|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 311 Records
-
1996 (5) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title ... ... ... ... ..... ted that the interest on the deposits made by the GMFB was from the beginning and is a grant-in-aid given by the State Government, to the GMFB not belonging to the GMFB and which can be primarily disbursed to municipalities for the various schemes to be formulated by the Board for catering to the needs of weaker sections as clarified earlier. Thus, interpreting this letter, it is very clear that the Finance Department has given direction to treat the interest received as part of grants-in-aid. Therefore, the interpretation as suggested by the deponent in the affidavit and as canvassed by learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Shelat, cannot be accepted. In the light of the aforesaid, it is not possible to agree with the contentions raised by Mr. Shelat for the Revenue. This petition is required to be allowed, and is allowed. The notices issued by the Income-tax Department at annexure D collectively are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 70 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises in this case and question No. 2 is a question of fact, and, accordingly, we are not inclined to give any direction to the Tribunal to refer question No. 2. In view of our decision in respect of questions Nos. 1 and 2, in our opinion, question No. 3 does not arise at all from the order of the Tribunal at this stage. We are not inclined to give any direction to the Tribunal to refer question No. 3 also. Accordingly, we partly allow this petition directing the Tribunal to refer question No. 1 to this court for opinion. The annexures to the additional affidavit filed by the Department on May 27, 1996, shall form part of the statement of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 69 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... one was to utilise the existing machinery and knowledge of the company more efficiently and in a better manner, the foreign tour expenditure aggregating the expenditure incurred for sending the director abroad was held to be the revenue expenditure and thus deduction was allowed. In our opinion, in this case also the very idea of the assessee was to find out the feasibility for converting the existing plant to the cement plant without much disturbing the existing plant. Therefore, in our considered view, this expenditure incurred in obtaining the feasibility report will be a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. In view of the above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no direction as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Acquisition Proceedings, Assessing Officer, Assessment Notice, Delay In Filing Writ, Finding Or Direction, High Court, Land Acquisition, Reassessment Notice, Writ Petition
-
1996 (5) TMI 67 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Factory Building ... ... ... ... ..... see. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed depreciation. Being aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1982 134 ITR 458 (P and H) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Heard Mr. G. K. Joshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the case is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Associated Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd, 1996 221 ITR 123. We have gone through the judgment. In our opinion, the question referred is squarely covered by the said decision. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 66 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... n order to give proper interpretation to any clause of a document, the document must be read as a whole and on the basis of the dominant clause of the document the intention of the parties to the document should be ascertained and if there is anything which is contrary to the dominant clause that should be ignored. Here the main clause very clearly shows that the minor was admitted to the benefits of the firm and, therefore, we do not find anything wrong in it. Therefore, Form No. 11 filed along with the deed cannot be said to be defective. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in holding that Form No. 11 filed along with the deed was defective. As there was no defect, the question of rectification under the provisions of section 185 of the Income-tax Act does not arise. However, we feel that in an appropriate case such defects can be cured. In view of the above, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... and relying on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Om Parkash Fateh Chand Ltd. in Income-tax Case No. 116(90) dated December 17, 1992, and an order of the Tribunal of Delhi Bench in CIT v. A. P. E. India (P.) Ltd. 1991 37 ITD 351, declined to refer the question of law pertaining to this assessment year. Since the Tribunal has already referred a similar question of law in Income-tax Case No. 48 of 1986 for the assessment year 1980-81, we direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law along with the statement of case for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses on account of commission paid to the agents/marketing organisers amounting to Rs. 5,13,578 and Rs. 10,33,787 being the turnover discount paid to the distributors are not to be taken into account for the purpose of disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
-
1996 (5) TMI 64 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Land Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... answer questions Nos. (i) and (iii) in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. On a perusal and consideration of question No. (ii) referred herein, the said question is vague inasmuch as it relates to the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal in holding that the land was legally transferred within the meaning of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act when the land was neither waste nor arable (emphasis laid). In our considered view, this question No. (ii) shall not arise at all from the order of the Tribunal in view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, we have left this question No. (ii) unanswered. However, we affirm the observation of the learned Tribunal that the acquisition of the assessee s land under section 17 (old) of the Land Acquisition Act is a valid one. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... other documentary evidence. While allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence took the view that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was reasonable under both the heads, i.e., Commission account and Specimen account . In other words, the factum of expenditure having been incurred by the assessee had not been disputed by the Departmental authorities and the only dispute was with regard to the quantum of deductions claimed and allowed. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the position that the expenditure even though not vouched and supported by any evidence had to be allowed within reasonable limits. As already observed, the Tribunal in appeal found that the entire amount claimed by the assessee was reasonable. This finding of the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact. We are thus of the considered opinion that no referable question of law arises. In the result, the petitions are dismissed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Company Director, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... t be made a ground for issue of a direction to stop making recovery of the tax which is admittedly due against the company and payment of which is the liability of the petitioner and other directors of the company. Lastly, Shri Mittal argued that the entire salary of the petitioner has been attached and this action of the respondents is contrary to section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Sawhney pointed out that respondent No. 3 has issued clarification to respondent No. 4 to take into consideration the exempted portion of the salary while making recovery pursuant to annexure R-2 read with annexure P-1 . In our opinion, annexure R-2 completely negates the submission of Shri Mittal that the proceedings are contrary to section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the challenge to the recovery by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner is untenable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (5) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, Export Business, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ot an export out of India. Hence, if either of these two conditions is not satisfied, it is an export out of India. Hence, if the transaction involves clearance at customs, it will be an export out of India within the meaning of Explanation (aa). Sri V. B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the authorities are taking the view that it is only if the seller gets clearance from customs that it can be treated an export out of India. In our opinion, Explanation (aa) has nothing to do with the seller or purchaser. It is the transaction which should involve clearance at customs if it is to be an export out of India within the meaning of Explanation (aa). Thus, the interpretation being put to Explanation (aa) by the authorities, in our opinion, is not correct. If the goods are required to be cleared through the customs station either by purchaser or by seller, it would be an export out of India. With these observations, this petition is disposed of finally.
-
1996 (5) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, In Part, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... ing, but, the Board cannot decline the request of the petitioner by merely recording its inability to intervene in the matter. Therefore, annexure P-20 and similar orders passed in other cases deserve to be quashed. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed in so far as they challenge the validity of sections 234A to 234C of the Act. The writ petitions are partly allowed in so far as they challenge the decision of the Board expressing its inability to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioners. Annexure P-20 and similar other communications which are under challenge in the other writ petitions are quashed with a direction that the Central Board of Direct Taxes should examine the request made by the petitioners for waiver of interest and decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made above. It is, however, clarified that this decision shall not be construed as a direction to the Board to give relief to the petitioners.
-
1996 (5) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... be challenged by the Revenue and a question to that effect, is also being claimed. The inference to be drawn from those findings is, of course, a question of law. Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the following two questions of law arise from the order dated October 28, 1993 (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of interest of Rs. 80,915 relating to the advance of Rs. 12.25 lakhs ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 12.25 lakhs had been advanced by the assessee for its business purposes and that no interest on that amount was paid to the bank are perverse ? In the result, we allow the petition and direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case.
-
1996 (5) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Assessed Income, Partner In Firm, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... t within the domain of this court to make an adjudication on the merits of the question while deciding the application under section 256(2). In CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 1987 163 ITR 851 (P and H) and in CIT v J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (No. 1) 1990 181 ITR 505 (Delhi), this court as well as the Delhi High Court have treated a similar question to be a question of law. We respectfully agree with that view. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, is directed to refer the following question of law Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act was chargeable on the basis of assessed income but excluding enhanced share of the assessee determined in the case of the firm where he is a partner ? and send the aforesaid question along with the statement of case and record of the case to this court.
-
1996 (5) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ll be treated as a deposit and interest shall be paid on it at nine per cent. per annum. This clause specifically provided for an arrangement with the firm to keep the accumulated profits as deposits and, therefore, the learned judges rightly distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Srinivasan s case 1967 63 ITR 273, where there was no such clause and held that interest on accumulated profits which had not been drawn by the minor and were allowed to accumulate with the firm could not be included in the total income of the assessee. In the case before us, there is no clause in the partnership deed providing for accumulated profits to be treated as deposits. In the absence of such a clause, such amount cannot be held to be deposits and interest accrued thereon is covered by the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of the Act. In the result, the aforesaid question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, In Part, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ake apparent on record on the basis of which the order could be rectified. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal having held that on the final declaration of dividend in the insolvency of the debtor on October 19, 1973, as per cheque of date, the claim of bad debt of Rs. 1,35,681 had shifted to the assessment year 1974-75 was justified not to have held that other ingredients of section 36(2)(iii) of the Act were automatically fulfilled and that the assessee was entitled to the allowance of the said bad debt for the assessment year 1974-75. We are further of the view that the Tribunal was justified to dismiss the assessee s appeal on the new ground that credit for dividend was taken by the assessee in the accounts for the assessment year 1975-76 and section 154 was not attracted. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal for compliance.
-
1996 (5) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... disproportionate to the monthly salary and not commensurate with the pay and benefits salary allowed. The increased incentive had not been paid to other employees. Thus, the totality of the circumstances were taken into consideration and it was found that no nexus has been established between the expenditure incurred and the business of the assessee. The burden to prove that the expenditure incurred or laid out was exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee, was on the assessee and it was found by the Tribunal that no evidence has been produced that by any extra efforts of these employees the sales have been increased or the amount expended was in any way related wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. Simply because certain amount had factually been expended, it cannot be allowed as deduction unless it is established that it was wholly and exclusively for business or had intimate connection thereto or was incurred for carrying on such business.
-
1996 (5) TMI 54 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e conclusion that the mere fact that the partners are common and they also share the profits in the same ratio cannot be a ground to hold that the two firms are one and the same. We see no error in the findings. We would, thus, answer the question of law referred to this court as follows The facts that the partners of the two firms are common and they also share the profits in the same ratio, are relevant circumstances to determine their real character as being the same or a distinct taxable entity but by themselves they cannot be said to be sufficient or conclusive of the matter. Whether they are one and the same taxable entity or distinct, would depend on the cumulative effect and totality of all the material facts and circumstances. The question is, accordingly, answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There would be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
-
1996 (5) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Backward Area, Import Entitlements, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... mpensation could be regarded as rent or revenue which could be considered to have been derived from land. We are afraid that the decision would not govern as a guidance to the position before us where except that the exemption was claimed and granted, it was subsequently found to be worthy of reopening, there is no trace of any factual material to ascertain whether the amount can be said to have derived from business activity with reference to the industrial undertaking as is clearly contemplated in the statutory provisions. The factual basis recorded in the decision cited on the basis of the fact findings therein cannot be of any use for the petitioner. For all the above reasons, in our judgment, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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, as required by law.
-
1996 (5) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Charitable Trust, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... exemption under section 11. All this came to light during the course of the assessment proceedings for the subsequent year 1976-77. In the teeth of this material specifically floating on the surface of the order itself, it is not possible to consider the cryptic observation without any kind of reference thereto for a conclusion that the reopening would be unjustified in any way as being bad in law. After independently considering the situation, it must be stated that we cannot brush aside the conclusion reached by us, which has become part of our judgment in I. T. R. No. 164 of 1985 (Sreenarayana Chandrika Trust v. CIT (No. 1) 1997 224 ITR 445) delivered just earlier. For all the above reasons the question under reference is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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, as required by law.
....
|
