribunal found no legal errors in its decision and rejected the application as lacking substance.
-
1992 (7) TMI 49
Issues Involved: Determination of whether the assessee was deriving income from business and entitled to registration as a partnership firm.
Summary:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding the assessee's status as a partnership firm for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership firm, filed returns for the assessment year 1978-79, showing income from house property and interest income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of partnership status, considering the assessee as an association of persons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. The Tribunal, however, found the activities of the assessee, including construction, letting out property, and profit distribution, to constitute a business, thus justifying partnership firm status. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be treated as a firm but did not decide on registration.
The main contention before the High Court was whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee derived income from business was sustainable. The definition of "business" was extensively discussed, emphasizing activities carried out for profit. Legal precedents were cited to support the view that organized profit-seeking activities constitute business. The High Court found the Tribunal's conclusion to be a factual determination, not a legal question, and ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the business nature of the activities.
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the reference, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the assessee's business activities and partnership firm status. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.
-
1992 (7) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Registration of a firm involving minors as partners.
2. Interpretation of partnership deed regarding minors' participation.
3. Applicability of the concept of "benami" in partnership registration.
4. Legal implications of minors sharing losses in a partnership.
5. Relevant precedents and legal principles under the Partnership Act and Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Registration of a Firm Involving Minors as Partners:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the registration of a firm where minors were made full-fledged partners under a partnership deed. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) refused the registration on the basis that minors, represented by their guardians, were made to share losses, which is prohibited under the Partnership Act. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, asserting that the guardians acted as representative assessees for the minors and that the partnership was genuine and without defects.
2. Interpretation of Partnership Deed Regarding Minors' Participation:
The court scrutinized the partnership deed dated July 2, 1979, which reconstituted the firm. The deed explicitly listed minors as being represented by their respective guardians. Clause 8 of the deed specified the sharing of profits and losses among partners, including the guardians of the minors. The court noted that there was no recital in the deed indicating that the minors were admitted only to the benefits of the partnership. Instead, the minors were treated as full partners, which contravened the legal provisions that minors cannot be full partners but can only be admitted to the benefits of partnership.
3. Applicability of the Concept of "Benami" in Partnership Registration:
The Tribunal's decision relied on the concept of "benami," treating the guardians as benamidars for the minors. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co. was cited, which discussed the separate and real existence of a benamidar in a partnership. However, the court noted that the concept of "benami" was misapplied in this case because the minors were specifically named in the partnership deed, and the capital invested belonged to them. The Tribunal's application of "benami" was deemed erroneous.
4. Legal Implications of Minors Sharing Losses in a Partnership:
The court emphasized that under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, a minor cannot become a partner but can be admitted to the benefits of partnership with the consent of adult partners. The partnership deed in question went beyond this provision by making minors full partners, thereby invalidating the document for registration purposes. The court referenced CIT v. Dwarkadas Khetan and Co., which held that a minor cannot be a full partner, and any document suggesting otherwise cannot be registered.
5. Relevant Precedents and Legal Principles Under the Partnership Act and Income-tax Act:
The judgment cited several precedents, including CIT v. Bagyalakshmi and Co., which clarified that a partner's obligations to third parties are distinct from their rights and liabilities within the partnership. The court also referred to Manvi Brothers v. CIT and Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v. CIT, distinguishing their facts from the present case. Ultimately, the court concluded that the partnership deed's interpretation sought by the assessee was contrary to the document's terms and the legal framework.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question referred by the Appellate Tribunal in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly, reaffirming that minors cannot be full partners in a firm and any partnership deed suggesting otherwise cannot be registered under the Income-tax Act.
-
1992 (7) TMI 47
The High Court of Orissa directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the deduction of interest paid to a partner under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the interest paid to partners was already considered in the computation of income and directed deletion of the amount. However, the High Court felt that the matter should be reheard by the Tribunal to determine if interest payment was accounted for in previous assessments. The reference was disposed of with no costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 46
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Continuation of business during the relevant assessment year.
3. Allowance of loss claimed by the assessee.
Summary:
Issue 1: Applicability of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The core issue was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to deem the business of the assessee as continued during the relevant assessment year, thereby allowing the claimed loss of Rs. 31,452. The Tribunal had concluded that a legal fiction under section 41(1) arose because some assets of the business, worth Rs. 18,048, were realized during the current year. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal had not established the necessary factual conditions for invoking section 41(1). Specifically, the Tribunal failed to prove that the expenditure on these assets had been claimed and allowed as business expenditure in earlier years. The High Court emphasized that legal fictions require the establishment of basic facts, which were not proven in this case.
Issue 2: Continuation of business during the relevant assessment year
The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the loss claimed by the assessee on the grounds that the business was not operational during the relevant assessment year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, stating that the sale of items worth Rs. 18,048 was connected to the business previously carried on by the assessee. However, the Tribunal did not confirm this factual finding and instead relied on section 41(1) to deem the business as continued. The High Court rejected this approach, noting that the business had been wound up since 1967, and the assets were sold under section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act. Therefore, the business could not be deemed to have continued during the relevant assessment year.
Issue 3: Allowance of loss claimed by the assessee
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in allowing the loss claimed by the assessee based on an incorrect application of section 41(1). The Tribunal's decision was based on assumptions and conjectures rather than established facts. Consequently, the High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in invoking section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to deem the business as continued and allow the claimed loss. The question referred was answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.
-
1992 (7) TMI 45
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 3(1)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 3(1)(f) to determine the previous year for an assessee who is a partner in a firm.
3. Conflict between section 3(1)(b) and section 3(1)(f) in determining the previous year for assessment.
Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa was moved by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to address the question of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in applying the provisions of section 3(1)(f) to the case. The dispute arose from the assessment of the assessee, who was a partner in a firm, and the determination of the previous year for his income. The Tribunal held that section 3(1)(f) applied, considering the firm's assessment period as the previous year for the assessee's income share. The Revenue argued that the firm's accounting period should prevail for the partner under section 3(1)(f), while the assessee contended that his option under section 3(1)(b) should be respected.
The Court analyzed the provisions of section 3(1)(f) and its application to partners in assessed firms. It distinguished the general nature of section 3(1)(b), allowing an assessee to choose the previous year, from the specific application of section 3(1)(f) to partners in assessed firms. The Court highlighted that section 3(1)(f) mandates the firm's assessment period as the partner's previous year for income share, even if the partner has income from other sources with different previous years. The decision was supported by precedents from the Kerala High Court and the Bombay High Court, confirming the statutory preference of the firm's assessment period under section 3(1)(f).
Considering the arguments and legal provisions, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that section 3(1)(f) was correctly applied to the case. The judgment favored the Revenue, holding that the firm's assessment period should prevail for the partner's income determination. The Court's conclusion was in the negative, supporting the application of section 3(1)(f) in this scenario. The judgment was agreed upon by both Judges and the reference was disposed of without costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 44
The High Court of Calcutta ruled in a case involving the interpretation of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1986-87. The court held that the first proviso to section 43B introduced in 1987 would apply to the assessment year 1986-87. The court also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance made under section 43B for sales tax liability not paid within the relevant accounting period. The decision was based on a previous ruling in CIT v. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation [1991] 191 ITR 676.
-
1992 (7) TMI 43
The High Court of Allahabad was asked to consider a question regarding income-tax liabilities under the Wealth-tax Act. Previous court decisions favored the assessee, and the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee in this case as well. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs ordered.
-
1992 (7) TMI 42
Issues involved: The judgment involves three questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, for the assessment year 1972-73 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Question No. 1: The assessee paid interest on late payment of cane purchase tax, which was disallowed. The court considered a similar case in a previous judgment and ruled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the court answered question No. 1 in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Question No. 2: The assessee-company diverted part of the bank overdraft to directors and firms in which the directors had substantial interest, without charging interest. The assessing authority disallowed the interest paid by the company to the bank for non-business purposes. A similar case was decided against the assessee in a previous assessment year. Following that decision, the court answered question No. 2 in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Question No. 3: Since question No. 3 is interconnected with question No. 2, which was decided in favor of the Revenue, no separate answer was provided for question No. 3.
The reference was answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (7) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Initial depreciation on tools and instruments
2. Allowability of expenditure on fixation of R.C.C. Jalies on the boundary wall
3. Deduction under section 80J
Detailed Analysis:
1. Initial Depreciation on Tools and Instruments:
The case involved a dispute over the allowance of initial depreciation on tools and instruments purchased by the assessee-company. The assessing authority rejected the claim, stating that the depreciation could only be allowed when new machinery or plant is installed. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the items in question, mostly electrical equipment, constituted machinery for the factory's operation. Citing the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the term "installed" includes placing the apparatus in a position for service or use. The Calcutta High Court also supported this view, emphasizing that the popular meaning of "installation" should encompass various items under the term "plant." Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow initial depreciation on the tools and instruments was upheld.
2. Expenditure on Fixation of R.C.C. Jalies:
The dispute arose from a claim for Rs. 29,886 made by the assessee for fixing R.C.C. jalies on the boundary wall, which was initially disallowed as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that capital expenditure cannot be treated as revenue expenditure unless specific provisions apply. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the expenditure was on the replacement of fences, which did not provide any enduring benefit, making it eligible as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision deviated from the earlier authorities' findings, prompting the High Court to recommend a fresh decision by the Tribunal to ascertain if the amount was related to obsolescence or replacement.
3. Deduction under Section 80J:
Regarding the deduction under section 80J, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) allowed a proportionate deduction for four months, considering the unit's partial-year operation. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal granted a full deduction. Citing a previous judgment of the High Court, it was established that special deductions under section 80J could be claimed for the entire year, even if the unit operated for a portion of it. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow the full deduction was deemed lawful.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the initial depreciation of tools and instruments and the deduction under section 80J. However, it directed the Tribunal to reconsider the expenditure on fixing R.C.C. jalies to determine if it pertained to obsolescence or replacement, emphasizing a fresh decision based on the specific circumstances of the case.
....
|
9911796707
