|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 65 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Chargeable To Tax, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... l if he has paid any sum in the previous years but of his income chargeable to tax, then only the deduction under section 80C can be claimed. If the same has been paid out of an income which is not chargeable in the previous year, then the deduction claimed cannot be allowed. The Tribunal was wholly in error in coming to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the investment made for the purpose of section 80C with the income earned by the assessee. In our considered opinion, until and unless it is established that the sum paid in the previous year is out of a chargeable income of the assessee during the previous year, the deduction is not allowable. Accordingly, we answer the question posed by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the claim of deduction under section 80C was available though there was no nexus of the investment with the income chargeable to tax shown by the assessee. The answer is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (12) TMI 64 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ar. The question therefore arises for consideration is whether the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal were justified in believing the statement of Shri Bhagania in view of the affidavit filed by him and deleting the amount of Rs. 80,000 from the income of the assessee. The appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority were fully entitled to reappreciate the evidence and either to accept or reject the same. There was no fetter on those authorities in believing the statement and coming to a conclusion contrary to that of the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the conclusion of the appellate authority which has been affirmed by the second appellate authority. We accordingly answer the question posed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the effect that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deletion of Rs. 80,000 from the income of the assessee was proper. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1994 (12) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, CBDT Circulars, Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Construction Beneficial To Assessee, Harmonious Construction, Income From Business, Taxing Statutes, Writ Petition
-
1994 (12) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... t all these years, we are of the view that it is not proper to dismiss these writ petitions, at this stage, on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy. Inasmuch as these cases involve interpretation of section 13(1)(bb) of the Act on the undisputed facts of the cases and as it is also in the interest of the Revenue to have the issue in question settled early, the petitioner is not directed to avail of the remedy of appeal. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. In the result, in view of our findings on points Nos. 1 and 2 the writ petitions are allowed, the orders challenged in these writ petitions are quashed and the matters are remitted to the respondent, with a direction to proceed afresh and complete the assessments for the year 1979-80 to 1983-84, according to law and in the light of our findings in this common order, with regard to the petitioner s claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 60 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... o indicate that it was retrospective in nature and, therefore, the said Explanation cannot be considered for deciding the clubbing of income in respect of investment made prior to the amendment coming into force. In the aforesaid premises, we answer question No. 1 to the effect that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the provisions of clause (iv) of section 64(1) were attracted to the facts of the case by virtue of Explanation 3 to section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We answer the second question by holding that the alleged transfer having been made in January, 1974, the provisions of the amended sub-section (1) of section 64 along with Explanation 3 which became operative from April 1, 1976, are not applicable to the facts of the case. Both the questions are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference application is disposed of accordingly. P. C. NAIK J.--I agree.
-
1994 (12) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... the facts of the case before us, we find that, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the requirements of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act had been met by the trusts in question. In view of the above finding, which apparently is a finding of fact, and is not the subject-matter of challenge in this reference, we do not find any justification to hold that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assets of the said trusts held by it. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the net wealth of the two trusts in question was exempt from wealth-tax under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
HUF Property, Hindu Law, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... given its ordinary meaning. We do not find any merit in this submission mainly for two reasons. First, no such legislative intent is discernible from sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act or the object and purpose of incorporating the same. Second, the language of section 64(2) being clear and unambiguous and the meaning of the expression Hindu undivided family used therein being well-known and well-understood, we cannot detract from the same unless reading the statute as a whole, the context so requires. In the instant case, there is nothing in the context or in the circumstances to warrant such deviation with a view to giving it an artificial and restricted meaning. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the provisions of section 64(2) of the Act are clearly attracted in the present case. Hence, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... h Court. The decision of this court in CIT v. Periakaramalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. 1973 92 ITR 65 leads to the same conclusion on the basis of the clear factual matrix. It is not necessary to consider the question of remand because on the facts there is no doubt of any kind. For all the above reasons, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, we hold that the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considering the amount in question for the purpose of computing the standard deduction is correct. For the above reasons, the question referred is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department by agreeing with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the amount for the purpose of computing standard deduction. Copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1994 (12) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ession person appearing in the various sub-sections and clauses of section 13 of the Act. That being so, the assessee-trust having applied a substantial part of its income or property (even more than the total contribution of Laherchand Uttamchand Trust to it), the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are clearly attracted as the said trust is a person falling under clause (b) of section 13(3) of the Act. Any other construction of the expression person appearing in section 13(3) of the Act will defeat the very purpose of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, because it would be possible for the assessees in that event to circumvent the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) by channelising the donations through trusts. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the profit and loss account and Rs. 58,283 in the general reserve as bad debts. The fact remains that these amounts have become irrecoverable and it was so entered in the books of the assessee in the relevant previous year as it is conceded that both amounts have become bad during the relevant previous year. We are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of that amount. Merely on the ground that Rs. 58,283 has been characterised as general reserve and other amount of Rs. 6,743 entered in the profit and loss account will not in our considered view change its character when both amounts have become bad and irrecoverable. In this view of the matter, we find no error in the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Consequently, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment signed by the Registrar under the seal of the High Court will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin.
-
1994 (12) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset ... ... ... ... ..... ny did convert this initially a capital asset into a current asset some time in the year 1974. Law does recognise conversion of a capital asset into a trading asset and in this case, we are not concerned with the intention of the assessee-company in converting the said initially capital asset into a trading asset at a later date as that controversy is not borne out by the questions referred to this court for opinion. The question is whether, in the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company had converted the said land into its stock-intrade and in view of the facts stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in so holding. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee-company and against the Revenue. In view of our answer to the first question, since the second question has become academic, we decline to answer the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Withholding Of Refund, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... tment in not issuing the refund advice cannot be considered to be without authority of law. The question as to whether the petitioner alone could have moved for grant of refund or the refund order could have issued only on his application when the other members of the association have taken a contrary stand and are of the view that the amount of refund should be adjusted against the liability of the Excise Department need not be adjudicated as under section 237 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall have the power to determine as to who is the person entitled for refund as well. The question as to whether the account opened in the name of the association of persons by the petitioner is a fraud on the other members of the association of persons and the said account was opened without their consent is also not being adjudicated for the reason that the writ petition itself is found to have become infructuous. The writ petition having become infructuous is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... 206 ITR 704. In the instant case, the assessee filed return under section 139(4) of the Act on May 10, 1978. The assessee could not file a revised return as contemplated by section 139(5) of the Act thereafter. So that return filed on January 5, 1979, was an invalid one. Based on that return, the Income-tax Officer could not have computed the period of one year therefrom. Therefore, we answer the question referred, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel representing the Revenue, then submitted before us that we may direct the Appellate Tribunal to consider the alternative contention raised by the Revenue and to pass appropriate orders. We are not inclined to accede to this request. The question referred need alone be answered by us. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1994 (12) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nterference at our hands. One more aspect is required to be independently considered and answered and that is with reference to the provisions of section 7 of the said Act. It is clearly laid down that for the purposes of this Act (Wealth-tax Act, 1957), the value of any asset shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. This provision reduces the commonsense approach into the above statutory provision to mean that ultimately the price would be the one that would fetch from the property sold at the hands of, obviously, the seller. Thus, for the above reasons, we affirmatively answer the question referred to us with regard to the deduction of the tax liability in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1994 (12) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... iable on transfer of goodwill, in our opinion, since the cost of acquisition of half share of the said Kumbhani in the goodwill was ascertained and available, half of the consideration for transfer of goodwill, namely, Rs. 2,75,000 ought to have been attributed towards transfer of that share in the goodwill which was acquired by the assessee on payment of Rs. 20,000 on retirement of the said Kumbhani. The cost of acquisition of the share of the said Kumbhani in the goodwill being Rs. 20,000, the said amount was required to be deducted from the sum of Rs. 1,37,500 being half of Rs. 2,75,000 and capital gains tax ought to have been levied on the balance amount of Rs. 1,17,500. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was liable to capital gains tax on Rs. 2,55,000. In our opinion, the assessee was liable for capital gains tax on Rs. 1,17,500. Both the questions are answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 49 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Delay In Filing Application, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1994 (12) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dispose Of, Income Tax Act, Recovery Proceedings, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ions taking the view that an attempt to assess the trust much after the completion of the assessment of the beneficiary would be an illustration of double taxation. However, the Tribunal has rest content with the observation that it would not be necessary to refer all such decisions. We have also not considered this aspect of the question in view of the situation of factual finality as referred to above. For the above reasons, we accept the reference and hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust cannot be taxed in view of the fact that one of the beneficiaries of the trust-Pramod John Joseph-had earlier been assessed by the completion of the assessment proceedings on December 31, 1980, in his capacity as beneficiary of the trust. A copy of the judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.
-
1994 (12) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, HUF Partner, High Court, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Interest On Advance, Interest Paid By Firm
-
1994 (12) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... rocesses or industrial business. In this view of the matter, as observed by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bank of India Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 809, a particular item may be plant in the hands of one person, but not necessarily so in the hands of another. As observed by the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 157 ITR 86, the test to be applied for such determination is Does the article fulfil the function of a plant in the assessee s trading activity ? Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business ? If the answer is in the affirmative, it will be plant . Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we find it difficult to hold that fans installed in the office premises of the assessee do not constitute plant or machinery eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. In view of the above, the second question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
