|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 31 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... the extent of examining as to whether any finding is perverse or there is non-application of mind or the order is contrary to the established principles of law. The order even if it could be categorised to be arbitrary it could be examined but it cannot be said in the facts of the present case that there was any arbitrariness or that the order suffers from any defect warranting interference by this court under article 226 of the Constitution. This court is not sitting in appeal over the order passed by the appropriate authority and the satisfaction has to be arrived at by the appropriate authority on the basis of the valuation report and relevant documents which have been taken into consideration. Even the argument with regard to reasonable opportunity has been found not sustainable and as such no interference is called for. Consequently, none of these writ petitions has any force. All these writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000 (Rs. two thousand) in each case.
-
1994 (4) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties, Income Tax Act, Legal Expenses, Penalty Proceedings, Supreme Court
-
1994 (4) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Stamp Duty, Supreme Court
-
1994 (4) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Interest And Penalty, Waiver Of Interest, Waiver Of Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... t the investments of Rs. 1,77,000 intimated to the first respondent in the letter dated June 25, 1975. In these circumstances, it is not at all possible to hold that the letter dated June 25, 1975, intimating the investments alone, contains a full, true and complete disclosure of the total income of the assessee for the assessment years in question, and inasmuch as the letter dated June 25, 1975, does not give the full and true disclosure of the petitioner s total income, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief under section 273A of the Act. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent rightly refused to grant the relief to the petitioner under section 273A of the Act. I see no infirmity in the order challenged in this writ petition warranting interference in the proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... n in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. v. CIT 1962 44 ITR 551 (SC). The Tribunal has found on a question of fact that there was a practice in the assessee-company of paying to its employees gratuity at the time of retirement and that the resolution of the board passed in the year 1972 was only in confirmation of that practice. There was thus a reasonable and legitimate expectation on the part of the employees, of receiving retirement benefits like gratuity at the time of retirement. The gratuity so paid cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. The payment also cannot be regarded as not commercially expedient or one made not for the purpose of indirectly facilitating the carrying on of the business of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (4) TMI 26 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Unexplained Cash Credits, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... y of the view that the order in question is infirm. We quash the said order in all the three cases. It is, however, open to the Revenue to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the entire proceeding on many other grounds, for example, it was argued that the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act are totally inapplicable, that no reasonable opportunity was afforded at any stage, that the materials used were not germane to the matter, that there was no application of mind, and that the materials gathered by the Department were never disclosed to the petitioners to have their say. We are not called upon to pronounce judgment on all these aspects, since it was agreed before us that the petitioners were not heard before rendering the order dated June 15, 1993, which we thought was a serious infirmity. These aspects are not adjudicated. These cases are disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... tax on the petitioner-company. Further, the Income-tax Officer was not having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the petitioner which is incorporated in the United Kingdom is a genuine company. It seems that he has forgotten the fact that he is not having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner-company in view of the covenant under section 90 of the Income-tax Act between the Government of India and the Government of the United Kingdom. In any set of circumstances, the fact whether or not the petitioner-company which is incorporated in the United Kingdom is a genuine company, is not required to be investigated by the Income-tax Officer under the Indian Income-tax Act, that too by ignoring the necessary certificates produced by the petitioner-company. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated March 30, 1994, at annexure C passed by the Income-tax Officer, Gandhidham, is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of paragraph 7A with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Writ Petition
-
1994 (4) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Compulsory Acquisition, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ransfer. The petitioners also rely on the decision of a learned judge of the Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1986, decided on January 13, 1994 (Chandravadan Desai v. Appropriate Authority 1995 213 ITR 744) and a decision of a learned judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Keshav Singh v. Valuation Officer 1992 195 ITR 435. In view of the statutory definitions of the relevant terms in Chapters XX-A and XX-C, we have no hesitation in holding that both the agreements in these two writ petitions enable the respective vendees to enjoy the houses to be constructed under the agreements and therefore constituted transfers prior to the enforcement of Chapter XX-C and that these transfers (agreements) were governed by the provisions of Chapter XX-A. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed. The orders made tinder Chapter XX-C for the purchase of the properties in question and consequential vesting in the Central Government are quashed. Rule made absolute. No costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Valuing Stock
-
1994 (4) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Income Tax, Movable Property, Natural Justice, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Transfer Of Property
-
1994 (4) TMI 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title ... ... ... ... ..... not open to one of the partners of the firm Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani to contend at this later stage that 50 per cent. was the share income received from the firm which arose from any date antecedent to November, 1971. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani would be governed by the sub-partnership, which came into existence at the end of November, 1971, and there was no diversion of 50 per cent. share income of the said firm at source from the beginning of the year, 1971. We answer question No. 1, referred to this court, in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 2, referred to this court, also in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Patna, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Business Income Or Income From Property, Carry Forward And Set Off, Income Tax On Undistributed Income, Interest On Deposit
-
1994 (4) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Powers Of Tribunal, Registration Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... is case cannot be said to be not in accordance with law and does not require any interference. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in law in not permitting the assessee to raise the additional legal grounds. It is also held that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reconsideration on the point of status cannot be done in view of section 185(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since this question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal, as the first point has already been answered in favour of the Revenue. The answer to this question is, therefore, not given as the said question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In Reference No. 46 of 1984 on the basis of the finding recorded above, it is held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was right in refusing to grant registration to the assessee under section 185(5) of the Act. Both these references, therefore, are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (4) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... use it was not paid on the due date, though paid before the end of the financial year. We are of the view that though advance tax due was not paid on the due date but was so paid within the financial year, it would continue to be payment of advance tax and the payment would be reckoned fot the purpose of adjustment when final assessment is made. The payment made during the financial year is entitled to interest under section 214 of the Act even though the payment was made after the prescribed date but during the financial year. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Patna, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules would be directory or mandatory on the facts enumerated is a question of law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1994 207 ITR 1, wherein it was ruled that the aforesaid rule is mandatory. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had held that it was directory. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the question referred for the opinion of this court has to be answered in favour of the Department, that is in the negative. We order accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... computing chargeable profits. Hence, under rule 2 of the Second Schedule, such investment is to be excluded from the capital base of the company. However, as per rule 2, such exclusion or diminution is confined to the extent to which the cost of such assets as on the first day of the previous year exceeds the aggregate of borrowed moneys as set out therein and any fund, any surplus and any reserve as is not to be taken into account in computing the capital under rule 1. Since in the instant case, the general reserves which have not been taken into account in computing the assessee s capital under rule 1 far exceeded the cost of investment, there was no question of the capital of the company (for the purposes of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act) being reduced by the cost of investment. . . . This ruling supports the view taken by the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 one set.
-
1994 (4) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... s also dismissed. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The matter with regard to inclusion of benefit/perquisite in respect of the property occupied by the partner/director was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. R. L. Kasliwal 1994 207 ITR 208 (Reference No. 72 of 1982 dated September 14, 1993) and it was held that the benefit/perquisite is liable to be included in the income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the said decision the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that on a proper interpretation of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee who is looking after the business of the partnership firm, Anand Gum Industries at Bombay, and occupies a portion of the business premises for his personal residence has been rightly assessed for the benefit or perquisite because of the occupation of the portion. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... e that the statement dated May 22, 1978, was not correctly made by him. On the basis of the above finding and other circumstantial evidence that other parties to whom the money was lent have surrendered the credit entries as their income, it was only the totality of circumstances on the basis of which the Tribunal has recorded its finding that the assessee has failed to bring convincing material to establish the genuineness of the credit. The genuineness of a credit even otherwise is a question of fact and in the present facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any convincing material on record to establish the genuineness of the cash credit and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee failed to bring convincing material on record to establish the genuineness of the cash credit. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the correct interpretation of rule 6DD(j) of the Rules would be that even if the case falls under any of the exceptions still it is for the assessee to prove that the transaction is a genuine one. This would be an additional factor which has to be proved by every assessee. Even if the transaction is found to be genuine, it may be that the case does not fail under any of the exceptions. Then the assessee would not be entitled to the deductions. Therefore, in every case, the assessee will have to prove that his case falls within the guidelines given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes or the exceptions con- tained in sub-clauses (1) and (2) of rule 6DD(j) of the Rules and also that the transaction is genuine one. Accordingly, the question is answered and the matter is remitted to the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for decision of the matter afresh keeping in view the aforesaid observations.
....
|
