Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 271 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... adras) P. Ltd. 1981 131 ITR 313, in answering the question against the Revenue, but also on the facts, has found that the consideration received by the assessee was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case, though it did not represent the guideline value adopted by the Sub-Registrar for registration purposes. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has followed only a ruling of this court, and also in view of the further fact that the finding given by the Tribunal is based on facts as mentioned above, we do not think any question of law arises to be decided by this court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal has allowed the assessee s claim for deduction under section 80J based upon certain findings of fact, none of which is under challenge before us in this reference. The Tribunal has clearly found that the assessee had set up a new industrial unit for manufacture of pharmaceutical products and that new plant and machinery were installed in this new unit which was engaged in the manufacture of tetracycline capsules, doxycycline capsules, chloramphenicol capsules and ampicillin capsules. These are all findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. These facts constitute the conditions precedent which should entitle the assessee to the benefit of section 80J. In view of this, we find that there is no merit in the Revenue s reference in this case. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue in this case in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -- I agree.
-
1994 (4) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... engineer s certificate which was not specific and which was not even filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax. We find that there is some merit in the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. The chartered engineer has nowhere certified that he visited the cold storage run by the assessee-company and had, in fact, found that the cold storage belonging to the assessee-firm was being run by renewable energy devices. There is no other evidence on record to show that the cold storage of the assessee-firm was being operated by renewal energy devices entitling it to claim depreciation at 30 per cent. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will give opportunity to both the sides to produce such evidence as they may desire. The Tribunal will, thereafter, decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration such evidence as may be produced both by the Revenue as well as by the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.
-
1994 (4) TMI 8 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... sessee s share in the immovable properties standing in the name of the firm consistent with the law as stated by this court in the aforesaid three decisions. Since the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the present case were not in accordance with the law as stated above and since the basic facts and materials relating to the claim for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act had not beenf brought on record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to restore the matter to the Wealth-tax Officer with the direction to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the decision of the Special Bench in the case of L. Gulabchand Jabak (1 SOT 613) in which the claim of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, the question referred to us and as reframed by us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, HUF Partner, Interest Paid By Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ourt in CIT v. Narbharam Popatbhai and Sons 1987 166 ITR 534. In that case, the firm had two accounts one in the name of the Hindu undivided family and the other in the individual account of another partner who deposited certain amounts of the firm. The firm paid to the individual partner interest on his personal deposit. It was held that the interest was not liable to be added to the income. Our attention is invited to the Explanations to section 40(b) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1985. The Full Bench, considering the Explanations held them to be clarificatory of the law and not mandatory of the law. We are bound by the above decision which with great respect appears to be correct also. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ion relying on the Tribunal s earlier order in the appeal related to the assessment year 1971-72. Though the reference application contains a statement that an application has been filed in the High Court regarding the assessment year 1971-72 also under section 256(2) of the Act challenging the partial partition, the particulars of the application are not given. The finding sought to be challenged is essentially a finding of fact based on an earlier finding of the Tribunal. We do not think that any question of law arises requiring direction to the Tribunal to state a case. The finding that the business does not stand in the name of the sons benami for the benefit of the father has been arrived at on a consideration of plea of partial partition and other circumstances. This also does not give rise to any question of law. This is so in respect of the three applications in relation to three assessment years. Penalty proceedings are only consequential. Applications are dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... nterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1994 206 ITR 36. But in that case a specific finding of fact was that the computer was purchased and utilised for accounting purposes only. On the basis of that finding, the court came to the conclusion that the computer did not qualify for additional depreciation or investment allowance. But this judgment must not be read as to have laid down that under no circumstance can a computer be utilised for manufacturing purpose. There is a judgment of the Bombay High Court on this point in the case of CIT v. I. B. M. World Trade Corporation 1981 130 ITR 739. It was held that the computer utilised in that case should be treated as an apparatus and as a plant for the purpose of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the facts found by the Tribunal and the judgments noted above, we are of the view that the questions should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. K. C. AGARWAL C. J.--I agree.
-
1994 (4) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, New Industrial Undertaking, Question Of Law, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... (4) also has no application. In Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1977 107 ITR 195, it was held by the Supreme Court, interpreting section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia with section 80J of the present Act (at page 203) The true test is not whether the new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of the existing business of the assessee but whether it is all the same a new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from the existing business. Applying the aforesaid test, it cannot be said that the expansion made by the assessee amounts to, bringing into being a new separate and distinct industrial undertaking. As regards question No. 2, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. No question of law, therefore, arises from the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a fit case to call for the statement of case from the Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Assessment Notice, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Income Tax Act, Income Tax, Set On
-
1994 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Statutory impost paid by an assessee by way of damages or penalty or interest is claimed as an allowable expenditure - Wherever such impost is found to be of a composite nature, that is, partly of compensatory nature and partly of penal nature, the authorities are obligated to bifurcate the two components of the impost and give deduction to that component which is compensatory in nature and refuse to give deduction to that component which is penal in nature
-
1994 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee distributes liquid petroleum gas - Cylinders in question did not satisfy a case of returnable packages "actually used up". It also appears to us that the High Court has held, for good reasons, that the assessee could not claim any deduction under section 32(1)(iii) of the Act and a claim on account of development reserve under section 34(3)(a) of the Act was also inadmissible for the reasons indicated by the High Court
....
|