|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 272 Records
-
1993 (7) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Earnest Money, Income From Business, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ur mind, clearly there was no capital asset which was transferred from which any capital gain could possibly accrue to the assessee. Obviously, therefore, the amount in question cannot be taxed as capital gains. The next question which requires to be considered is whether the amount in question can be considered under the head Other sources . Clearly the amount would be taxable under the head Other sources , the only possible exception being the amount not being taxable as income at all. This aspect we are not required to consider looking to the questions referred to us for our opinion. Thus, the amount of Rs. 8,000 would clearly be taxable under the head Other sources . In view of our findings above, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 31 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Seized Assets ... ... ... ... ..... eizure under section 132 of the Act has held that the Revenue cannot indirectly keep the money on the plea that there will be a demand, and, therefore, the money should be allowed to be kept with the Revenue. There must be authority of law under which the money can be kept . In view of the law set out as above and the facts of the present case, it has to be held that the respondents have acted without authority of law in retaining the seized assets. Accordingly, they are hereby directed to return the same forthwith as mandated under sub-section (3) of section 132B of the Act. It is also held that the petitioners will be entitled to interest at the rates applicable during the relevant period as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of the said section in respect of the amounts which were found to be in excess of the aggregate of the amount referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) thereof. The writ application is accordingly allowed but without costs. AFTAB ALAM J.-I agree.
-
1993 (7) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Debatable Issue, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... eld that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record. Now, the question as to whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction both under sections 80L and 86(v) was a debatable question. The Income-tax Officer, at one point of time, held that it was a grantable deduction and, therefore, he had granted that relief while granting the application made by the assessee. As that question is a highly debatable question, obviously, it could not have been regarded as a mistake apparent on the record. The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in again initiating proceedings under section 154 and rectifying the first rectification order passed by him. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in taking the view that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in doing so. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking, Initial Depreciation, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... that the term actual cost would mean the written down value of the asset in the case of an asset installed earlier than in the previous year. Whether the machinery and plant were installed at a time or in different lots, the intention of the Legislature was to see that the benefit contemplated by section 32(1)(vi) was not to be given to those industrial undertakings which had installed machinery and plant of the value of more than Rs. 7,50,000. Thus, the interpretation suggested by learned counsel for the assessee is not consistent with the purpose and object of the provision. It is not in dispute that if actual cost and not the written down value of the machinery and plant installed by the assessee was to be taken into consideration, then it did exceed the limit of Rs. 7,50,000. For all these reasons, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Capital Gains
... ... ... ... ..... that the assessee had taken any part either in getting the plots subdivided into sub-plots, or in getting the plans prepared and passed for non-agricultural use. All those steps were taken by the purchaser of the land and not by the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant factors and also the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah 1976 105 ITR 133, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression, agricultural land for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act would mean the land actually used for agricultural purpose, has held that the land in question is an agricultural land. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the land in question was agricultural land. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... aint of restraint on advertisements, it is not possible to equate the right to publish advertisements with the freedom of speech guaranteed to newspapers. The complaint of Shri Chinoy that the restriction on the advertiser in view of the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 37 of the Act would indirectly affect the revenue of the newspaper leading to the decrease in circulation and, therefore, impinges on the freedom of speech guaranteed to the newspapers cannot be accepted. The claim is far-fetched and of remote conscience as there is no restriction on the assessee to incur expenditure beyond Rs. 1,00,000 on advertisements and, consequently, the complaint that the freedom of press will be violated is imaginary. In our judgment, the challenge to the provisions of sub-sections (3A) to (3D) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act as introduced by section 17(b) of the Finance Act, 1983, is without any merit and the petition must fail. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... oner. But the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and, therefore, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has made these references. The facts are not in controversy and as the point which arises for consideration in these two references is covered by the decision of this court, they are not required to be stated. This court in CIT v. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 773 and Anant Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1994 206 ITR 582 has held that the unabsorbed depreciation could be set off in the subsequent years against the income under the head Other sources notwithstanding the fact that the business in respect of which it arose ceased to exist in the year of such set off. Following those two decisions, our reply to the question referred to us is that the assessee was entitled to claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowance carried forward from the assessment year 1967-68 against the income under the head Income from other sources . No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Computation Of Capital, New Industrial Undertaking, Set Off, Special Deduction, Tax Concession
-
1993 (7) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Earned Income, Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 597, wherein the Supreme Court has held that sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset has been understated by the assessee, or, in other words, the full value of the consideration in respect of the transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by the assessee, and the burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue. The sub-section has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the answer to question No. 1 will be in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of our opinion, as regards question No. 1, we do not think it necessary to answer question No. 2 since the Revenue is losing in any case. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Account Books, Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Business Income, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... of the Act. That being so, the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961 will apply and the appeal will be maintainable. It will be open to the assessee to dispute the levy of interest in appeal subject to the limits laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision. In that view of the matter, we answer the fourth question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, we answer the questions as follows 1. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. 2. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 3. In view of our answer to question No. 2, question No. 3 has become academic. Hence it need not be answered. 4. Question No. 4 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties, Purchase Price, Sales Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax was wrong, when he observed that what was required to be done in this case was to find out the net amount of interest admissible as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He really failed to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in modifying the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. It rightly held that the claim of the assessee for exclusion of interest of Rs. 57,264 was justified and, therefore, it rightly directed the Income-tax Officer to enhance the assessment on a proportionate basis after allowing the interest paid by the assessee on hundi loans and late payment of purchase price from the interest income of the assessee. For the reasons stated, we answer questions Nos. 1 to 5 in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Questions Nos. 6 and 7 are answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Bonus Shares, Capital Gains, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... hares, the assessee would be entitled to the option available under section 55(2)(b)(i). That would, no doubt, be so, provided the bonus shares were acquired before the relevant date mentioned in that provision. At the relevant time, the date which was mentioned in that provision was January 1, 1954. Therefore, in order to claim the benefit, the assessee was required to satisfy that the conditions mentioned in that provision were fulfilled. One of the conditions of that provision was that the asset in question should have become the property of the assessee before January 1, 1954. The bonus shares had not become the property of the assessee before January 1, 1954, and, therefore, the condition prescribed by section 55(2)(b)(i) was obviously not satisfied. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the assessee has become infructuous. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Premises ... ... ... ... ..... e of the assessee. The petition for settlement filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax clearly indicates that the major shareholding of the assessee was by Shri Mehta and his family members. In this background, it is difficult to accept that the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by Shri Mehta, in such a fiduciary capacity would amount to a loss incurred in carrying on the business or incidental to the business in order to claim deduction. The assessee had offered some amounts by way of taxation for having made a false claim of deduction by way of bogus commission in January, 1972. In July, 1972, it tried to take it back by making a claim for deduction by way of embezzlement by the managing director. This could not be legally allowed and the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim. Hence, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of this answer, questions Nos. 2 and 3 do not arise. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Company Director ... ... ... ... ..... d by the second part of the clause. In our opinion, this contention is also misconceived. As pointed out above, by undertaking these foreign tours, the assessee had not incurred any obligation. She had undertaken the tours at the instance of the company and for the purpose of the business of the company. For undertaking such foreign tours, neither had she incurred any obligation nor was any obligation incurred by her husband who was a director of the company. For this reason, even the second part was not attracted in this case. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 39,753 incurred by Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. on the foreign tours was not includible as income under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act in the computation of the total income of the assessee. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HUF Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... devolved upon the assessee, his wife and unmarried daughter, was an undivided share. Thus, the wife of the assessee as also the unmarried daughter of the assessee also have a share in the result of the partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that what the assessee acquired was the nucleus of what may be termed to be the corpus of the smaller Hindu undivided family, of which the assessee became a karta (being the only male member at the relevant time). In the premises aforesaid, the only conclusion we can draw on the stated facts, there being no material to the contrary, is that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the correct status of the assessee is that of a Hindu undivided family, as claimed by him. In view of the above position, questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Company Director ... ... ... ... ..... icies for them. In the subsequent year, as stated earlier, such a resolution was passed before December 31. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that the commission payable to the managing directors had become due to them and, therefore, the sums in question in each case should be regarded as income in the hands of the assessees and taxable under the head Salaries . In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums in question were not includible in the total income of the assessees and the assessees were under no obligation to pay tax thereon. In the result, in Income-tax Reference No. 445 of 1980, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. In Income-tax References Nos. 212 and 213 of 1982, the question is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 16 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Earned Income, Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... class of persons within his jurisdiction notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before him or any other income-tax authority. The powers specified in sub-section (1) are the same as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of (a) discovery and inspection ; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person ; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents ; and (d) issuing commissions. The question as to where a particular income was earned or received is a matter to be decided by the competent authority as per the provisions of the 1961 Act and not by a writ court. Since the notices were issued in Delhi and were also served in Delhi, no part of the cause of action arose in Sikkim and, as such, in respect of this writ petition also, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (7) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... on of sub-section (2) and they depart or deviate from such construction. It is now well-settled as a result of two decisions of this court, one in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K K. Sen, AAC 1965 56 ITR 198 and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 913, that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act. However, it is contended that as the circular prescribed only the guidelines, the actual value of the property as in the assessment year 1982 83 ought to have been determined. With reference to this contention it is sufficient for us to observe that the question is not framed in that fashion. Therefore, it need not be considered. For the reasons stated we are of the view that no referable question of law as raised by the peti tioner arises in these cases. Accordingly, the tax case petitions are rejected.
-
1993 (7) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Annual Value, HUF Income, Income From Property, Income Of HUF, Individual Income, Rent Control
-
1993 (7) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
High Court, Rectification Of Mistakes, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal rectified the order passed on appeal filed by the assessee, which was dated May 6, 1981, by bringing it in confirmity with the final order fixing the valuation at Rs. 9 per square yard. This was done, vide order dated October 26, 1981. It is on these facts that at the instance of the assessee, the aforesaid question of law has been referred. The question as to what should be the market value of the property has already been decided on reference to this court in Wealth-tax References Nos. 1 and 2 of 1982, CWT v. Shri Jagdev Inder Singh 1994 209 ITR 169, wherein the decision of the authorities fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 9 per square yard was affirmed. That being the position, the questions referred to above are to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its order in Wealth-tax Appeal No. 113 of 1980, dated May 6, 1981, as well as in Wealth-tax Appeal No. 114 of 1980 dated May 6, 1981. Answered accordingly.
....
|
