|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Computation Of Capital, Current Repairs, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction
-
1994 (12) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... l authorities or the Tribunal to show that the monies on which the interest in dispute was earned were advanced in the course of the assessee s business and that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion and the income by way of interest received on loans and advances was taxable as income from other sources. The said decision has also no applicability to the facts of the present case. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. 1988 171 ITR 663 (AP) squarely applies to the facts in the present case. The receipt of Rs. 2,742 by the assessee during the year by way of sale of empty gunny bags could not be considered as a profit on sale thereof. Since it was not a revenue receipt, the said amount could not have been considered as income derived by the assessee from other sources. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Hindu Succession Act, Income From Property, Income Tax Act, Property Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e shown in the balance-sheet but at a value that could or would have been shown in the balance-sheet if the assessee had made provision for depreciation since 1969 for a higher amount. This cannot be done because rule 1D provides in most clear and unambiguous terms that the value of the assets shown in the balance-sheet has only to be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation of shares. The expression shown means actually shown . It cannot be construed as could have been shown . For the reasons set out above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not right in allowing deduction of the supposed difference between the depreciation that could have been claimed and the depreciation actually claimed from the value of the assets shown in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 42 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ich is clearly contrary to the record, but the petitioners in fact applied on April 24, 1987, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, seeking time to make payment of the taxes for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. In view of these inconsistencies, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the Commissioner to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law after notice to the petitioners. We make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds available to them under law before respondent No. 2 including the grounds raised in this writ petition. As the matter is an old one, the second respondent shall dispose of the said matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... otherwise transferred by the assessee within the stipulated period. The expression otherwise transferred is a very wide expression and takes within its sweep transfer of the assets from the assessee to some other person by any means or mode whatsoever. There can be no controversy about the fact that, as a result of the sale of the business undertaking of the assessee as a whole as a going concern, the machinery in question also got transferred to the purchaser of the business, viz., Messrs. Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. That being so, the provisions of sections 34(3)(b), 155(5), 32A(5) and 155(4A) are squarely attracted and the Income-tax Officer, in such an event was justified in withdrawing the development rebate and investment allowance allowed to the assessee in respect of such machinery. In view of the above, both the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure, Route Permits ... ... ... ... ..... case only buses were operated and, therefore, depreciation is allowable on the value of the buses. In so far as the value of the route permit is concerned, it cannot have any depreciation, since it is an intangible asset. Thus, considering the view taken in the abovesaid decision cited supra, we have to hold that the assessees are entitled to depreciation only on the value of the buses and not on the route permits. It was represented that the Assessing Officer has already granted depreciation on the value of buses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the value of the route permits and the value of the buses are inter-twined and, therefore, on the value of both, depreciation should be allowed. In that view of the matter, we also answer the question referred at the instance of the Department in the negative and in favour of the Department. However, there is no order as to costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (12) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
HUF Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... expression individual used in section 64(1) of the Act was required to be read in the context of income arising to such individual from the membership of the partnership. Since the income did not arise to the assessee individually, section 64(1)(i) had no applicability. Since the assessee was a partner in his representative capacity as karta of his Hindu undivided family, the income from the said firm did not arise to him. The income arose to the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was a karta and by virtue of the provisions of the Act itself, it was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee. Hence, the share of Smt. L. V. Sanghavi in the profits of the firm could not have been added to the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(i) of the Act. In view of what is stated above, we answer both the questions referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Quoted Equity Shares, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... tances of the case, the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in adopting the break-up value of the shares of India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd., Madras, at Rs. 120.49 against Rs. 1.99 adopted by the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 and whether having regard to the provisions of Explanations I and II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the dividends of Rs. 2,40,000 declared on September 26, 1977, should be deducted for arriving at the break-up value of the shares based on the balance-sheet as at March 31, 1977, for the assessment year 1978-79 have to be answered in the way the Tribunal has answered them, that is, the Wealth-tax Officer was required to take notice of the declaration of dividends by the company before the valuation date at a general body meeting of the company and deduct the same from the value of the assets of the company for the purpose of working out the break-up value as contemplated under rule 1D.
-
1994 (12) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
House Property, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... ances, there is no basis for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the association is the legal owner of the trust properties. Therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer to assess the income from these properties in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association is not in accordance with the facts arising in this case. Therefore, we are not in agreement with that finding of the Tribunal and accordingly restore this matter to the Tribunal with a direction to assess the income from the said two properties in the hands of the assessee who is the Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust, Madras. While making the assessment, the Tribunal is directed to assess the income from the properties in the hands of the trust as to be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There is no order as to costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (12) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ., the Government directed the mills to retain 50 per cent. of the sales tax on sale of yarn by them as interest-free loan for a period of five years and to pay these arrears in ten half-yearly instalments from the sixth year. Therefore, according to the assessee, the balance of amount credited in the books of account, being the sales tax collection would be the loan advanced by the Government payable in ten half-yearly instalments from the sixth year. The loan obtained by the assessee from the Government would be borrowed capital and hence the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case which are entirely different from the facts arising in the abovesaid two judgments cited by learned standing counsel for the Department, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer. In that view, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee and not for augmenting its income. Unless the expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, the expenditure cannot be allowed under section 37 of the Act. In the decision of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 1 (SC) cited supra, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was treated as revenue expenditure since the said expenditure was incurred to earn a profit out of those expenses. The expenses were stated to be incurred for operating the profit-earning apparatus. That is not the purpose for which the expenditure was incurred in the present case. Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Swaseshi Cotton Mills case 1967 63 ITR 65, we consider that the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the damages paid by the assessee as a revenue expenditure is not acceptable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Change In Shareholding, Substantially Interested, Tax Liability, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... eciation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further held that the unabsorbed depreciation should be given the same treatment as that of the current depreciation as per section 32(2) of the Act. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The question of carry forward of the loss of the earlier years was decided in favour of the assessee applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in Italindia Cotton Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 58. Subsequently, the said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Italindia Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 1988 174 ITR 160. So also, the question of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to future years is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in CIT v. Concord Industries Ltd. 1979 119 ITR 458. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Of Income, Assessment Proceedings, Transport Business ... ... ... ... ..... er had ample opportunity to contest the proceedings. It is because he represented that no materials were available with him the authorities proceeded to assess the petitioner on the basis of best judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent draws my attention to an affidavit filed by Nataraja Chettiar, the father of the petitioner in C. M. P. No. 11538 of 1970, in A. S. No. 480 of 1969 on the file of this court. In that affidavit, he had admitted that he was running five buses with one spare bus as follows Mettupalayam to Gobichettipalayam 3 buses Mettupalayam to Sathyamangalam 2 buses Spare 1 bus. In view of the said admission on the part of the petitioner s father which could not be explained by the petitioner, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. It is obvious that the petitioner is suppressing material facts in order to deny his liability to pay tax. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Powers Of Appropriate Authority, Transfer Of Property
-
1994 (12) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... tting out the house. In the instant case, the letting out of the shops by the assessee-society to persons other than its members was not the primary activity of the assessee-society. However, it was an activity carried on in addition to the primary activity of the assessee-society. Such a case would fall within the ambit of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80P. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 174. In our view, the assessee-society was entitled to get deduction from the profits and gains attributable to its activity of letting out the shops to persons other than its members to the extent of Rs. 20,000 in each of the said assessment years. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee-society subject, however, to the limit as mentioned in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Net Wealth, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... sessee, but on further appeal, the Tribunal restored the order of the Income-tax Officer. On a reference, the High Court held that the Income-tax Officer rightly followed the method of valuation laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. 1964 52 ITR 567. It was further held that in view of the decision of this court in D. M. Dahanukar v. CIT 1973 88 ITR 454, it was not permissible to contend that the case of an investor in shares was different from that of a dealer in shares. In view of the above legal position, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gains arising out of the sale of bonus equity shares held by the assessee were liable to be included in the income of the assessee as capital gains for the purpose of income-tax. In the premises, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annuity Policy, Net Wealth, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... that in order to constitute an annuity the payment to be made periodically should be a fixed or predetermined one and it should not be liable to any variation depending upon or on any grant relating to the general income of the fund or estate which is charged for such payment. Payment of annuity thus should not be dependent upon the income of the corpus. In the instant case, the uncontroverted position is that predetermined amounts were payable to the assessee periodically in the stipulated years which, therefore, amounts to annuity. In that view of the matter, it is clear that section 2(e) is attracted and the value of the right of the assessee to receive the annuities in future in such a case is includible in his net wealth. That being so, the Tribunal was not right in holding to the contrary. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 640, it is not possible for us to follow the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. 1976 102 ITR 533 on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Mehta. We propose to follow the later judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 640 delivered by the Bench of the three judges. Since, according to Mr. Mehta, there is controversy as regards computation of profit in the manner as set out by section 29 of the Act, we grant liberty to the assessee to satisfy the Tribunal that in the assessment years under consideration, the company had profits ascertainable on the principles stated hereinabove, and if the Tribunal is satisfied, it may grant proportionate relief to the assessee, otherwise the order of the Tribunal in reference stands. The reference is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the relevant provision and the rule specifically framed for that purpose. In our opinion, the said observations have no bearing on the computation of profits and gains derived by the assessee from the exports for the purpose of allowability of deduction of tax admissible under section 2(5)(i) of the Finance Act, 1963. The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to compute the amount of profits and gains derived from such exports strictly in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) or subrule (4) of rule 2 of the Income-tax (Determination of Export Profits) Rules, 1963. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was fully justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to compute the export profits in accordance with the above rule and in no other manner and the Tribunal was correct in confirming the same. In the premises, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... deposits made under the provisions of the said Act together with interest shall be repaid in five equal annual instalments commencing from the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the deposits were made. The Income-tax Officer, however, has power to permit the earlier repayment of the deposit and interest thereon in cases of extreme hardship. The above provision makes it clear that what is repayable to the assessee is the whole of the amount of deposit with interest standing to his credit in the compulsory deposit scheme account. The whole of the amount standing to his credit in that account would, therefore, form part of his assets within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The question of discounting the value thereof does not arise. In the above view of the matter, the second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
