Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm, Status ... ... ... ... ..... is a matter concerning the status of the firm, and, as such, where the firm objects to the status under which it is assessed, the order complained of can be subjected to an appeal under section 246(c) of the Act. This view of mine is fully supported by the views taken by this court in a series of cases, namely, in the case of Madhur Jalpan v. CIT 1983 143 ITR 351 (Patna), in the case of CIT v. Manuram Babulal 1986 158 ITR 5 (Patna), in the case of CIT v. Gyanchand Bedi 1987 163 ITR 693 (Patna) and in the case of CIT v. M. N. Ghosh and Sons 1987 167 ITR 125 (Patna). For the reasons stated above, both the questions referred to above are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since none has appeared for the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Act. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... page 1, line 40). If it be so, can the power under section 34 of the Act (revisional jurisdiction) be invoked at all ? The decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Agri. I. T. v. Lucy Kochuvareed 1976 103 ITR 799 is a pointer in this regard. That aspect has not been borne in mind at all. It seems that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was not definite or clear about his jurisdiction or power to pass the revisional order . Therefore, we decline to answer the question referred to this court but, at the same time, direct the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, to restore the revisional proceedings to file for the year 1969-70 and dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, under section 60(6) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act.
-
1990 (10) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... m part of the statement of the case nor is it available in the paper book. A perusal of the terms of the gift deed is absolutely essential to interpret its impact to pronounce as to how far section 10 and section 33(1)(o) of the Estate Duty Act are applicable or not, in the instant case. Since we are not in a position to give a satisfactory and precise answer to the questions referred to this court in the absence of the basic document which should have been forwarded by the Appellate Tribunal, we decline to answer the questions referred to this court. We hereby direct the Appellate Tribunal to forward an appropriate statement of the case along with a true copy of the gift deed dated September 30, 1962, which was interpreted by the Appellate Tribunal in reaching the conclusion it did. The reference is answered as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (10) TMI 25 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward, Developement Rebate, Unabsorbed Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... e, the carry forward of unabsorbed development rebate is not dependent on any quantification by the Income-tax Officer by way of making an assessment for that assessment year. The amount of deduction which is admissible can be ascertained by reference to the books of account maintained by the assessee while the assessment is being made for the year in which the deduction is actually being allowed. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction in question for the assessment year in question. In the result, my answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. The answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, i.e., again against the Department and in favour of the assessee. On the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be remitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, under the seal of this court. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Time Limit For Returns ... ... ... ... ..... r is certainly liable to pay the amount. Looking at the entire facts of the case, it looks as if the income-tax authorities have unnecessarily granted too much lenience and went into prolonged correspondence with the petitioner and the Government to realise what is legitimately due to them. It looks as if they proceeded on the footing that there was a moratorium and hence they should not take coercive steps. The petitioner should thank them for the undue lenience shown to it. The petitioner is certainly bound to pay the amount as it constitutes liability of the taken-over company. It should be remembered that the assets and liabilities of the fourth respondent have vested in the petitioner-company. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition. In the result, the original petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to their costs. The fourth respondent shall bear its own costs. The advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 1,500.
-
1990 (10) TMI 23 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Partners, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s clear that the provision contained in section 4(1)(b) of the Act relates only to the quantification of the assessee s interest in the firm and rule 2 prescribes the manner of determining such interest. The exemptions under section 5(1) of the Act are applicable only with respect to an assessee under the Act and that is clear from the wording of the section itself. firm not being an assessee and there being no charge of wealth-tax against the firm, it cannot be deemed to be an assessee for the purpose of computation of its net wealth. The net wealth of the firm is computed under rule 2 only for the purpose of allocation among its partners who alone are assessees entitled to exemption under section 5(1) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court will be forwarded to the Tribunal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nd in so far as she is concerned all these criminal miscellaneous petitions shall stand allowed. In so far as the offence under section 276C(1) of the Act is concerned, the prosecution against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also shall stand quashed in C. C. Nos. 140, 141 and 142 of 1985, referable to Crl. M. P. Nos. 7309, 7313 and 7311 of 1985, respectively. In respect of the other offences in the same calendar cases, as far as petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the prosecutions shall survive. The prosecutions in C. C. Nos. 158 and 159 of 1985, referable to Crl, M. P. Nos. 7315 and 7317 of 1985, respectively, against the petitioners have to be maintained and the trials will have to be proceeded with. The offences under the Indian Penal Code have their foundation on the offences committed under the Income-tax Act and naturally trials for those offences will also have to be proceeded with. Thus, the petitions shall stand partly allowed in accordance with the details aforestated.
-
1990 (10) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... must be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The only contention raised before the Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue was that the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of payment of interest on loans was not justified and as the assessee was not entitled to claim that deduction, the assessee must be held to have concealed his income. The Tribunal, however, held, after appreciating the material on record, that it was not a case of concealment of income. In view of this finding by the Tribunal, it must be held that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty for the assessment year 1969-70. My answer to the question referred to this court, therefore, is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registry of this court to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna. G. C. BHARUKA J. - I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Time Limit For Returns ... ... ... ... ..... d section 269UL of the Act also will not apply in so far as the court auction sale is concerned. It is in these circumstances that the contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be sustainable. Having regard to the chequered career of the case, it is manifest that the instant proceedings appear to have been instituted to prolong the proceedings so as to defeat the second respondent from obtaining the fruits of the decree. Even at the time when the petitioner filed W. P. No. 5146 of 1988, Chapter XX-C of the Act was in the statute book. The petitioner ought and might have raised and asked for similar reliefs in the above writ petition. Having failed to do so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. In these circumstances there are no merits in the above case warranting interference by this court with the impugned proceedings. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Commission, Disallowance, Method Of Valuation Of Work-in-progress
-
1990 (10) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... assessee. Originally, when the assessment of the assessee was made, it was noted by the Income-tax Officer that the share from the joint venture of Radhey Sham Movies would be subject to rectification. An appeal had also been filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had held, as noted by the Tribunal, that the Income-tax Officer should deal with the loss of Radhey Sham Movies in the same manner as a loss in the partnership firm. This finding was not challenged by the Department by way of a further appeal to the Tribunal. This being so, it is clear that Radhey Sham Movies was to be regarded as a joint venture and if it suffered any loss, then to the extent the loss fell to the share of the assessee, it had to be adjusted against his other income. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had a share in the loss suffered by Radhey Sham Movies. This is a finding of fact and no question of law arises. The petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... 254(2). Learned counsel was even unable to point out any such mistake which was apparent from the record and, as a matter of fact, his effort was to question the basic findings concurrently recorded by all the authorities. The scope of an application under section 254(2) of the Act did not permit it and, keeping in view the limited scope of the provision, the Tribunal rightly declined to interfere with its earlier order. The learned single Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition. Thus, for what we have said above, we do not find any cause to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. This writ appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. We would like to clarify that the reference arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 26, 1989, which we are informed is still pending, shall be decided on its own merits and nothing said hereinabove should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
-
1990 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Notice, Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s not being prosecuted for the commission of offence under section 277 of the Act. The prosecution under section 276C(1) of the Act is certainly maintainable, for any wilful attempt to evade in any manner whatsoever tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Act, would fall within the fold of that section. The prosecution also cannot be quashed at this stage. The question of mens rea will have to be relegated to the trial court, since it relates to the realm of appreciation of evidence, to be brought on record. That question cannot be gone into in the exercise of inherent powers. Learned counsel sought to place reliance on authorities to substantiate the proposition that notice was mandatory before initiation of prosecution. All those cases need no serious scrutiny, since they relate to notice in assessment proceedings and do not refer to prosecutions. I am unable to agree with any of the contentions urged. In the result, these petitions shall stand dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Improvement ... ... ... ... ..... d not have been able to realise a price of Rs. 50,000 at the time of their sale. The price for which the animals had been sold by the assessee clearly indicates that there has been an increase in the value and a rise in price at the time of the sale of the animals, referable to their proper maintenance and we are, therefore, of the view that the maintenance expenses on the mare and the offspring, could be regarded as cost of improvement of the capital asset within the meaning of the latter part of section 48(ii) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. We now take up the first question for consideration. In view of the answers rendered by us on questions Nos. 3 and 2, it follows that the answer to question No. 1 has to be in the affirmative and against the Revenue. We, accordingly, answer the questions referred to us, as stated earlier. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Practitioner, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... arge-sheet. The learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department also objects to the return of the documents on the ground that they are necessary for the assessment to detect and establish concealment of income and that those assessment proceedings are still pending. These two objections are valid. This petition is, therefore, dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the application at a later stage, when the assessment proceedings are concluded and investigation into other cases is also over.
-
1990 (10) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Bonus, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Income ... ... ... ... ..... al should find specifically the practice followed generally in plantations regarding the payment of bonus and whether the assessee in the instant case was claiming deduction of amounts paid as bonus, on payment basis regularly. In so far as there is no specific finding on this score, we decline to answer question No. 4 referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue but, at the same time, direct the Tribunal to restore the appeal, on this aspect Alone, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the result, we decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 4, referred at the instance of the Revenue, and questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We decline to answer the three questions referred at the instance of the assessee. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, Evidence, Firm, Offences And Prosecution, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... the basic fact that the third petitioner was not a partner after March 31, 1977. The convictions and sentences have to be set aside. Though elaborate submissions were made by both the parties, as to who is competent to file the complaint, whether there could be a conviction of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without a charge for the above offence against the first petitioner-firm, whether all the incriminating pieces of evidence had been put to the petitioners when questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and if not, what would be the legal consequences of the failure to do so, it is needless for me to dwell upon them, since, factually, I have found that the very basis of the prosecution case has not been established. In the result, the convictions and sentences are set aside and the revision is allowed. The fine amounts, if paid, shall be refunded. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
-
1990 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... be accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment in Friends Union Oil Mills v. ITO 1977 106 ITR 571 (Ker) for the proposition that section 279(1A) will not be available in the instant case, since no order was passed under section 273A of the Act. Khalid J., as lie then was, observed as under (at page 573) This argument cannot stand since the protection contained in section 279(1A) is applicable only when the Commissioner of Income-tax, for reasons mentioned in section 271(4A), reduces the penalty in favour of the assessee. The petitioners have wrongly stated in ground No. 4 that the penalty was reduced under section 271(4A). In the instant case the reduction was by the Tribunal and not by the Commissioner. Therefore, the benefit conferred under section 279(1A) of the Act is not available. Hence, the contention that the prosecution is barred by section 279(1A) has to be rejected. I do not find any merit in this petition and, therefore, it is dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
ITO, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... A of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sections 476 and 479A of the 1898 Code correspond to section 340 of the 1974 Code. The language of the new section is not totally different to permit any other view being taken. The law laid down by the Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of this case and it has to be necessarily held that the Incometax Officer cannot be treated as any one of the courts contemplated in sections 195 and 340, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, there will be no need for the Income-tax Officer to follow the procedure laid down in section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, before he can validly launch prosecution for the commission of offences punishable under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court had taken note of its earlier view rendered in Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra 1964 52 ITR 423 (SC), while deciding Balwant Singh s case 1968 70 ITR 89 (SC). In the result, this petition deserves dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Commission, Disallowance, Method Of Valuation Of Work-in-progress
....
|